CORBY, KETTERING AND WELLINGBOROUGH III e.pdf · 2015. 4. 28. · accessible locations for...

ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

NORTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

NORTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE TOGETHER

CORBY, KETTERING AND WELLINGBOROUGH

Built and Natural Environment

Sustainability

Northamptonshire County Council

Executive Summary

Northamptonshire County Council was pleased to undertake this environmental and cultural heritage assessment work to support the Joint Planning Unit, tasked with identifying potential areas for sustainable urban extensions to the three major towns in North Northamptonshire. The Milton Keynes South Midlands growth area faces the challenge of accommodating an unprecedented level of growth. In Northamptonshire, this challenge is brought into sharp focus by the need to protect the existing environmental, cultural and historic resource and to realise the unique opportunity for enhancement and further provision. It is worth noting that, from a sustainable development perspective, the environment is seen as the primary area of capital on which the social and economic strands inevitably depend. It is only by putting the environment first can a community, existing or new, transparently be characterised as being sustainable. This study collated the existing environmental and historic resources in North Northamptonshire and mapped the density of these resources using a Geographical Information System. The study relied on utilising existing data and information, checked by ground truthing, reviewed by peers and interpreted by professional judgement. As such the process was an iterative one and the maps produced represent a sensitivity assessment at landscape scale around the settlements of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. The results indicate large areas of existing value described in terms of their sensitivity from the perspective of existing environmental and cultural heritage attributes. The maps presented in this report are a starting point for further work at different scales and levels of detail. They do however give strategic guidance and context to the decision maker as to the sensitivity of areas around the existing settlements that form the backdrop to any future development proposal. They also enable opportunities for additional protection, enhancement and provision to be identified, opportunities which will be further refined by the parallel work being carried out on Green Infrastructure by the Nene Valley Regional Park Team. The Built and Natural Environment Service of Northamptonshire County Council, who undertook the study, consists of two principal teams: the Natural Environment Team, (concentrating on landscape and biodiversity) and the Historic Environment Team, (cultural heritage and archaeology). Officers within the teams have concomitant expertise within the disciplines with additional extensive experience of multi-disciplinary work. The results of the study are presented in map based and tabular form, and can be interrogated at an individual level for the sensitivity for the three receptors; biodiversity, landscape and cultural heritage, or collectively as a composite map of the overall sensitivity of the areas surrounding the three towns.

1

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................3

2. Phase 1: Desk study, development of assessment framework & initial mapping...4

3. Phase 2: Ground truthing, review and further iteration ..........................................5

4. Presentation of the sensitivity assessment ............................................................5

5. Next Steps .............................................................................................................7

6. General References...............................................................................................8

7. Appendix................................................................................................................9

Appendix 1. Initial key attribute/data source checklist used in desk study ...........10 Appendix 2. Sensitivity assessment matrix for Corby...........................................12 Appendix 3. Sensitivity assessment matrix for Kettering......................................22 Appendix 4. Sensitivity assessment matrix for Wellingborough ...........................31 Appendix 5. “Phase 1” mapping of environmental sensitivity ...............................37 Appendix 6. Technical Overview and process......................................................38 Appendix 7. Landscape sensitivity map for the three districts ..............................50 Appendix 8. Biodiversity sensitivity map for the three districts .............................52 Appendix 9. Cultural heritage sensitivity map for the three districts .....................54 Appendix 10. Composite sensitivity map for the three districts ............................56

2

1. Introduction The Milton Keynes South Midlands sub-regional strategy, (MKSM SRS) provides the context for new growth in the form of sustainable urban extensions across the sub region. In Northamptonshire two plan delivery areas around existing settlement have been identified to facilitate this growth, one in the west, (West Northamptonshire Delivery Area) and the other in the north of the county, (North Northamptonshire Delivery Area). The separate planning authorities in the north have joined together to form a Joint Planning Unit, (JPU) and a Local Delivery Vehicle called North Northamptonshire Together, (NNT). As part of Northamptonshire County Council’s, (NCC) participation in the Joint Planning Unit, the Built and Natural Environment service has undertaken an environmental sensitivity assessment of defined land areas around the existing settlements of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. In this context, sensitivity refers to the degree to which a particular area is able to accommodate change without significant effects on its character.1 Sensitivity assessment is within a family of accepted techniques for identifying sensitive areas (Appendix 6). To provide an objective framework to support the assessment extensive use was made of the ‘MapInfo’ Geographical Information System, (GIS), and the two major studies commissioned by NCC, namely the Environmental Character work, (ECP) and Green Infrastructure, (GI) study which is now a requirement as part of the Sustainable Communities Plan. The areas identified for assessment by the Joint Planning Unit were based on a nominal 2 km radius around the settlements, subdivided utilising natural features, roads or other logical boundaries, into radial study segments. Once defined these areas were subject to a phased sensitivity assessment, (Fig 1) using an assessment framework, across a range of receptors, grouped under the headings of biodiversity, landscape and cultural heritage. It was important at an early stage to establish the known natural environment and heritage capital within the study areas. The availability of the ECP and GI work provided a relatively objective assessment to underpin the work, which was refined by other available desk based sources, by ground truthing and by field survey. These steps together provide the basis for an assessment framework for undertaking the sensitivity analysis. The assessment process was developed to have the following characteristics:

• It follows accepted methodologies using acknowledged criteria; • It adopts a sequential process; • It is appropriate for the task; • It utilises current information; • It contains a sequence of ground truthing;

1 Adapted from Countryside Agency Topic Paper 6; Landscape Character Assessment – Techniques for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity.

3

• It is subject to refinements, following stakeholder review. Fig 1. Schematic of phased sensitivity assessment

2. Phase 1: Desk study, development of assessment framework & initial mapping An initial sift was undertaken, across the study area, identifying and tabulating for each study segment the existence of sensitive attributes using a checklist of recognised key attributes and key data sets (Appendix 1); reference was made to ECP and GI work. These preliminary results enabled a sensitivity assessment matrix to be iterated after consultation with the JPU using the following symbols and descriptors:

Significant constraints such that it is not considered appropriate for development to take place

Significant constraints identified although it may be possible for some development with

appropriate mitigation - Whilst there may be constraints, it should be possible to mitigate as part of development

proposals

Development would be positive

4

Environmental attributes were assessed under the headings of biodiversity, landscape and cultural heritage and assigned symbols separately for each segment. A commentary is provided to give context to the ascribing of a symbol, a note on potential mitigation and GI, and within the attribute of landscape a further note on coalescence. This initial assessment was mapped using GIS and reviewed, indicating where further refinement of the assessment process was needed, (The commentaries are provided in Appendices 2,3,4. Mapping of the ‘Phase 1’ assessed sensitivity for each segment is provided in Appendix 5). 3. Phase 2: Ground truthing, review and further iteration Further refinement of the assessment process was required in order to produce a more detailed level of mapping that reflected variations in environmental sensitivity within each study segment. In order to provide data for this level of detail extensive field surveying was carried out. This process was undertaken using current best practice guidance from the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Landscape Institute. Digital photographs were taken from recorded, publicly accessible locations for reference in future desk based exercises. As part of the peer review process, emerging results of the sensitivity analysis were presented to the Joint Planning Unit on the 11/5/2005 and 4/8/2005, and to a stakeholder workshop on the 17/06/05. On each occasion discussions were centred on the methodology and initial results. 4. Presentation of the sensitivity assessment 4.1 Introduction Data provided by ECP, the GI study, existing data and data from ground truthing enabled the building of maps showing the results of the sensitivity analysis in terms of colour sensitivity rating based on the results shown in Appendices 2, 3 and 4 (Appendices 7,8,9), finally a composite map (Appendix 10), was created by grading a colour render, the colour deepening where key attributes, (from landscape, biodiversity and cultural heritage) on the ground combine to reinforce significance. The colours chosen, (a development of the familiar traffic light approach) relate to the symbols and descriptors used in phase 1:


High sensitivity

5

Significant constraints identified although it may be

possible for some development with appropriate mitigation

Medium sensitivity

- Whilst there may be constraints, it should be possible to mitigate as part of development proposals

Low sensitivity

Development would be positive

Positive NB. The distribution of attributes was such that no area was identified that would benefit from development at scale, therefore the positive category was not included in the final mapping It should also be noted that a direct comparison between assessment matrix to map is not necessarily possible, (or useful) as the final map incorporates a smoothing of the data to accommodate the need for landscape scale and inter -segment representation. The maps are presented in Appendix 7, 8, 9 and 10 with an accompanying narrative. A technical overview and technical assessment note for each receptor can be found in Appendix 6 4.2 Composite sensitivity map The map in Appendix 10 brings together the three sensitivity assessment maps of landscape, biodiversity and cultural heritage in a composite form to create a combined environmental sensitivity map. The map has been created by representing degrees of sensitivity for each receptor by assigning a value of 3 for a receptor rating of high sensitivity, 2 for medium sensitivity and 1 for low sensitivity. The combined environmental sensitivity map sums these ratings and represents the combined sensitivity rating using a graded intensity of colour (Table 1). Thus areas which have been identified as having a high sensitivity in each of the three assessment headings (a combined ‘score’ of 3+3+3) have been given a deep red colour. Correspondingly where an area which was considered to have a low sensitivity in each of the headings (a combined score of 1+1+1), a light red shade has been used. Table 1, Representation of composite map shading

Sensitivity Landscape Biodiversity Cultural Heritage Total Colour

3

3

3

9

2

2

2

6

High

Low 1 1 1 3

Dark Red

Light Red

6

5. Next Steps This study is an initial step in a process of identifying suitable sites for development. Other steps should include:

• Further refinement of the environmental and cultural heritage baseline2 • A review of alternatives3 • A proposals impact matrix • An identification of cumulative effects4 • Individual project proposal EIA

The maps provided are based on known data and represent an informed starting point for the decision maker. Copyright remains with Northamptonshire County Council and the Joint Planning Unit of North Northamptonshire Together. Actual decisions on sites need to be further informed by undertaking the steps above. Enquiries regarding the content of this report should be directed to: The Built and Natural Environment Service Northamptonshire County Council PO Box No. 163, County Hall, Northampton NN1 1AX

2 Part of strategic level assessment and recommended as part of Strategic Environmental Assessment, (ODPM 2004) and key features of PPS 9 include: the maintenance of information un the relevant environmental characteristics of the area by the local authority; promotion of opportunities to incorporate biodiversity and geological interest around new development, the refusal of permission where significant harm cannot be prevented, mitigated or compensated for. 3 Consideration of the hierarchy of alternatives is recommended at a strategic level, (ODPM 2004) 4 Good practice at both strategic and project level

7

6. General References

1) Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy, (March 2005) Alterations to Regional Spatial Strategies covering the East of England, East Midlands and South East England. Government office for South East, East Midlands and East of England.

2) Options for North Northamptonshire, (June 2005) Towards a joint core spatial

strategy. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit.

3) Sustainability Appraisal of the Core Spatial Strategy for North Northamptonshire, (April 2005) Scoping Report. North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit.

4) Current Landscape Character Assessment, (Final draft May 2004)

Northamptonshire Landscape Characterisation Project. Landscape Design Associates for Northamptonshire County Council, (unpublished).

5) Biodiversity Character of Northamptonshire, (First draft September 2004)

Northamptonshire Landscape Characterisation Project. Denton Wood Associates for Northamptonshire County Council, (unpublished).

6) Heritage Character of Northamptonshire, (2004) Northamptonshire

Landscape Characterisation Project. Landscape Design Associates for Northamptonshire County Council, (unpublished).

7) Environmental Character Assessment of Northamptonshire, (2004)

Northamptonshire Environmental Character Assessment Project, Northamptonshire County Council, (unpublished)

8) Green Infrastructure for Northamptonshire, (2005) Strategic Framework

Study: Phase 1, north Northamptonshire and Local Framework Study, Corby Pilot. River Nene Regional Park Team, Northamptonshire County Council.

9) Planning Sustainable Communities, (2005) A Green Infrastructure Guide for

Milton Keynes & the South Midlands. Environmental Quality of Life sub-group.

10) Sustainable Communities Plan, (2003) Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

HMSO.

8

7. Appendix 1) Initial attribute checklist used during desk study 2) Sensitivity assessment matrix for Corby 3) Sensitivity assessment matrix for Kettering 4) Sensitivity assessment matrix for Wellingborough 5) ‘Phase 1’ mapping of environmental sensitivity 6) Technical overview and process 7) Landscape sensitivity map for the three districts 8) Biodiversity sensitivity map for the three districts 9) Cultural heritage sensitivity map for the three districts 10) Composite sensitivity map for the three districts

9

Appendix 1. Initial key attribute/data source checklist used in desk study

Data resource Checked

• Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

• Special Landscape Area

• Flood Zone

• Rivers

• Conservation Area

• Registered Parks and Gardens

• Ridge and Furrow / Open Fields

• Scheduled Ancient Monuments

• Woodland

• Ancient Woodland

• Rights of Way

• OS base maps (1:50 000, 1:25 000, 1:10 000)

• Aerial images

• Landscape Character Assessment

• National Nature Reserves

• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (including new designation)

• Special Protection Areas (including new designation)

• Local Nature Reserves

• Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites

• County Wildlife Sites

• Country Parks

• Wildlife Corridors (e.g Ancient Hedgerows)

• Quarried Land

• Biodiversity Character Assessment

• Heritage Character Assessment

Other resources (digitised) • Archaeological earthwork sites

• Archaeological cropmark sites

10

• Historic Parks

• Ridge and Furrow survival 1996-1998 •

• Ridge and Furrow survival 1999

• 1880s settlement

• 2000s settlement

• Roads

• Alluvium

• Landscape Classification Types

Other non-digitised data sources • Historic maps

• Green Infrastructure study and maps

11

Appendix 2. Sensitivity assessment matrix for Corby Site: C1 SA Topic Symbol Commentary Mitigation Biodiversity CWS and Woodland designations and habitats

preclude development. Grassland and slopes adjacent to woodland are of potential value. Sheep grazed pasture.

GI enhance & provide strategic links. Enhance floodplain grasslands & retain pasture. Replant broadleaved woodland.

Landscape: Located in broad unspoilt valley of River Welland. Quiet rural character, views are mainly open and extensive across valley. Large area of mixed woodland to SE on plateau. Also wooded around Rockingham Castle, Gretton and railway (disused). Jurassic Way runs across the area. Mixed field sizes, some with trees. Most of the area sits within a SLA.

No acceptable mitigation to significant development but an opportunity to recognise value of landscape as part of a strategic GI network

Coalescence:

Landscape

Village of Rockingham, Rockingham Castle and Gretton.

Cultural Heritage Fieldscape along Welland valley floor& slopes close to Gretton retains C19 pattern, with earthwork remains of earlier, medieval, cultivation system also present. Buried archaeological remains of Roman, Saxon & medieval settlement identified in Welland valley part of site; potential for further remains

Measures to protect & enhance historic settlement cores of Gretton & Rockingham and their settings. Further evaluation of archaeological potential

12

Site: C2 Biodiversity Sensitivity of Wakerley & Fineshade quarry gullets

habitats. Plantation woodlands. Mixed farming uses with medium sized fields.

Enhance and manage woodlands and replant broadleaves. Arable margins and hedgerow management.

Landscape: Quiet and isolated rural landscape, appears well settled. Undulating plateau with open character. Undulations and wooded areas create discrete ‘pockets’ in the landscape within one of which sits Kirby Hall and parkland. Well defined field boundaries enhance the topography. The Eastern half sits within a SLA.

An appropriate and significant buffer needed to minimise impact on setting of Kirby Hall. Also needed adjacent to Gretton and Deene parkland. Small woodlands to the east through the development of links to a strategic GI network

Coalescence:

Landscape

Gretton and Deene. Prevention of coalescence by

development of GI corridor Cultural Heritage Kirby Hall & the associated archaeological remains of

the deserted village of Kirby are the principal cultural heritage assets within C2. The setting of the Grade 1 Kirby Hall and its parkland are particularly sensitive, and as with the conservation area, could be adversely affected by inappropriate development in close proximity

Buffer zone with landscaping to ensure that development would not compromise the setting and context of Kirby Hall or Gretton.

Site: C3 Biodiversity Valuable brook and associated habitats in valley Buffer habitats and enhance

13

bottom. Plantation woodlands and CWS associated with quarry and gullets.

to avoid further habitat fragmentation.

Landscape: - An elevated landscape with views of Corby. Minimal field structure however the large tracts of mixed woodland make the landscape appear well wooded. Prior’s Hall Golf Course lies to the East which borders Deene Park estate. The site has previously been quarried and in-filled.

Buffering to Deene Park setting of Kirby Hall and Weldon. Potential to extend existing woodland.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Deene and Weldon (latter in part already coalesced).

Cultural Heritage Large parts of C3 have limited potential for survival of significant historic features and no significant cultural heritage constraints were identified. Buried archaeological remains of Little Weldon Roman villa (Scheduled Monument) lie at southern end of C3. Work at northern end should take setting of Kirby Hall into account

Measures to ensure conservation of Little Weldon villa. Opportunities to improve management of site & interpretation to public

Site: C4 Biodiversity Arable land with mature hedgerows partly intact.

Streams in valleys. Weldon Ancient woodland / SSSI Maintain & enhance hedgerows, riparian pasture. Enforce forest character.

14

Landscape: Prominent Plateau with convex slope facing Corby and C3. Small watercourse lies to NW edge where some mature field boundaries exist (some in poor condition) with hedgerow trees. Large scale field patterns are evident on plateau landscape. The wooded area of Weldon Park is an important visual asset.

Opportunity to extend Weldon Park woodland and to enhance streamside landscape and field boundaries with trees.

Coalescence: - Weldon (in part already coalesced)

Cultural Heritage - Historic landscape generally degraded across C4 Weldon Park represents a surviving area of historic woodland, formerly a medieval deer park; localised parts of deer park boundary survive as visible earthworks

Opportunities to improve setting of adjacent Weldon Park.

Site: C5 Biodiversity Blocks of plantation woodland inc on restored quarries.

Hedgerows in need of restoration and enhancement. Enhance woodland structure.

Landscape: Broad exposed plateau with large woodland to south along quarried slope. Large field patterns. Disturbed by several landfill/quarried areas. Views across area and to industry of Corby. Small pockets of woodland exist, wooded also around Weldon.

Enhancing woodlands, field boundaries and setting of Weldon. Ensure area remains a green infrastructure link.

Coalescence:

Landscape

- Weldon (in part already coalesced)

Cultural Heritage - Large parts of C5 are reinstated former mineral workings with no great historic environment potential.

Measures to preserve setting of adjacent Weldon historic

15

Northern part of C5 lies in proximity to Weldon (conservation area).

settlement core.

Site: C6 Biodiversity Arable with ASNW, mature hedgerows and Standards.

Large fields but wooded in character. Streamline. Management of ASNW and woodland on ridgelines.

Landscape: Rolling landscape which faces west and south. Quiet rural character. New development is evident adjacent to western boundary. Largely medium sized field boundaries although smaller ones exist close to Harper’s Brook which runs across the south of the area. A substantial area of woodland lies at the northern boundary. A SLA borders the eastern edge.

Development should be located where it can be screened by both the topography and wooded areas. The rural character should be maintained and enhanced.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Little Oakley and Stanion

Cultural Heritage Good survival of C19 enclosure fieldscape in southern part of C6 (north of Little Oakley). Village itself substantially unchanged by modern accretions and designated as Conservation Area; number of important historic buildings within village. Line of major Roman Road crosses C6 running NW-SE (see also area C10), although there appears to be little survival of physical remains of the road within C6

Impact of development may be mitigated by incorporation of measures to ensure the continued protection & potential enhancement of Little Oakley conservation area and its setting (including adjacent fieldscape). Opportunities to reflect line of Roman road in design of new development

16

Site: C7 Biodiversity Arable & wooded, mixed of large & small fields

Permanent pasture & horsey culture. Sensitive habitats inc. tall hedgerows /treelines, & parkland trees.

Retain parkland, & enhance woodland and pasture.

Landscape: Elevated and undulating rural landscape. Some wide views are possible, some towards Kettering. Small scale field boundaries and hedgerow trees exist to the east and NW around Gt Oakley. Small blocks of woodland are also evident. New development is apparent at northern boundary and a rail line intercepts the western boundary. The area is also crossed by many footpaths. A SLA borders the eastern edge.

Development should be sensitively sited within topography and minimised by use of screening. The rural character should be maintained and enhanced.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Settlements of Little and Great Oakley, Newton as well as Geddington to the SE.

Development of strategic GI corridors which provide buffer zones to avoid coalescence and impact on character.

Cultural Heritage Historic core of Great Oakley village lies on northern edge of C7. Gt Oakley Hall (II* Listed Building) and associated parkland lie within C7; historic village core lies west & south (designated as Conservation Area). Survival of early enclosure field pattern in adjacent areas to south increases sensitivity of this part of C7. Parts of Boughton House landscape park (Registered Grade I) adjoin part of eastern boundary; important archaeological site of Little Newton deserted village

Measures to conserve & enhance surviving heritage assets around Gt Oakley, to protect the setting of Boughton House park and Little Newton.

17

(Scheduled Monument) lies immediately south of C7 Site: C8 Biodiversity Arable,medium fields with entact hedgerow. Oak

standards of importance. Blocks of broadleaved woodland. Ditch well-treed

Strengthen woodland screening. Woodland creation on rising land.

Landscape: Open and remote landscape particularly at southern tip. Land rises from both Rushton and Corby with ridge dividing the two. Settled field boundaries with small and medium sized woodlands on rising ground. A landfill site lies within the southern section. Views to Kettering district to the south and Corby industry to the NE.

Retain and enhance woodland, restore quarry site. Restore and enhance landscape to maintain remote rural feel.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Pipewell and Rushton

Cultural Heritage - Fieldscape of northern part of C8 retains pattern of early enclosure associated with Pipewell Abbey (within C9); southern part more degraded.

Measures to ensure preservation of fieldscape pattern in northern area (also assists with preservation of setting of Pipewell Abbey (see C9)

18

Site: C9 Biodiversity ASNW. Tall well defined mature hedges. Large arable

fields in East with valuable copses, parkland trees. Parkland, pasture on Harpers Brook. Large woodland blocks.

Retain and enhance brook, management of parkland veterans and hedgerows.

Landscape: Largely rural plateau landscape which slopes away at western and southern boundaries. Views tend to be limited due to the mixed sized woodlands. Largely medium sized field boundaries with few hedgerow trees. Harper’s Brook located at south of site which runs through Pipewell.

Setting of Harpers Brook and Pipewell village. Rural nature of landscape should be maintained as part of Rockingham Forest landscape.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Pipewell and East Carlton

Cultural Heritage Important archaeological remains of Pipewell Abbey and medieval settlement (Scheduled Monument) in south-western corner of C9. Sensitivity of area increased by adjacent survival of historic woodland (Carleton Purlieus & Pipewell Wood) and relatively intact early enclosed field pattern to north of Pipewell remains

Measures to conserve archaeological remains and historic landscape in Pipewell area. Further evaluation of potential of land to contain as-yet unidentified buried archaeological remains should be undertaken to inform detailed planning of development

19

Site: C10 Biodiversity Predominately parkland with mature tress and wood

pasture. Floodplain of R. Welland with some pasture. Narrow woodland belts.

Maintain and enhance all important habitats.

Landscape: A highly visible landscape, part plateau and part Welland Valley that includes Rockingham Castle and parkland. Unspoilt valley with dispersed areas of woodland associated with the Rockingham estate and the settlement of Middleton. Predominantly small and medium sized field patterns which tend to contain pastures particularly around settlements and river. Some hedgerow trees.

Mitigation possible only at far south eastern boundary. Can contribute to strategic green space for development in other areas.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Would impact on the conservation settlements of Rockingham, Middleton and Cottingham.

Cultural Heritage Rockingham Castle and adjacent remains of former market village are nationally-important archaeological monuments (remains are Scheduled; Castle is also Listed Grade I). Formal parkland associated with the castle extends SW from Rockingham itself as far as the Corby-Cottingham road (much of the park is Registered Grade II*) Corby-Cottingham road preserves the line of a major Roman road (see also area C6). Potentially important archaeological remains (Roman & Saxon settlement) identified within Welland valley floor area northwest of Rockingham.

Effective mitigation difficult because of extent of surviving assets. Opportunities exist for the enhancement of Rockingham Park and remains of early settlement in Rockingham village; opportunities to enhance conservation areas. However, these would not mitigate against development

20

Cottingham & Middleton villages both retain important historic buildings within their settlement cores (conservation areas designated in each), although Cottingham has seen a greater degree of modern expansion to east. The survival of historic parkland and the historic settlement cores of Cottingham, Middleton & Rockingham are likely to pose significant constraints on sustainable development in C10.

21

Appendix 3. Sensitivity assessment matrix for Kettering Site: K1 SA Topic Symbol Commentary Mitigation / GI Opportunities Biodiversity Extensive designated woodland CW and ancient

woodland are priority habitat, some plantation. Semi-improved grasslands, quarries and gullets very important to area. Well- treed SSSI valley habitat. Fewer issues in SW adjacent to plantation woods.

Riverside, broadleaved woodland and grassland maintained and enhanced.

Undulating landscape including part of the Ise Valley. Area lies adjacent to Boughton Park. Former quarry and associated mixed woodland and gullies form an important landscape features. Quiet, rural, well settled landscape with isolated farmsteads and villages. Strong field patterns and associated hedgerows with trees along river and field boundaries. High relief with long views outwards.

Retention of woodland as part of the strategic GI which will reinforce separate identities of settlements and prevent coalescence. Opportunities to plant additional woodland blocks and maintain river landscape, and enhance rights of way network.

Coalescence:

Landscape

The rural villages (Conservation Areas) of Weekley,

Geddington and Warkton are visible. Also to the north exists an area less than 1km below the potential southern urban expansion of Corby.

No mitigation acceptable, but preservation complements the strategic GI and prevents coalescence in a positive way and would provide a clear and major landscape distinction between Corby and Kettering. The setting of the rural villages should also be preserved.

Cultural Heritage Extensive reinstated mineral workings around Weekley Hall Wood have reduced potential of much of K1.

Conservation of surviving area of historic woodland,

22

Weekley Hall Wood is surviving area of historic woodland. Southeast corner of K1 incorporates western part of Weekley village (conservation area, Listed Buildings). One of the outer avenues of Boughton House registered parkland GI extends into K1, a second forms the southern boundary

potential for new woodland creation to enhance setting. Development will need to take parkland avenues & setting into account Potential for retention and enhancement as part of GI

Site: K2a

SA Topic Symbol Commentary Mitigation / GI Opportunities Biodiversity Parkland trees (Broughton). Mature hedgerows form

important linkages. Retain Neutral grassland on Alledge Brook and Ise grassland slope habitats.

Retain manage grassland E. of Barton.

General; The Ise Valley floodplain landscape is a predominant feature. Avenues of Boughton Park are visible particularly along ridgelines. Trees tend to follow the water course, few remain within hedgerows. From the north; important sweeping views over Ise Valley. Trees tend to follow the river. Mature hedgerows and stronger field patterns exist around Warkton. To the south; On higher ground, larger scale field patterns exist. However, views are more contained adjacent to the Ise. Landscape is less rural, and tends to be maintained for amenity purposes.

Protection and enhancement of valley landscape. Retention of hedgerows, opportunities to plant hedgerow trees and narrow woodland belts. Opportunities to enhance Boughton House parkland features, and setting for Warkton.

Coalescence:

Landscape

The Conservation Areas of Weekley and Warkton lie to the north. Potential pressures upon river landscape from Kettering sprawl, west and south of area. At present, there is a clear separation between Kettering and the rural landscape and villages.

Complements the strategic GI and would provide a landscape distinction between the urban settlement of Kettering and its rural villages.

23

Cultural Heritage Southern avenue of Boughton House parkland (Registered Gr I) crosses this area Localised survival of early C19 parliamentary field pattern to south of Warkton; within this area evidence for earlier, medieval, agricultural system survives in the form of Ridge and Furrow earthwork in later pasture fields. Warkton village retains good survival of historic built environment and associated archaeological remains and has ‘Conservation Area’ designation.

Conservation of early fieldscape around Warkton and measures to enhance existing Conservation Area and former settlement remains. Conservation & retention of Boughton House parkland avenues; potential for replacement of lost areas or appropriate design of development in such areas.

Site: K2b

SA Topic Symbol Commentary Mitigation / GI Opportunities Biodiversity Alledge Brook catchment / streams form an important

corridor. Grassland slopes and woodland copse habitats should be retained.

Retain unimproved grasslands sites and improve woodland, streamside habitat and connectivity.

Gently undulating landscape intersected by streams and many RoW. Landscape is intimate in scale particularly adjacent to watercourses, where views are contained and mature trees exist. Elsewhere, the elevated landscape has a more remote character with scattered farmsteads and medium sized woodlands. Some views of Barton Seagrave.

Protect and enhance the rural dispersed character and landscapes around watercourses. Opportunities to create and enhance woodland blocks, hedgerows and rights of way.

Landscape

Coalescence:

24

- Potential for coalescence with Barton Seagrave which breeches ridgeline to the east. Cranford St Andrew and St John (latter a Conservation Area) to the south east of the area.

Important for local GI opportunities.

Cultural Heritage Southern avenues of Boughton House parkland (Gr I) extend into northern part of K2b Village of Cranford St Andrew (conservation area) lies adjacent to southeast corner of K2, but immediately adjacent areas within K2b have been quarried and retain no particular heritage value.

Conservation & retention of Boughton House parkland avenues; potential for replacement of lost areas or appropriate design of development in such areas Opportunities to enhance setting of Cranford village

Site: K3 SA Topic Symbol Commentary Mitigation / GI Opportunities Biodiversity Sensitivity of Cranford quarry site Geological SSSI &

woodlands & semi-improved grasslands. Other parts of area of biodiversity limited interest.

Sparse and isolated plateau landscape with long views outwards, though limited long distant views of Kettering and Burton Latimer. Remote character with isolated farmsteads. Large angular field patterns with few hedgerow trees. Tree cover predominantly exists as limited linear woodland belts which follow field patterns. Includes areas of quarrying and landfill.

Opportunities to create woodlands, enhance field boundaries and restore quarry / landfill areas. The remote feel and open views should be maintained.

Coalescence:

Landscape

- Limited linkages to Kettering. Physically remote from Kettering and to some degree, Burton Latimer

N/A – no settlements exist

Cultural Heritage - Poor preservation of historic fieldscape, no significant archaeological sites currently recorded

Further evaluation of potential of unquarried land to contain as yet unrecorded archaeological remains should be undertaken to

25

inform design of development Site: K4 SA Topic Symbol Commentary Mitigation / GI Opportunities Biodiversity Protection of Ise tributary. Mature, established intact

hedge lines & some field margins. Mainly arable on top of slopes. Important semi-improved grassland and pasture.

Protect stream and intact hedge lines. Few habitat re-creation opportunities inc pasture / grassland

Landscape: Open, elevated and gently rolling landscape with river valley which connects to River Ise to the NE. Many RoW interconnect villages. Scattered, compact villages of Pytchley, Orlingbury and Isham settle upon ridgelines. Mature, well clipped hedgerows with hedgerow trees exist on elevated areas. Small to moderate sized woodlands appear on slopes. And the stream line is well defined by mature trees. Pastures and some small scale field patterns are also associated with water courses and settlements. Some views to Burton Latimer.

Potential for creation of woodland areas on slopes and along stream. Open and elevated nature should be maintained. Protect and enhance stream landscape. Protect the dispersed character of rural villages.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Isham, Orlingbury and Pytchley lie to the SE, SW and NW of the area respectively. Isham and Pytchley both conservation areas. Limited connectivity to Burton Latimer and Kettering.

Maintain and enhance stream and river landscape which complements the strategic GI. Preserve and enhance the setting of villages.

Cultural Heritage - Only localised survival of historic fieldscape pattern, NW of Little Harrowden and SE of Pytchley. Clusters of buried archaeological remains recorded Conservation Areas designated for historic cores of

Measures to ensure conservation and enhancement of Conservation Areas in Pytchley & Isham

26

Isham and Pytchley (latter also within K5); historic buildings (Listed) within both settlements

Site: K5 SA Topic Symbol Commentary Mitigation / GI Opportunities Biodiversity More abundant woodland blocks and parkland trees in

north of area. Important pasture at Great Cransley. Mature hedgerows. Sensitive habitats of Ise tributaries and well established carr and scrub.

Manage woods or hedgerows where appropriate. Few habitat new re-creation opportunities.

27

General An elevated landscape dissected by several streams radiating towards Kettering. These create distinct and separate valleys within the landscape, which allow channelled and intermittent views of the A14 and Kettering, along the NE boundary. This area is particularly affected by the urban setting of Kettering, while the western edge remains more rural in character. Limited rights of way. South of A43 Elevated but undulating topography. Settlements on higher ground. Expansive landscape with long views. Minimal woodland / tree cover, limited to streamlines and settlement areas. Low, well clipped hedgerows with few hedgerow trees, and large scale field patterns. 2 golf courses lie adjacent to A14 corridor. Immediate views to Kettering and A14. North of A43 Elevated and undulating topography. Villages remain elevated. Blocks of woodland (mainly on ridgelines and around settlements) form important landscape features. Low, well clipped hedgerows with some hedgerow trees and generally small scale field patterns. Important setting for Kettering.

Streamside and settlement landscapes should be maintained and enhanced. Potential for enhancement and creation of small woodlands. Maintain open character of area.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Rural setting for Kettering. Area includes Pytchley, Broughton, Little Cransley, Great Cransley, and Thorpe Malsor. All are conservation areas, with exception of Broughton and Little Cransley.

Retain rural setting for villages. Local GI corridor runs from Broughton to Isham

Cultural Heritage Substantial surviving block of historic fieldscape within Conservation of surviving

28

Cransley parish, dating back to before1720. This area also incorporates several areas of relict medieval cultivation remains in the form of ridge and furrow. Concentrations of buried archaeological remains recorded north of Pytchley Lodge and northeast of Cransley. A series of villages lie along the western boundary of K5: Pychley, Broughton, Gt Cransley, Thorpe Malsor. Each village contains important historic buildings and Conservation Areas have been defined in the historic cores of Pytchley, Gt Cransley & Thorpe Malsor.

historic fieldscapes within Cransley parish Measures to preserve and enhance historic village cores

Site: K6 SA Topic Symbol Commentary Mitigation / GI Opportunities Biodiversity Parkland area well woodland maintain connectivity.

Sensitivity of streamline well defined by trees & scrub. Some remaining semi-improved grassland or pasture .

Grassland, wetland woodland creation /connection sensitive to existing.

Inward rolling and elevated topography dissected by one stream. Glendon Hall and parkland form the main landscape feature. Existing hedgerows and woodland create the appearance of a mature and well treed landscape. Various field patterns. Southern area affected by previous quarrying, A14 and A6003 routes, and also visual disturbance from pylons and train line.

Retain and enhance woodland, hedgerows and streamside landscape. Protect setting of Glendon Hall.

Coalescence:

Landscape

- Rural segment between Kettering and setting of Rothwell to the west. Industial area of Kettering clearly visible on the SE boundary. Potential overspill from this area and from North Kettering Business Park would impact on this landscape

local GI enhancement.

Cultural Heritage Small area with significant areas of reinstated former mineral workings, which retain little heritage significance.

Measures to conserve setting of Glendon Hall & ensure preservation of parkland area

29

Northern part contains Glendon Hall (Listed Buildings Gr II* & II) and associated parkland (important but without national designation). Archaeological remains of Glendon medieval village survive within the parkland as earthworks and buried remains

30

Appendix 4. Sensitivity assessment matrix for Wellingborough Site: W1 SA Topic Symbol Commentary Mitigation Biodiversity Registered park and garden and woodland. Low

hedgerows but retaining hedgerow trees. Enhance woodland planting, maintain & enhance hedgerows

Landscape: Gt Harrowden Hall and parkland. Broad ridge and valley landscape with wide views, small areas of woodland around parkland. The few hedgerows that exist, are low and well clipped.

Small wooded areas around parkland and along field boundaries.

Coalescence:

Landscape

The setting of Gt Harrowden Hall.

Cultural Heritage Character of historic landscape mainly typified by large modern fields in which the historic fieldscape has been lost. However parkland associated with Gt Harrowden Hall (Hall Listed GI, parkland GII*) on east side of Gt Harrowden village (within W7) provides important cultural heritage survival

Measures to conserve setting of Gt Harrowden Hall and parkland

Site: W2 Biodiversity Moderate hedgerow retention with hedgerow trees. Ise

Valley defined by marginals and with limited trees. Mixed and broadleaved woodland blocs and designated restored sites, sensitive ironstone and limestone quarries

Potential enhance, maintain and extend woodlands. Grassland management enhancement.

Landscape Landscape:

31

Floodplain of Ise Valley. Open landscape with wide views. Isolated farmsteads set among arable fields. Mixed field sizes some with hedgerow trees. Wooded areas are associated with previous parkland and quarried areas.

Protect and enhance Ise Valley and setting of Finedon. Planting to restore field boundaries, wooded areas and floodplain landscape. Maintain openness.

Coalescence:

- The settlement of Finedon.

Cultural Heritage Removal of boundaries has led to loss of historic character from much of W2. Localised survival of early C19 parliamentary enclosure east of River Ise southwest of Finedon. Historic settlement of Finedon lies just outside east boundary of W2; Finedon Hall (Listed Gr I) just within boundary, associated parkland identified but affected by quarrying

Measures to conserve setting of Finedon Hall and surviving parkland

Site: W3 Biodiversity Nene pSPA/SSSI. Wooded blocks on Ironstone

CWS’s, arable with some pasture. Hedgerows low with some hedgerow trees.

Wet & neutral grassland restoration & floodplain habitat. Woodland enhancement.

Landscape: River Ise and Nene floodplain. Expansive broad valley with small blocks of woodland on higher ground. Man made lakes are prominent features as is views into urban areas such as Wellingborough, Rushden and Higham Ferrers. Low well clipped hedgerows with few trees, field sizes tend to be large.

Expand areas of woodland, enhance field boundaries and integrate quarry/landfill. Maintain openness. Protect and enhance wider Nene Valley floodplain landscape and restored gravel pits

Coalescence:

Landscape

- Towards Irthlingborough.

32

Cultural Heritage Largely degraded historic landscape north of River Nene, with large areas of former mineral workings reinstated to agriculture or flooded to form open water bodies in Nene valley floor; extensive loss of historic field boundaries even in unquarried areas. Important archaeological site of Irchester Roman town located to south of River Nene, overlooking river valley. Survives as buried archaeological remains and earthworks of town defences. This and adjacent remains of Chester on the Water medieval village are protected as Scheduled Monuments. Site also contains important historic buildings of later Chester Farm and associated small parkland. Potential for associated archaeological remains in surrounding areas, although potential reduced through extensive areas of former quarry.

Continued measures to improve management of archaeological remains at Chester Farm & Irchester Country Park

Site: W4 Biodiversity Irchester Country Park CWS and other quarries.

Important Calcareous grassland, pasture with limited hedgerow

Restore manage & enhance grassland & potential to expand country park habitats

Landscape: Irchester Country Park (well wooded) and site of former quarry occupies a significant portion of the segment. Disconnected from Nene Valley. Wide views and large field patterns.

Expand woodland and enhance field boundaries. Maintain open valley landscape.

Coalescence:

Landscape

- Irchester

Cultural Heritage Historic Landscape & survival of heritage features badly affected by extensive quarrying, although a few fragments of early fieldscape survive close to Irchester village

Continued measures to improve management of archaeological remains at Irchester Country Park

33

Un-reinstated former ironstone quarry in Irchester Country Park is an important archaeological site because of its industrial remains (the remaining exposed quarry face is also an important site geologically)

Site: W5 Biodiversity Nene Valley, open water & floodplain habitats. CWS,

pSPA/SSSI sites. Some large scale arable fields with retention of pasture & semi-improved grasslands with limited hedgerows.

Enhance and maintain open water, reedfringe, grassland and floodplain habitat.

Landscape: Intact landscape within Nene Valley. Varied field sizes with hedgerow trees. Broad and open views some of which encompass A45 and Wellingborough. Very small areas of woodland.

Retain field boundaries, enhance floodplain and setting for Gt Doddington. Maintain openness.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Gt Doddington

Cultural Heritage Relatively well-preserved survival of historic landscape with little loss of early field boundaries and blocks of earlier ridge and furrow surviving on the valley side south of Gt Doddington village. Although Gt Doddington has seen modern expansion along the B573, its historic core retains a high historic value, designated as a Conservation Area. Important archaeological site of Roman villa (scheduled Monument) lies immediately outside southeast boundary

Retention of historic fieldscape pattern around Gt Doddington; measures to ensure continuity of Gt Doddington as village settlement and enhance its historic buildings and settlement core

Site: W6 Biodiversity Few designated sites. Good hedgerows and trees,

priority habitats may support good species diversity or protected or BAP species

Retain and maintain existing habitats. Survey and monitor habitats and species.

Landscape Landscape:

34

A quiet, well settled landscape. Rural plateau with subtle undulations. Field boundaries largely vary between small and medium, many with hedgerow trees. Low woodland cover typical. Pastures exist close to watercourse near Wilby.

Enhance field boundaries and hedgerow trees, retain remote rural character.

Coalescence:

Wilby, Mears Ashby and Hardwick.

Cultural Heritage There has been substantial loss of historic field boundaries within W6. Isolated groups of archaeological remains recorded northwest & south of Wilby. WIlby village contains a number of historic buildings (Gr II* & II), but is not currently designated as a Conservation Area; the historic core of Mears Ashby, on the western edge of W6, is designated as a Conservation Area

Measures to ensure continuation of Wilby & Mears Ashby as village settlements and setting of historic buildings in cores

Site: W7 Biodiversity Few woodland blocks & shelter belts. Some semi-

improved grassland slopes & streamside vegetation. Grassland reversion, enhancement & management

Landscape: - Plateau landscape with steep south facing slope towards Wellingborough. Remote rural character on high ground. Low woodland cover. Generally large field patterns with few hedgerow trees. Some distant views.

Enhance streamside and field boundaries, create further blocks of woodland, retain remote character.

Coalescence:

Landscape

Gt and Little Harrowden

Cultural Heritage Historic pattern of fields largely lost by boundary removal (although a narrow zone of C19 enclosure landscape survives immediately north of Wellingborough); isolated blocks of earlier medieval ridge & furrow survival preserved within later pasture fields around Wellingborough Grange Farm (Listed Gr

New development should take into account the setting of Gt Harroden Hall & parkland; continued preservation of extensive archaeological remains south of Gt

35

II) and close to Lt Harrowden Extensive area of buried archaeological remains of Iron Age/Roman rual settlement recorded south & west of Gt Harrowden, extending west towards Hardwick. Further remains recorded north of Gt Harrowden-Lt Harrowden road and a separate Iron Age/Roman site recorded around Stanwell Spinney. Village of Gt Harrowden lies on northeast edge of W7; historic parkland of Gt Harrowden Hall lies immediately east (within W1)

Harrowden desirable but not essential

36

Appendix 5. “Phase 1” mapping of environmental sensitivity

37

Appendix 6. Technical Overview and process 1) Technical overview Sensitivity assessment is within the family of assessment techniques that includes Risk Assessment, (including ‘suitable for use’ assessment), issues of environmental capacity, and is an important tool of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Policy articulation through Best Practical Environmental Option and the precautionary principle approach to Environmental Assessment, (EA) are well developed with a history of use and application. Sensitivity assessment has its roots in risk analysis which in turn has developed since the adoption of cost benefit analysis techniques in the 1950’s. The development of Geographical Information Systems, (GIS) has enabled this family of assessment techniques to be applied and presented in map form using layers of information representing potential receptors, allowing a ‘landscape scale’ context to be considered. The Treasury ‘Green Book’, (1984), recognised the importance of using an assessment of sensitivity in the handling of uncertainties. The RCEP, (1984, 1988) asserts that the precautionary principle be used as an element in ascertaining the Best Practical Environmental Option and that Risk Assessment as an appropriate tool to use in decision making regarding environmental options. The DOE, (1991, 1995) recommends a systematic approach to the treatment of environmental options and illustrated how sensitivity analysis could be applied to policy issues. The DTI, (1993) further noted the usefulness of applying sensitivity analysis when dealing with uncertainty in an assessment process. In a review of the use of Risk Assessment and in the use of the precautionary principle a Parliamentary Office Committee, (1996) highlighted the potential of these two approaches in the field of environmental protection. Treweek, (RCEP 2000) in her evidence to the hearing on Environmental Planning, recommended a landscape scale approach to EA. Weston, (2001) adopted a ‘suitable for use’ approach in considering ground water protection policies, placing it within the framework of risk assessment and environmental capacity. Therivel, (2004) advocates the use of a number of prediction and evaluation tools in SEA including, ‘land use partitioning analysis’ a technique of mapping environmental baselines used extensively by the European Environment Agency; and ‘scenario sensitivity’ analysis. As part of the Milton Keynes South Midlands enquiry into the historic environment a sensitivity assessment was used by Buckinghamshire County Council and English Heritage, (2003) to identify those areas of cultural heritage in Milton Keynes that were sensitive to development. The British Geological Survey, (BGS) have developed an empirical technique of environmental sensitivity mapping for the selection of aggregate sites, (Steadman 2005), defining ‘sensitivity’ as the number of environmental and cultural assets in an area. Likening the approach to a density map, ‘higher sensitivity means there are more assets in an area’, with resulting mapping showing a gradation between most and least sensitive areas.

38

A nominal 2 km radius around the settlements of Corby Kettering and Wellingborough was drawn, and these subsequently divided utilising natural features, roads or other logical boundaries, into study segments. Once defined these areas were subject to a phased sensitivity analysis, using an assessment framework, across a range of receptors, grouped under the headings of biodiversity, landscape and cultural heritage-throughout the assessment process extensive use was made of the ‘Map Info’ geographical information system. The following are the technical descriptive notes of the sensitivity assessment for each receptor, phases are indicated to allow cross referencing to the general methodology in the main document. 2) Landscape Sensitivity Assessment Landscape sensitivity can be interpreted as the ability of a landscape to accommodate change. The definition of this is taken from Landscape Strategy for Truro, Falmouth and Penrhyn, (Landscape Design Associates, with Carrick District Council, 2000) 5:

The ability of a landscape to accommodate change is a complex issue, and will be a function of the type of development proposed and its potential effects upon the intrinsic character and quality of the receiving landscape, the setting and character of the town, and views and visual amenity.

There are four strands to this definition of landscape sensitivity:

• Type of development proposed; • Intrinsic character and quality of the receiving landscape; • Setting and character of the town; • Views and visual amenity.

In this study, the assessment being made is of the sensitivity of the landscape to proposed urban extensions. Thus the type of development is assumed to be consistent across the area. The landscape sensitivity is assessed on the basis of objective data sources from which a value judgement is made. The three strands relating to landscape can be broken down further- 1) Intrinsic character and quality of the receiving landscape:

i) Scenic quality; ii) Sense of place; iii) Unspoilt character;

5 This study is cited as best practice by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Landscape Institute, (2002)

39

iv) Condition and intactness; v) Rarity of landscape type;

2) Impact on the setting and character of the town. Whether the landscape is:

i) Critical; ii) Supportive; iii) Connective; iv) Beyond the setting of the town;

3) Assessment of views and visual amenity:

i) Visual prominence; ii) Intervisibility.

Phase I The above issues are assessed as follows: Intrinsic Character and Quality Scenic Quality Special Landscape Areas and Current

Landscape Character Assessment Sense of Place Current Landscape Character Assessment Unspoilt Character Aerial Photographs / Constraints mapping /

Current Landscape Character Assessment Condition and Intactness Aerial Photographs / Constraints mapping /

Current Landscape Character Assessment Rarity of landscape type Current Landscape Character Assessment Assessment of the impact on the setting and character of the town Critical Base mapping6

Supportive Base mapping Connective Base mapping Beyond setting Base mapping Assessment of the impact on views and visual amenity Visual prominence Interpretation of base mapping Intervisibility Interpretation of base mapping Data sources included in the constraints map are:

• Country Parks; • Quarried Land; • Special Landscape Areas (SLAs); • Floodplain / watercourses; • Conservation Areas; • Parklands;

6 Base mapping sources include OS Base maps and additionally constraints mapping and aerial photography.

40

• Ridge and Furrow; • Woodlands; • Rights of Way;

An assessment of landscape sensitivity was carried out for each study segment, which is supported by a textual description of the area, (Appendix 2,3,4, 5) including the intrinsic character and scenic quality of the area, the importance of the area in the character and setting of the town and a description of potential impacts on views and visual amenity. In addition, possible mitigation measures that would minimise the adverse effect of development are suggested. These are also informed by the Current Landscape Character Analysis (the current, draft version is part of the emerging Environmental Character Assessment Process) and the emerging Green Infrastructure study. The results of these areas are cross checked against the other towns and other study segments, in order to ensure consistency. Phase II This stage of the methodology involves further iteration using data sources from ground truthing, with landscape issues being assessed as follows: Intrinsic Character and Quality Scenic Quality Special Landscape Areas, Field study

and Current Landscape Character Assessment

Sense of Place Field study and Current Landscape Character Assessment

Unspoilt Character Field study and Current Landscape Character Assessment

Condition and Intactness Field study and Current Landscape Character Assessment

Rarity of landscape type Current Landscape Character Assessment

Assessment of the impact on the setting and character of the town Critical Field study Supportive Field study Connective Field study Beyond setting Field study Assessment of the impact on views and visual amenity Visual prominence Field study Intervisibility Field study

The ground truthing methodology was developed in line with current best practice guidance from the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment and the Landscape Institute (2002). Using these data sources, landscape sensitivity is mapped according to the assessment criteria established with the JPU, (below) and in line with best practice guidance on a ‘beyond segment’. The delineations between different areas of sensitivity are defined by landscape features, which might be ridgelines, woodlands, or roads, where these form appropriate landscape boundaries. However, some areas are less clearly defined and the boundaries are more transitional. Other landscape features may include significant areas of parkland, heritage or cultural assets with associated landscape features or river

41

valleys. These results are cross checked against previous assessments and against the other towns to ensure consistency across the results.


High sensitivity

Significant constraints identified although it may be possible

for some development with appropriate mitigation

Medium sensitivity


Low sensitivity

Development would be positive Positive

NB. The distribution of attributes was such that no area was identified that would benefit from development at scale, therefore the positive category was not included in the final mapping The result of this phase of the survey is a map, (Appendix 7) with landscape sensitivity assessed according to the above criteria and a linked brief description of each landscape area. Where mitigation against adverse landscape impact is necessary, measures are suggested in accordance with the Current Landscape Character Assessment and the Green Infrastructure report. Thus the study is informed and draws on both published and emerging practice and policy in order to describe sensitivity and suggest mitigation. Landscape assessment glossary Scenic quality – the degree to which the landscape is attractive with pleasing patterns and combinations of features. Sense of place – the extent to which the landscape retains a distinctive character and sense of place. Unspoilt character – the degree to which the landscape is unaffected or affected by intrusive or detracting influences, has a sense of remoteness or tranquillity. Condition and intactness – the condition of individual landscape components and the degree to which the landscape character remains intact Rarity of landscape type – whether the landscape type represents a scarce or especially fragile landscape resource. Critical landscapes – areas recognisable and distinctive to the character or ‘essence’ of the town within which development could have a potentially significant on visual quality or the perception of the town. Supportive landscapes – areas which are less distinctive but which support the character of those areas which are distinctive to the town and which bolster its sense of place and approaches by supporting and buffering its special character. Connective landscapes – areas which are an integral part of the setting of a town, but which lack individual distinction and do not make a significant contribution to the sense of place or special character of the town. Beyond setting – areas which lack and obvious visual, physical or perceptual relationship with the town and do not, therefore, make any contribution to the sense of place or character of

42

the town Visual prominence – the visual prominence of a character area when viewed from the town and surrounding areas; assessed on a scale of very high and high through to moderate and low, depending on how widespread and significant the views of the area. Intervisibility – the degree of intervisibility of the area itself. This was also assessed on a scale of very high and high through to moderate and low, depending on the degree to which the area are contained or interrupted by landform, field boundaries or vegetation cover.

LDA&CDC (2000) 3) Biodiversity Sensitivity Assessment For the purposes of this assessment, biodiversity is considered at a landscape scale; i.e. a streamside habitat, a block of woodland etc. Biodiversity sensitivity is the sensitivity of these landscape scale areas to change. This sensitivity will be a function of:

• The value of the biodiversity resource that could be lost or damaged by the change (assets).

• The impact of the change on preventing future habitat recreation or enhancement opportunities (opportunities).

This approach is based on the consideration of the biodiversity resource as a combination of assets and opportunities, an approach taken in previous studies looking at biodiversity and development pressures. 7 Biodiversity assets; the current resource is defined by the extent of known sites of nature conservation value. 8 Biodiversity opportunities; Using existing areas of environmental value as a starting point, these are areas for environmental enhancement through habitat creation or restoration.9 Phase I This phase of the assessment looks solely at biodiversity assets within the segments assigned for assessment. The following assets were considered:

• Potential Special Protection Areas (pSPAs); • Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs);

7 Environmental assets and opportunities in Northamptonshire, English Nature, 2003; Good practice study – opportunity maps for landscape scale conservation of biodiversity – English Nature, (in progress); Green Infrastructure Strategic Framework Study Phase 1, Northamptonshire County Council, (in progress). 8 Biodiversity Character Assessment, NCC, (in progress) and habitat types of principal Importance in England (Section 74 CROW Act 2000). 9 Opportunity Maps for Landscape Scale Conservation of Biodiversity, English Nature, (in progress); Environmental Assets and Opportunities in Northamptonshire, English Nature, (2003), and NWT , (2005) NNT County Wildlife Site Review Preliminary Report.

43

• County Wildlife Sites; • Ancient Woodland; • Flood Zones and Rivers. • UK BAP Priority habitats / Habitat types defined by the CROW Act, (2000) as

of principal importance England, including: • Eutrophic standing waters, Aquifer fed naturally fluctuating water bodies; • Reedbeds, floodplain grazing marsh, Lowland meadows & Wet woodland; • Ancient and/or species-rich hedgerows, Lowland wood-pasture and parkland,

Lowland mixed deciduous woodland; • Lowland calcareous grassland Lowland dry acid grassland & Cereal field

margins.

Priority habitats were informed by, and drawn in part from, the following data sets: • Aerial images; • Woodland; • Wildlife Corridors (e.g. Ancient Hedgerows); • Quarried Land; • Registered Parks; • Ridge and Furrow survival; • Landscape Classification Types; • Biodiversity Character Assessment;

Assessment used the agreed assessment criteria (below), this assessment is supported by a textual description of the key features and assets within a segment, and where possible, mitigation measures that would minimise or offset the adverse effects of development are suggested. These suggestions are also informed by the Biodiversity Character Assessment and the Green Infrastructure report. The results of this assessment are cross checked against other segments and the other towns in order to ensure consistency.


High sensitivity



Medium sensitivity


Low sensitivity


NB. The distribution of attributes was such that no area was identified that would benefit from development at scale, therefore the positive category was not included in the final mapping

44

Phase II

ure 2003) and in line with methodology from previous tudies and good practice 10

ould be delivered, using existing areas of environmental value as a tarting point.

is phase are cross checked across nd between the towns, to ensure consistency.

) Cultural Heritage Sensitivity Assessment

nvironment Assessment of the potential Milton Keynes rban Expansion in 2003.

hase I

This phase assesses sensitivity on the basis of both biodiversity assets and biodiversity opportunities. Biodiversity opportunities are identified on the basis of previous studies, (English Nats Identifying biodiversity opportunities involves the identification of clusters of large areas of semi-natural habitat which would form the focus for habitat creation or restoration. Clusters found are then compared to geological data to identify suitable enhancement areas. This results in an assessment of where environmental enhancement cs The same data sets and assessment criteria as Phase I are used, but the approach is more detailed to produce results that are at a, intra-segment scale. The boundaries of biodiversity sensitivity zones are defined by the edges of landscape scale biodiversity areas, such as a woodland edge or the end of the streamside habitat associated with watercourses, though these boundaries will, to some degree, be transitional. The assessment of map-based assets and identified opportunities was carried out in tandem in order to assess the sensitivity to development. The result of this phase of the survey is a map with biodiversity sensitivity assessed as above. The results of tha 4 In order to assess the impact of strategic development on the historic environment of the potential growth segments, a rounded assessment model was developed which utilised Historic Landscape Characterisation data, Sites and Monuments (SMR) data, and heritage/environmental designation data. The assessment model developed is based on the methods utilised by English Heritage, Bedfordshire County Council, Buckinghamshire County Council & Milton Keynes Council in preparation of a Historic EU P

ssment. Sources of data sed to identify Cultural Heritage assets and constraints:

An initial data collation exercise provided a working summary of recorded cultural heritage assets and features within the NNT Growth Options areas defined by the JPU, based on national designations, information held in the Northamptonshire SMR and data from Historic Landscape Character Asseu

• Registered Parks & Gardens • Historic Parks recorded in Northamptonshire SMR

10 Good practice studies, opportunities for landscape scale conservation of biodiversity, English Nature, (in progress).

45

• Ancient Woodland • Surviving Ridge & Furrow • Historic Fieldscapes (defined as fieldscapes of C19 or earlier origins which substantially

retain their historic pattern, identified from HLC) • Historic Landscape Character (from Historic Landscape Character Assessment) • Scheduled Monuments • Archaeological earthwork sites (recorded in Northamptonshire SMR) • Buried archaeological sites (those recorded as cropmark complexes on SMR) • Conservation Areas • Historic settlement core (recorded from C19 or earlier maps) • Listed Buildings • Historic Buildings (recorded from C19 maps correlated against modern landuse11) • Important Geological sites (Geological SSSIs, RIGGs, GCR sites)

. The components of the historic environment were grouped into three categories: Historic Landscape, Historic Buildings, and Archaeological Sites; the visual setting of the three was also examined as a fourth category. In order to assess the ‘baseline’ sensitivity of the segment before any mitigation measures were taken into account, it was assumed for the purposes of the assessment that development would be uniform across the segment. The number and quality of these components in each potential growth area segment was assessed for each of these four categories and given a rating relating to the likely impact of growth on the historic environment & cultural heritage of the segment. The severity of impact is a product of the scale of impact with the importance of the asset (receptor) affected:

Scale of Impact Major Moderate Minor National Major Moderate Minor County/Regional Moderate Moderate Minor

Importance of Asset

Local Minor Minor Minor ‘Major’ impact was defined as physical destruction or extensive harm leading to significant loss of historic value ‘Moderate’ Impact was defined as significant damage or harm leading to noticeable loss of historic value ‘Minor’ Impact: slight damage or harm likely to be ameliorated by mitigation measures These Impact Assessment results were reviewed to inform assignment of an initial overall ‘Cultural Heritage sensitivity’ grading to each potential growth segment, using the assessment criteria established in discussion with the JPU:

11 Assessment of historic building survival: mapping of built structures from early OS maps (1810 2” surveyors drawings and 1880s 1st edition 1:10560) against modern OS Mastermap to identify buildings with pre-C20 origins. It is accepted that this method is not foolproof. It assumes that where buildings are shown in the same location on the modern & historic maps that this is the same structure rather than a modern replacement for a demolished earlier building. It also takes no account of the degree of conversion, alteration, or extension that buildings may have seen and the extent to which historic fabric survives. Nevertheless, as a rapid quantification method for the purposes of the current appraisal it was felt that the method was acceptable.

46


High sensitivity



Medium sensitivity


Low sensitivity


NB. The distribution of attributes was such that no area was identified that would benefit from development at scale, therefore the positive category was not included in the final mapping Initial mapping of the Impact Assessment results was provided at a ‘whole-segment’ level, indicating the overall level of sensitivity identified for the segment as a whole (Appendix 5). Phase II The ‘whole-segment’ grading was refined through a process of ‘ground-truthing’ involving selective checking of conditions and asset survival, supported by remote validation using aerial photography produced in 2000. No new survey work was undertaken as part of the study. This refining was intended to provide a closer grain assessment, identifying the sensitivity of different areas within each segment and enabling inter-segment constraints & issues to be recognised. The location and geographical extent of assets & features identified in the Phase 1 study were mapped. Where appropriate a ‘buffer zone’ was also mapped to address the issue of impact on the setting of a visible monument or asset; this was provided by a simple buffering of the mapped asset, without detailed view-shed modelling. Mapping areas of former mineral extraction- which can be considered to have low/no remaining historic environment potential- provided additional information on the sensitivity of areas. Areas where no specific cultural heritage assets were mapped were assigned the general whole-segment sensitivity grading to provide comprehensive coverage. The sensitivity grading allocated to each area with the potential growth area segments was checked between areas to ensure a consistency of approach and application. The results of this mapping and the source/justification for the grading allocated were summarised in assessment matrix (Appendix 2,3,4, & Appendix 9). This is supported by a brief text discussion of the nature of the historic environment and the sensitivity of different areas within each segment; where the impact of development

47

on cultural heritage issues can be mitigated, suggested themes and measures are identified. 5) Technical References

1) HM Treasury, (1984) Investment Appraisal in the Public Sector, (Treasury ‘Green Book’), HMSO.

2) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, (1984) 10th Report, ‘Tackling

Pollution-Experience and Prospects’, HMSO.

3) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, (1988) 12th Report, ‘Best

Practicable Environmental Option’, HMSO. 4) Department of the Environment, (1991) Policy Appraisal and the

Environment: A guide for Government Departments, HMSO.

5) Department of the Environment, (1995) A Guide to Risk Assessment and

Risk Management for Environmental Protection, HMSO. 6) Department of trade and Industry, (1993) Regulation in the Balance: A Guide

to Risk Assessment, (Deregulation Unit, DTI), HMSO.

7) Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, (1996) Safety in Numbers?

Risk Assessment in Environmental Protection. HMSO. 8) Treweek J. (2000) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; Evidence

from Dr Jo Treweek to the Environmental Planning Study. HMSO.

9) Weston J. (2001) Planning Review for Groundwater Protection Policies;

Oxford Brookes School of Planning. 10) Mott Macdonald, (undated) Appendix E, Stage 1 and 2 Environment Site

Sensitivity Analysis, Surface Railways, Parliamentary Work Depot. Location Options. Report No. 1D0300-E1N22-00093/C.

11) World Wide Fund for Nature, (2003) The Wildlife Trusts/WWF-UK, Joint

Marine Programme. Discussion Paper on Strategic Environmental Assessment, WWF UK.

12) AXYS., (2001) AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. Environmental

Sensitivity Mapping: promotional brochure.

48

13) Therivel R. (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action, Earthscan. 14) Buckinghamshire County Council/English Heritage/Bedfordshire County

Council (2003), Milton Keynes South Regional strategy: Historic Environment Assessment of Milton Keynes.

15) Steadman E., (2005), Mineral Industry Sustainable Technology/British

Geological Society co-funded project; ‘Environmental and economic information for future aggregates planning: dissemination and consultation seminar. The National Environment Research Council.

16) Landscape Design Associates and Carrick District Council, (2000) A

landscape Strategy for Truro, Falmouth and Penrhyn in Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, (2002 second addition) Spon Press.

17) English Nature (2003), Environmental Opportunities and Assets in

Northamptonshire, English Nature.

18) Fells A. (2005), North Northamptonshire LDV County Wildlife Site Review Preliminary Report, The Wildlife Trust.

49

Appendix 7. Landscape sensitivity map for the three districts

50

Landscape sensitivity The map in Appendix 7 shows the result of the landscape sensitivity assessment for the three districts of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. The following text box is a descriptive narrative of the map highlighting the main findings. Corby. Analysis of the landscape around Corby shows that, overall, there is a high degree of sensitivity. The area of highest sensitivity covers much of the north-west, north and north-east of Corby where the landscape is highly distinctive but largely beyond the setting of Corby itself. These areas have strong historical associations, particularly the largely unspoilt Welland Valley which includes Rockingham Castle and the setting of Kirby Hall and forms a northern boundary to the wider landscape of the Rockingham Forest. Large areas of woodland also exist mainly along ridges to the east. These create important and visually distinctive elements within the forest landscape particularly as the landform falls to the south separating the southern aspect of Corby from its rural setting. The remaining areas of Corby vary in terms of their visual prominence but are largely more visually connected to the town where views look inwards towards Corby. Although more prominent, their intrinsic characters tend to be less distinctive, less settled and therefore less sensitive to change. Such areas include: land south of Cottingham, south-west and east of Corby. Kettering. The detailed landscape mapping shows that landscape sensitivity is generally high to the north and north-east of the town, with patches of high sensitivity scattered within other areas. The rural setting of distinct villages such as Geddington, Weekley and Warkton form an important element within the wider landscape. Woodland cover, the parkland around Boughton House and the Ise valley landscape are also important elements which add to the intrinsic character of this area. A large proportion of Kettering is of moderate sensitivity; the landscape is less distinctive and intrinsic character is more locally focussed with natural features such as streams, ridgelines and valleys exist to the west, south-west and east. These are locally important intrinsic features of the landscape reinforcing a local distinctiveness. Areas of low sensitivity exist where the visual impact of development would be limited; these have less distinctive landscape features though a higher degree of visual connectivity to Kettering, to the east of Barton Seagrave and areas adjacent to the A14. Wellingborough. The detailed landscape sensitivity mapping of Wellingborough shows varied patches of sensitivity across the area, the most sensitive being to the north, south and south-east of the town. To the north, the landscape affords both inward and outward views encompassing important elements such as Great Harrowden parkland, the settlement of Finedon, Finedon Callybanks and the Ise Valley. To the south and south-east, the landscape is dominated by views of Wellingborough and the Nene Valley. A ‘quiet’ plateau landscape exists to the west, to the east and south sits a broad valley landscape though both landscapes loose visual connectivity to the town due to landform’ and features such as woodland. Areas of low sensitivity exist where the intrinsic quality is unsettled, views outwards are limited and connectivity to the town is clearly evident.

51

Appendix 8. Biodiversity sensitivity map for the three districts

52

Biodiversity sensitivity The map in Appendix 8 shows the result of the biodiversity sensitivity assessment for the three districts of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. The following text box is a descriptive narrative of the map highlighting the main findings. Corby. The detailed biodiversity sensitivity mapping of land around Corby has identified a large number of areas of high biodiversity sensitivity. Overall the area falls within the RSS8, (Regional Spatial Strategy) Biodiversity Conservation Area of Rockingham Forest. A high proportion of statutory and non-statutory sites of conservation value in Corby are associated both with quarried and brownfield sites, woodland (including ancient woodland), and forest and parkland landscapes. The small proportion of land of lowest sensitivity can be seen in areas of landfill or intensive farming. Kettering. Highest areas of sensitivity are principally associated with rivers and streams, as Habitats of Principal Importance12, in addition to a range of sites of conservation value. Sensitive habitats occur in both Liassic and limestone slopes around Kettering. To the east is the Alledge brook and to the west tributaries of the Ise river. The small proportion of land of lowest sensitivity occur on the Cropped Clayland areas around Kettering are generally arable and relatively of a lower conservation value. Wellingborough. The detailed biodiversity sensitivity mapping around Wellingborough identified the largest areas land of high sensitivity as associated with the Rivers Nene (an East Midlands Strategic River Corridor) and Ise. Habitats of Principal Importance contributing to the sensitivity of the area include species rich hedgerow and woodlands. To the south east is the potential Special Protection Area, (pSPA) of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits. In addition locally notable habitats on the Liassic Slopes of semi-improved grassland and arable margins are considered as sensitive. Small areas under intensive arable production show a lower biodiversity sensitivity or greater potential for habitat regeneration.

12 Habitats of Principle Importance under Section 74(2) CRoW Act, (2000)

53

Appendix 9. Cultural heritage sensitivity map for the three districts

54

The map in Appendix 9 shows the results of the cultural heritage sensitivity assessment for the three districts of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. The following text box is a descriptive narrative of the map highlighting the main findings. Corby. The detailed Cultural Heritage sensitivity mapping of land around Corby shows greater variability than around the other two towns, Overall there is a broad gradient with sensitivity falling from west to east across the potential urban expansion areas. The zone north-west of the existing urban area is considered to be very sensitive to development impact, with a combination of important built environment assets in the historic settlement cores of Rockingham, Middleton & Cottingham combining with historic parkland of Rockingham Park and important archaeological remains to present a significant constraint on potential development in this area. This zone of high sensitivity continues to the north-east into the surroundings of Gretton, but the adjacent land closer to the north side Corby is not considered to have the same high sensitivity. The areas north-east & east of Corby and Weldon are generally considered to have a low sensitivity to development impact, although Kirby Hall and its setting provide an area of greater sensitivity north-east of Weldon and the areas immediately surrounding Weldon itself are of high sensitivity because of the Conservation Area designation of Weldon and the important archaeological site of Little Weldon Roman villa. Urban expansion potential eastwards is terminated in the highly sensitive landscape of the historic woodland and former deer park of Weldon Park. The zone bounding the southern part of Corby, roughly from Stanion south & west past Newton & Rushton to East Carlton, is mapped as being generally of ‘moderate’ sensitivity, although a linear band of highly sensitive land surrounding Little & Great Oakley presents a greater constraint to southwards expansion of Corby, and may make southwards growth difficult. Kettering. The detailed Cultural Heritage sensitivity mapping of the land surrounding Kettering identifies the area north-east of Kettering as the most sensitive area. In this area the combination of well-preserved built historic environment assets in the villages of Weekley & Warkton, and important historic landscapes in the surrounding areas present major constraints to potential growth. The potential urban expansion areas east & west of Kettering are generally characterised as being of ‘moderate’ Cultural Heritage sensitivity, with some potential for development providing that appropriate mitigation measures are included; more sensitive landscapes and areas are generally found at the outer edges of the defined expansion areas, typically relating to the setting of historic villages such as Cranford St Andrew, Isham, Pytchley, Gt Cransley, and Thorpe Malsor on the expansion area boundaries or historic fieldscapes and features associated with these villages. Areas of former mineral extraction have been identified north and north-west of Kettering, and to the south-east of the town in a band south & west of the Cranfords. These activities have reduced the Cultural Heritage sensitivity of these areas. Wellingborough. The detailed Cultural Heritage sensitivity mapping of the potential urban expansion areas around Wellingborough has identified large areas of moderate sensitivity, with relatively localised areas of high sensitivity scattered around the periphery of the potential expansion areas. To the north of Wellingborough, the formal parkland around Gt Harrowden Hall represents a local landscape of high Cultural Heritage sensitivity, similarly the setting of historic settlement cores of Finedon and Mears Ashby, and the historic settlement of Gt Doddington provide further localised areas of high sensitivity north-east, west, and south of Wellingborough respectively. The important archaeological remains and historic buildings & landscape around Chester Farm provide a further area of high sensitivity centred on the A45 south-east of Wellingborough. Areas of reinstated former mineral extraction sites to the east and south-east of Wellingborough (south of Finedon and between Irchester & Wellingborough) provide areas of typically low Cultural Heritage sensitivity, although the un-reinstated quarry remains and exposed former quarry face within Irchester Country Park are identified as highly important and sensitive in terms of their industrial archaeological and geological remains.

55

Appendix 10. Composite sensitivity map for the three districts

56

CORBY, KETTERING AND WELLINGBOROUGH III e.pdf · 2015. 4. 28. · accessible locations for...

Documents

Transcript of CORBY, KETTERING AND WELLINGBOROUGH III e.pdf · 2015. 4. 28. · accessible locations for...