Issue - meetings

Landscape Sensitivity - Phase 1

Meeting: 28/10/2021 - Local Plan Leadership Group (Item 4)

4 Landscape Sensitivity - Phase 1 pdf icon PDF 116 KB

To note the findings of Phase 1 of the landscape work undertaken to inform the emerging Local Plan.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Local Plans and New Communities Manager presented a report on the first phase of the Landscape work that was currently underway to examine whether the landscape around towns and villages in the district, as well as sites for new settlements, had the capacity to accommodate new development without causing significant adverse effects on its character. Phase 1 of the work looked at the sensitivity of landscape around the main towns and key villages. The report had been compiled using the professional judgement of LUC through site visits and desktop analysis.

 

The report was very favourably received by Members.

 

Areas of discussion included:

·         The 500 metre and 1 kilometre boundary lines.

·         The request for an explanation as to why flatter land was less sensitive to change.

·         The views of the settlements and the request for further clarification of the third bullet point of Paragraph 1.20 re the visual character of the landscape.

·         The possible inconsistency between the report’s local areas of wildlife and the recent survey to Parish Councils.

·         Future timescales included Phase 2 works almost completed and would be brought to LPLG in November. Phase 3 was likely to follow in Q1, 2022/3.

·         The request to check to what extent and how the consultants had used emerging Neighbourhood Plans and emerging Neighbourhood Plans’ evidence. It was noted that the Newport, Quendon and Rickling Neighbourhood plan had not been referenced.

·         The request to check to what extent and how the consultants had used emerging Neighbourhood Plans and emerging Neighbourhood Plans’ evidence.

·         The request to ask the consultants how they had identified the absolute constraints ‘grey out areas’. A request was made for greater clarity around the absolutes.

·         The request to ask for a more detailed explanation for the difference in the assessment of residential and employment/ mixed use sites as the pictures appeared to be similar massing and ridge heights.

·         Clarification was requested as to what was the definition of a new development.

·         The overall assessment of landscape sensitivity at Takeley and Priors Green, south of the Flitch Way, appeared to have been assessed as lower sensitivity due to it being ‘breached’. Clarification was sought as this did not appear to make sense.

·         Carver Barracks would be assessed in the next phase.

 

The Group noted the report.