Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-01 Chuck Flaherty Testimony GP 2045 2 of 2 From:Chuck Flaherty To:WPCtestimony Subject:Re: GP2045, late written testimony plus attachments - 2 of 2 Date:Friday, November 1, 2024 12:03:20 PM Attachments:080116_Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies_FINAL.pdf Aloha Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, Kala mai for not getting my written testimony to you prior to the meeting. Please see testimony below and attached documents to which I was referring in my testimony that have been a part of the General Plan Comprehensive Review process and should have been provided to the Commission, as well as the public. Documents attached to this e-mail: Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project, Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Because of the large size of the documents, I have sent the Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project report in this second e-mail. Mahalo, Chuck Flaherty ******************************************************* November 1, 2024 Windward Planning Commission 101 Pauahi St, Ste 103 Hilo HI 96720 Re: Final draft General Plan 2045 Aloha Mr. Chair and members of the Windward Planning Commission, My name is Chuck Flaherty. I am speaking on my personal behalf today. Mahalo nui loa for your volunteer service on this Commission. This special meeting and agenda item should have been given more time. If you have read the draft GP2045, then we now have had a shared experience of attempting to compare it to the current General Plan. The feedback that I’ve gotten from other members of the public is that this comparison has been an almost impossible task because GP2045 is a complete gut-and-replace of the current General Plan. Also, placing the GP2045 online in two different software platforms has disenfranchised a large number of people who have made sincere efforts to make informed comments, but are technologically- challenged. As a general statement, the draft GP2045 does not contain sufficient imperative and directive language to provide reasonable assurance that it will be implemented. That being said, there are documents that are relevant to the draft General Plan that should have been provided to the Commission. It may be that these documents are the ones that have been submitted today, but I will review the list with you to make sure. I've also attached them to this e-mail so they may be forwarded to the Commission's members. The most important of the documents not provided to the Commission is the draft General Plan 2040 that was released in August 2019 by then-Planning Director Michael Yee. The reason GP2040 is so important is because it shows the extent to which public access and cultural, historic, and scenic resource preservation policies and actions contained within GP2040 were removed and not included in GP2045. For instance, the Sustainability Objective on page 108 states, “Native Hawaiian language, values, and practices are integrated into all County processes.” This objective has been cleansed from the draft GP now before the Commission. Another document is a report titled “Hawai’i County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project, Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies” prepared for the Planning Department in August 2016. The Policies and Actions in GP2040 included the programs and strategies recommended by this report. However, GP2045 removed these policies and actions and now GP2045 only contains a reference to the report. Another report not in the Commission’s initial board packet is the Trend Scenario and Land Use Allocation Technical Report, published in April 2016. This report contains important information, such as how many dwellings can be built with existing zoning, subdivision approvals, and building permits. Another critical report not included in the Commission’s initial board packet is the Technical Methodology for General Plan Land Use (2020-2024). This report was not released until August 2024. It should have been released a year earlier because it contains information that the public has been requesting since last September 2023, such as explanations of how the GP2045 land use maps were developed. I would like to give an example of why General Plan land use designations are so important. Let’s use the example of a property owner who wants to rezone and subdivide 300 acres in the state land use Agriculture district. If the property owner applies to rezone and subdivide for Ag-1 lots, the owner could be granted approvals. Now let’s say the property owner wants to subsequently have the subdivision moved to the state land use Rural district, so that amenities, such as a members’ lodge, could be built. The owner would have to file a petition with the state Land Use Commission (LUC) for boundary amendment and the petition would go before the LUC for consideration. And let’s say the owner asks the county to use the general plan comprehensive review process to redesignate the subdivision from Agricultural to Rural in the GP land use map and let’s say the county makes the change in the GP land use map. Because the individual lots in the subdivision are Ag-1, that is, less than 15 acres, the state LUC would no longer have jurisdiction and individual land owners could then petition the county to have their lot(s) redesignated from the state land use Agriculture district to Rural and also apply for county rezoning to Rural as well. The bottom line is that while the project owner cannot request a state land use boundary amendment involving more than 15 acres because the Planning Director would have redesignated the GP land use map to Rural for all lots in the project’s subdivision, the individual lot owner(s) can apply to the county have their 1 acre lots redesignated to the state land use Rural district and apply for county rezoning to Rural in order to accrue the ability to have expanded property rights and uses on their lots. Presently, the Planning Director is refusing to provide the reason that he is proposing such changes to the GP land use map. Mahalo, Chuck Flaherty Captain Cook Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies The Department of Planning Long-range Planning Division 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Planning Consultants Hawaii, LLC 2331 W. Main Street Wailuku, Hawaii 96793 808/269-6220 msummers@planningconsultantshawaii.com August 1, 2016 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project PROJECT PURPOSE 1 COUNTY ENABLING LEGISLATION 2 PROGRAMMATIC NEEDS 3 OVERVIEW OF STUDY 4 VIEW PLANE PROTECTION PROGRAMS 5 S TATE OF H AWAII, C OASTAL Z ONE M ANAGEMENT A CT OF 1978, HRS C HAPTER 205A 5 I MPLEMENTATION 6 M AUI C OUNTYS E XPERIENCE 7 SMA P ERMITTING 7 P ROGRAM S UCCESS 8 R ECOMMENDATIONS TO I MPROVE THE P ROCESS 9 A PPLICABILITY TO H AWAII C OUNTY 10 C OUNTY OF N APA, C ALIFORNIA 11 I MPLEMENTATION 12 P ROGRAM E LEMENTS 13 A PPLICABILITY TO H AWAII C OUNTY 14 S TOWE, V ERMONT 15 I MPLEMENTATION 15 P ROGRAM E LEMENTS 16 A PPLICABILITY TO H AWAII C OUNTY 17 S TATE D EPARTMENT OF E NVIRONMENTAL P ROTECTION, M AINE 18 I MPLEMENTATION 19 P ROGRAM E LEMENTS 20 A PPLICABILITY TO H AWAII C OUNTY 21 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES 21 C ANYON O AKS S TORY P OLES 22 W AIKAPU C OUNTRY T OWN, C OMPUTER G ENERATED P HOTOMONTAGE 23 T HE S ILL, L ANDSCAPE AND V ISUAL I MPACT A SSESSMENT 25 V ILLAGE S PECIFIC P LAN, V ISUAL I MPACT A SSESSMENT 25 RECOMMENDATIONS 28 Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | ii Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project APPENDICIES: APPENDIX A Napa County Viewshed Protection Program APPENDIX B Stowe Vermont, Ridgelines/Hillsides Overlay District APPENDIX C State Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Chapter Aesthetic Uses APPENDIX D Canyon Oaks Story Poles APPENDIX E Waikapu Country Town Visual Impact Assessment APPENDIX F The Sill, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment APPENDIX G Village Specific Plan, Visual Impact Assessment Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | iii Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Project Purpose comprehensive review of the General Plan in February 2015. As required by HRS §226- Charter §3-15, the Plan must include, among other things, objectives, policies, and implementation actions for land use, natural resources conservation, and the preservation of scenic beauty, open space, and other scenic resources. The County of Hawaii contracted Planning Consultants Hawaii to conduct an inventory The Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project accomplished the following objectives: 1. Identified and inventoried resources using digital photography and Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS); 2. Mapped the scenic resources using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and for use with geodesign-based scenario modeling (i.e., CommunityViz); and 3. Described and prioritized the scenic resources using prescribed standards and practices. The purpose of this element of the study is to document methods that can be developed and implemented to protect the resources for future generations. The study will bring forth scenic resource protection programs and methods that are in use elsewhere. The objective is to conduct research on view plane protection strategies that different local, state, and federal government units have adopted that might serve as a model to assist County planners and policy makers in the development of a scenic resources protection program tailored to the unique needs of Hawaii County. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 1 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Unique visual landscapes found in Hawaii County. County Enabling Legislation Hawaii County Code §25-6-60 establishes that designate scenic roadway corridors. The ordinance further states that the County must The Management Plan would necessarily include design standards and conditions to implement the purpose of the Plan. The ordinance states that in the establishment of scenic roadway corridors the following criteria must be met: 1) Is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and the County General Plan. 2) Will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community and/or region. 3) and/or cultural qualities. 4) Will protect and enhance th place to live, work, visit, and/or play. 5) unique natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and/or recreational resources. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 2 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project 6) Is located on a major or minor arterial highway, or collector road. 7) Significantly possesses at least one of the following intrinsic qualities: scenic, natural, historic, cultural, archaeological, recreational, or demonstrates local, private, and public support and participation. Moreover, the ordinance establishes a clear process for the establishment of scenic resource corridors. These steps include: 1) The Planning Director or Council introduces a resolution to initiate the establishment of a scenic corridor. 2) Notice is served to all owners and lessees of property within 300 feet of the proposed corridor. 3) Within 24 months of the adoption of the resolution, the Planning Director or a corridor advocacy group identified in the resolution completes a corridor management plan and enabling ordinance. A scenic corridor management plan is a written document that assesses the intrinsic qualities of the corridor and specifies actions, procedures, controls, and administrative as well as community strategies that will be pursued to maintain those qualities. 4) Within 120 days, the Planning Commission reviews the proposed plan and ordinance, holds a public hearing, and makes a recommendation to Council. 5) The Council may adopt the plan by ordinance, with or without conditions. Programmatic Needs While the County has a strong policy foundation upon which to develop a scenic 1 resources protection program, such a program has not yet been developed. Programmatic gaps that currently exist include: Establishing scenic roadway corridors pursuant to the requirements of Hawaii County Code §25-6-60; Preparing the Scenic Corridor Management Plan; Developing application requirements; Developing permit conditions, such as design guidelines, landscaping, screening, or structural setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways, to mitigate any visual impacts from development. ΐ 3¤¤ 0 ¦¤² ΐ ³§±®´¦§ Β ®¥ ³§¤ ( ¶ ¨¨ #®´­³¸ 3¢¤­¨¢ 2¤²®´±¢¤² )­µ¤­³®±¸  ­£ - ¯¯¨­¦ 0±®©¤¢³ &¨­ « -¤³§®£² 2¤¯®±³ȁ Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 3 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Historic Kailua Kona Town. Overview of Study Recognizing the positive economic and quality of life benefits derived from scenic resources, many jurisdictions throughout the United States have implemented programs to protect these resources for present and future generations. Scenic resource protection programs typically arise from strong public policy directives to mitigate development impacts to scenic views. Planning Consultants Hawaii has examined view plane protection programs across local, state and federal government jurisdictions in the United States, England and Australia to identify current best practice for protecting scenic resources. A common thread across the programs surveyed is that regulatory controls are preceded by clear policy directives that mandate the protection of scenic resources from development impacts. has very clear policy directives to 1) protect its scenic resources from development impacts, 2) identify the scenic resources that are to be protected, and 3) establish regulations to protect these resources. The primary purpose of the Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project was to inventory, document, and rate scenic views along State and County roadways. The information derived provides the basis for the development of regulatory Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 4 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project portant scenic resource. interventions to protect these resources. The inventory and mapping study also provides extensive location specific data including written observations, digital photography and GIS mapping that will greatly assist with the development of mitigation strategies tailored to the uniqueness of the landscapes that are to be protected. This study documents scenic resource protection programs and strategies employed in other jurisdictions that may inform the development of programs appropriate to Hawaii County. The study concludes by providing specific recommendations for actions needed to establish a scenic resources protection program in Hawaii County. View Plane Protection Programs State of Hawaii, Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978, HRS Chapter 205A The Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978, HRS 205A, mandates that the Counties implement the ten (10) objectives of the coastal zone management program. Among these objectives, HRS 205A-2 (b) (5) addresses scenic and open space resources by requiring each County to: uality of coastal scenic Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 5 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project HRS 205A further provides a number of policies to achieve each objective of the law. HRS 205A-2 (c) (3) lists four policies to achieve scenic and open space resource objectives. These include: A. Identify valued scenic resources in the coastal zone management area; B. Ensure that new developments are compatible with their visual environment by designing and locating such developments to minimize the alteration of natural landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline; C. Preserve, maintain, and, where desirable, improve and restore shoreline open space and scenic resources; and D. Encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas. The law further states that the development which would substantially interfere with or detract from the line of sight toward the sea from the state highway nearest the coast, or from the existing public views to and along the shoreline Implementation (SMA) must obtain a Special Management Area Minor or Major permit. In issuing the permit, the County must determine that the project is consistent with HRS 205A-2 (c) (3). Thus, it is the SMA permit, ensure that the development is consistent with the above-referenced SMA scenic resource objectives and policies. If the development is found not compatible, then it is the Countyrequire changes to the /or location to ensure consistency. SMA objectives and policies. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 6 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project - ´¨ #®´­³¸ Experience HRS Chapter 205A requires that the SMA boundary be located at least 100 yards inland from the shoreline. However, typically extends inland to the nearest State Highway paralleling the coastline, which in coastal communities like Kihei, extends nearly a mile inland. In some areas Special Management Area extends inland of the State highway, such as in Kahului, where the boundary extends approximately 3,000 feet inland to the intersection of Wakea Avenue and West Kamehameha Avenue. Because a urban lands are located along the shoreline and inland of the State Highways, much of its urban development has been subject to SMA permitting requirements, which requires an analysis of consistency with HRS 205A-2 (c) (3). 3-! 0¤±¬¨³³¨­¦ Maui County SMA Minor permits are approved administratively by the Planning Department. Maui County SMA Major Permits are processed by the Planning Department, but ultimately approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Maui Planning Commission. The Planning Department prepares the staff and recommendation reports and transmits these to the Maui Planning Commission for decision making at a noticed public hearing. Prior to finalizing its staff and recommendation reports, the Planning Department will Board (UDRB) for comment. The UDRB is a nine member board appointed by the Mayor that has specialized professional expertise in urban design. The UDRB will review the , architecture and civil engineering. It is not uncommon for the UDRB to raise concerns pertaining to scenic resource impacts. Thus, the SMA permitting process provides the Planning Department, UDRB and the Maui Planning Commission the opportunity to address development impacts to scenic resources within the coastal zone. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 7 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project 0±®¦± ¬ 3´¢¢¤²² It SMA policies have had just limited success in protecting scenic resources within Maui coastal zone. There are several reasons for the modest performance, including: 1. Existing Community Plan and Zoning Designations. developed shoreline and coastal lands were community planned and zoned in ch significant development could impact scenic early community plans neither documented the scenic resources warranting special protections nor provided sufficient guidance to help mitigate development impacts. As such, during a period of prolonged and rapid urbanization SMA permitting was the principal safeguard to address scenic resource impacts, but it was just modestly successful at protecting these resources. 2. Lack of Scenic Resources Protection Process, Procedures and Standards. Although developments within the SMA are reviewed for consistency with SMA scenic resource objectives and policies, there are no criteria for determining when an impact has occurred, if the impact is acceptable or not acceptable, and what measures should be taken to mitigate scenic resource impacts. The current SMA process relies upon the discretion of most likely has not received formal training nor been provided with sufficient guidance for how best to mitigate scenic resource impacts within the SMA. Considerable urban development SMA boundaries. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 8 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Likewise, the UDRB and Maui Planning Commission have also not received sufficient training on scenic resource impact management and mitigation. 3. Maui Coastal Scenic Resources Study (August 1990). Recognizing these shortcomings in the SMA permitting process, Department commissioned the above-referenced study in 1990 to address the following gaps: Inventory and describe scenic resources within the developed and developing areas of the SMA; Propose measures, if necessary, to improve the quality of these resources; Develop a scenic resources design manual; and Establish a training program for Planning Department staff. The study recommended that the design manual be used by the UDRB as well for reviewing coastal developments; and the study recommended the establishment of an in- Unfortunately recommendations were never implemented by the Department. The study continues to serve as a resource for both SMA Permit Applicants and Planning Department staff to help determine if a development is within an area of the SMA that may contain visual resources. However, the design manual is rarely used to determine appropriate mitigation and the training and evaluation programs were never institutionalized. 2¤¢®¬¬¤­£ ³¨®­² ³® )¬¯±®µ¤ ³§¤ 0±®¢¤²² Maui County reliance upon SMA permitting to protect coastal scenic resources could be significantly improved through enhanced training of Planning Department staff, the UDRB and the Maui Planning Commission. Practices should be put into place to produce more consistent documentation of scenic resource impacts and to identify appropriate mitigation strategies and standards for determining if the development is consistent with the . Maui County could amend its SMA Rules (§12-202) to ensure more effective scenic resource protection through HRS 205A. Such amendments could include the addition of: 1) a design manual to be used for the mitigation of scenic resource impacts; 2) application content requirements for projects that produce scenic resource impacts; 3) criteria for Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 9 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project documenting and evaluating scenic resource impacts; and 4) standards for determining levels of acceptable impact. Maui County could also better protect its scenic resources through on-going training of Planning Department staff, UDRB and the Planning Commission in scenic resource impact evaluation and mitigation. !¯¯«¨¢ ¡¨«¨³¸ ³® ( ¶ ¨¨ #®´­³¸ Much of an development has been subject to SMA Permitting, which requires consistency with the SMA objectives and policies. However, the lack of a defined process with supporting procedures, criteria and standards together with training has resulted in only l scenic resources. Any scenic resources protection program implemented by Hawaii County should ensure that such program weaknesses are not apparent. It is important to note that w urban lands are located within the SMA, a larger portion are not. In addition, because of its vast and rural nature, ounty are mountain (mauka) or agricultural views. Therefore, developments in these areas are not subject to SMA permitting requirements. For example, the inventory and mapping study identified many important and exceptional views in urban areas, such as the Hilo and Waimea views below that are not located in the SMA. boundary to include some of the coastal exceptional and important views, provided that Hilo and Waimea urban views. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 10 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project other criteria for amending the boundaries are met as well. may want to consider other protective overlays used in other jurisdictions to ensure its mauka and agricultural views are protected. County of Napa, California Napa County has adopted a Viewshed Protection Program to protect the quality of its scenic resources. The program implements the goals and polices of the Napa County general plan including its land use, open space, conservation, circulation and scenic highway elements. The program is codified as Chapter 18.106 (See . Section 18.1206.010 states that the program is intended to accomplish the following: A. Provide hillside development standards to minimize the impact of man- made structures and grading on views of existing landforms, unique geologic features, existing landscape features and open space as seen from designated public roads within the county; B. Protect and preserve views of major and minor ridgelines from designated public roads; C. Create a development review process that maximizes administrative, staff level approval of projects which meet administrative standards, while also providing a vehicle for review by the zoning administrator or planning commission of those projects that do not meet the administrative standards; D. Minimize cut and fill, earthmoving, grading operations and other such man-made effects on the natural terrain to ensure that finished slopes are compatible with existing land character; and E. Promote architecture and designs that are compatible with hillside terrain and minimize visual impacts. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 11 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Views towards the horizon along the South Kona coast. Implementation ordinance. The ordinance applies to building, erosion control and grading permits located on a slope of fifteen percent or more or on minor or major ridgelines as defined by the ordinance. The Director of the Conservation, Development and Planning Department, or the designee, is responsible for determining if the project meets the administrative criteria and substantially conforms to the Design Manual. If the project does not meet the criteria, the Director may transmit the application to the Napa Valley Conservation Commission and the Commission must grant an exception pursuant to Section 18.106.070. In order for the Commission to grant an exception, the Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 12 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Commission must find that conformance would produce greater visual impacts and greater impacts to existing landforms. Moreover, the Commission must find that 0±®¦± ¬ %«¤¬¤­³² Major program elements include: Standardized application and approval process. The process is s zoning ordinance, which clearly describes how visual impacts are evaluated, potential mitigative measures and how applications are processed. Viewshed Protection Program Application Packet. Among the Topographic map/preliminary grading plan, 3) Building/structure elevations, 4) Landscaping and/or vegetation retention plan, 5) Exterior lighting plan, and 6) Visual impact analysis. The Visual Impact Analysis may include one or more of the following: Story poles (the temporary placement of a mock wooden skeleton in the general shape of the building, then draping plastic orange snow fencing around the roofline to portray the visual prominence and bulk of the proposed structure); Computer simulation; Photomontage; Picture or visual as viewed from designated public road at point(s) where the structure(s) is/are visible; Appropriately scaled model; and Additional views or materials as required by staff from other vantage points. Design Manual. The Design Manual is defined in the Napa County Viewshed Protection Program ordinance as follows: "Design Manual" shall mean the manual entitled "Viewshed Protection Manual" on file with the Napa County conservation, development and planning Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 13 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project ridges are important scenic resources for the structures themselves as well as for the scenic integrity of the landscapes seen from the bridges. department. The Design Manual shall contain graphic examples of major and minor ridgelines, projects which do and do not meet the criteria contained in this chapter, and landscape plan provisions. !¯¯«¨¢ ¡¨«¨³¸ ³® ( ¶ ¨¨ County The Napa County Viewshed Protection Program may serve as a helpful model for Hawaii County as it develops a program to address its scenic resource protection objectives. The program embodies a standardized application and approval process, Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 14 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project clear application content requirements and program objectives. Stowe, Vermont The Town of Stowe, Vermont adopted the Ridgelines/Hillsides Overlay District (RHOD) to protect its scenic and ecological resources. The overlay district is implemented through the Town of Stowe Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Overlay districts are zoning regulations that are typically applied to geographic areas that have unique geographical, environmental or socio-economic conditions that warrant special regulations. These regulations are attached to the existing zoning ordinance and are in addition to and not in lieu of those regulations (See: Appendix B, Stowe, Vermont . The purpose of the Stowe overlay district is described as follows: The purpose of the Ridgelines/Hillsides Overlay District (RHOD) is to protect the scenic and ecological resources associated with lands characterized by high elevations, steep slopes and visual sensitivity in a manner that allows for carefully designed, low- impact development. Implementation The RHOD is applicable to any development proposed on lands within the Overlay District. Development within the RHOD must submit a hillside development plan that is reviewed by the Development Review Board (DRB). The DRB determines if the project is classified as . There are established criteria that the DRB follows to make this determination. Minor projects may proceed with their development permits. Significant projects are subject to review by the DRB, in accordance with the RHOD process and standards codified by ordinance. The process includes the submittal of an application package, scheduling of a public hearing, review by the DRB and either approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the site development plan within 45 days of the public hearing. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 15 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project 0±®¦± ¬ %«¤¬¤­³² Major program elements include: Standardized review and approval process. The RHOD process is codified in the Townoverlay district ordinance, which clearly describes considered to ; projects having significant impacts are subject to DRB review. The ordinance also contains standards and guidelines for determining potential impacts to vantage points and for guiding development in a manner that minimizes its impact upon scenic resources. Application Submission/Content Requirements application submission/content requirements are materials that may include: 1) Site development plan, 2) Grading plan, 3) Lighting plan, 4) Visibility studies, 5) Stormwater management/erosion control plan, 6) architectural plans and renderings, 7) Access plan, and 8) Slope analysis. Visibility studies may include viewshed analysis, line of site sections, site photography and other means to assess the visual impact of the proposed application. On site measures such as plywood and pole mock-ups, and survey tape layout of site elements may also be required in the event the site is deemed to be sensitive by the DRB. Standards and Guidelines. The RHOD ordinance contains Standards and Guidelines that the Applicant, Staff and the DRB rely upon to mitigate scenic resource impacts. The ordinance defines the following terms as follows: "Adverse" indicates a negative impact on an identified resource. "Undue Adverse" indicates that the proposed development violates one or more of the Standards set forth in this ordinance and that the impacts cannot be mitigated. Standards are statements that express the development and design intentions of this overlay district. All development within this district must comply with these standards. The Standards reflect Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 16 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project the visual and environmental concerns of the community in terms of the Town's hillsides and ridgelines. Guidelines are instructive in nature. They suggest a variety of means by which the applicant might comply with the standards. The options for compliance are not limited to the guidelines listed, but the applicant can use the list to aid in the design process. Illustrations graphically portray the prescriptions and concepts conveyed in both the Standards and Guidelines. of standards and guidelines supported by illustrations that are used in conjunction with a standardized approval and review process creates the basis for a powerful scenic resources preservation program. !¯¯«¨¢ ¡¨«¨³¸ ³® ( ¶ ¨¨ #®´­³¸ The may serve as a helpful model for Hawaii County as it develops a program to accomplish its scenic resource protection objectives. The overlay ordinance embodies a standardized application and approval process; clear application content requirements; and scenic resource standards, guidelines and illustrations that may serve as a helpful model for the development of a program to protect Hawaii County. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 17 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Kailua Kona seaside view. State Department of Environmental Protection, Maine The Department of Environmental Protection enacted Chapter 315, Assessing and Mitigating Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses, Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA). The NRPA requires that applicants proposing activities occurring in, on, over, or adjacent to protected natural resources demonstrate that these activities will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic and aesthetic resources (See: Appendix C, State Department of Environmental Protection, . The purpose of the Chapter states: This rule specifies State regulatory concerns, defines visual impacts, establishes a procedure for evaluating visual impacts Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 18 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project generated from proposed activities, establishes when a visual assessment may be necessary, explains the components of a visual assessment when required, and describes avoidance, mitigation, and offset measures that may eliminate or reduce unreasonable adverse impacts to existing scenic and aesthetic uses. Implementation Chapter 35 applies wetland, fragile mountain area, river, stream, or brook, as defined in the M.S.R.A § 480- B of the Natural Resources Protection Act, that requires an individual permit or is The Chapter requires that the Department determine the following when an activity is proposed: Presence of a scenic resource listed in Section 10 of the NRPA; Significance of the scenic resource; Character of the surrounding environment; Expectations of the current viewer; Extent and intransience of the activity; Project purpose; and Context of the proposed activity. The Department is instructed that appreciation of a scenic resource, or those that otherwise unreasonably impair the character or assessment is based on the following: Landscape compatibility. and texture of the environment by whether it differs significantly from its existing surroundings; Scale contrast. viewshed of a scenic resource; and Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 19 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Spatial dominance. The degree to which an activity dominates the landscape composition or dominates landform, water, or sky backdrop as viewed from a scenic resource. The rule an application may be denied if the activity will have an unreasonable impact on the visual quality of a protected natural resources as viewed from a scenic resource even if the activity has no practical alternative and the applicant has minimized the proposed alteration and its impacts through mitigation. 0±®¦± ¬ %«¤¬¤­³² Major program elements include: Application Submission/Content Requirements. The Applicant must describe the location of the activity and provide an inventory of scenic resources within the viewshed. This is accomplished by having the Applicant complete the MDEP Visual Evaluation Field Survey Checklist. Visual Impact Assessments. If deemed necessary by the Department, the Applicant may be required to have a qualified design professional prepare a visual impact assessment to document the impact of the project. The assessment must illustrate the proposed changes to the environment and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The assessment must include a narrative of the project, discussion of the significance of the impacts, level of use and viewer expectations, and mitigation measures incorporated into the design. The rule notes that line-of-sight profiles are one acceptable means for documenting impacts. It is also noted that photo simulations and computer generated graphics may be required for more sensitive landscapes. Mitigation. In reviewing an Application, the Department is to consider if the project is compatible with its surroundings, and if mitigation has been strategies promulgated in the rules include: Planning and siting. Locate structures in a way on the site to limit adverse impacts within the viewshed. Design. Applicants should utilize screening, buffers, earthen berms, camouflage, low profile, downsizing, non-standard Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 20 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project materials, lighting, and alternative technologies to minimize impacts. Offsets. If scenic resource impacts are unavoidable, applicants that would enhance the scenic resource in other ways. An offset may be developing a scenic overlook to provide greater access to the scenic resource. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Evaluating Impacts. The and Water enacted standards to assist staff in evaluating scenic and aesthetic use impacts. The guidelines require that staff be trained in the use of a visual impact assessment (VIA) form (Appendix C) and Visual Impact Assessment Matrix (VIM) (Appendix C). the landscape using descriptive indicators and a ratings scoring. The VIM form determines the significance of the visual impact and appropriate mitigation in response to the severity of the impact. !¯¯«¨¢ ¡¨«¨³¸ ³® ( ¶ ¨¨ #®´­³¸ has adopted rules to implement State policy to protect the scenic quality found in its rivers, streams, mountains and other environmental resources. The rules establish an application process, submission requirements, appropriate mitigation strategies and guidelines and standards for may serve as a helpful model for Hawaii County as it develops a p scenic resource protection objectives. Hawaii County is blessed with rural landscapes of a diversity of colors and textures. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 21 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Visual Impact Assessment Techniques As documented in this report, visual impact assessment should be preceded by documenting the scenic resources to be protected. Thereafter, criteria and/or guidelines should be developed to help the assessor evaluate how, and to what extent, a scenic resource is being degraded by a proposed action. Once a standardized process is in place, visual impact assessment methods should be deployed to document project induced impacts. The visual impact assessment techniques most commonly used to document scenic resource impacts include: 1. Line-of-sight analysis. A graphic line between two points on a surface that shows where along the line the view is being obstructed. This analysis can be performed using ARC GIS. 2. Story poles. The temporary placement of a mock structure or poles at the height and massing of a structure to simulate the impact of the structure on scenic resources. 3. Computer simulation. The use of computers to simulate pre- and post-project conditions by creating a computerized model of the height, scale and architectural character of a structure together with the existing natural and built environment surrounding it. 4. Photomontage. Creating a composite photograph by incorporating elements from two or more photographs into a new image. Image editing software is often used and the process is These techniques are elaborated upon through their application in the following visual impact assessment case studies: Canyon Oaks Story Poles The City of Calabasas, California, requires projects to conduct a story pole analysis if they are located within its Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, or if they are requesting height variances. The purpose of installing story poles is to assess the visual impact of the project (See: Appendix D, Canyon Oaks Story Poles). Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 22 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Mauka views from Alii Drive in Kailua Kona document how building height and separation can be used to preserve view corridors towards Hualalai. The case study described in Appendix D documents an application that was made to Planning Commission to install story poles, in accordance with a proposed story pole plan. The Applicant was seeking an approval from the Planning Commission to proceed with the story pole plan. The story pole analysis was intended to document the scenic resource impacts of a development comprising 67 single-family residences, two duplexes and a four-story hotel. Approximately 80% of the 77-acre site was to remain in open space. The Application to the Planning Commission comprised the following: Development summary; Project site plan superimposed onto an aerial photograph; Documentation of views from the abutting roadways; Architectural Sections of the project; Story pole plans; and Story pole plan with computer simulation of post development condition. (See: Appendix D, pages 14 through 19). Waikapu Country Town, Computer Generated Photomontage A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was filed with the State Land Use Commission to assess the impacts associated with the development of a 1,433 unit mixed-use development in Waikapu, Maui. The Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 23 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Chapter 343, trigger for the DEIS was an amendment to the General Plan. The project also requires a change in the State Land Use District from Agricultural to Urban and Rural. directed growth boundary and is consiste. The Maui Island Plan (MIP) identifies the Honoapiilani highway fronting the project as a high resource value. The MIP has policies that stipulate the protection of scenic resources including views of the West Maui Mountains, Haleakala, agricultural lands and the Pacific Ocean. In reviewing the Environmental Impact Statem requested that the impacts to views along the Honoapiilani Highway be assessed in the DEIS. computer generated photomontages to document the visual impacts of the development on the landscape (See: Appendix E, Waikapu Country Town Visual Impact Assessment). As described in the DEIS, the Applicant incorporated several mitigation measures into the design visual impacts, including: Increasing the depth of the setbacks along the highway; Limiting the scale and height of buildings along the highway; Increasing the separation between buildings; Aligning internal roadways in a manner to create scenic corridors, where possible; and Incorporating canopy shade trees and other landscape planting treatments Low roof profiles preserve expansive views of . Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 24 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project within the right-of-way to create a sense of place. The computer generated photomontages will help to inform the public of the impacts that the project will have upon scenic resources. They will also help decision makers determine if the impacts are acceptable or unacceptable, and if additional mitigation measures are warranted. The Sill, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was prepared to assess the visual impacts of constructing a Landscape Discovery Center, 86-bed hostel, parking, and infrastructure within the 400 square mile Northumberland National Park, England. The study was conducted in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessmentd the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. The LIVA is noteworthy for its discussion of methodology and overview of the significance criteria (Chapter 3), description of baseline resource conditions (Chapter 4), and summarization of impacts (Chapter 5). Photomontage was used to (See: Appendix F). The tables on pages 31 through 34 visual impacts. Similar tables could be used alongside photomontage and/or computer Increasing shoreline setbacks and minimum lot sizes could help to better protect shoreline views along the South Kona coast. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 25 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Village Specific Plan, Visual Impact Assessment The City of Del Mar, California, Planning and Community Development Department, commissioned a study that was completed in July 2012 to assess the visual impacts of Del Mar Village Specific Plan. The Visual Impact Assessment thoroughly documents the existing visual resources within the study area and assesses the visual response of the different viewer groups. The study then conducts an assessment of the mitigation (See: Appendix G, Village Specific Plan, Visual Impact Assessment). The Del Mar study utilizes several of the visual impact assessment techniques identified in this report, including: GIS based line-of-site/viewshed analysis, photomontage and computer simulation. GIS based line-of-site/viewshed analysis using a digital elevation model (DEM) was effectively deployed to assess the documenting the following: The scope of existing and future ocean viewsheds from residences located to the east (mauka) of the planning area. The visibility of existing and future buildings from residences located east (mauka) of the planning area based on existing and planned conditions. The degree of visual impact upon residences located east (mauka) of the planning area. The presence and types of view corridors through the planning area from residences located to the east (mauka) (See: Appendix G, pages 23 to 33). Computer simulations documenting pre- and post-project conditions were are also used extensively in the Del Mar Study. The study documents existing views from locations where the Plan is proposing changes to building massing and height. Using computer software, such as SketchUp, scale models depicting future building conditions were inserted into existing condition photographs. Utility clutter is a sig Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 26 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Using computer simulation, the scenic resources analyst is able to assess the following: Existing visual quality / character; Proposed project features; Change to visual quality / character; Viewer response; Resultant visual impact. Se 53 57 Appendix G. Building setback, scale and topography minimize scenic resource impacts above while exacerbating impacts below. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 27 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project Dust fencing offers suggestions of potential impacts to open space and Hualalai views just east of Waimea along Highway 19, Kawaihae Road. Recommendations The purpose of this study was to research view plane protection programs and strategies that different local, state, and federal government units have adopted. These programs and strategies may serve as models that Hawaii County could use to help respond to the planning and regulatory documents. The County has a solid foundation of existing State and County policy directives to establish view plane regulations to preserve and protect its scenic resources. As documented in this report, there is also sufficient enabling policy to develop a scenic Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 28 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project resource protection program. Any program developed should include the following key elements that are already supported by County policy: Identification of scenic view planes, areas of natural beauty, and other visual resources by mapping them (HRS 205A-2(c)(3)(A)); Establishment of application requirements for all land use and construction reviews to assess potential impacts on view planes and other natural and scenic beauty resources, likely including line-of-sight analysis (GP 7.3 (e), (h), & (i)); and Development of permit conditions, such as design guidelines, landscaping, screening, or structural setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways, to mitigate any visual impacts from development (GP 7.3(f)). recommendations: 1. Identification of scenic view planes, areas of natural beauty, and other visual resources. 1.A Conduct additional community outreach to support recommendations 1.B and 1.C. 1.B Rate the viewsheds and roadway corridors documented in the Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project (June, 2016); and 1.C Develop scenic resource and viewshed corridor maps. 2. Develop administrative rules to implement Hawaii County Code §25-6-60. These rules will provide a consistent framework and process for the implementation of HCC §25-6-60. The rules should include: 1. Purpose and intent language; 2. Criteria used to determine significant impacts when reviewing development projects; 3. An application review and approval process for the review of development projects; and 4. Application content requirements. Models documented in this report include: Napa, California; Stowe Vermont; and State Department of Environmental Protection, Maine. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 29 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project In addition, The Sill, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Report (Appendix F), provides criteria that may be applicable for assessing visual impacts. The visual impact assessment techniques documented in this report, including: computer simulations, photomontages and constructing story poles, should be required of Applicants when it is expected that their project will produce adverse scenic resource impacts. 3. Develop Scenic Corridor Management Plan(s) for specific corridors identified through steps 1.B and 1.C. Prepare and process the Management Plan(s) in accordance with Hawaii County Code §25-6-60. 3.A Scenic Corridor Management Plan(s) should include permit conditions, such as design guidelines, landscaping, screening, or structural setbacks from major thoroughfares and highways, to mitigate any visual impacts from development. 3.B Prepare Urban Design and Scenic Resource Protection Guidelines. best practice mitigation for minimizing scenic resource impacts. Design guidelines should address the following: Building density, scale, setbacks, height, separation, placement/orientation, colors, and materials; Landscape planting; and Topography The guidelines should demonstrate the application of mitigation to projects of the type to be expected within the unique landscape character districts found within the County. 4. Staff and Planning Commission Training. Institutionalize a scenic resources management and protection training program. As described in this report, all development within to a determination of consistency policies. Unfortunately, there is very little guidance provided to help distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable impacts, when a visual impact Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 30 Hawaii County Scenic Resources Inventory and Mapping Project assessment should be conducted, and the types of mitigation that are most appropriate to specific conditions. Any program adopted in Hawaii County should include a training element to help ensure that impacts are addressed consistently and in a manner consistent with c resource protection policies. s scenic resources enhance the quality of life for its residents while attracting visitors from around the world. Scenic Resource Protection Programs and Strategies Page | 31 APPENDIX A NAPA COUNTY VIEWSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM APPENDIX B STOWE, VERMONT RIDGELINES/HILLSIDES OVERLAY DISTRICT APPENDIX C STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATING IMPACTS TO EXISTING SCENIC AND AESTHETIC USES Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 COVERSHEET STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Operation Title:Guidance for Assessing Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses under the Natural Resources Protection Act Identification No.:DEPLW0541-A2003 Revision No.:00 Originator Name:Judy Gates Reviser:N/A Effective Date:July 20, 2003 APPROVALS: Bureau of Land and Water Quality Director: Brooke Barnes____________________________________Date:___________ Print NameSignature QMSC Chair: Malcolm C. Burson_________________________________Date:___________ Print NameSignature DISTRIBUTION: ( )Bureau of Air Quality......................................................By:_____Date:_______ ( )Bureau of Land and Water Quality.................................By:_____Date:_______ ( )Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management..........By:_____Date:_______ ( )Office of the Commissioner............................................By:_____Date:_______ ( ) Quality Management Steering Committee.....................By: ____ Date:________ ( ) Bureau QACs and Lead auditors……………………… By: ______ Date: ________ Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 Bureau of Land and Water Quality Division of Land Resource Regulation Licensing Unit Standard Operating Procedure Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Existing Scenic and Aesthetic Uses under the Natural Resources Protection Act 1. APPLICABILITY. This standard operating procedure (SOP) applies to all licensing staff in the Bureau of Land and Water Quality’s Division of Land Resource Regulation (Division) after December 1, 2002. It applies to the processing of applications filed with the Department under the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA). 2. PURPOSE. This SOP is intended to establish consistent procedures for staff assessments of potential impacts to existing scenic and aesthetic uses during the processing of NRPA applications by the Division of Land Resource Regulation. 3. RESPONSIBILITIES. 3.1 COMPLIANCE. All licensing staff in the Division of Land Resource Regulation are responsible for becoming familiar, and complying with, the contents of this procedure prior to processing an application. The attached appendices are to serve as reference materials throughout the processing of applications. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that licensing staff is familiar with and adhere to the procedures outlined in this SOP. Enforcement & Field Services staff Drafting Department Orders will also adhere to these procedures. 3.2 OTHER. The Licensing Coordinator is responsible for initial development, approval, distribution, and maintenance of the proposed SOP. Policy and Procedures staff in the Bureau of Land & Water Quality will track this SOP. The name of responsible individuals, document title, dates of last revision, and document numbers will be recorded. 4. GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES. 4.1ORIGINATION AND CONTENTS. Division Licensing staff will be trained in the use of the Basic Visual Assessment (VIA) form (Appendix A) and Visual Impact Assessment Matrix (Matrix) (Appendix B) associated with this SOP. The appendices will be used by Division Licensing staff when potential impacts on existing scenic and aesthetic uses are identified during the processing of an NRPA application. The VIA and matrix will be used as guidance for determining whether a proposed activity will have an unreasonable adverse impact on an aesthetically significant place, as defined in Chapter 315, Section 9. The completed VIA and matrix will be included in Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 the project file. Associated definitions included in this SOP apply to the VIA and matrix. 4.2SOP DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL PROCESS. Approval of this SOP follows the preliminary draft cycle and final approval cycle for Bureau-specific SOPs described in SOP No. OC-PE-0001, Standard Operating Procedure Development, Format, Approval, and Distribution, dated June 15, 2001. The Director of the Bureau of Land and Water Quality and the Maine DEP’s QAM approve the final SOP. 5. REFERENCES. 5.1MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (JUNE 2001). 5.2MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE ON STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (OC- PE-0001). 5.3MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND AND WATER QUALITY, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE SUPPLEMENT TO OC-PE-0001 (DEPLW2001-22). 5.4LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS: A HANDBOOK FOR SCENERY MANAGEMENT. REVISED OCTOBER 2000. U.S. FOREST SERVICE. 5.5SMARDON, R.C. AND HUNTER, M. 1983. THE FUTURE OF WETLANDS: ASSESSING VISUAL – CULTURAL VALUES. TOTOWA, NJ. Page 2 of 5 Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 APPENDIX A:Basic Visual Impact Assessment Form VISUAL ELEMENTSVISUAL SUBINDICATORS/CLUESELEMENTELEMENT ELEMENTSRATINGSSCORES Severe3 LANDSCAPESignificantly different color, Moderate2 COMPATIBILITYCOLORhue, value chroma Minimal1 None0 Severe3 Incompatible 2/3 dimensional Moderate2 FORMshape with landscape Minimal1 surroundings None0 Severe3 Incompatible edges, bands, or Moderate2 LINEsilhouette lines introduced Minimal1 None0 Severe3 Incompatible textural grain, Moderate2 TEXTUREdensity, regularity or pattern Minimal1 None0 SUBTOTAL SCALE CONTRASTMajor scaleSevere12 introduction/intrusion One of several major scales orModerate8 major objects in confined setting Significant object or scaleMinimal4 Small object or scaleNone0 SCORE SPATIALLANDSCAPEObject/activity dominates or isDominate12 DOMINANCEprominent in whole landscape composition; oris promently Co-Dominate8 situated within the landscape; or dominates landform, water, or SITUATION sky backdrop Sub-ordinate4 Insignificant0 BACKDROP SCORE TOTAL VISUAL IMPACT SEVERITY Severe27-36 Strong26-18 DEPLW0541-A2002Moderate17-9 Used with permission of R.C. SmardonWeak or Negligible8-0 Page 3 of 5 Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 Definitions associated with Appendix A. A.Backdrop.The distant part of a landscape located from 4 miles to infinity from the viewer. B.Color.The property of reflecting light of a particular wavelength that enables the eye to differentiate otherwise indistinguishable objects. A hue (red, green, blue, yellow, etc.) as contrasted with a value (black, white, or gray). C.Contrast. Diversity or distinction of adjacent parts. Effect of striking differences in color, form, line, or texture of a landscape. D.Dominance.The extent to which an object is noticeable when compared to the surrounding context. E.Form.The structure, mass or shape of a landscape or an object. Landscape form is often defined by the edges or outlines of landforms, rockforms, vegetation patterns, or waterforms, or the enclosed spaces created by these attributes. F.Landform.One of the attributes or features that make up the Earth’s surface, such as a plain, mountain, or valley. G.Landscape.An area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated because of geology, landform, soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout that area. H.Landscape Character or Landscape Composition.Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image and make it identifiable or unique. I.Landscape Compatibility. The elements of color, form, line, and texture that typically determine landscape character. J.Line.Anything that is arranged in a row or sequence. In landscapes – ridges, skylines, structures, changes in vegetation, or individual trees and branches – may be perceived as line. K.Scale Contrast. The degree to which an activity or object dominates or intrudes into a landscape or confined setting. L.Situation. The position of the activity or object within the landscape. M.Spatial Dominance. The degree to which an activity or object dominates the landscape; is prominently situated within the landscape; or dominates landform, waterform, or sky backdrop. N.Texture.The grain of a landscape or repetitive pattern of tiny forms. Visual texture can range from smooth to coarse. O.Visual Elements. The landscape’s components that make up the overall visual character of a landscape. P.Waterform. One of the attributes or features that make up the Earth’s surface, such as a pond, lake, stream, river, waterfall, estuary, or ocean. Page 4 of 5 Standard Operating Procedure Bureau of Land and Water Quality Date: July 20, 2003 Doc num: DEPLW0541-A2003 APPENDIX B:Visual Impact Assessment Matrix LEGEND Impact severity UNACCEPTABLE.High level of visual contrast in line, Rating form, color, or texture between existing high quality SevereStrongModerateWeak/None landscape and development proposal; view of water or other Scenic significant visual resource obstructed. May be grounds for 36-2726-1817-98-0 significance project denial. ACCEPTABLE WITH MAJOR MITIGATION.High degree of contrast on landscape of medium significance; moderate degree of contrast on highly significant landscape. High Project re-design necessary. ACCEPTABLE WITH MITIGATION.Some modification to project siting or design necessary to achieve better landscape ‘fit.’ Medium ACCEPTABLE WITH MINOR MITIGATION. Relatively minor adjustments to plan or siting necessary to achieve a higher level of project compatibility. Low SCENIC SIGNIFICANCE OF VIEW LOW/NO IMPACT.No perceptible change to the visual landscape. No mitigation required. Unrated Chart is recommended method for reviewing visual impactsAppendix B and determining level of effort required for mitigation and/orBasic Visual Assessment Form reconsideration of project siting and design. Application ofDEPLW0451-A2002 the recommended actions should consider length of view and(Used with permission of Terrence DeWan & viewer expectation.Associates) Page 0 of 5 Chapter 315: ASSESSING AND MITIGATING IMPACTS TO EXISTING SCENIC AND AESTHETIC USES 1. Introduction. 2.Purpose. 3. Applicability. 4. Scope of Review. 5. Definitions. A. Adverse visual impact. B. Composition. C. Contrast. D. Existing uses. E. Landscape. F. Mitigation. G. Practicable. H. Scenic Resource. I. Viewshed. J. Visual Quality. 6. Application submissions. 7. Visual impact assessments. 8. Mitigation. A. Planning and siting. B. Design. C. Offsets. 9. Determination. A. Landscape compatibility B. Scale contrast C. Spatial dominance 10. Scenic resources. A. B. C. D. E. F. APPENDIX D CANYON OAKS STORY POLES Canyon Oaks Story Poles Discussion A request to install story poles, per the attached story pole plan, for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road at the eastern terminus of Agoura Road (APNs: 2069078009 and 2069078011). The proposed project includes: (1) a residential component consisting of 67 single- family detached homes and four affordable units located within two duplexes; and (2) a commercial component consisting of a four-story hotel. Approximately 80% of the site would be preserved as permanent open space. Location Map Project 500’ Site Scenic Corridor Buffer APN: 2069078009APN: 2069078011 N File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Proposed Development Summary •The project site is currently zoned PD – RMF (20) – OSDR. •Commercial component: 120-room, 66,516 square-foot hotel on approximately three acres; •Residential component: 67 small lot, single-family residences and two duplexes (four units) on approximately 13 acres; •Approximately 61 acres of dedicated open space. •The project site is located within the Las Virgenes Road Scenic Corridor. The hotel and 19 of the 71 total residential units fall within the 500-foot Las Virgenes Road scenic corridor buffer. File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Review Authority •Per the City of Calabasas Story Pole Procedures: Story poles are required for all new projects located within a Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. Story poles are required for all projects seeking an exception in building height by way of variance or development plan, and the subject project does include a development plan request to exceed a height of 35-feet). Hotel component •The Planning Commission is being requested to review the proposed story pole plan due to the impracticability of erecting the poles for the all of the houses in the scenic corridor in complete compliance with the guidelines. •Story Pole Goals: (1) public notification; (2) assessment of visual impact. File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 The Colony File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Views from Las Virgenes File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Views from Las Virgenes File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Views from Las Virgenes File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Views from Las Virgenes Section D File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Views from Las Virgenes File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Views from Las Virgenes File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Views from Las Virgenes File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Story Pole Plan File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Hotel + Story Poles File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Story Pole Plan - Hotel Tallest point of proposed building = 54.9’ Tallest Pole: Pole Height = 36.5’ Proposed Tower Height = 53’ File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Proposed Residential Development + Story Poles File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Proposed Res. Story Poles File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Story Pole Plan - Residential Pole with Highest Elevation: Pole Height = 43’ Proposed Building Height (at roof eave) = 26.5’ File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 Recommended Action That the Commission authorize the applicant to proceed with the proposed story pole plan. File No. 140000011 Planning Commission A request to install story poles for the proposed development of a 77-acre vacant site located at 4790 Las Virgenes Road. January 21, 2016 APPENDIX E WAIKAPU COUNTRY TOWN VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Qspqfsuz Mpdbujpo Gjhvsf!45;!NJQ!Dpoufyu!'!Dibsbdufs!Nbq 2/!/!Mppljoh!jo!b!tpvui.fbtufsmz!ejsfdujpo!upxbset!tvhbs!mboe!xjui!Ibmfblbmb!jo!uif!cbdlhspvoe/ 2/!/!Mppljoh!jo!b!tpvui.fbtufsmz!ejsfdujpo!pwfs!uif!nblbj!efwfmpqnfou!xjui!Ibmfblbmb!jo!uif!cbdl. hspvoe!boe!tfqbsbufe!qfeftusjbo!boe!cjdzdmf!qbui!jo!uif!gpsfhspvoe/ 2 Figure 35, A Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views 3/!/!Mppljoh!jo!b!tpvui.fbtufsmz!ejsfdujpo!upxbset!tvhbs!mboe!xjui!Ibmfblbmb!jo!uif!cbdlhspvoe/ 3/!/!Mppljoh!jo!b!tpvui.fbtufsmz!ejsfdujpo!pwfs!uif!nblbj!efwfmpqnfou!xjui!dbopqz!usfft!jo!uif! cbdlhspvoe!boe!tfqbsbufe!qfeftusjbo!boe!cjdzdmf!qbui!jo!uif!gpsfhspvoe/ 3 Figure 35, B Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views 4/!/!Mppljoh!jo!b!opsui.xftufsmz!ejsfdujpo!xjui!uif!Xftu.Nbvj!Npvoubjot!jo!uif!cbdlhspvoe!boe! 4/!/!Mppljoh!jo!b!opsui.xftufsmz!ejsfdujpo!uispvhi!uif!qspkfdu!xjui!uif!Xftu.Nbvj!Npvoubjot!jo! uif!NUQ!hspvoet!jo!uif!gpsfhspvoe/ uif!cbdlhspvoe/ 4 Figure 35, C Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views 5/!/!Mppljoh!jo!b!tpvui.xftufsmz!ejsfdujpo!uispvhi!uif!NUQ!xjui!uif!Xftu!Nbvj!Npvoubjot!jo!uif! 5/!/!Mppljoh!jo!b!tpvui.xftufsmz!ejsfdujpo!uispvhi!uif!qspkfdu!xjui!uif!Xftu!Nbvj!Npvoubjot!jo!uif cbdlhspvoe/ cbdlhspvoe!boe!uif!tfqbsbufe!qfeftusjbo!boe!cjdzdmf!qbui!jo!uif!gpsfhspvoe/ 5 Figure 35, D Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views 6/! 6/!/!Mppljoh!jo!b!xftufsmz!ejsfdujpo!uispvhi!uif!qspkfdu!xjui!uif!Xftu!Nbvj!Npvoubjot!jo!uif Nbvj!Npvoubjot!jo!uif!cbdlhspvoe/ cbdlhspvoe!boe!uif!tfqbsbufe!qfeftusjbo!boe!cjdzdmf!qbui!jo!uif!gpsfhspvoe/ Figure 35, E 6 Visual Simulation of Pre- and Post Project Views APPENDIX F THE SILL, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. CONTENTS PAGE CONTENTS PAGE 4.3LandscapeCharacter14 1.0Introduction2 4.4TheLandscapeatNight16 1.1ScopeofAssessment2 4.5LandscapeValue17 2.0PolicyContext3 4.6VisualBaseline18 2.1Introduction3 5.0PotentialEffects21 2.2NorthumberlandNationalParkManagement Plan2009–20143 5.1Introduction21 2.3NorthumberlandNationalParkLocalDevelopmentFramework4 5.2Descriptionof the ProposedDevelopment21 2.4Hadrian’sWallManagement Plan2008–20145 5.3EffectsDuringConstruction24 2.5LandscapeCharacter Assessment forNorthumberlandNationalPark20076 5.4EffectsAfterCompletion24 2.6ExteriorLightingMasterplan6 ScheduleofSelected Viewpointsfor Assessmentof Visual Effects31 3.0AssessmentMethodology& SignificantCriteria7 6.0MitigationMeasures37 3.1Introduction7 6.1Introduction37 3.2LandscapeandVisualEffects7 6.2Design Evolution37 3.3LandscapeSensitivity8 6.3AlternativeCarPark Options38 3.4VisualSensitivity8 6.4DuringConstruction38 3.5MagnitudeofChange9 6.5AfterCompletion39 3.6Impact SignificanceThresholds9 7.0ResidualEffect40 3.7Survey Area10 7.1AfterCompletion40 3.8Consultation10 8.0SummaryandConclusions41 4.0BaselineConditions11 8.1Summary41 4.1TheLandscapeof the Study Area11 8.2Conclusions44 4.2TheDevelopment Site12 FIGURES 1–20(seeseparatescheduleafterpage44) Page|1 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 1.1.6ThearchaeologicalandculturalheritagewithinthispartoftheNorthumberlandNationalParkisof 1.1.1ThisLandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment(LVIA)considerstheanticipatedlandscapeandvisual internationalimportanceandfundamentaltotheuniquecharacterofthelandscapewithinthestudyarea. effectsarisingfromconstructionofaproposednewLandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostelby Whilethisreportmakesanassessmentoftheanticipatedeffectsonthephysicallandscapeandits NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityinpartnershipwiththeYouthHostelAssociation.Thenew perceivedcharacter,anassessmentoftheeffectsonthesettingofdesignatedheritageassetssuchas facilitiesaretoreplacethosecurrentlypresentonthesiteatOnceBrewed.Theassessmenthasbeen theHadrian’sWallWorldHeritageSiteandassociatedScheduledAncientMonumentsisspecifically undertakenbyamemberofstaffatGlenKempLtd.whoisaCharteredMemberoftheLandscape excluded.Suchanassessmentistheremitofthespecialistarchaeologistorlandscapehistorianusinga Institute. methodologyestablishedbyEnglishHeritage(‘SeeingtheHistoryintheview:Amethodforassessing heritagesignificancewithinviews’,2008).Suchanassessmentiscoveredintherelevantsectionofthe 1.1.2Havingfirstestablishedtheplanningpolicycontextforthesiteinquestion,thereportsetsoutthe Environmental Statementprepared forthisdevelopmentproject. methodologyuponwhichtheassessmenthasbeenbased.Itisimportantthatthemethodologyemployed istransparentifthefindingsaretobeinterpretedcorrectlybythereader.Inbroadterms,boththe sensitivityofthelandscape/visualreceptorandtheanticipatedmagnitudeofchangeresultingfromthe developmentareanalysedandbycombining these two factors,alevelofsignificanceofeffect(whichmay 1.1.7Thepotentiallandscapeandvisualeffectsareidentifiedforthedemolition,constructionandmanagement bepositiveoradverse)ispredicted. stagesoftheprojectand,whererelevant,anassessmentismadeofhowmitigationmeasureshavebeen usedtominimisethesignificanceofanyadverseeffectsonthelandscapeorvisualamenity.Finally, . residualeffects–those thatwouldremainaftermitigationmeasureshavebeenemployed–areidentified. 1.1.3 Adescriptionofthebaselinephysicalandperceptuallandscapeofboththeproposeddevelopmentsite andthebroaderstudyarea,includesareviewofitsrecognisedvalue.Thelikelyimpactson thelandscape resultingfromthedevelopmentarethenidentifiedandtheresultingeffectsnoted.Thisincludesdirect effectsonphysicalelementswithinthelandscapeandindirecteffectsonlandscapecharacterand distinctiveness. 1.1.4Inassessingvisualeffects,thisreportidentifiesandexaminesthenatureofthepublicandprivateviews fromthesurroundingareawhichcouldbeaffectedbytheproposeddevelopmentandpredictsthe magnitudeofthe‘degreeofchange’inviewand–takingaccountofthesensitivityofthevisualreceptor– evaluatesthesignificanceof theanticipatedvisualimpactresulting from theproposeddevelopment. 1.1.5Photomontagesandvisualimpactschedulesbasedonselectedviewpointsfromwithinthestudyareaare usedtoassist theassessmentofvisualeffects. Page|2 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 2.2.3The fourguidingprinciplesidentifiedasunderpinning thedeliveryprocessare: i)–“TheNationalParkwillaimtoserveasamodelofsustainable 2.1.1Thissectionprovidesabriefreviewofexistingpolicyandmanagementstrategyframeworkswhichare developmentwithintheNorth EastRegion”. directlyrelevanttolandscapeissuesrelatingtotheproposeddevelopment.Itconcentratesprimarilyon ii)–“NorthumberlandNationalParkisforeveryoneandshouldbeaccessible theNorthumberlandNationalParkManagementPlanandtheNorthumberlandNationalParkLocal to thewholecommunityregardlessofeconomicsocialorphysicalconstraints”. DevelopmentFramework(LDF)andtherelevantdocumentscontainedwithinit,butalsomakesreference totheExternalLightingManagementPlanpreparedaspartofthesuccessfulbidtotheInternationalDark iv). Sky AssociationforDark Sky Parkstatus. 2.2.4The‘specialqualitiesof theNationalParkareidentifiedasbeing: i)Adistinctivelandscapecharacter–astunningandvariedlandscape,akeycharacteristicofwhich isits“openness,withlandscapesandhorizonsfreefromsignificanthumanintrusionswhich contributesignificantlytothehighlevelsof tranquillity”; 2.2.1TheNorthumberlandNationalParkAuthority(NNPA)wasestablishedin1997asaspecialpurposelocal ii)Alandscaperichinbiodiversityandgeology; authoritywiththeroleofdeliveringthespecificNationalParkstatutorypurposesassetoutinlaw.Thetwo iii)Arichculturalheritage,reflectedin themanylayersofhistoriclandscapein thePark ; statutorypurposesare:i)toconserveandenhancethenaturalbeauty,wildlifeandculturalheritage;andii) iv)Atruesenseoftranquillity–freedomfromnoiseandvisualdisturbanceisakeycomponentof topromoteopportunitiesfortheunderstandingandenjoymentofthespecialqualitiesbythepublic-the experiencingtheNationalPark.Itisanareawithanemotionalandspiritualquality.Onethirdof firstpurposetakingprecedenceoverthesecondininstanceswherethetwopurposesmightconflictwith respondentstoavisitorsurveyin2007statedthattranquillitywasthethingtheylikedmostabout eachother. thePark. 2.2.2TheNNPManagementPlanistheover-archingstrategicdocumentsettingouttheguidingprinciples, 2.2.5Inaddition,asurveybytheCampaignfortheProtectionofRuralEngland(CPRE)in2006identified vision,objectivesandactionsformanagingtheNationalParkandoutlinestheframeworkwhichwillguide Northumberlandas themosttranquillocalauthorityon England,andthisisoneofthecharacteristicsmost Park’sfutureandensuredeliveryofthetwostatutorypurposes.Italsoidentifiesanadditionalstatutory valuedbyvisitorsto theNorthumberlandNational Park. duty,thatoffosteringtheeconomicandsocialwell-beingoflocalcommunitieswithintheNationalPark,in recognitionofthefactthatthelivingandworkinglandscapeandtheParkistheresultoftheinteractionof 2.2.6Together,thesequalitieshavehelpedshapethevisionfortheNationalParkwhichissummarisedinthe humanactivityandnaturalforces.Consequently,localcommunitiesneedtobeempoweredtotakeonan visionstatement: activeroleascustodiansofthelandscapeandtheconceptof‘ActionArea’workinghasbeenadoptedby “ NNPAasaframeworktoenhancethevariationinlocallydistinctivecharacterthroughoutthePark.Four ActionAreashavebeenidentified,theproposeddevelopmentsitefallingwiththeHadrian’sWalland SouthTyne Action Area. ”. Page|3 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 2.2.7Inturn,thevisionoftheParkisembeddedinfiveStrategicAims,setoutbelow,withoutcomesrelevantto thisassessmentnotedas follows: 2.3.1TheLDFconsistsofasetofdocumentswhichtogetherguidenewdevelopmentintheNationalParkand 1)AwelcomingPark–i)peoplewhocometotheNationalParkwillfeeltheyhavehadanexceptional assistindeliveringthestrategysetoutintheNationalParkManagementPlan.Thethreedocuments experienceinrelatingtothelandscapeandinfindingpeace,tranquillityandadventure;ii)theNational within theLDFwhichareofparticularrelevance tothisLVIAare: Parkwillbeaccessibletoawiderandmorediverseaudience;iii)amorediverserangeoflearning opportunitieswillbeavailable. 2)Adistinctiveplace–i)thatwillmaintainasenseofinspirationandtranquillity;ii)thenaturalqualities 2.3.2The followingpolicyextractsareofparticularnote: anddiversehabitatswillbesafeguardedandenhanced. Policy1–DeliveringSustainableDevelopment:sustainabledevelopmentshouldconserve/enhancethe 3) A living,workinglandscapefornowand the future specialqualitiesoftheNationalPark,makingefficientuseofland,materialsandinfrastructure.Itshould 4)Thrivingcommunities provideopportunitiestounderstandandenjoythespecialqualitiesoftheParkanddemonstratehigh 5) A valuedasset. qualitydesign,promotingaccessibilityviapublic transport,cyclingorwalking. 2.2.8OfparticularrelevancetothisassessmentistheStrategicAimofdeliveringa‘distinctiveplace’.Thishas Policy3–GeneralDevelopmentPrinciples:newdevelopmentmustpromoteprinciplesofsustainable generatedanumberofobjectivesdirectlyrelevanttolandscapewiththemostnotablemeansofachieving development,protectingandenhancinglocalcharacteranddistinctivenessthroughcarefulintegrationwith themoutlinedbelow: theexistingbuiltform.Itshouldbesympatheticintermsofscale,height,massing,siting,form,materials, colourandtotheprotectionofopenspacewhichcontributestotheamenity,characterandsettingofa settlement.Thewellbeingoflocalcommunitiesshouldbesupportedbyensuringamenityisnotadversely Toprotectandenhancetranquillitylevelsasthe affectedintermsofvisualimpact,pollution,noiseandwasteandthatservicesandinfrastructurecanbe highestinEngland providedwithoutcompromising thequalityof thelandscape. Toensureallnewdevelopmentwillconserveor enhancethenaturalandculturalqualitiesofthe Policy19–Tranquillity:DevelopmentproposalswhichconserveorenhancethetranquillityoftheNational NationalPark. Parkwillbesupported.Inordertodeterminetheextenttowhichtranquillityisaffectedtherewillbean Ensurevisitorandrecreationalusecomplements assessmentoftheimpactonthelevelofnoise,trafficandlightgenerated;onthesenseofopennessof thecharacterandcapacityofthelocationsin theNational Parkandonthequiteenjoymentof thelandscape. whichit takesplace. Policy20–LandscapeQualityandCharacter:Allproposalswillbeassessedintermsoftheirimpacton landscapecharacterandsensitivityasdefinedintheLandscapeSupplementaryPlanningDocument. Developmentwhichwouldadverselyaffectthequalityandcharacterofthelandscapewillnotbe permitted. Page|4 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. Newdevelopmentinshould: 2.3.3Theabovedocumentaimstoassistanassessmentofthepotentialimpactofdevelopmentonthe- takeaccountofwiderviewsintoandoutofthedevelopmentsite; landscapeoftheNationalParkandistobeconsideredalongsideabroaderLandscapeStrategywhichit-sitcomfortablywithin thesiteandnotharmviews throughtheuseofinappropriatematerials; isunderstoodisunderpreparation.ItbuildsontheworkofNaturalEnglandinassessinglandscape-reflect the formof thesurroundinglandscape; character.Consequently,therelevantcontentofthisSupplementaryPlanningDocumentisreferredtoin- takecarenot tobreak theskyline; section4.3whichconsidersissuesrelatingtolandscapecharacter.-haveboundary treatments thatavoidasuburbanisingeffect. Newdevelopmentwithinsettlementsshould: 2.3.4ThisisthecurrentformatofaBuildingDesignGuidewhichhasbeeninusesince1995.Ratherthan-lookatthe formandrhythmofexistingbuildings; settingoutnewpolicy,theSupplementaryPlanningDocument(SPD)helpsinterpretexistingpolicies.This-considerheight,scaleandmassinginrelation tosurroundingbuildings; specific SPDaims toimprove thequalityof thebuiltenvironmentandsafeguardthespecialqualitiesofthe-useboundary treatmentstoanchorthebuildinginto thewidersetting; area,whileatthesametimepromotingsustainableconstruction.Itisintendedtohelpdeliverthevision-consideropportunities forcreatingnewhabitats. thatalldevelopmentwillcontributetoprotecting,sustainingandenhancingthespecialqualitiesofthe NationalPark,andthatitwillbesensitivelylocatedanddesigned.Withregardtoexternalworks: -siteboundariesshouldreflectsurroundingcharacter; -considerationshouldbegivento the facingmaterialofretainingwalls; 2.3.5Guidanceofparticularrelevancetothedevelopmentprojectisnotedbelow: -FormandhierarchyisevidentinindividualbuildingswithintheNationalParkandhastraditionallybeen-hardsurfacingshouldbekepttoaminimumandbepermeablewherepossible; dictatedbyfunctionandintendedstatus.-softlandscapingshouldusedominantnativespeciesandshouldaim toconnectwithothernatural -Thebuildingmaterialsusedoftenreflectswhatmaterialswerelocallyavailable,theintendedstatusofafeatures toassistthemovementofwildlife. buildingorevenwhatwasfashionableatthetimeofconstruction.Thematerialmostcommonlyusedwas stone,reflectingthediversegranitesandwhinstone. -Externalfeatureshelptieabuildingintothewiderlandscapeandanchoritintoitssetting,occasionally 2.4.1Hadrian’sWallwasdesignatedasaWorldHeritage Site(WHS)in1987by theUnitedNations Educational declaringitsstatus. ScientificandCultural Organisation(UNESCO)as themostcomplexandbestpreservedof the frontiersof -Newtechnologies,designsandmaterialsmustbeembracedandcontemporarydesignistobe theRomanEmpire.In2005itbecamepartofthetransnationalWHScalled‘FrontiersoftheRoman supported,butitmustbeappropriateandlocallydistinctive. Empire’,beingjudgedtobeofuniversalimportancetohumanity. -Designqualityofnewdevelopmentisofthehighestimportanceandshouldconsidersiting,massing, scale,proportion,rhythm,materialsandcolour,aswellas thecontributiontosustainabledevelopment. 2.4.2AsthewhinescarpmentonwhichtheWallsitsand,toalesserextenttheWallitself,areprominent Distinctdesignconsiderationsfornewbuildingswhichareeitherinthe‘opencountryside’orina featuresinthelandscapeinwhichthedevelopmentsiteislocated,policiesdesignedtoprotectthesetting ‘settlement’(bothofwhichareapplicabletotheOnceBrewedsitegivenitspositionwithinthehamletof ofHadrian’sWallaredirectlyrelevanttotheOnceBrewedsite.Indeedthesitesitswithinadesignated Twice Brewed)arelisted. ‘BufferZone’,mappedasavisualenvelopeextending1-6kmfromthedesignatedWHSitself,oneofthe primaryobjectivesofwhichistoprotecttheWHSfromdevelopmentthatwouldbedetrimentaltoitsvisual setting. Page|5 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 2.4.3TheHadrian’sWallManagementPlannotesthatthe“presenceoftheWallhashadalastingeffectonthe-Historicsites:conservationofhistoricsitesandtheirsettingsandareasofearthworksshouldbe landscapeandperceptionsofit”,andthattheparticularcharacteristicsofthelandscapeare“itsopenencouraged,particularlywheretheyactaslocalfocalpointsandcreatestronglandscapepatternsand aspect,themaintenanceofspacebetweenruralsettlements,theexistingpatternsoffieldsandopentextures. country,theuseof traditionallocalmaterialsinbuilding,andwoodlanddevelopedtoreinforcethepatterns-Tourismandrecreation:Anydevelopmentshouldbelowkey,conservingthewildcharacteroftheWall’s of thelandscape”.setting,withcaretakentoavoidalteringorsuburbanisingthelandscapecharacter.Newbuildingsshould respectthelocalsurroundingsintermsofmaterialsandscale.Newdevelopmentshouldnotbevisually 2.4.4TheHadrian’sWallPath–aNationalTrail–openedin2003,runningonorclosetotheremainsoftheprominentandshouldnotdetract fromthescenicqualityofthearea. Wallandin2006theHadrian’sCycleway(NationalCycleRoute72)wasopened.-Transport:AnyimprovementstoroadsafetyontheMilitaryRoadmusthaveminimumvisualimpacton theopenmoorlandcharacterandtheWorldHeritageSite.Nightlightingshouldberesistedandsignage 2.4.5Appendix7oftheHadrian’sWallManagementPlansummarisesthepoliciessetoutwithinit,listingkepttoaminimum. amongstotherthings,theneedtomaintainandreinforcethespecialcharacteroftheWalllandscape includingitsbeautyandnaturalheritage,and toretainthevitalityofthelandscape. 2.6.1InDecember2013theInternationalDarkSkyAssociation(IDA)awardedDarkSkyParkstatustothe combinedareasoftheNorthumberlandNationalParkandthe KielderWaterandForestPark–a totalarea of1,482km2.AnessentialcomponentofthesuccessfulbidforDarkSkyParkstatuswasanExterior 2.5.1ThisdocumenthasbeenusedtoinformthecontentoftheLandscapeSupplementaryPlanningDocumentLightingMasterplan(LMP)preparedbyLightingConsultancyAndDesignServicesLtd.whichaimsto referredtoaboveandthecharacterofthelandscapearoundthedevelopmentsiteiscoveredindetailinprovidepracticaladviceonmitigatingstraylightwithintheDarkSkyParkfortheNNPA,adjacentLocal section4.3ofthisreport.However,foreachLandscapeCharacterType(LCT)identifiedintheaboveAuthorities,localbusinessesandresidents.Thedocumentisnotregulatorybutoutlinesstrategiesofbest LandscapeCharacterAssessment,anoutlinestrategyprincipleisdefinedtohelpshapefutureworkingpracticewithregardtodesignandplanningguidelinesandchoiceoflightingfixturesandcorrect managementofthespecificlandscapeandguidelinesareofferedforwhatisconsideredtobeappropriateinstallationpractice. landmanagementanddevelopment.ThestrategyfortheLCTwithinwhichthesiteislocatedissetoutas 2.6.2TheLMPsetsoutninePlanStatementswhichdescribehowaBasicLightLimitationPlanistobeapplied follows: todefined‘EnvironmentalZones’withintheDarkSkyPark.TheOnceBrewedsitefallswithinthebroad “ EnvironmentalZoneE0-250. .” 2.6.3AppendixHoftheLMPcontainsaPlanningApplicationGuidanceNoteforallneworrefurbishedexterior 2.5.2Withregardtofuturemanagement,the followingguidelinesarerelevant: lightinginstallations.Itconfirms thatanassessmentofexistingandfuturelightingeffectsshouldnowform -Forestryandwoodland:Restockingofshelterbeltstoincreasenativespecies.Plantingtohavesofter anessentialelementforplanningapplicationswithinadesignatedDarkSkyawardarea.Itmakes outlineswithshapesdesignedtointegratewithlocal topography. referencetotheInstitutionofLightingProfessionals(ILP)‘ProfessionalLightingGuide04:Guidanceon -Fieldboundaries:Rebuildingandrestorationofstonewallsshouldbeencouraged. UndertakingEnvironmentalLightingImpactassessments:2013’whichfocusesontheexternallighting aspectsofnewdevelopmentapplicationsandincludesdesignandassessmentmethodology. Page|6 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. fromchangesinthephysicallandscapewhichmaygiverisetochangesinitscharacterandhowthisis experienced.Thismayinturnaffect theperceivedvalueascribed to thelandscape. 3.2.4TheGuidelinesdefinetheassessmentofas “ 3.1.1ThemethodologyforthisLVIAisbasedonthe‘GuidelinesforLandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment’: Peoplewhowillbeaffectedbychangesinviewsor ThirdEdition:2013(GLVIA3,2013),editedbytheLandscapeInstituteandtheInstituteofEnvironmental visualamenityarereferredtoasandvisualeffectsrelatetothechangesthatariseinthe ManagementandAssessment.Thisdocumentisregardedastheindustrystandardwork,settingoutthe compositionofavailableviewsasaresultofchangestothelandscape,topeople’sresponsestothe principlesfortheassessmentprocess.WhiletheacceptedmethodologyforLVIAworkisnowreasonably changes,and totheoveralleffectswithrespecttovisualamenity. wellestablished,qualitativejudgementsandadegreeofsubjectivityremainacriticalpartofLVIAwith regardtogaugingthesignificanceofidentifiedeffectsforexample,oridentifyingimpactsonperceptual 3.2.5Landscapeandvisualeffectscanbenegative(adverse)orpositive(beneficial).Theycanbedirect, aspectsoflandscapecharacter.Consequently,itisimportantthatsuchprofessionaljudgementisbased indirect,secondaryorcumulativeandbeeitherpermanentortemporary(short,mediumorlongterm). onalogicalandtransparentmethodologysothatitcanbeexaminedandunderstoodbyothers.This Theycanalsoariseatdifferentscales(local,regionalornational). sectionoftheLVIAchaptersetsoutthe frameworkuponwhichtheassessmenthasbeenmade. 3.2.6Thelevelofsignificanceascribed tolandscapeandvisualeffectsdependsprimarilyontheinteraction between,andcombinationof,theofthelandscape/visualreceptorandthescale,or 3.1.2The‘LandscapeCharacterAssessment:GuidanceforEnglandandScotland’publishedbythethen ofthepredictedeffectsof thedevelopment. CountrysideAgency(2002)inassociationwithScottishNaturalHeritage,hasalsobeenusedasa 3.2.7Toassesslevelsofsensitivity,boththeofthereceptortothetypeofchangearisingfrom reference. thespecificdevelopmentproposalandtheattachedtothereceptor,needtobeconsidered.In assessinglandscapevalue,ameasureofthephysicalstateofthelandscape(ie.itsor) 3.2.1FollowingtherecommendationintheGLVIA,inthisassessmenttheterm ‘’isusedtorefertothe maybemadeintermsofitsintactnessfromavisual,functionalorecologicalperspective.Italso‘reflects actionbeingtakenandtheterm ‘’isdefinedasthechangeresultingfromthataction.Itisthe thestateofrepairofindividualfeaturesandelementswhichmakeupthecharacterinanyoneplace’, purposeoftheLVIAtoassesseffectsbothonthelandscapeasaresourceinitsownright,andonviews (CountrysideAgency &ScottishNaturalHeritage,2002). of thelandscapeandgeneralvisualamenity. 3.2.8Inconsideringthemagnitudeofchange,judgementsneedtobemadeaboutthesizeandscale, geographicalextentandthedurationandreversibilityoftheeffectidentified.Oncelevelsofreceptor sensitivityandthemagnitudeofchangeresultingfromaspecificeffecthavebeendefined,ajudgement canbemadeabouttheoverallofthelandscape/visualeffect. 3.2.9ToassistinestablishingclarityandtransparencyoftheassessmentprocessusedinthisLVIA,thecriteria fortheclassificationof:i)receptorsensitivity;ii)thevalueofthebaselinelandscapeandvisualreceptors, 3.2.3TheGLVIAdefinestheassessmentofas “ iii)themagnitudeoflandscapeandvisualeffects,andiv)theresultingsignificanceoftheimpactidentified, Componentsofthelandscapethatarelikelytobeaffectedbyaproposed aresetoutinthefollowingtables. developmentarereferredtoasandcanincludeindividualelementsorfeatures, overallcharacterandkeycharacteristicsandaestheticorperceptualaspects.Landscapeeffectsderive Page|7 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 3.3.4Toassisttheunderstandingoflandscapevalue,landscapedesignationsoverastudyareadefinedbya minimum3kmradiusfromthecentreofthesitewereidentifiedusingDefra’s‘MAGIC’web-baseddata 3.3.1Theobjectiveofthebaselinestudyofthephysicallandscapeofthedevelopmentsiteanditssettingisto base. assembleacomprehensiveauditofthoselandscapecharacterandlandusefeaturesonandaroundthe proposeddevelopmentsitethatcouldcontributetoadistinct‘senseofplace’.Fromsuchanaudit,the morevaluedlandscapereceptorsthatcouldbedirectlyorindirectlyaffectedandphysicallyalteredbythe developmentproposalsareidentifiedandthesignificanceofthateffectassessed. 3.4.1Theensitivityofavisualreceptorisdefinedby the typeofviewer(takingintoaccounttheexpectation 3.3.2(thedegreetowhichalandscapecanaccommodatechangewithoutandactivityofthereceptor),viewernumbers,thedurationofexposuretotheviewandthefactorof unacceptabledetrimentalimpactonitscharacter)isnotanabsolutecriterionasitsdefinitionisdependentdistance.Italsotakesintoaccounttheimportanceofboththeviewitselfand thepointfromwhich theview onthenatureofthepotentialdevelopmentinquestion.Consequently,anassessmentoflandscapeisexperienced(seeTable2.). susceptibilityisnotstrictlypartofthebaselinestudy,butisconsideredatthetimeofassessinglandscape sensitivityinrelationtospecificidentifiedimpactsinherentinthespecificdevelopmentproposals. 3.3.3ThecriteriaforassessinglandscapevalueissetoutinTable1. HighAstrategicvieworpanoramaofacknowledgednationalorregionalimportance,inwhichtheproposed Sensitivity:development could be clearly seen from a highly sensitive public viewpoint. Communitieswherethedevelopmentresultsinchangestothelandscapesettingorvaluedviewsenjoyedby the community. Usersofrecreationalfacilitiesincludingpublicrightsofwayoutsidedesignatedareas,whoseinterestis focussed on the landscape. HighExceptionalHigh importance and International,WorldHeritageSite,AONB,National Occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the development. rarity.Park, NationalScenicArea. National. No / very limited potential for ModerateAmoderatelyvaluedvieworpanoramaoflocalimportance,reasonablytolerantofchangeorastrategic substitution. Sensitivityview,orviewofacknowledgednationalorregionalimportance,seenfromalesssensitivepublicviewpoint and / or from a significant distance. HighHigh importance and National,regional,AONB,NationalPark,NationalScenic rarity.local.Area,AHLV / AGLV. Peopletravellingthroughorpasttheaffectedlandscapeincars,trainsorothertransportroutesandwhose attentionmight be focused on the landscape. Limited potential for substitution. Usersofoutdoorsportsandrecreationalfacilitiesindesignatedareaswherethelandscapeisunlikelytobe the primary focus. ModerateModerateMedium importanceRegional, local.AHLV /AGLV, RegionalScenicArea. andrarity. Limited potential for LowArelativelyunimportantviewwhichispotentiallytolerantofchangeormaybenefitfromthatchangeor substitution. Sensitivitymoderatelyvaluedvieworpanoramaoflocalimportanceseenfromlesssensitiveviewpointand/orfroma significant distance. Moderate- low Medium importanceRegional, local.Undesignatedbutvalueexpressedin Peopleengagedinoutdoorrecreationinnon-designatedareaswhoseattentionmaybefocussedawayfrom andrarity.demonstrable use. the change in the view and where tolerance to change is likely to be high. Some / good Peopleattheirplaceofworkorengagedinsimilaractivitieswhoseattentionmaybefocussedawayfromthe potential for change in the view and where tolerance to change is likely tobe high. substitution. Low Low Low importance and Local.Areaidentifiedashavingsomeaspect rarity.oflocalvaluebutwithscopefor improvement. Very lowLow importance and Local.Areasidentifiedforrecovery/ rarity.enhancement. Page|8 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 3.5.1Theofphysicalorvisualchangecanbemeasuredintermsofthedegreeofchange, 3.6.1Significanceisnotabsoluteandcanonlybeassessedinrelationtoeachdevelopmentinitslocation.The whetheritisadverseorbeneficialandwhetheritislikelytobepermanentortemporary.Criteriaforthe twoprincipalcriteriausedindeterminingsignificanceare:i)thesensitivityofthelandscape/visual assessmentofmagnitudeofchangearesetoutinTable3below. receptorandii) themagnitudeofchangeanticipated. 3.6.2Forthepurposesofthisreport,thesummaryrangeofthesignificanceofthepredictedlandscapeand visualeffectshasbeensubdividedintofivelevelsorgrades.These‘grades’ofsignificancearedefinedin Substantial:Total loss of ormajor alteration to key elements / features / characteristics of the baseline landscape. Table4asfollows:- Introductionofelementsconsideredtobetotallyuncharacteristicinthecontextofthebaseline landscape. Alargenumberofsensitivereceptorsexperiencingamajororfundamentalchangeinnatureofthe baseline view, particularly in near views with the baseline urban skyline substantially changed. ModeratePartial loss of or alteration to keyelements / characteristics of the baseline landscape. HighHighSubstantial Introductionofelementsthatmaybeprominentbutmaynotnecessarilybeconsideredsubstantially (Proposalshavealargeeffectwithinthecontextofthewider uncharacteristic in the context of the baseline landscape. area.) HighModerateModerate- substantial Amoderate,butnotfundamental,changeinnatureofviewaffectinganotablenumberofsensitive receptors.Open,uninterruptedviewswithsomemiddledistance obstructionofpartofthatviewresulting HighLowModerate (Proposalshaveanoticeableeffectwithinthecontextofthe fromtheproposeddevelopment;baselineurbanskylinenotadverselyinfringedinviewtypicallyseen wider area.) overmedium / long distance. ModerateHighModerate- substantial LowMinor loss of or alteration to keyelements / features / characteristics of the baseline landscape. ModerateModerateModerate (Proposalshaveanoticeableeffectwithinthecontextofthe Minor but non material changeinnature of view; long distanceviews across urban landscape panorama, wider area.) orrestricted views (upstairs bedroom windows only)withrelatively few receptors affected. ModerateLowLow-moderate NegligibleVeryminorlossoforalterationtokeyelements/features/characteristicsofthebaseline LowHighModerate landscape.Changes unlikely to be perceived by the majority of visualreceptors. (Proposalshaveanoticeableeffectwithinthecontextofthe wider area.) LowModerateLow-moderate LowLowLow (Proposalshaveonlyalimitedeffectwithinthemainlylocal area.) Page|9 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 3.8.3IthasbeenagreedwiththePlanningAuthoritythatlandscapeandvisualeffectsexperiencedfroma 3.6.3Nodiscernibledeteriorationorimprovementinthebaselinelandscapecharacterorthebaselinelevelof distanceof10kmormorearegenerallylikelytohaveanegligibleeffectonvisualreceptors.However,itis visualamenitywouldobviouslyresultinnosignificantornegligiblechangebeingattributable. acknowledgedthatanexceptiontothisbroadprinciplecouldresultfromthevisualeffectsofnighttime 3.6.4Impactsmaybeshortterm(ortemporary),essentiallyrelatedtochangesevidentduringtheconstruction illumination.Consequentlyalongdistanceviewpoint(VP6)locatedwithintheNorthPenniesAreaof periodoftheproposeddevelopment,orlongerterm(orcomparativelypermanent)resultinginchangesin OutstandingnaturalBeauty(whichcomeswithin5kmofthesiteatitsclosestpoint)hasbeenselected landscapecharacterandtotheperceptionofthatlandscapeafter finalconstruction. specificallyforthispurposeatanelevatedlocationontheB6305,justsouthofLangleyCastleand 3.6.5Forthepurposesofthisreport,impactswhichareassessedasbeingmoderateorsubstantial(adverse) c.10.5km tothesoutheastof theOnce Brewedsite. areconsideredtobeofasignificancewhichshouldinfluencethedesignprocessandmitigationstrategy for theproposeddevelopment. 3.8.4AttheRIBAStageCdesignstage,theinitialdesignconceptsforthebuildingandexternalspaceswhere presentedtotheNorthEastDesignReviewandEnablingService(NEDRES)–apanelofprofessional expertsinthefieldofarchitecturalandlandscapedesign,setuptopromotehighbuildingdesignquality 3.7.1Theextentofthesurveyareausedforthepurposeofassessinglandscapeandvisualeffectswasdefined withintheregion.Itwastheirsharedopinionthatthebuildingshouldhavea‘presence’whenseenfrom initiallyasaresultofadesktopexercise,duringwhichaZoneofTheoreticalVisibility(ZTV)was theMilitaryRoadcorridorandthatthevisualconnectionwithboththeWhinSillandtheVallumshouldbe establishedusingdigitalterrainmodelwithanOSrasterbackdrop.ThisZTVwasthentestedandrefined maximised.Intheirview,thiswouldcontributetothesenseofdramaalreadyevidentinthebroader asaresultofobservationsmadeinthe field. landscape. 3.7.2OnceaZTVhadbeendefined,keyviewpointswereidentifiedwithinit(seesection3.8)fromwhichto basetheassessmentofvisualeffectsonthebroaderlandscapeandthosemovingthroughit.Analysisof thevisualeffectshasbeensummarised foreachselectedviewpoint. 3.8.1Viewpointsuponwhichthebroadervisualassessmenthasbeenmadehavebeenselectedinconsultation with theLocal Planning Authority. 3.8.2Ofthe13no.viewpointsselectedintotal,thoseconsideredtobeofgreatestsignificancehavebeenused togenerateaphotomontagewhichaimstoshowhowtheproposeddevelopmentislikelytoappearwhen seenfromtheviewpointinquestion.TheseviewpointsareidentifiedasPM1-8.Inordertoshowthe contextoftheOnceBrewedsiteinthewiderlandscapeatascale thatcouldbereadilyreproducedaspart ofthisdocument,thebaselinephotographsweretakenusingadigitalSLRcamerawiththelenssetata focallengthof32mm.TocompensateforthelossofdetailintheseimageswhenreproducedatA3size, thespecificareaoftheOnceBreweddevelopmentsitehasbeenincreasedtoasizewhich,whenheldat armslength,reflects thesizeoftheimageofthedevelopmentasitwoldappearinthe fieldwhenseenwith thenakedeye.Theviewpoints forwhichnophotomontagehasbeenproducedarelabelled VP1-5. Page|10 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 4.1.5Settlementissparse,beingrestrictedgenerallytoindividualfarmsteads,thelargestgroupofproperties beingthelooseclusterdefinedasTwiceBrewed.Theonlyothernotableelementsofurbaninfrastructure 4.1.1Indescribingthebaselinelandscape,theaimistounderstandthelandscapeoftheareathatmaybe aretheroadsignsassociatedwiththeB6318andinparticular,thegrouplocatedaroundthejunction affectedbytheproposeddevelopment.Thestudyareausedforthepurposesofthisassessmenthas adjacentto theOnceBrewedsite. beeninformedlargelybytheZoneofTheoreticalVisibility(ZTV)-seesection4.6-backedupbya desktopsurveyandobservationsinthefield.However,itextendsbeyondtheZTVinplacesinorderto 4.1.6TheproposeddevelopmentsiteatOnceBrewedislocatedonthesouthsideoftheB6318(knownlocally capturetherelevantsettingandvisualcontextfortheproposeddevelopmentsite,particularlyforthose asthe‘MilitaryRoad’)whichrunsingenerallystraightsectionsonaneast–westalignmentfollowingthe visualreceptorswhoexperiencethesitewhilepassingthroughthisdistinctandcharacterfullandscape. lineofHadrian’sWall.OnceBrewedispositionedonthesouthfacingslopesofthevalleyformedbythe BrackiesBurnandis2.5kmnorthofthemajortransportrouteoftheA69roadcorridorandthevalleyof 4.1.2ThetopographyofthestudyareaisverymuchdominatedbytheformoftheWhinSill,anintrusionof theRiverSouthTynealongwhichitruns.ThenearesttownisHaltwhistle5.6kmto thesouthwestandthe dolorite(knownlocallyaswhinstone)whichrunsfromUpperTeesdaletotheFarnesontheNorthumbrian villageofBardonMilllies3.5km tothesoutheast,bothsettlementsbeinglocatedon the A69. coast.Itformsaridgerunningonagenerallyeast–westalignment,reachingahighpointwithinthestudy areaof345mAODatWinshieldCragstothenorthwestofthesite.AlongthissectionoftheWhinSill,the 4.1.7OnceBrewedispartofthesettlementofTwiceBrewed,adispersedgroupofbuildingsalongtheB6318 outcropsatPeelCragandSteelRiggpresentparticularlydramaticfocalpointsontheskylinewhen comprisingtheexistingOnceBrewedNNPAvisitorcentreandYHAbuildingandtheneighbouringTwice viewedfromtheB6318corridor,theroutefromwhichmostpeoplearelikelytoexperiencethelandscape BrewedInn,theWinshieldscampsite,threedomesticresidencesincludingWestTwiceBrewed,the within thestudyarea. VallumLodgeguesthouseandadomesticresidenceandfarmsteadatEastTwice Brewed. 4.1.8Otherisolatedpropertiesofnotewithinthevicinityofthesitebutsetback fromtheB6318corridorare: 4.1.3From theWhinSill, theland falls tothebottomof thevalleys formedby BrackiesBurnandBradleyBurn, -SeatsidesandSmith’sShieldonthetopofaprominentridgelinetothesouthofthesitewhich bothofwhich feedintoChainley Burnwhichenters theRiver SouthTyneat BardonMill. Southof Brackies definesthesouthernboundaryoftheNational Parkdesignation; BurnandBradleyBurn,thelandrisesagaintoformanotherridge,notquiteashighastheWhinSill,but -TheNationalTrustownedholidaycottagesofSpringwellCottageandPeelBothylocatedonthe runningparallelwithit.Inbroad terms,thesetworidgelinesdefinetheextentofthemostsignificantpartof minorroadleading fromthe B6318uptotheWhin Sillto thenorth; theZTVfortheproposeddevelopment. -The farmofEastBogonthesouthfacingslopeoftheWhin Sillescarpment. 4.1.4Roughgrazingandsemi-improvedpasturedominatethelandscape,withmediumscalefieldsdefined 4.1.9The Once Brewedsiteliesat thepointatwhichoneoftheoccasionalminorroadsrunningnorth–south primarilybydrystonewallsbutalsobypostandwirefencing.Treecoverislimitedtosmallclumpsand connectingtheA69withtheB6318,intersectstheMilitaryRoad.HavingcrossedtheMilitaryRoad,the individualspecimensalong thecourseof Brackies Burnand BradleyBurnand thesmallblocksaround the minorroadcontinuesnorthovertheWhinSillandprovidesaccesstotheSteelRiggcarparkoperatedby OnceBrewedsiteandtheadjacentTwiceBrewedInn.Elsewhere,treeandshrubcoverisrestrictedto theNNPA. individualspecimensgrowingalong fieldboundariesoralong the B6318roadcorridor. Page|11 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 4.1.10PublicRightsofWayanddesignatedrecreationalrouteswithin thestudyareaareshowninFigure1. 4.2.2TheboundariesofthesiteareclearlydefinedbytheMilitaryRoadtothenorth,theminorroadtotheeast Themostnotablearelistedbelow: andtheBrackiesBurntothesouth.ThewesternboundaryissharedwiththeTwiceBrewedInnand -Hadrian’sWallPathNationalTrail–followsHadrian’sWallonthecrestoftheWhinSill associatedcarparkatthenorthernend,andislargelydefinedbyafieldboundaryandthecourseofa escarpmentbutoccasionallyrunsonlowergroundto thesouthof theridge. tributarytotheBrackiesBurnonitscentralandsouthernsections.Thenorthernpartofthesitecurrently -PennineWayNationalTrail–followsthelineoftheHadrian’sWallPathbeforestrikingoff containstheexistingNorthumberlandNationalParkAuthority’svisitorcentre(NNPA)andahostel northwardatapoint1kmwestofHouseteadsRomanfort. operatedbytheYouthHostelAssociation(YHA).Thecentralandsouthernsectionsaredefinedbyafield -NationalCycleRoutes68and72–connectthesitewiththeWhinSilltothenorth,Vindolanda ownedbytheNationalTrustwhichiscurrentlyusedbya tenant farmerforgrazingsheep. Roman fort totheeastandtheA69tothesouth. 4.2.3Fromalevelof224.5mAODatthenortheasterncorner,thesiteslopesto201.3mAODatthevalley -SeveralpublicfootpathsrunningfromtheB6318corridorsouthwardupslopetotheridgesouthof bottom.Initscentralandsouthernsections,thesiteisslightlyelevatedabovetheminorroadtotheeast the BrackiesBurn. alongmuchofitslengthandthereisamarkedchangeingradientalongthewesternboundarywherethe landfallsmoresteeplytoformasmallvalley forthestreamwhich flowssouthintothe BrackiesBurn. 4.1.11DesignatedheritagesitesarecoveredintheheritagesectionoftheEnvironmentalStatement,however 4.2.4Similarly,asectionofthesouthernfieldfallssouthatamorepronouncedgradientbeforelevellingoutat threespecificsitesorfeaturesareofsuchsignificancethattheyshouldbementionedhere.Thefirstis thevalleybottomto formadistinctlandscapecharactersub-zonewithin thesite. Hadrian’sWallandtheassociatedlinearearthworksoftheVallum.Theformerfollowstheridgeofthe Whin Silland thelatterrunsclose to theB6318.Consequently,bothhaveastrongvisualprofileandplaya majorpartindefiningthedramaandromanceofthisancientlandscape.Theothertwositesarethe RomanfortsofHousesteadsandVindolanda(4.2kmtothenortheastand1.8kmtothesoutheastofthe Thenorthernpartofthesite: siterespectively),bothmajor touristdestinationsdrawingvisitors tothislocalarea. 4.2.5Allexistingbuiltdevelopmentonthesiteisrestrictedtothenorthernsection.ThecurrentNNPAvisitor AlsoofnoteisthespecificlocationonHadrian’sWallknowas‘SycamoreGap’justtotheeastof centreisasinglestoreybuildingfinishedinnaturalstonecladdingandwithapitchedslateroof.Glazing Milecastle39and1.2kmfromtheOnceBrewedsite.Theviewofthematuresycamoretreewhichhas andtimbercladdingonthenorthelevationfacingtheserviceareaandcarparkisoflowvisualqualitybut establishedinthecentreofadramaticdipintheWhinSillridgelinehasbecomeaniconicimageinthe hasalowvisualprofile.On theeasternelevation,signageinthe formoflarge,whiteindividuallettersfixed region,madeallthemorefamousasaresultofitbeingthelocationforasceneinthefilm‘RobinHood totheplainstonecladwallidentifythebuildingasatouristdestinationpointwhenseenfromtheMilitary PrinceofThieves’staring KevinCostner(1991). Roadcorridor. 4.2.6Themainentrancetothevisitorcentreisonthesouthernelevationandismarkedbylargerglazedpanels. Outsidetheentrance,rivenfacedstoneflagsanddrystonewallraisedbedsformapatiogarden (TobereadinconjunctionwithFigure2-‘ExistingSite Plan’) containingahaphazardarrangementoftimberpicnictablesandbenches,steelbikestands,litterbinsand interpretation/informationpanels.Solarpanelsarelocatedontheroofabovethemainentrance. 4.2.1TheproposeddevelopmentsiteislocatedatthejunctionoftheB6318MilitaryRoadwiththeminorroad 4.2.7Thewesternelevationofthevisitorcentreisdominatedbyadepotareawithalargesteelcontainer whichconnectsitwiththeA69atHeshawandatBardonMilltothesouth.Itlies400mwithinthesouthern enclosedbyacloseboardfenceoflowvisualquality.Adjacenttothisstorageareaisapathwaytothe boundaryoftheNorthumberlandNationalParkonthesouthfacingslopeofthevalleycontainingthe youthhostelwhichislargelyscreened fromviewbyablockoftreeandshrubplanting. Brackies Burn flowinginawest–eastdirection. Page|12 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 4.2.8Thehostelbuildingitselftakestheformofastonecladsinglestorey,flatroofbuildingontheeastsidelocationsthereisascatteredcollectionofindividualbutuncoordinatedroadsignsandsitemarkers (separatedfromtheNNPAvisitorcentretothesouthbyanarrowpavedarea)whichisconnectedbyarelatingtotheexistingfacilities. centraltimbercladsinglestoreyblockwithlargeglazedpanels,toatwostoreyaccommodationblockwith 4.2.14Thestonewallalsorunsdownthenorthernsectionofthewesternsiteboundary.Althoughitformsthe aslatepitchedroof,stonecladdingandpebble-dashfinishabovegroundfloorlevel.Themainentrance boundarytotheyouthhostelgarden,forthemostpartitiswellscreenedfromwithinthesitebytreeand withinthecentralsectionisaccessedviaacourtyardgardenareapavedinprecastconcreteflagsand shrubplanting. containingarandomarrangementoftimberplanters,picnictablesandbenches.Thegardenspace 4.2.15DetailsofthetreecoveronsiteisrecordedinaTreeSurveyproducedbyAMRGeomatics,2013.The extendsaroundthewesternsideof thehostelbuildingwhereittakestheformofanovergrownnaturalistic surveyrecords51no.individualtreeswithadiametergreaterthan75mm(themajorityofwhichare gardendominatedbyindividualmature treesandtree/shrubgroups. assessedasbeingoffairtopoorcondition)and9treegroups(GroupsA–H)ofvaryingsizes.With 4.2.9Immediatelytothesouthof theYHAgardenisacompactedstonefootpathlinkingtheneighbouringTwice regard totheindividual trees,beech ()andcherry ()aredominant,although70% BrewedInnsitewiththemainNNPAcarpark.Thepathpassesbetweenthegardenandafencedoff, ofthecherriesarenotedasdeadorinsuchpoorconditionastowarrantfelling.Oak (), overgrownareacontainingseptictankswhichonceservedbothbuildingsonsite. sycamore (),Scotspine ()andNorwaymaple ()are 4.2.10Themaincarparktothevisitorcentreislocatedimmediatelytothesouthofthebuildingandisformedinalsopresenttogetherwithsmallernumbersofsilverbirch (),ash (), tarmacadamwithastonesettedgingandwithunmarkedparkingbaysformedincompactedgravel.Aalder (),rowan ()andNorwayspruce (). grassstripwithacoupleofpicnic tablesand timberpostandrail fencedefine thesouthernedgeof thecar 4.2.16Intermsoftreegroups,thelargestbyfaristhetriangularblockofwoodlandontheeasternsiteboundary parkarea. tothesouthoftheNNPAcarparkwhichcomprisesanevenagedstandofash,rowan,Scotspine, 4.2.11Asecondcarparkservingtheyouthhostelislocatedrightin thevisuallyprominentnortheasterncornerofsycamoreandhawthorn ()approximately10minheight.Asignonatimbergate thesitewherethelargeareaoftarmacalsocatersforservicesvehiclesandprovidesaccesstotimbergivingpedestrianaccessintothewoodlandatitsnorthernendidentifiesitasawoodlandplayarea, sheds/garage(inpoorcondition),aLPGcompoundandanunfencedbinstore.Theoverallvisualeffectalthoughsignsofplayactivityarelimited.Alsovisuallyprominentisayounger(butstillwellestablished) isoneoflowvisualquality.Thiscarparkareahasitsownentrancedirectlyofftheminorroadclosetothegroupofalder,ash,beechandhawthornwhichscreenstheYHAbuildinganditsgardenfromtheNNPA junctionwiththeMilitaryRoad.Vehicularandpedestrianaccessgatesareintimberandofanagriculturalcarparktothesouth.AsmallengravedtimbersignsuggeststhisplantingwasundertakenbytheNNPA style.andtheNorthumbrianTourist Boardin1992aspartof‘BeaconEurope’. 4.2.12Fromthisservicearea,anarrowconcretepathrunsalongthenorthernedgeoftheyouthhostel,the4.2.17OthertreegroupsofnotearethenarrowstripofmatureScotspinesandovergrownleylandiihedgewhich northernelevationofwhichisformedpredominantlybyasinglestoreystonecladblockwithanarrowstripformadenseevergreenscreenalongthewesternedgeoftheYHAgardenatthenorthwestcornerofthe ofglazingjustbelow theeaves.Thepathmarks thesoutherntoeof theearthmoundwhichis the Vallum–site,andthesmallfencedgroupofhawthornandbeechmarkedasa‘wildlifegarden’ontheedgeofthe aRomanmilitaryearthworkandScheduledAncientMonument.Withinthesite,theVallumisbarelyNNPAcarparknear thenortherncornerof the triangularwoodlandblock. legible,itsformbeinghiddenbytreeandshrubcover,muchofwhichisinpoorconditionandisoflow 4.2.18Asforthepatternofdistributionofindividuallyrecordedtreeswithinthesite,themostprominentgrouping visualquality. isthatofthebeltoftreeswhichhavebecomeestablishedonandadjacenttotheVallumonthesite’s 4.2.13Alowdrystonewall,generallyingoodcondition,defines thesiteboundaryontheMilitaryRoadcorridornorthernboundary. Smallpatchesofornamentalshrubssuchascotoneasterandrhododendronarealso andontheeasternboundary. Breaksin thewallmarktheentrancepointsintothesiteandat thesepresentwithinthistreebeltinwhichthesizeandconditionofthetreesvariesenormously.Interconnected groupsofindividual treesalsodefinemuchof thecharacteroftheYHAgardenspaceandtheenclosed Page|13 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. natureofthewesternendoftheNNPAcarpark.Elsewherewithinthesite,individualtreesaregenerallythroughthesitetemporarilyonitswesternboundary,isnotfencedoff.Thewesternfieldboundaryis seeninisolation,particularlyalong thenortheasternandeasternboundarywithinthegrassvergedefinedprimarilybyadrystonewallbutwithapostandwirefencefeaturingatthesouthernendofthe betweenthebuildings/carparksandthepublicroads.Ofthesespecimentrees,theonlyoneworthyofsite. particularnoteisthematureashtreeonthesouthsideoftheNNPAsiteentrancewhichactsasafocal 4.2.24Timberpoleslocatedatintervalswithinthefieldnearthetopofthetributary’swestfacingvalleyslope, pointandaninformalgatewayfeature.However,thistreeleansatasignificantangleoutoverthepublic supportoverheadelectriccableswhichrunfromapolemountedtransformernearthewesternendofthe highwayandthetreesurveyhasidentifiedsignsofrotinahollowatthebaseofthetrunkwhichmerits NNPAcarpark,toapoleinthebottomofthevalley.Fromheretheyrunacrossthesouthernsectionof furtherinvestigationif the treeistoberetained. the fieldin twodirections,bothupanddownstreamonabroadlyeast–westaxis. 4.2.19Oneimpactwhichislikelytoaffectthesite,regardlessofthedevelopmentproposal,isthespreadof CopsenorthoftheMilitaryRoad: Fraxinuschalara,adiseasewhichcausesthegradualdeathofashtreesandwhichhasbeendetectedin maturetreesofthisspeciesinNorthumberland.Onceinfected,thelifespanofatreeislikelytobeless 4.2.25DirectlyoppositethenortheasterncornerofthesiteonthenorthsideoftheB6318MilitaryRoad,thereis than10years,howeveritisimpossibletopredictwhetherthetreesonsitewillsuccumbtothediseaseor agroupofalderandrowanwhichformsasmallcopsewithinanareaenclosedbyadrystonewall. showresistance,oratwhatstageanyeffectsmightbecomeapparent. Believedtobeaformergardenspaceassociatedwithapreviousyouthhostelbuilding,theregularly spacedtreescovergentlyslopinggroundfallingtowardsthebackoftheMilitaryRoadhighwayverge.The 4.2.20Forthepurposeofthisassessmentitisappropriatetonotethatthethreeindividualashtreesonsiteare onlybreakinthedrystonewallisonthesouthernboundaryataformernarrowgatewaymarkedbytwo alllocatedadjacenttotheentrancetotheNNPAcarparkandrepresentthethreeageclassesof‘young, stonegateposts. ‘middleaged’and‘mature’.Inthetreesurvey,allthreeareregardedasbeingoflowqualityandvalue (categoryC)butdoprovidesomescreeningorsofteningeffecttothelocality(subcategory2).Ifthese threetreeswerelost,theeasternboundaryofthesitewouldbecomemarginallymorepermeableinterms ofviewsinto thesiteinthislocation. 4.2.21Thelossofashtreeswhicharepresentwithintheplantingblocksouthoftheyouthhostelandinthe 4.3.1Landscapecharacterreferstothedistinctpatternofelementsrelatingtogeology,soils,topography,land triangleofwoodlandontheeasternboundary(treegroupsAandDrespectively)isunlikelytohavea use,vegetationcover,settlementpatternsetc.thatdifferentiatesonelandscapefromanotherand significantvisualeffect,onthebasisthatthespacecreatedbydead/dyingtreesislikelytobefilledby contributestoarecognisablesenseofplace. thegrowthofneighbouringtreesastheyrespondtotheincreasedlightlevels. 4.3.2TheNationalCharacterAreas(NCA)asdefinedbyNaturalEngland,basedontheCharacterMapof Thecentralandsouthernsection: England(CountrysideCommission,1998)thatfallwithinthestudyareaareillustratedinFigure3and include: 4.2.22Theremainingtwothirdsofthemainproposeddevelopmentsitecomprisesafieldofsemi-improved -11Tyne GapandHadrian’sWall pasture,togetherwiththetriangleofwoodlandreferredtoinsection4.2.16above.Atimberfieldgatein thesoutheasterncornercatersforagriculturalvehicularaccessintothesitebutpedestrianaccessisalso -5 BorderMoorsandForests possiblevia timbergatesinthepostandrail fencealong thesouthernedgeoftheNNPAcarpark. -10North Pennies 4.2.23ApostandwirefencepreventsstockfromgainingaccesstotheBrackiesBurnwhichflowsinasmall incisedchannelalongthesouthernedgeof the field. Incontrast,access tothetributarywhichruns Page|14 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 4.3.2ThesiteitselflieswithinthewesternsectionofNCA11.Listed-limited treecoverofsmallbroadleavedcopsesandblocksofconiferousplantation; characteristicsofnoteinclude: -significantarea foroutdoorrecreation. -itisvisuallycontainedto thenorthbytheparallelscarpsoftheWhin Sill; 4.3.6Inaddition,otherobservationsofnoteinclude: -farmlandispastoralin thewest,merging tomixedandarableintheeast; -TheoutcropsofWhin Sillareseenrisingoftenabruptlyfrom thegentlyundulatingmoorland, -thereisavarietyofenclosurepatterns,withlarge,walledenclosurespredominantinthewestandcreatingasenseofdramaandruggedness; hedgedenclosuresintheeast; -Thereareextensiveareasofopenmat-grassmoorlandandpatchesofcarrwoodland,reedbed -northoftheWhinSillthereisopen,windsweptsemi-improvedandroughgrazingonelevatedandboghabitatsassociatedwithlowerlyingareasandglacialloughsandwithintheseareasthe land,withloughsandrushypastures;landscapehasalargescaleandexposedcharacter; -veryevidentremainsoftheRomanwall,fortsandassociatedfeaturesoccuron theWhinscarp.-Elsewhere,thelandhasbeenenclosedbysandstonewallsorfencing(particularlytothesouthof theWhinSillandaroundisolatedfarmsteads)tocreateamediumscalepatternofsemi-improved 4.3.3Thelandscapeof thisNCAhasbeenanalysedinmoredetailbyJulieMartinAssociatesandAlisonFarmer pastures,manyofwhicharewet,therushescreatingvisual texture. AssociateswithCountryscapeaspartoftheirLandscapeCharacterAssessmentofTynedaleDistrictand NorthumberlandNationalPark,2007.-Treecoverislimitedtosmallcopsesofashandthornandblocksofconiferousplantation; 4.3.4ThismoredetailedanalysishasidentifiedtheLandscapeCharacterType(LCT)-Manyofthefarmsteadsdatetothe19thCandarelocatedinadispersedpattern,nestledintothe withinthepartoftheNCAinwhichthesiteislocated,LandscapeCharacterbeinglandformamongrockyoutcrops. landscapeswithbroadlysimilarcombinationsofbasiclandscapeelementsandwhichcanthereforebe -Morerecentman-madefeaturesinthislandscaperelatetothearea’simportancefor foundindifferentplaces. recreationandtourism.Signage,carparks,footpathsandinterpretationarefrequentand 4.3.5ThekeycharacteristicsofLCT14:ParallelRidgesandCommonsareidentifiedasfollows:characteristicandareparticularlyconcentratedalong theMilitaryRoadandWhin Sill. -repeatingpatternofelevatedridgesandshallow troughswithstrongeast-westalignment:-Thislandscapecharactertypefeelsremotebecauseofitsnarrowroads,sparsesettlement, extensiveagriculturemanagement,andexposuretotheelements.Thelandscapeseemstimeless -cuestalandscape; andunmodifiedsinceRomantimes.Thecomplex,enduringformoftheWhinSill,setwithina -dramaticoutcropsofigneousrockformingpronouncednorth-facingscarpsandsouthfacingdip simpleanduniformlandscapeofgentlyrollingmoorlandandenclosedpastures,remainsits slopes; definingfeature. -openmoorlandwithmat-andpurplemoorgrass,peatbogs,improvedpasturesand 4.3.7TheLCTisbrokendownfurtherintoLandscapeCharacterAreas–landscapeunitswhichsharethesame commonsandloughs; characteristicsastheLCTbutwhichdisplaytheirownindividualcharacterandidentity.The -medium tolarge-scaleenclosurepatterndefinedbystonewallsandpostandwirefencing; LCTisdividedintothreeLCAs,thedevelopmentsitelyingcloseto thecentreofthe largestofthethree–LCAwhichisdefinedprimarilyfor -extensiveRomanarchaeologyassociatedwithHadrian’sWallbutalsoearlierarchaeology; thedramaticescarpmentandassociatedoutcropsoftheWhinSillandtheovertsignsofRoman -limitedhabitationofdispersedfarmsteadsnestlingintolandformandsurroundedbyshelter occupation.Scatteredfarmsteadsareoftensurroundedbysmallcopsesoftreesandvisitorsignageis planting; alsoprominentinparts. Page|15 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. –Withveryfewurbanelementspresentin 4.3.8Atamoredetailedlevel,theproposeddevelopmentsiteitselfcanbedividedinto5sub-characterzones theviewfromthisenclosedandsecludedspotwithinthevalley,thesenseofbeinginapeacefulrural as follows: locationisenhanced. Beinginanincisedchannel, theBrackies Burnitselfhaslimitedimpactonthevisual –alargelyutilitarianareaoflowvisualqualityalongthenorthsideofthe characterofthespaceyetitspresencestillcontributesto thesenseharmonyin thelandscapecharacter. existingbuildings,dominatedbytheservicearea(binstore,LPGcompound,sheds)YHAcarpark,and thenoiseandmovementof trafficontheB6318.The‘back’ofthe YHAbuildingispresented tothe Vallum ScheduledAncientMonumentandthisimportantearthworkisbarelylegibleinthelandscapelargelydue 4.4.1Asmightbeexpectedinalandscapewherebuildingsaregenerallyisolatedandsparselyscatteredand tothetreeandshrubcovergrowingonit,muchofwhichisinaverypoorcondition.Theproximityofthe whereroadsarenotlit,levelsofilluminationaftersunsetareextremelylowwithinthestudyarea.The buildingsand thecontinuoustreecovermeansmuchoftheareaisinshadeforprolongedperiodsand the mainsourcesoflightare: resultingsenseofenclosureisatoddswiththeproximityoftheB6318.Incontrasttotheimmediate -Externalsecuritylights todomestic/commercialpropertiesand farmbuildings,someofwhichare surroundingshowever,thispartofthesitedoesgivestrikingviews(somefiltered)northtothedramatic temporary,respondingtothemovementofvehicles/people–generallythemostvisiblelight landscapeoftheridgeoftheWhin Sill,andinparticular, theview to PeelCrag. sourcesbeinguncoveredandbright; –althoughsimilartothewesternendofzone1intermsofbeingenclosedand -Internallightingtodomesticproperties–generallymutedinintensityduetothepresenceof shadedbyboundarytreecoverandbuildings,this‘garden’spaceismoredomesticincharacter.Signsof curtains /blindsusedatnight; afirepitandthepresenceofasuspendedbasketseatfromatreeindicatethatthespacefunctionsasan -Carlights–brightbut transient.Catchtheeyedue tomovement. informalgarden.Muchofthevegetationappearstobeunmaintainedgivingitanaturalisticappearance whichhasacertainappeal.Althoughneglected,thespaceissecluded,relaxingandaoffersadegreeof 4.4.2LightlevelsfortheexistingNNPAvisitorcentreareverylowatnightasthesitefacilitiesonlyoperate escapismandcommunionwithnature. betweenthehoursof10amand3pmduringthemonthsbetweentheendofOctoberandendofMarch. Pin-pointredandgreensecuritylightingisvisiblewithinthebuildingbutonlyfromwithinthesoutherncar –Thesequenceoflinked,generallysmallspacesthatcombinetomake parkareaof thesiteitself.Theentranceandassociatedsignageintothesitearenotilluminated. upthe‘frontofhouse’areastotheexistingfacilitiesonsitelackvisualqualitybuthavealowkeycharm nonetheless,beingdomesticinscaleandwelcoming.Theabsenceofanycoordinateddesigntothe 4.4.3Onthesouthsideoftheyouthhostel,externalspotlightingandawashoflightingatthemainentranceis layoutoftheexternalspacesisapparentbutisperhapsappropriateforsuchalocation.TheNNPAcar visiblebutonlyfromthesoutherncarparkwhereitislargelyscreenedbyacombinationofexisting parkisoflowvisualimpactfromthemainentrancestobothbuildingsandallowstheviewsouthacross vegetationandthefenceddepotareatotheNNPAvisitorcentre.Thevisualimpactofexistinglighting thevalleyofthe Brackies Burn todominate. whenseenfromlocationstothesouthandwhichareoutsidethesite,isverysubtle.Whatismore –Fromwithin thisgrazed field,thedominantviewisto noticeableistheorangeglow fromawallmountedsecuritylight totheTwice Brewed Inncarpark. thesouthandtotheridgelineofthenorthfacingslopeoftheBrackiesBurnvalley.Consequently,the presenceoftheNNPAcarparkandvisitorfacilitieshasareducedimpactonthecharacterofthisspace 4.4.4InviewswestwardintothesitefromtheYHAcarparktothenorth,externalwallmountedlightingismore whichisruralandopen.Inamenableweatherconditionstheviewcanbestimulating.Inpoorconditions, visiblebutstillhasalimitedvisualprofileinviews fromoutside thesite. theopennessofthesitecan translateasbeingexposed. Page|16 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 4.4.5InviewssouthfromtheroadleadinguptotheSteelRigg/PeelCragcarpark,theregularspacingof 4.5.6Thevalueofthelocallandscapeforrecreationalactivitiesinwhichdirectexperienceofthelandscapeis uncoveredwallmountedexternallightingalongthelengthofthenorthelevationoftheyouthhostelis importantisconfirmedbythepresenceofdesignatedroutesofnationalsignificancesuchastheHadrian’s uncharacteristicoflightingintheareaandgivestheimpressionthatthereisalargebuildingpresent,even Wall Pathand the PennineWay,andNationalCycleRoutes68and72. ifthebuildingitselfisnotvisible.OntheneighbouringsitetheTwiceBrewedInncarparksecuritylightis 4.5.7At‘SycamoreGap’1.2kmtothenortheastofthesite,asinglematuresycamoretreegrowingontheline dominantandinternallightingtotheentranceporchisvisible.Together,theTwiceBrewedInnandYHA of theWall(justeastofMilecastle39)in thecentreofadramaticdipin theescarpment,isassociatedwith sitesrepresentthemainclustersoflightingvisibleintheviewbuttheoveralleffectisnotintrusivetoa asceneinthefilm‘RobinHoodPrinceofThieves’staringKevinCostnerandmanyvisitorsaredrawnto significantdegree. thatspecificpointonthelineofHadrian’sWallfor thatreason. 4.5.8Althoughissuesrelatingtoecologyarebeyondthescopeofthisreport,itisworthnotingthatthereare 2no.NationalNatureReservesand3no.SitesofSpecialScientificInterestwithin3.5kmofthesite(see Figure1).Thenearestof theseistheRomanWall EscarpmentSSSIon thenorthsideof the B6318. 4.5.1Establishingthevalueofthelandscapeinwhichtheproposeddevelopmentsiteislocatedandofthe 4.5.9Consequently, therecanbenodoubtthatthelocallandscapewithinwhichtheproposeddevelopment landscapefeatureswithinthesiteitself,isofdirectrelevancewhenitcomestoassigningalevelof siteislocatedisvaluedatanationalandinternationallevel.Inaddition,asofDecember2013,thesite susceptibilitytochangetothoseidentifiedlandscapereceptors. fallswithinanareawhichhasbeengrantedInternationalDarkSkyPark(Goldtier)statusbythe InternationalDarkSkyAssociation(IDA).ItisthelargestareaofprotectednightskyinEurope,and 4.5.2TheroleofNorthumberlandNationalParkasa‘specialplace’andavaluedresourcenotjustfortheNorth amongst thelargestintheworld. Eastbutforthenationasawhole,hasbeennotedinsection3above.TheNNPAManagementPlanitself notesthat:“NationalParksarethemostbeautiful,spectacularanddramaticexpansesofcountrysidein England,ScotlandandWalesandarelandscapesofnationalimportance.Theycontainawealthof nationallyandinternationallyimportantwildlifeandculturalheritage.”TheNorthumberlandNationalParkis 4.5.10Thissectionconsidersthevalueofthemainindividuallandscapefeatureswithinthesiteintermsoftheir expansive,covering20%ofthecounty.However,thereisnodoubtthatthespecificlandscapewithin qualityandaestheticappealand theircontributiontotherecognisedvalueofthebroaderlandscape. whichtheOnceBrewedsiteislocatedisasvaluedasanywithintheremainderofthePark.Thedramatic 4.5.11Theexistingbuildingsthemselvesareconsideredtobeoflittlearchitecturalmeritandvalue.Although they topographycreatedbytheWhinSilloutcropinspiresandchallenges.Itcanhaveanemotionaland generallyblendintothelandscapeasaresultoftheuseofstoneandslateinconstruction,whenseen spiritualqualityandasenseoftranquillitythatisoneofthemainperceptualqualitiesvaluedbyvisitorsto closeup,theelevationaltreatmentanddetailingandthesurroundingexternalspacesareseentobeof thearea. lowvisualquality. 4.5.3The Once Brewedsite fallswithin theWHS‘bufferzone,’identifiedas theareabeyondtheWHSwhich 4.5.12TheTreeSurveyforthesitepreparedbyAMRGeomaticsnotesthat:“Thematuretreesonthesitemake definesitssetting. asignificantcontributiontothelandscapeofthispartoftheHadrian’sWallcorridorandhelptoblendthe 4.5.4OtherheritageassetsoftheRomanperiodofnationalvalue,designatedasScheduledAncient existingbuildingsintothelandscape.”Thevalueof thetreesliespredominantlyintheroletheyperformas Monuments,surroundthesiteandone,theVallumEarthworks,actuallylieswithinthenorthern agroupintermsoftheirscreeningfunction,habitatprovisionandgeneratingafeaturecharacteristicofa sectionoftheproposeddevelopmentsite. landscapeinwhichtreesaregenerallyrestrictedtogroupsandclumpsassociatedwithindividual farmsteadsorresidentialproperties. 4.5.5A Grade IIpostmedievallistedbuildinglies200m to thewestof thesiteatWestTwice Brewed. Page|17 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 4.5.13Whenconsideredinisolation,manyofthetreesareinpoortofaircondition,andtherearefewhighly4.6.3Furtherafield(c.5+km),onthesouthsideoftheriverandtheA69roadcorridor,viewsofthesiteare valuedindividuals.Onenotable‘landmark’treeisthematureashat theexistingentrancetotheNNPAcartheoreticallypossiblefromanareasouthofBeltinghamandamuchsmallerareanorthwestofWhitfield, park.However, thereareconcernsoverits futurestability.andfromhighergroundtothewest,eastandsouthofLangleyCastle,includingsectionsoftheA686and B6305.Furthersouthstill,theZTVincludesanareaofmoorlandbetweenNinebanksandAllendaleTown, 4.5.14AlthoughthetreesontheVallumalongthenorthernsiteboundaryperformavaluablescreeningroleto c.13kmfromthesite.AlthoughfurtherfromtheOnceBrewedsite,thesepotentialviewpointssouthofthe theexistingbuildingsinviews from thenorth,itisacknowledgedthat theirpresencecouldbedetrimental RiverSouthTyneareofparticularsignificanceasmostfallwithintheNorthPenninesAreaofOutstanding to theconditionandpreservationoftheVallum ScheduledAncientMonument. NaturalBeauty(AONB). 4.5.15Treecoveronthesiteis thereforegenerallyassessedasbeingoflow tomoderatevalue. 4.6.4GiventhetheoreticalnatureofthezoneofvisualinfluenceillustratedinFigure4,surveyworkinthefield 4.5.16Thelowdrystonewallwhichdefinestheextentofthesiteonitsnorthernandeasternboundariesis hasbeencarriedouttoestablishactuallevelsofvisibility from themoredistantviewpointswithintheNorth generallyingoodcondition.Itisadistinctivefeatureofthesiteandanelementwhichischaracteristicof PenninesAONB.Asexpected,thescreeningeffectof treecover,buildingsandroadsidewallsandhedges thebroaderlandscape.Itisofmoderatevalue. reducessignificantlytheactualareafromwhich thesitecanbeseen. PhotographsinFigure5takenatthe 4.5.17ThefieldtothesouthoftheexistingNNPAcarparkisofmoderatevalue,providinganattractivesettingto fivekeyviewpointsVP6–10identifiedinFigure4giveanindicationoftheextenttowhichthesiteis viewssouthacrosstheBrackiesBurnvalleyfromthecurrentvisitorcentre.Thesouthernmostsectionof visibleatsuchdistances.Clearly,atdistancesgreaterthan5km,theexistingsitehasalowvisualprofile thisfieldwhichformsthevalleyfloor,isvisuallysegregatedfromthesitefacilitiesbythelocaltopography. withinthebroaderviewsnorthandinmostinstancesthereareotherlandformsorfeaturesonthehorizon Thisisolationandcontainmentgeneratesadistinctsenseofplacewhichisofahighervalue. thatdrawtheeyeandprovideafocusawayfromtheareainwhichthesiteislocated.Oneexceptionis viewpointVP6ontheB6305eastofLangley,wheretheOnceBrewedsite,althoughvirtually 4.5.18ThesitefeatureofmostsignificantvalueistheVallum–anearthworkfeaturefromtheRomanperiod indistinguishableinthebroaderlandscape,islocatedjustbelowoneofthemostvisuallyprominentridges whichrunsalongthenorthernboundaryofthesiteandwhichisdesignatedasaScheduledAncient (WinshieldCrags)on thehorizon. Monumentofnationalimportance. 4.6.5Itshouldbenotedthat thesiteisnotvisiblefromLangleyCastlewhichislocatedwithinthewoodedvalley oftheLangleyBurnandthenumberofpublicrightsofwaywithintheZTVsouthoftheRiverSouthTyne islimited.TheonlypublicfootpathprovidingsustainedlongdistanceviewsnorthwardstotheOnce Brewedsiteisthatrunningonaneast-westaxisacrossagrousemooratGreenriggMoorsoutheastof 4.6.1Adigitalterrainmodelcoveringtheareawithina15kmradiusoftheOnceBrewedsitehasbeenusedto Langley. generateaZoneofTheoreticalVisibility(ZTV)fortheexistingsite(seeFigure4).Thisuseselevationdata alonetopredictpointsfromwhichgroundleveloftheexistingsiteistheoreticallyvisibleassuminga‘bare earth’landscapeinwhichthepotentialscreeningimpactofvegetationandbuildingsetc.isnottakeninto 4.6.6Amoredetailedillustrationof theZTVbaseduponsitegroundlevelcovering theareatothenorthofthe account. River SouthTyneisprovidedinFigure6 4.6.2TheZTVinFigure4showsthat,giventheparameterssetoutabove,theareasonthenorthsideofthe RiverSouthTynefromwhichthesitemaybevisiblearerestrictedtoacomparativelyshortsectionofthe MilitaryRoadcorridor,includingthelineofHadrian’sWallandtheWorldHeritagesiteitself,andasection ofroad to thesoutheastoftheOnce Brewedsiteanddueeastof the VindolandaRomanfortsite. Page|18 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 4.6.7Itshowsthatthesitemaybevisiblefroma3kmsectionoftheB6318MilitaryRoadcorridorbetweenthiscloseviewpoint,thestoneandpebbledashfinishtotheyouthhostel,whichisfilteredbyvegetationon ShieldontheWalltothewest,andEastTwiceBrewedtotheeast.ItalsoindicatesthattheZTVistheVallum,isoflowvisualquality.TheVallumitselfisbarelylegible,obscuredasitisbyexisting treeand containedbytheridgeoftheWhinSillandthelineofHadrian’sWalltothenorth,andtheridgeformedbyshrubcover. thetopofthesouthernslopesoftheBrackiesBurnvalleytothesouth(andwhichmarksthesouthern 4.6.12WhentravellingtowardsthesitealongtheroadfromHenshawandBardonMilltothesouth,althoughthe boundaryoftheNational Park). TwiceBrewedInntogetherwithascatteredclusterofotherbuildingsarevisible,theexistingvisitorcentre 4.6.8Totheeast,theareasfromwhichtheexistingsitemightbevisiblearelimited,beingrestrictedmainlytoandyouthhostelbuildingsareallbuthiddenfromviewbyexistingtreecover.OncepastSmith’sShield, sectionsoftheWhin SillridgeextendingasfarasHotbankCragsandthepointatwhichthePennineWaydirectandunobstructedviewsofthefieldtothesouthoftheexistingcarparkarepossiblefromlimited leaves theHadrian’sWall Path,strikingoffnorthward,andastripofelevatedgroundon thenorthwesternsectionsofroadbeforeitdropsdownintothebottomoftheBrackiesBurnvalley.Whenpresent,vehicles edgeofThorngraftonCommon,c.300meastof Vindolanda.(minibusesinparticular)parkedintheexistingYHAcarparkandat thewesternendof theNNPAcarpark, arenotable.TheseviewsformpartofabroadervistanorthinwhichtheoutcropofPeelCragformsa 4.6.9MostvisualreceptorsexperiencethelocallandscapearoundOnce Brewedfrom theMilitaryRoadcorridor locallydistinctfocalpoint.FromthepointwheretheroadcrossestheBurn,viewsintothelowersectionof andassuch,theOnceBrewedsitemustbeseeninthecontextofabroadervisualexperiencewhich, this fieldarepossible,but theseare transitory. whethertravellingfromtheeastorthewest,capturesthedramaofHadrian’sWallandthecuesta landscapewithwhichitisassociated.Withinthissetting,theexistingsiteanditsfeatureshaveagenerally4.6.13Althoughnotadirectionfromwhichvisualreceptorsarelikelytoencountertheexistingsiteforthefirst lowvisualprofile.However,theprecisenatureofthisvisualprofiledependsverymuchonthedirectiontime,thevisualprofileofthesitefromthenorthishighlysignificantasthisisthedirectionfromwhichthe fromwhich thevisualreceptor,passingthroughthelandscape,approachesthesite.siteisseenfromtheHadrian’sWallWorldHeritageSiteandtheHadrian’sWallandPennineWay recreationalroutes.Currently,viewsoftheexistingbuildingsareheavilyfiltered,eveninwinter,bytree 4.6.10Theexistingbuildingsonthesitearemostvisiblewhenapproachedfromtheeast,yetduetothe andshrubcoverwithinthesite.VehiclesparkedintheYHAcarparkatthenortheastcornerofthesite screeningeffectofthedrystoneboundarywallonthesouthsideoftheB6318,theNNPAvisitorcentreis arevisibleandareunscreened. notclearlyvisibleintheviewfromtheroaduntiloneiscomparativelyclosetothebuildings.Froma distance,thewarmgreyofthestoneandslatebuildingmaterialsblendswellwiththesurrounding4.6.14ThesouthfacingfieldsouthoftheexistingNNPAcarparkishiddenfromview.Incontrast,theTwice backdropoftreecoveranditisonlythelargewhiteletteringontheeastfacingelevationwhichmarkstheBrewedInn,paintedwhiteonitsnorthfacingelevation,isclearlyvisible,asarecarsparkedinitscarpark buildingasa featureofpublicnote.totheeastoftheInn.Thisisthebuildingwhichmostdrawstheeye,althoughotherbuildingssuchas Seatsides,EastTwiceBrewedandSmith’s Shieldarealsovisible. 4.6.11Approachingfromthewest,ridgestothenorthandsouthpreventabroaderoutlookandconcentrate viewsalongtheroadcorridortoagreaterextent.Theotherdwellingsandagriculturalbuildingswhich makeupthehamletofTwice Brewedarenotableatstagesin theview.ThelargepropertyatSeatsideson 4.6.15Thereareonlyc.11no.residentialpropertiesshowntofallwithintheZTVillustratedinFigure6.These theskylinetothesouthdrawstheeye,asdoesthelongerdistanceviewoftheridgeformedby includeonepublichouse(TheTwiceBrewedInn),onecampsite(WinshieldsFarmCampsite),aguest ThorngraftonCommon.ThefieldtothesouthoftheexistingNNPAvisitorcentreisvisibleinthisviewbut house(VallumLodge)andtwoholidaycottagesownedby theNationalTrust(SpringwellCottageand Peel hasalowvisualprofile.However,asoneapproachestheOnceBrewedsite,notonlyistheTwiceBrewed Bothy).Bytheirverynature,privatedomesticresidencesaregenerallyconsideredtobehighlysensitive InnmuchmoredominantintheviewthantheYHAbuilding,whichislargelyscreenedbymaturetree visualreceptors. coveraroundtheouteredgesofthesite,butdistinctiveearthworkstothenorthofthehighwayprovidea focusforattentiontogetherwiththeprofileoftheWhinSillformingthehorizon.Consequently,theexisting sitebuildingsgoalmostunnoticeduntilthereceptoris travellingalong thenorthernedgeof thesite.From Page|19 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 4.6.16Outoftheseproperties,threehavedirectviewsofthenorthernsiteboundary(EastBog,SpringwellVindolanda.However,thesiteisvisibleinthebackgroundinviewsoftheVindolandasiteasexperienced Cottageand PeelBothy)and two(Seatsidesand Smith’s Shield)havedirectviewsof the fieldto thesouthfrom theelevatedgroundofThorngraftonCommon. of theexistingfacilitiesonsite. 4.6.22Thevisualimpactontheseandothersignificantheritageandculturalassetsisassessedindetailinthe 4.6.17TheremainingpropertieswhichmakeupthehamletofTwiceBrewedtothewestoftheOnceBrewedsiteheritagechapteroftheES.ForthepurposesofthisLVIA,thevisualeffectsoftheproposeddevelopment haveveryrestrictedviewsofthesite,screenedasitisbybuildingsandtreecover.Somelimitedviewsofonviewsbothfromandtolandscapefeaturesofheritagevalue,areassessedonthebasisofselected the fieldforming thesouthernpartoftheproposeddevelopmentsitearepossible.viewpointsatlocations.Theseareanalysedinmoredetailinsection5ofthisreport. 4.6.18Intermsofpropertiesprovidingaccommodationforvisitorsandtourists,therearenosignificantviewsof4.6.23OtherhighlysensitivereceptorsengagedinrecreationalpursuitswouldbethoseusingtheNationalCycle thesitefromtheWinshieldsCampsiteandtheVallumLodgeGuestHouse.UnobstructedviewsoftheRoute68whichpassesbythesite. site’snorthwesternboundaryarepossible fromtheneighbouringInnbuttheboundaryvegetation 4.6.24Figure6identifiesanumberofpublicfootpathswithin theZTVandalthoughsomeofthesearelikelytobe providesastrongfiltertoviewsoftheYHAbuilding.Similarly,asseenfromtheSpringwellCottageand usedonlyinfrequently,allrecreationalusersshouldbeconsideredtobepotentiallyhighlysensitivevisual Peel Bothyholidaylets,bothofwhicharelocatedon theroadup to the SteelRiggcarpark. Given that the receptors.AsidefromtherecreationalroutesassociatedwithHadrian’sWallandtheWhinSillridge,the greatmajorityofvisitorstothelocalityareattractedbythehighlyvaluedlandscapeandheritageassets, footpathsprovidingthemostnotableviewsoftheexistingsitearethetworouteswhichrunfromTwice propertiesprovidingaccommodationfortourists(shorttermandlongterm)aregenerallyconsideredtobe Brewed(onefromtheWinshieldsCampsite)upthesouthsideoftheBrackiesBurnvalleyandoverthe visualreceptorsofhighsensitivityunlessspecificsiteconditionssuggestotherwise. ridgeonwhichSeatsidesislocated.Althoughmuchoftheexistingbuildingsarescreenedorfilteredby 4.6.19DespitebeingsubservienttotheA69withwhichitrunsparallel,theB6318stillfunctionsasanimportanttreecover,openviewsofthesouthernfieldwithintheproposeddevelopmentsitearepossiblefromthe transportrouteforthosewholiveandworkinthearea,connectingthehamletsandisolatedfarmsteadshigherground. alongthelineoftheWhinSill.Somereceptorsusingthisroutewillbeoflowtomoderatesusceptibilityto change.However,itisitsroleinprovidingbothvisualandphysicalaccesstosomeofthemostsignificant heritagesitesintheNorthEastwhichisofparticularrelevance,asitcarriesthegreatmajorityofthec.50- 70,000peoplewhovisittheexistingOnceBrewedsiteeveryyear,onaverage.Aspreviouslynoted,the qualityofthelandscapeisoneofthekeyfactorsthatattractsvisitorstothispartofthecounty,and consequentlyitshouldbeassumedthatpotentialvisualreceptorstravellingontheB6318couldbe moderately tohighlysensitive tochange. 4.6.20Forthesamereason,visualreceptorstravellingontheroadlinkingtheOnceBrewedsitewiththeA69 andtheroadskirtingthewesternedgeofThorngraftonCommon,shouldalsobeconsideredtobeof moderate tohighsensitivity. 4.6.21ItisapparentthattheexistingsiteispotentiallyvisiblefromsectionsoftheHadrian’sWallWorldHeritage SitebetweenTurret37AandMilecastle41.ItisnotvisiblefromtheRomanfortandScheduledAncient MonumentatHousteadsnorisitvisible from theRoman fortand ScheduledAncientMonumentat Page|20 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 5.2.3Inresponsetothesite’sslopingtopography,thenortheasternendoftheLandscapeDiscoveryCentreis recessedintothegroundwhilethesouthwesternend(thetwostoreyYHAaccommodationblockwhich dropshalfafloorlevelinrelationtothemainbuildingmass)appearstoprojectoutfromtheground.In addition,theprovisionofagreenrooffurtherassimilates thebuiltformwith thesurroundinggreenspace. 5.1.1Withinthissectiontheeffectsoftheproposeddevelopmentonbothlandscapeandvisualreceptorsis 5.2.4Asthebuildingistofunctionasa‘gateway’tothelandscapesoftheNationalPark,itisintendedthatit assessedandthesignificanceofthateffectisgradedaccordingtothemethodologysetoutinsection4.2. shouldhaveapresenceinthelandscapeandbelegibleanddistinctive.However,itisalsoafundamental Considerationisgiventothegenerallytemporaryeffectswhichrelatedirectlytotheconstructionprocess, partofthedesignconceptthatthebuildingshouldbeconstructedusingmaterialswhichareofalocal suchasthemovementandnoiseofheavyplantetc.,andtothemorelongtermeffectsevidentoncethe characterandprovenanceasmuchaspossible. constructionprocessiscompleted.Foreacheffectidentified,whereappropriate,thelevelofsignificance isassessedfirstwithout,andthenwith,referencetomitigationmeasureswhichhavebeenincorporated intothedesignproposal. 5.2.5Thesharedmainentranceiscentraltothesouthernelevation,muchofwhichsupportsaprojecting canopyatfirstfloorlevelmadeupofphotovoltaicpanels.TheLandscapeDiscoveryCentreistwostoreys 5.1.2Somemeasurestakentomitigatetheimpactoftheproposednewbuildingonthelandscapeweredefined atitsnortheasternend(8maboveexistinggroundlevel),withacaféattheupperlevelalignedwiththe ataveryearlystageinthedesignprocessandarefundamentaltothefinalarchitecturalvisionanddesign strikingvistatoPeelCragandtheWhinSill.AlthoughtheYHAaccommodationblockistwostorey,the concept.Theseinherentmitigationmeasuresareoutlinedinsection7. factthatitisdroppedhalfa floorlevelinrelationtothemainbuildingallowsthefirstfloorcaféandviewing terracetotheLandscapeDiscoveryCentretofunctionasthefeaturewhichdrawstheeye.Muchofthe northernandwesternelevationreadsastwostoreyalthoughapronouncedsectionofslopingroof 5.2.1ThedevelopmentwhichhasbeenassessedisillustratedinFigures7and8.deliberatelybreaksupthestraightrooflineatthecentreofthebuildingandbringsitdownclosetoground level. 5.2.6OnthenorthernelevationwhichfacesoutontotheMilitaryRoadcorridor,thebuildingistobefacedin 5.2.2Thenewbuildinghasasinglefootprintofc.2,157m2andismadeupoftheNNPA’sLandscapeDiscovery whinstonefilledgabionbasketsatthelowerlevelswithtimbercladdingusedatthehigherlevels.The Centre(theeasternpartofthebuilding)andthenewYHA86bedhostel(thewesternsectionofthe junctionbetweenthetwoissteppedsoastoreflecttheblock-likeprofileoftheactualWhinSilloutcrop. building).Understandingthedesignconceptbehindtheproposedbuildinghelpswiththeinterpretationof Windowvoidsareirregularforthesamereason.Thesteppedformofthewhinstonegabionswillprovide itscomplexformwhichislargelyinspiredbytheundulatingcuestalandscapeinwhichitislocated.The opportunitiesforincorporatingappropriatenativeplantingonthebuildingfaçade.Onthesouthfacing boldnorthernelevationcapturesthedramaofthenorth facingWhinSillescarpment,whilethemoregentle elevation,althoughtheprincipleofusingtimbercladdingathigherlevelsisrepeated,lowerlevelsareto profileofthesouthernelevationreflectsthesoftersouthfacingescarpmentslopes.Similarly,buildingand befacedinsandstoneasasoftercontrasttothedarkerwhinstoneonthenorthernaspect. landscapearefullyintegratedatthenortheasterncornerasthelowersectionoftheslopingroofrisesout fromexistinggroundlevelsataconstantgradientbeforeturningbackonitselfinordertocreateadramatic viewpointandarchitecturalstatementalignedwiththevistanorthtowardsthelocal focalpointofPeelCrag andtheWhin Sill. Page|21 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. replacedwithagreeneventsspaceandtherampedaccesstothegreenroof.Thenewbuildinglineisset 5.2.7Onthenorthernelevationthemainareaofglazingisthatofthecafé.Thisglazingcontinues,running furtherbackfromtheVallumSAMandactivemanagementofthevegetationcurrentlygrowingonthe alongthelengthof thesouthfacingelevationofthefirstfloorasitprojectsabovethelowerslopingsection Vallumwouldincludetheremovalofmuchofthelowergrowingornamentalshrubsincluding ofthegreenrooftoformanatrium.Belowthis,muchofthecentralsectionofthesouthernelevationis rhododendron,anddead/dyingtrees.Overaprolongedperiod,therewouldbeaphasedapproachtothe glazedwithpanelsinbetweenstonebuttressesformedusingdrystonewallingtechniques.OntheYHA continuedselectiveremovalofvegetationontheVallumwhichwouldrunparallelwithaprogrammeof accommodationblock,glazingisrestrictedtobedroomwindowsalthoughalinearskylightispresentalong newplantingdesignedtorecreatesomeofthescreeningandfilteringfunctionoftheremovedvegetation thelengthof theroof to thisblock. butinamoreconsideredlocationwhereitwouldnothaveanadverseimpactonarchaeologicalremains. 5.2.8Thegreenrooftothemainbodyofthebuildingistobeformedusingtransplantedwhinvegetationtypical 5.2.12KeytreesmarkedforretentionalongtheboundarywiththeMilitaryRoadcorridorareidentifiedinFigure oftherareandthreatenedplantcommunitieswhichareassociatedwiththeWhinSilloutcrop.Plantplugs 9.AtthewesternendofthisgreenbufferstripbetweenthenewdevelopmentandtheSAM,anewwoven aretobeplantedintoapredominantlywhinstonegravel–dustandcompostmix.Arampextendingfrom willowhedgeplantedbehindadrystonewallwouldprovideprivacyandsecurityto theYHAgardenspace thebuildingatitsnortheasternendistocontinueupontotheroofwhereitconnectswithatimberdeck whichislaidoutinthespacebetweenthenewyouthhostelandthewesternboundary.Muchofthe walkway.Thisweavesthroughthewhinvegetationpassingseatingorrestareas,untilitreachesthe matureconiferousplantingalongthenorthwesternboundaryistoberetained.Thegardenspaceisto highestpointontheroofwhichtakestheformofaviewingdeckoverthefirstfloorcafé.Balustradingto incorporateaninformalplayspace,anopeneventsareaandapatiowithpergolaandseatswingetc.A thepubliclyaccessiblegreenroofistobeprovidedusingc.1mhighgalvanisedsteelmeshpanelsof gardenpathwillconnectwiththegatewaytotheTwiceBrewedInnsite.Thenorthwestcornerofthe irregularlengths.ThegreenrooftotheYHAaccommodationblockistobeconstructedusingabasic gardenisalsotoaccommodateatimberbatloft-a4x4mx4.7mhighstructurewithaslatepitchedroof. matrixofappropriategrassspeciesasusedonthemaingreenroof.Atthesouthernend,wherethe Theflooroftheloftwouldbe2.5mabovegroundandthespacebelowitenclosedforuseasacycle accommodationblockterminateswiththemainplantroomforthewholebuilding,fluesfromtheplant storage facility.Thiselementwouldbeconstructedinadvanceofthedemolitionof theexistingbuildings. roomwillextend1.5mabove thelevelofthegreenroof. 5.2.9Theinternallightingforthebuildinghasyettobespecifiedbutitisunderstoodthattheoneofthekey 5.2.13Totheeastofthebuilding,aseriesofdrystonewalls(bothfreestandingandretaining)accommodate objectiveswouldbetominimiselightspillbyspecifyingfittingswhichcastnolightabovethehorizontal changesinlevelsasthegreenroofandmainbuildingintegratewiththeexternallandscape.Anewlay-by plane. setbackfromthehighwayvergeistobeformedtocaterforservicedeliveries.Justsouthofthislay-by,a coveredbinstoreandcyclestoragefacilityaretobeconstructedindrystonewallingandwithagreenturf roof.Thisstorageareamarkstheeasternboundaryofacourtyardareadefiningthearrival/gathering 5.2.10Theoverridingdesignprincipleforthetreatmentofexternalspacesisthattheyshouldbetreatedwitha spaceoutsidethemainentrance.Afeaturewallprojectingoutofthebuildingsegregatesthemain lighttouchandblendseamlesslywiththesurroundinglandscape.Themainchallengehasbeento entranceareafromtheneighbouringoutdoorclassroomspacetothewest.Thiseducationalgathering accommodatearequirementforapproximately180no.carparkingspaces(87permanentspacesand93 spaceistobeseparatedfromthemaincirculationroutetothesouthbyahawthornhedge.Tothewestof overflowspaces,thelatterinagrassedfield).PriortofixingthedesignsolutionillustratedinFigure7,a theoutdoorclassroomisanoutdoordiningspacefortheYHA,thesouthernedgeofwhichisdefinedbya numberofalternativelayoutswereconsideredbeforebeingrejectedandthesearedescribedinsection6 drystoneretainingwallatthenorthernendoftheYHAaccommodationblock.Alongthesouthernedgeof aspartoftheearlymitigationprocess. this‘frontofhouse’area,asweepingarcofafootpathconnectsthemainentrancewiththeparkingareas 5.2.11Onthenorthsideofthenewbuilding,thedemolitionoftheexistingvisitorcentreandyouthhostelsees to thesouth. theremovaloftheexistingcarparkandserviceareaatthenortheasterncornerof thesite.Thisis Page|22 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 5.2.14Vehicularaccesstothesiteremainsinitsexistingsouthernpositionandanewtimberdoubleleaffieldingabionswithhandplacedstonetothefacewouldhaveamaximumheightof1.5mandrunbetweenthe gateis tobeprovidedwhichcanbeclosedduringthemovementoflivestockalongthis.Themaincarparksouthernedgeof theuppercarparkandthepathwhichisatthelowerlevel.Newembankmentsaretobe areaislocatedbetweenthenewbuildingandtheexistingtriangleofwoodlandontheeasternsiteformedtotietherampedpathlevelsintotheexistingsteepslopeleadingdowntothesouthflowing boundary.Thespaceallocatedtoparkingisbrokenupbytheinclusionofnewbeltsandclumpsofnativetributary. treeandshrubplanting.Araisedhedgebankc.1mhighdefinesthenorthernedgeofthecentralparking area.Alllinearplantingistobemaintainedasinformalhedgerowwithunrestrictedverticalgrowth.Two5.2.19Withinthevalleybottom,themorelevelpartofthefieldistobeallocatedfordualuseasoverflowparking lowpressuregastanksarelocatednearthecarparkentrance,screenedbyanextensiontotheexistingandeventsspace.Minorgradingoflevelstogetherwithlanddrainagewillberequiredtofacilitatethisas drystoneboundarywallandbyafencewithhedgeplanting.At thesouthernendof theuppercarpark,setwillavisuallydiscreetmeansofreinforcingthegrasssurface. Access to theoverflowcarparkis tobevia againstthewesternedgeofthetriangularwoodland,anelectricsubstationistobelocated.Itwouldhaveanexistingfieldgatelocationinthesoutheastcornerofthefield.Tothenorthoftheentrance,a a5x5mfootprint,befacedindrystonewallingandhaveapitchedslateroof,givingittheappearanceofsubmergedwater treatmentplantis tobelocatedinthefield,discharginginto the Brackies Burn. anagriculturalout-building. 5.2.20Theexistingoverheadelectriccablemountedontimberpoleswhichrunsdownthefieldandalongthe 5.2.15Asecondtierofcarparkingislocatedfurtherdowntheexistingslopeandsouthofthetriangleofvalleybottom,istoberelocatedundergroundaspartof thedevelopmentworks. woodland.Itendsonanareaofcomparativelylevelground,approximately12mbackfromthetopofthe crestofasteeperslopedownintotheBrackiesBurnvalleybottom.Coachparkingbaysarepositioned5.2.21ExternallightingofthepedestrianroutefromthetwocarparkareasuptotheLandscapeDiscovery alongsidethewood’swesternboundary.LargerplantingareasareusedtobreakuptheareaofCentreandyouthhostelistobeintheformoflowlevel,directionaltimberbollardlightingtogivethe hardstandingandabroadbeltofnativescreenplantingrunsalongthesouthernedgeofthecarparkandlowestlevelofilluminationrequired toallowsafeaccess. uptheeasternboundary. 5.2.22Acameraforregistrationplaterecognitionpurposesistobeinstalledneartheentrancegateatapoint 5.2.16Themaincirculationroutethroughthecarparkareasistohaveanasphaltsurfacefinish.Mostbaysalong theexisting fenceline. Aclumpofnewnativeshrubplantingwould formabackdrop. withintheuppercarpark,togetherwiththeaccessibleparkinganddrop-offareaaretobetopdressed withtarsprayandchippings,givingasoftervisualtexture.Throughouttheremainingcarparkareas, parkingbaysare formedusingagravelfilledplasticgrid. 5.2.23ItisproposedthattheworksonsitewouldincludeimprovedaccessacrosstheMilitaryRoadfor pedestrianswishingtomakethejourneyuptoHadrian’sWallandtheWhinSill.Thisistobedeliveredin 5.2.17Betweentheupperandlowercarparksliesaplayspacefocusingonnaturalisticplay.Italsoincludesa theformofabreakinthesite’northernboundarywallandmillstoneflagsplacedwithinthehighwayverge concreteplatformforastronomicalobservation.Althoughadetaileddesignfortheplayareahasyettobe atthenortheasterncornerofthesite(seeFigure7)withmillstoneflagsdefiningaroutealongthe created,theprovisionofsomefixedplayequipmentisanticipatedbutanysuchstructurewouldbein oppositevergetoastepdowninto theexistingditch,andwhichthencontinuesalongthebaseof theditch timberandhaveamaximumheightofc.3m. toanexistinggatewayintoasmallrectangularcopseenclosedbyadrystonewallonallsides.The millstoneflagpathrunsaroundtheinnerfaceofthesouthernandeasternboundarywallsbeforecrossing 5.2.18Southof the YHA accommodationblockarampedcompactedwhinstonepath(togetherwithrestingareas overthewall,viaanewlyformedbreaknearthenortheastcorner,andintothehighwayvergeoftheroad andtimberbenches)connects thecarparksandplayareawiththemainbuilding.Aretainingwallformed leadingup toPeelCrag. Page|23 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 5.3.4Duringtheconstructionprocess,signageandsitesecurityfencingwouldberequired,thevisualeffectsof 5.2.24ImprovementstothesightlinesatthejunctionoftheVindolandaroadwiththeMilitaryRoadarealsotobe whichwouldbedifficulttomitigate.Thetemporaryurbanisationofthelandscapecharacterofthesite carriedoutaspartofthedevelopmentproposal.Thiswouldinvolvetheloweringoftheheightofthe wouldbeatemporaryadverselandscapeandvisualeffectoflowtomoderatesignificancewhen existingdrystoneretainingwallthatformsthefieldboundaryonthesouthsideoftheMilitaryRoadonthe experiencedcloserup. eastsideofthejunction.Thewallwouldbetakendowntothelevelofthehighwayvergeoverac.30m lengthandtheexistingstockproofpostandwirefencerunninginthefieldimmediatelybehindthewall, 5.3.5Itisexpectedthatthereceptorsmostaffectedbytheadverseeffectswouldbethefewresidentsaround wouldberenewed.Onthewestsideofthejunction,theheightofthedrystonewallformingthenorthern thehamletofTwiceBrewedwholiveclosetothesiteorwhoarelocatedinelevatedpositionsoverlooking siteboundarywouldbereducedbyapproximatelyonecourseovera30mlength. thesitefromthesouth.Anothergroupofreceptorswhoarelikelytobeparticularlysensitivetonoiseare thoseusingtherecreationalroutesontheWhinSillridgeandforwhomnoisesgeneratedbythe constructionprocesscouldbecarriednorthwardsontheprevailingwind,resultinginatransientbut moderately-substantiallyadverseeffectontheirexperienceandenjoymentofalandscapeotherwise 5.3.1Itisanticipatedthatduringtheconstructionprocesstherewillbeadverselandscapeandvisualeffectsof valued forits tranquillityandescapism. lowtosubstantialsignificance.Thesewouldrelateprimarilytotheeffectsofconstructionplantmovement (bothonandoffthesite)andnoiseonthelocallandscapecharacterandsenseoftranquillitybutwouldbe temporary.Itisexpectedthattheeffectswouldbeofgreatestsignificanceduringtheearlydemolitionand earthmovingstagesofanapproximately18monthconstructionphase. 5.3.2Althoughstockpilesofcrushedconcrete,stoneandbrickgeneratedduringthedemolitionprocesswould 5.4.1Thefollowingsectionsconsidertheanticipatedeffectsonthemainphysicalelementsthatconstitute lookoutofplaceuntilthetimetheycouldbere-cycledduringtheconstructionphase,theywouldonlybe landscapereceptorswithinthesite. visiblefromacomparativelylimitedarea.Thepresenceofsitecabinsandstoragecontainersthemselves wouldrepresentanurbanintrusionintotherurallandscape.Itisunknownwheresitecabinsarelikelyto Existingbuildings: belocated,butintheeventthattheyarepositionedoff-siteonneighbouringlandtothewest,perhapson 5.4.2Thesehavebeenidentifiedasbeingoflowvalueandareconsideredtobeoflowsusceptibilitytochange thesiteof theexistingTwiceBrewedInncarpark,thentheywouldonlyreallyhaveanyvisualsignificance andthereforetobeoflowsensitivity.Theirdemolitionrepresentsamagnitudeofchangewhichis inviewsfromtheB6318roadcorridorwhentravellingwestandfromEastBogfarminitselevatedlocation assessedasbeingbeneficialtoamoderate–substantialdegreeresultinginaneffectofmoderate to thenorth. beneficialsignificance. 5.3.3Increasedlevelsofilluminationareexpectedtoanextentduringhoursofdarknesswhentheconstruction TheVallum: siteisoperationalorwhensitecabinsareoccupiedandthesignificanceofanyadverseeffectsarelikely 5.4.3AsalandscapefeaturewhichisdesignatedasaScheduledAncientMonument,itisofhigh–exceptional tobelowtomoderategiven theirlimiteddurationandwouldonlybevisible fromarestrictedarea. valueandpotentiallyhighlysusceptible tochangeasaresultofnewbuiltdevelopment,makingita Page|24 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. Boundarydrystonewalls: landscapereceptorofhighsensitivity.Theremovaloftheexistingyouthhostelbuildingalongitssouthern boundaryandthecreationofnewopenspacebetweenthenewbuildingsandtheSAMboundarywould 5.4.8Ofmoderatelandscapevalue,theboundarywallswithinthesitearemoderatelysusceptibletothe improvethesettingoftheVallum.Inaddition,theproposedinitialtreeremovalonthemounditselfwould redevelopmentofthesiteon thisscaleandare thereforeofmoderatesensitivity. enhanceitslegibilityinthelandscape.Thisrepresentsamagnitudeofchangewhichismoderately beneficial.Thisislikelytoincreasetoamagnitudeofsubstantiallybeneficialinthelongertermasa 5.4.9Mostoftheexistingwallsaretoberetainedorextendedand,whereremoved,replacedwithnewwallson sensitivevegetationmanagementplanseesthegradualremovalofthegreatmajorityoftheexistingtree slightlydifferentalignments.Thenewboundarywallconstructionwouldmatchthevisualcharacterofthe coverontheVallum.Consequently,thesignificanceoftheeffectoftheproposeddevelopmentonthe existingwalls. Inplaces theywouldbehigherandincorporatepedestrianaccessgates,perhapsgivingthe Vallumwithinthesiteisassessedasbeingmoderatelybeneficial,increasingtosubstantiallybeneficial boundaryfeatureaslightlymoredomesticratherthanagriculturalcharacter. over the20-40yearperiodafterconstructionof thenew facilitiesonsite. 5.4.10Onbalance,theexpectedmagnitudeofchangetothislandscapereceptorisnegligibletolowadverse, 5.4.4FootpathworksproposedforwithinthecopseontheoppositesideoftheMilitaryRoad.wouldhaveno givinganeffectofnegligible tolowadversesignificance. significantimpactonthevisualcharacterof thispartoftheSAM. Southernfield: Treecover: 5.4.11ThefieldtothesouthoftheexistingNNPAcarparkonsiteisconsideredtovaryinlandscapevaluefrom 5.4.5Thetreecoveronsitehasbeenassessedasbeingoflowtomoderatevalueforthereasonssetout moderatetohighlargelyastheresultofthesubtlechangeinlandscapecharacterbetweentheupperand section5.2.Itisaresourcewhichcanberecreatedeasilyenough,butitisacknowledgedthatnew centralpartof the fieldandthemoreenclosedlowersectioninthebottomof the Brackies Burnvalley. plantingmaytakeslightlylongertoreachthelevelsofmaturitycurrentlypresentonsitecomparedtothe Giventhesimplenatureofthislandscapereceptoritishighlysusceptibletochangeasaresultofnew majorityofdevelopmentsitesduetotheexposednatureofthelocationandmoreharshgrowing builddevelopmentmakingitgenerallyhighlysensitivityoverall. conditions.Consequentlyitisconsideredtobeofmoderatesusceptibilitytochangeandoflowto moderatesensitivityoverall. 5.4.12Forthelowersectionofthefield,theintroductionofacameraonthesouthernboundaryaspartofthe systemforadministeringparkingchargesandafootpathconnectingtheproposedoverflowcarpark/ 5.4.6Despitethegenerallypoorqualityofmuchofthetreecover,itsvaluelieslargelyinitsscreeningfunction eventsareawiththemainbuilding,representsalowadversemagnitudeofchange.Theproposedsystem andtheresultingcontributionitmakestothecharacterofthelocallandscape.Asmuchofthemost forprovidingadditionalstrengthtotheexistinggrassswardwouldhaveanegligibleeffectonthevisual significanttreecoverinthisregardistoberetained,themagnitudeofchangeasaresultoftheproposed characterofthispartofthe field. developmentisexpectedtobelowadverse.Theoverallsignificanceoftheeffectontreecoveracrossthe siteis thereforeassessedasbeinglow tomoderatelyadverse. 5.4.13However,inthecentralanduppersectionsagreatermagnitudeofadversechangeisanticipated.A significantproportionofthegrassswardwouldbereplacedwithhardstandingforthevehicularaccess 5.4.7However,astheproposednewnativestructureplantingestablishesandmakesvisualconnectionswith roadandparkingbays,althoughthelatterwouldbeformedinreinforcedgravelsoastogenerateamore existingmaturetreegroupsonthisandadjacentsites,theeffectonthislandscapereceptorisexpected to naturalcolourandvisualtexture.Parkedvehiclesandfeaturesassociatedwiththeproposedplayarea becomeoflowbeneficialsignificance. wouldaddthreedimensionalelementscurrentlylackinginthefield,althoughitshouldbenotedthatthe existing timberpolescarrying theoverheadpowerlinedown thelengthofthe fieldwouldberemovedasa Page|25 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 5.4.18Inallinstances,whenassessedintheseterms,thelandscapearoundtheproposeddevelopmentsiteis resultofthedevelopmentproject.Inaddition,themovementofvehicleswithintheareaofthecarpark judgedtobeofhighvalue,increasing toexceptionallyhighwithregardtodistinctivelocalcharacter. wouldbeverydifferentfromthatofthesheepwhichoccasionallygrazethefield.Consequently,the magnitudeofchangeforthecentralandupperpartofthefieldisexpectedtobemoderatetosubstantially 5.4.19Inthecontextoftheabove,thelandscape’ssusceptibilitytothepotentialchangesassociatedwiththe adverse. constructionofanewbuildingontheexistingsiteisconsideredtobemoderateduetothescaleofthe landscapeandthevisualcharacterofthefacilitiesalreadyonsite.Intermsofestablishinglandscape 5.4.14Asaresult,whereasthesignificanceofeffectonthelowersectionofthefieldisassessedasbeingminor sensitivity, thisisassessedasbeingmoderate-highinallinstances. adverse,theeffectsonpartsofthemoreelevatedsectionsarelikelytobeofmoderatetosubstantial adversesignificancewithinaverylocalcontext. 5.4.20Duetothecomplexityofestablishingtheanticipatedmagnitudeofchangeresultingfromthemanyfacets ofthedevelopmentonthekeyaspectsoflandscapecharacter,itisproposedthatcriticalaspectsofthe 5.4.15Obviouslytheproposednewplantingwhichformspartofthemitigationstrategyforthislandscapeeffect developmentprojectshouldbeassessedindividually.Ajudgementcanthenbemadeonthecomposite wouldtaketimetoestablishandfulfilitsroleasavisualbarrierandfiltertoareasofhardstandingand magnitudeofchange. vehiclesonsite.Basedonapparentgrowthratesforexistingmassplantingonsite,itisanticipatedthat thesignificanceoftheadverseeffectwouldbereducedto‘moderate’withintenyears,andto‘low’within 5.4.21UsingthewithintheNNP’sLocalDevelopment twentyyears. Frameworkasareference,themainaspectsofthedevelopmentselectedforassessmentare:scale– (buildingandexternalworks),rhythm,materials–(colour,texture,reflection),signage,function,lighting, movementandnoise.Eachoneisconsideredin turn,althoughsomeareinevitablyinterconnected. 5.4.16Havingconsideredtheeffectsonindividuallandscapereceptorson thesite, thecumulativeeffectsneedtoScale: beexaminedalongsideotheranticipatedimpactssuchasnewbuildingconstructionandpotentialchanges5.4.22Building-thefootprintofthenewbuilding(2,157m2)isgreaterthanthecombined footprintsoftheexisting to thewaythesiteisusedinordertoassesstheoveralleffectontheperceivedlandscapecharacterof thebuildings(957m2)anditwouldreachtwostoreysinheight(8m)atitseasternendwherecurrentlythe siteandthecontributionitmakestothebroaderlandscape.Theinterrelationshipbetweentheseelements visitorcentreisonlyonestorey.Atitswesternendtheaccommodationblocktotheyouthhostelisalso iscomplexandinlinewithgoodpracticeitisproposedthattheassessmentprocessshouldfocusonwhattwostoreysbutthispartofthestructuredropshalfafloorinrelationtothemainnewbuildingutilisingthe areexpectedtobe themostsignificanteffectsonthekeyaspectsofthebaselinelandscapecharacter.slopingsitetobestadvantage.Similarly,inthenortheastcorner,thegroundfloorexhibitionspaceiscut intoexistinggroundlevelbyc.1m. 5.4.17In Section3of thisreport, thereviewofplanningandmanagementpoliciesrelating tothelandscapeof the NorthumberlandNationalParkandofthelocalareaaroundtheOnce Brewedsiteprovidedanoverviewof5.4.23Theobserver’sperceptionofscaleisinfluencedtoadegreebylevelsofvisualscreening,builtformand thecharacteristicsofthelandscapewhichareconsideredtobeofmostvalueandthereforemostworthyconstructionmaterials(seebelow).Inthisinstance,muchofthetreecoveronthesiteboundariesistobe ofprotection. Itissuggested thatthekeyaspectsofgreatestsignificancecanbesummarisedasbeing:retained,howeverthetreegroupcurrentlyscreeningtheYHAbuildingonitssouthernaspectwouldbe -thesenseof tranquillity;lost. -distinctivelocalcharacter; -darkskiesandthenight timelandscape. Page|26 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 5.4.24Althoughlargerinsize,thedesignedformofthenewbuildingisamoresensitiveresponsetothesiteMaterials: topography,risingoutofthegroundinpartatitseasternendwithasplitlevelroofwhichbreaksupthe5.4.27Colour–intermsofsurfacefinishestothenewmainbuilding,colourswouldgenerallybethenaturaland visualmassofthebuilding.Theproposeduseofnaturalmaterialssuchaswhinstone,sandstoneandmutedwarm/dark/silvergreysandbrownsassociatedwithwhinstone,sandstoneandtimber.These timbercladdingwouldhelpreducetheapparentsizeofthebuilding,allowingittoblendintothesoftercolourswouldextendoutintotheexternalsurfacefinishesthroughtheuseofnaturalaggregates surroundingsoftlandscapingasisthecasewith theexistingstructure.Significantlymoreglazingisandstoneflags.Althoughparkingareaswouldbeformedinnaturalaggregates,mainvehicularcirculation proposedinthenewstructurethancurrentlyexistsandthiscanhelpreducetheperceptionofvisualmassrouteswouldbe formedinblack tarmac–asis thecasein theexistingcarparkonsite. Extensiveareasof byreflectingsurroundingcoloursandtextures.Magnitudeofchangeinrelationtosizeofbuilding=lowtoglazingwouldgenerallyreflectcoloursinthesurroundingexternallandscaping.Withregardto thecolour moderateadverse.ofmaterialsusedformiscellaneousitemswithinexternalcirculationspaces,itisanticipatedthata consideredandcoordinatedapproachtospecificationonthenewprojectwouldgenerateamoresubtle 5.4.25Externalworks-anincreaseintheareaofcarparkingisproposed.Theexistingsitehascapacityforc.77palateofcoloursthancurrentlyexists.Therewouldbeaverystrongemphasisontheuseofappropriate no.vehicleswhereasthenewpermanentcarparkfacilitywouldaccommodatec.90vehiclesincluding3nativetree,shrub,herbaceousandgrassspeciesthroughoutthesiteanditisanticipatedthatcoloursof coaches.Themajorityofthesewouldbelocatedinafieldcurrentlyusedforpasturetothesouthofthethesoftlandscapingwouldblendsuccessfullywiththewiderlandscape.Theeffectsofthecolourofthe existingsite,resultinginthepermanentreplacementofsoftlandscapingwithhardstandingandstaticwhinvegetationproposedforthegreenroofaredifficulttoassessgiventhattherecreationofsuch vehicles.Themagnitudeofchangeinrelationtothescaleoftheexternallayoutfortheuppersectionsofspecialistanduniqueplantcommunitiesinagreenrooflocationisuntestedandcolonisation/success thefieldismoderatetosubstantialadversebutisexperiencedfromacomparativelyrestrictedarealocally.ratesareunknown.However,itisexpectedthatthecolourofthevegetationthatdoesestablish,although Inaddition,whenconsideringthechangeinsizeorextentofcarparking,changesindistributionofthehavingaresonancewithgrasslandinthewiderlocallandscape,willdifferfromthatofthegrazedfields areasofparkingarealsoimportant.Thenewdevelopmentwouldseetheremovalofparkingononeoftheadjacenttothesite–particularlyastheharshermicroclimateofthegreenroofmayresultintherooftop mostvisuallyprominentpartsofthesite(thatbeingthenortheastcorner–visiblefromtheWHSandthevegetationrespondingearliertoseasonalchangesthantheplantcommunitiesintheneighbouringfields. MilitaryRoadcorridor)withtheareabeinggivenovertosoftlandscaping.ThiswouldbringabeneficialInthelightoftheabove,themagnitudeofchangeinrelationtothecolourofmaterialsforbuiltstructures changeoflowmagnitude.Afurtherc.90overflowparkingspacesareproposedforthemorelevellowerwouldbeexpectedtobelowbeneficial.However,whenconsideredtogetherwiththeintroductionofcars areaatthesouthernendofthefieldbutasthiswouldbeonlyoccasionalandisreversible,thenetlevelofintothegreenfieldtothesouthoftheexistingsite,(whichisoff-settoadegreebythebeneficialeffectof changefor thismoresensitivepartofthesiteisassessedasbeingnegligible.theproposaltoremovevehiclesfromthenorthernsiteboundary)themagnitudeofchangeshiftstobeing oneofmoderateadverse. Rhythm: 5.4.26Theformofthenewbuilding’sgreenrooflineisintendedtoflowoutofthelandscapeandtheelevational5.4.28Texture–theissuesareverymuchthesameasthosesetoutaboveforthecolourofmaterialsusedon treatments,onthenorthsideinparticular,aredesignedtoreflecttherhythmoftheWhinSillescarpmentthedevelopment,themainexceptionbeingthatoftheproposedglazing.Althoughlargeglazedpanelsdo itself.Thepatternoflevelchangesinthebuiltformmimicsthatofthelocalcuestalandscapeasdotheoccurontheexistingbuildings,theproposedglazedsouthernelevationatthemainentrance,theglazed linesandterracesintheexternallayout.Thiscontrastsfavourablywiththeregulargeometricpatternsoffirstfloorcaféandtheglazedatriumaredesignedtofeatureaskeyelementsofthefabricofthebuilding. theexistingsitefeaturesandlayout.MagnitudeofchangeinrelationtorhythmofbuiltstructuresandLongsectionsofglasspresentavisualtexturewhichisverycontemporaryincharacteranditsuseinthis externallayout=substantialbeneficial.mannerrepresentsadeparturefromthescaletowhichitischaracteristicallyusedinbuildingselsewhere within thelocallandscape.Consequently, themagnitudeofchangeinrelationto thevisualtextureof Page|27 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 5.4.32Existingsignagewithinthesite,althoughuncoordinated,doesnotappeartohaveasignificantadverse materialsusedonsiteisassessedasbeinglow-moderateadverse.However,seesectionon‘function’effectonlandscapecharacter.NewsignagefortheLandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostelwould below.bekepttoaminimumandwouldbecoordinatedintermsof form,styleandmaterials. A mainsitemarker 5.4.29Reflection–theissueoflightreflectionoffglazedsurfaceswithinthebuildingandoffthemetallicsurfacesfortheprojectcouldbethesubjectofanartist’scommissionandassuchnodesignproposalsare ofvehiclesissignificantgiventheproposedincreaseinboththeseelementswithinthedevelopmentavailableforassessment.However,itisanticipatedthatpartofanydesignbriefwouldbetherequirement proposals.Theglareresultingfromsunlightreflectingoffsuchsurfacesmaybeonlytransientbutwhenthatanyinstallationmustrepresentacreativeresponse tothecharacterofthelocallandscape. seenin thecontextofalandscapewhichisgenerallyregardedasbeing free fromovertsignsofsignificant humanintrusion, theexperienceisreadilyinterpretedasanindicatorofthepresenceofman-made5.4.33ThepresenceofsignageandinterpretationalongtheMilitaryRoadisidentifiedasbeingcharacteristicof objectsinthelandscape.AcomputergeneratedsunpathmodelhasconfirmedthatthelargeareaofthelandscapeoftheareaintheLandscapeCharacterAssessmentofTynedaleDistrictand glazingtothecaféwhichfacesnortheasttowardstheWhinSillandHadrian’sWallWHSwillnotNorthumberlandNationalPark(seesection5.3).Existingbusstopsignslocatedin thehighwayverge experiencedirectsunlightandwouldnotthereforeresultinreflectedlightbeingvisiblefromelevatedvieweithersideoftheroadleadingintothesitewouldberemovedaspartoftheproject(buseswouldpick-up/ pointstothenorth.drop-offwithinthesite)bringingsomebeneficialeffect. 5.4.30Theglazedsouthfacingelevationisshieldedbyacanopyofphotovoltaicpanelsthatprojects3mfromthe5.4.34Acomprehensivereviewof theexistingroadsignageand theneed toreplacedamagedsignsand thesize buildingandwhichwouldthereforescreenthewindowsfromdirectsunlight.Thepanelsthemselvesareandpositioningofsignshasyettobecarriedout.Thisprocessmaybecomelinkedtothepossible positionedatananglethatwouldnotresultinvisiblesolarglareandwhichgivesthemaverylowvisualintroductionofa40mphspeedrestrictionalongtheMilitaryRoadatTwiceBrewed.However,giventhe profilewhenseeninviewsformthesouth.However,thesouthandsoutheastfacingglazingtotheatriumlevelofsignagealreadyinplace,itisanticipatedthatthemagnitudeofchangeinrelationtosignage couldresultinreflectedlightbeingseenfrompointswithinarestrictedareaonthesouthsideofthewouldbenegligible. BrackiesBurnandBradleyBurnvalleys,althoughthiswouldbeoccasionalandobviouslyofatransient nature.Thesameappliestothereflectionoflightoffthemetallicsurfacesandwindscreensofparked/Function: movingcarswithintheproposedsouthfacingcarpark.Itisalsoworthnotingherethatlightreflectionis5.4.35The‘DesignGuideSupplementaryPlanningDocument’reviewedinsection3.3aboveobservesthat notuncommonwithinthebroaderlandscapedependingonweatherconditionsandtimeofyear.TheglarewithintheNationalPark,formandhierarchyisevidentinindividualbuildingsandthatthishastraditionally ofreflectedstrongsunlightcanbeseenacrossthelandscapefrommultiplesourcessuchasstandingbeendictatedbyfunctionandintendedstatus.Itisthecasethatpublicknowledgeaboutthefunctionor waterinfieldsandonroadsandfromwetblackplasticbalewrap.Magnitudeofchangeinrelationtoroleofabuildingwillinfluencehowitspresenceinthelandscapeisinterpreted.InthecaseofTheSill increaseinreflectivesurfaces=lowadverse.project,thescaleandformofthebuildinganduseofcontemporarysustainableconstructiontechniques mayberegardedmorefavourablyintheknowledgethatthebuildingrepresentsapublicgatewaytothe Signage:NationalParkandacts,quiteliterallyasawindowtotherichesofitslandscapes,thanifitwereaprivate 5.4.31Badlylocatedorpoorlycoordinatedsignagecanleadtotheurbanisationofthelandscape.Aswellascommercialventureordomesticresidence.TheLandscapeDiscoveryCentrewouldbeoneoftheprimary signageproposedfortheareawithinthesite,whererequired,effectsrelatingtotheintroductionofnewvisitordestinationsintheNationalParkandpossiblytheregion.Theprinciplethatthisstatusshouldbe signagewithinthepublichighwaysontheapproach tothenewfacilitiesneedstobe takenintoaccount.reflectedinitsappearanceandpresenceinthelandscapeisonewhichhasbeenlongestablishedinthis ancientlandscape.Magnitudeofchangeinrelationtothevisualinterpretationoftheintendedfunctionof thebuilding=substantiallybeneficial. Page|28 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. Lighting:footpathroutetoreadasaregularlinearfeaturewhichisoutofkeepingwiththegeneraldistribution 5.4.36Therearethreemainaspectsrelatingspecificallytotheissueoflightinginrelationtothelandscapeandpatternofinfrequentandscatteredlightsourcesacrossthenightlandscape.Withoutmitigation,thiswould visualeffectsof thedevelopmentproposal:generateamagnitudeofchangewhichwasmoderate-substantiallyadverseoveralimitedlocalarea. Lightspillfrominternallightsources–theexistingYHAfacilityisoperational24hrsadaybutbetweentheAgainhowever,itisexpectedthatthedesignoftheexternallightingwouldcomplywithguidanceinthe endofOctoberandtheendofMarch,theNNPAvisitorcentreclosesduringtheweekandisonlyopenLightingManagementPlan.Lightingtothefootpathinparticularcouldbemovementactivatedsothatits between10am–3pmatweekendsduringthisperiod.ThenewYHAwouldoperateonthesamebasisaspresenceisonlytemporaryanditcouldbeswitchedoffafteracertaintimeintheevenings.Onthisbasis, theexisting,butthenewLandscapeDiscoveryCentreisexpectedtooperateallyearroundandtoprovidethepotentialmagnitudeofchangeisassessedasbeinglow-moderatelyadverse. avenueforeveningactivities.Whereastheglazingtotheproposedfirstfloorcaféwouldhaveblack-out blinds,theglazedatrium,theglazedskylighttotheYHAaccommodationblockandthefloortoceiling5.4.38Thevisualimpactofilluminationfromcarheadlamps–althoughtransitoryinnature, themovingglare from glazingatthemainentrancewhichprovidesaccesstotheYHApartofthebuildingandsowouldbecarheadlampsdraws theeyeinanotherwise tranquilnight timelandscapeandisvisible fromasignificant operational24hrsaday,wouldnothaveanyscreening.Consequently,thereishigherpotentialforlightdistance.TheexistingcarparkingfortheYHAisonthenorthernboundaryofthesitewherenighttime spilltooccuratthesepoints.SuchlightspillagewouldmostlikelypresentitselfasasoftglowalongthevehicularmovementisafeatureoftheMilitaryRoadcorridor.TheNNPAcarparkingwherevehiclesare lengthoftheseglazedfeaturesatascaleandformwhichwouldbeuncharacteristicofexistingpatternsofgenerallyoffsiteby4pminwintermonthsislocatedonthemorepeacefulsouthernsideof thebuilding. nighttimeilluminationinthelocality.ThereissomeinternalglowwithintheexistingyouthhostelbutitisIncontrast,thenewdevelopmentwouldseeallvehicleparkingprovidedonthesouthfacingvalleyslope. generallyscreenedfrompublicviewbyplanting.Withoutanymitigationmeasuresinplace,theexpectedTheincreaseinboththelikelydurationofperiodsofnighttimevehiclemovementandtheactualnumber magnitudeofchangeinrelationtolightspillagefromthebuildingwouldbemoderatelyadverse,theofmovementswouldrepresentasubstantialadversemagnitudeofchangewithregardtotheeffectsof changebeinggreatestwhenobservedfromthesouth.However,itisexpectedthatinternallightfittingsinilluminationfromcarheadlampswhenseenfromlimitedareaswithinthelowerpartsoftheBrackiesBurn thepubliccirculationspaceintheseareaswouldpreventanylightspillagebeyondthehorizontalandvalley,butwouldreduceinsignificanceasonemovedupthevalleyslopes(seeschedule1– PM5). wouldcomplywith thedesignguidancesetoutin theLightingManagement Plan.Togetherwith theimpact ofscreenplantingasitmatures,themagnitudeofchangewouldberevisedtolow–moderateadverseMovement: afterapproximately10years,andlow–negligibleafter20years.5.4.39Themovementofobjectswithinalandscapecaninfluencetheperceivedlevelsofpeacefulnessand tranquillityascribedtoitscharacter.Itisexpectedthatthenewsitefacilitiescouldattract80,000visitorsa 5.4.37Lightspillfromexternallighting–insection4.4itwasnotedthatwallmountedexternallightingontheyear–withthepotentialforthistoincreaseto100,000withinathreeyearperiodfromopeningand existingbuildingsarenotcoveredandthemaineffectofthisisexperiencedinviewsfromthenorthwhereperhapsupto120,000overalongerperiod.Althoughcurrentvisitornumbersareatalevelofc.45,000a theregularspacingofexternallightunitsgivestheimpressionoftherebeingalargecommercialscaleyear,inthe1990’stheystoodataround100,000,droppingtoc.70,000by2005-6.Consequently,the buildingpresentinthenightlandscape.Consequently,theirremovalwouldbeachangeoflowbeneficialtargetvisitornumbersforthenewfacilitydonotrepresentasignificantdeparturefromthenumbersof magnitude.Allexternallightingassociatedwiththenewdevelopmentwouldbecoveredtopreventlightvisitorsaccommodatedonthesitewithinthelast20years.Thetwomainfactorsassociatedwithhigher spillbeyondthehorizontalandlightsourceswouldbeorientatedsoastofaceawayfromprimarypublicvisitornumberstothenewbuildingaretheincreaseinvehiclemovementsandtheheightenedvisibilityof viewpointsbeyondthesiteboundary.Onthenewdevelopmentproposal,theelementmostlikelytopeopleaccessingthecaféterraceandgreenroof.Theeffectassociatedwithstaticparkedcarsis generateadverseeffectswouldbethelightingrequiredforthecarparkareasandforthepedestrianconsideredundertheheadingof‘materials’above.Theeffectsrelatingspecificallytomovingcarsare routeslinkingtheupper,lowerandoverflowparkingareawiththemainbuilding.Lightsourceswouldbeconsideredtobesecondarybutwouldstillbeadversewhenoccurringanapartofthesitewhichis presentinviews fromthesouthwheretherecurrentlyarenoneand thereisthepotential forlighting tothepredominantlystaticincharacter–apart fromwhensheeparepresentin the field.Inalandscapewhere Page|29 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. thousandsofvisitorswalkalongvisuallyprominentsectionsofthelineofHadrian’sWallandalongtheofSycamoreGap.However,giventhenatureoftheterrainaffected,thisincreaseintheZVTisnot minorroadsadjacenttotheOnce Brewedsite,thepresenceofvisitorsto thesitewalkingup therampedconsideredsignificant. greenroofdoesnotrepresentanadversechangeandcouldevenbeconsideredasanotherfeatureof interestontheB6318route.Consequentlythemagnitudeofchangerelatingtoissuesofincreased5.4.43ForthoseresidentintheclusterofpropertiesmakingupthehamletofTwiceBrewed,thenewbuildingon movementonthesiteisassessedasbeinglowadverse.theOnceBrewedsitewouldbehiddenbythetreecoveraroundtheboundaryofthesiteorbyexisting buildings.Aviewofthesouthernfieldcontainingvehiclesinthenewcarparkwouldbepossiblefroma Noise:shortsectionofroadeastofWinshieldsFarmcampsitebutwouldbeoflowsignificanceintheview.In 5.4.40GiventhepresenceoftheB6318roadcorridorimmediatelytothenorthofthesiteandthelackoftermsofnighttimeviews,thepotentialeffectonresidentialvisualreceptorslocatedonthesouthsideof permanentneighbouringreceptorswhomightbeaffectedbyanymoderateincreaseinnoiseasaresultoftheBrackiesBurnvalley,fromwheretheimpactoflightingislikelytobegreatest,isassessedinrelation increasedvisitornumbersandexternalevents,themagnitudeofchangeinthelandscapecharactertoviewpoint PM5inSchedule1below. relatingtoincreasednoiselevelsisconsidered tobenegligibleadverse. 5.4.44InthebroaderlandscapewithintheZTV,oneoftheareaspotentiallymostsensitivetoincreasednight 5.4.41Insection4.2ofthisreportitwasnotedthatanyeffectswhichareassessedasbeingmoderatelyortimeilluminationisthehighergroundsoutheastofLangleyonthebasisthatthisisprobablythemost substantiallyadverseshouldinfluencethemitigationstrategyfortheproposeddevelopment.readilyaccessedpartoftheAONBwithintheZTVwhichgiveslongdistancevistasthatincludetheOnce Consequently,itisworthlookinginmoredetailattheelementsthatarebelievedtogeneratethemostBrewedsite.FromtheviewpointVP6(seeFigure4)ontheB6305,uncoveredlightsourcesassociated significantmagnitudesofadversechangeinlandscapecharacter–namely:scaleofexternalworks;colourwiththenewfacilitiescouldpotentiallybevisible.Asofterglowarisingfromlightspillagefromhiddenlight ofmaterials,andlighting.Inallinstancesthecriticalissuesrelatetotheimpactofextendingcarparkingsourcessuchasmightoccuralongthelineoftheglazedatrium,wouldbemuchlesslegibleatthis intothesouthernfieldwheretheresultingeffectshavebeenassessedonthebasisoftheconditionofthedistance.However,anylightingwouldbeseeninthecontextofanighttimeviewwhichalreadyfeatures siteatthetimeofcompletionoftheconstructionworks.Obviously,theproposedscreenplantingwithinthebrightlightsonthehorizontothewestofOnceBrewed;movinglightsontheA69(andtoalesserextent carparkareasandparticularlyalongthesouthernedgewillhaveasignificantmitigatingeffectgiventimeontheB6318);smallclustersoflightsgenerallyacrossthelandscape(includingBardonMill, intermsofthescreening/filteringofviewsofparkedcarsandassociatedexternallighting.Consequently,Humshaugh),andalargerclusteratHaltwhistle.Consequently,thesignificanceofanyadditionalexternal itisassessedthataftertenyearsgrowth,effectsjudgedtobemoderatelyadversewillbemitigatedtolowlightingonviewsfrom theNorthPenninesAONBisassessedasbeingnegligible. adverse,diminishingtonegligibleadverseafter20yearswhentheplantingshouldbeapproachinga heightcomparabletoexisting treegroups. 5.4.46Thenatureofmoredirectviewsofthesitefromwithinthewiderlocalareaisassessedusingtheselected viewpointsidentifiedinFigure6.Thesehavebeenpickedonthebasisofselectingwhatareconsidered to 5.4.42TheZoneofTheoreticalVisibility(ZTV)forthesitecontainingan8mhighstructure(seeFigure4)isonlybethemostsensitivevisualreceptorswhethertheyareprivateproperties,publicrecreationalroutesor marginallylargerthanthatbasedongroundlevel.Inthewiderlandscapeitismoreextensiveinthearealandscapeviewpointsofaesthetic,culturalorheritagesignificanceandtheselectionhasbeenmakein tothesouthofBeltinghamandtheareanorthofWhitfieldandincludesnewareasofmoorlandwestofconsultationwiththeNationalParkplanningauthority.Toassisttheassessmentprocess,photographs WhitfieldandatBlenkinsonCommonsouthofGreenfield.Nearerthesite(seeFigure6)itisslightlymoretakenfromthosevisualreceptorsthoughttobeofhighestvaluehavebeenusedtogenerate extensiveintheareaaroundThorngraftonCommon,on thesouthernslopesofHotbankCragsandsouthphotomontagesoftheproposeddevelopment(PMnos.1-8).Photographswiththedevelopmentsite identifiedhavebeenused for theremainingviewpoints(VP nos.1-5). Page|30 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. PM1WinshieldsCrags(Hadrian’sWallPathand1.2km:None required. WHS and national recreational route. PennineWay) 374211,567564 : ExtensiveviewssouthtotheNorthPenninesAONBarepossiblefromthemostelevatedpointon theWhinSillridge.Thesiteisvisibleinthemiddledistance.TheYHAaccommodationblockis visibleinpartaboveperipheraltreecoverbutthescalenotdissimilartotheneighbouringTwice Brewed Inn whichis much more prominentin theview. : . PM2PeelCrags(Hadrian’sWallPathand650m:None required. WHS and national recreational route. PennineWay) 375390,567540: ViewssouthtotheNorthPenninesAONBarepossibleoverthesouthernridgeoftheBrackies BurnValley. Thesiteisvisibleinthemiddledistance.Theeasternendoftheglazedcaféisprominentbut muchoftheremainderofthenewbuildingisheavilyfilteredbyretainedtreecoveralongthe Vallum.Thecontemporarymaterialsofthevisiblestructurehavenostrongcolourstodrawthe eye,unliketheTwiceBrewedInnwhichcontrastsstronglywiththemutednaturalcoloursofthe surroundinglandscapeandwhichiscomparableinscalewiththevisiblesectionsoftheproposed newstructure.Vehiclescurrentlyvisible atthe north eastcorner of thesitewhen present,wouldbe removedfromtheview.ThepropertyofSeatsidesisalsoprominentintheviewontopoftheridge just below theskyline. : . PM3MilitaryRoadcorridortothewest(nr.100m:None required. Thisroadisthemainroutefortouristspassingthroughthisvaluedlandscapebutviewsofthesite TwiceBrewed Inn) aretransitory.TheeyeoftravellersislikelytobedrawntoprominentviewsofPeelCragtothe 375110,566900 north. : LiketheexistingYHAbuilding,thenewfacilitywouldbelargelyscreenedbyexistingboundary treecover.AshortsectionoftheYHAaccommodationblockwouldbevisibleinviewsacrossthe easternend of the TwiceBrewed Inn car park. : . Page|31 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. PM4MilitaryRoadcorridortotheeast(near150m:Specimentreeplantingproposedontheeasternboundaryofthesitewould junction)Thisroadisthe mainroutefortourists passingthroughthisvaluedlandscapeandviews of thesitefurtherbreakupthevisualmassofthebuildingandtheamountofglazing 375470,566986arelesstransitorywhenheadingwest.Formanyvisitorstravellingforleisurepurposes,thenewwhichcanbeseen,reducingthesignificanceofthevisualeffectovertimeto buildingmay represent their destinationpoint.. : Screenedin parton theapproach by the boundarywallon thesouthside of the road forthose travellingbycar, oncevisiblethe buildingwould draw the eye, the glazing andsteelwork of the green roofbalustraderepresenting averycontemporarystructure.Colourshoweverwouldbe neutralwith the possibilityofsomelate afternoonsun reflecting off thecafé’ssouthfacing windows. Thelowersection of the sloping green roof breaksup the visualmassof thebuilding. Theverticalsupport of thecafécanopy andvertical balustrade posts arecharacteristic ofother vertical elementssuchas fence posts, telegraphpoles and exposed tree trunks. The bat rooststructureintheYHA garden in the northwestcorner ofthesitewould bescreened to a significantdegreeby a retainedoak tree near thecorner of the café terrace. : . PM5Seatsides residentialpropertyandPROW520m:Asitmatures,thestructureplantingproposedwithinthecarparkandalong 374933,566131PrivateresidenceandminorrecreationalroutebutwithclearviewsoftheWhinSillRidgeandtheitssouthernandwesternedgeswouldreducethesignificanceofthis WHS.adverseeffecttoby eventuallyscreening thecarparkand providing aheavy filter toviews of thebuilding. : ThenewbuildingsitsbelowtheskylinebutclosetothelandformofPeelCragwhichdrawsthe eye.Muchofthenewbuildingisvisibleatthisangleofviewandwouldappearasthelargestbuilt structureinthelocallandscape.AlthoughcarsintheexistingNNPAcarparkarevisibleinthe currentview,thenewcarparkingwouldbemoreextensiveandcoachesparkedagainsttheback dropofexistingwoodlandwouldbevisible.Theplayareawouldalsobeseen.Astheviewpointis higherthanthenewdevelopment,itisunlikelythattherewouldbeasignificantissuerelatingto sunlightreflectingoffthesouthfacingatriumglazingbutvisualreceptorscouldexperience temporarysun glare off vehicles at times. Seatsidesislikelytobetheprivatepropertymostaffectedbytheimpactofexternallighting. However,fromthisvantagepointtwobrightlightsourcescanbeseenontheexistingsiteand lightingfromneighbouringproperties(VallumLodge,EastBog,TwiceBrewedInn,Smith’sField) isalsovisible.Inaddition,carheadlampscanclearlybeseenmovingalongtheMilitaryRoad alongmuchofthesectionfromHotbankCragstoapointpastWinshieldFarmcampsite.Seenin thiscontext, the introduction ofvehiclelightsinto the southern fieldislesssignificant thanmightbe first anticipated. : . Page|32 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. PM6‘LongStone’viewpoint,minorroadand2.58km:None required. PROW, ThorngraftonCommonThisviewpoint representsviews gained from a minor roadand recreational route but whichinclude 377851,566414viewsdown on tothesite of Vindolanda. : TheOnceBrewedsiteisvisibleinthesamedirectionofviewasboththeRomanheritagesiteof VindolandaandWinshieldsCrag,butanynewbuildingwouldbebarelynoticeablewhenseen fromthisdistance,especiallywhenotherbuildingssuchasfarmsteadsareclearlyvisibleasa feature ofthelocallandscape. : . PM7130m ‘SpringwellCottage’,NationalTrustholiday:LongertermmanagementoftreeremovalontheVallumshouldbesensitive cottageHolidaycottage ownedbyNational Trust.tothevisualeffectsexperiencedbythisvisualreceptor.Newplanting 375280,567068NopermanentresidentsbutoccupierslikelytobestayingforthepurposeofrecreationalproposedforthespacebetweenthenewbuildingandtheVallumSAMto engagementwiththelandscape.,althoughpropertylooksouttowardsB6318roadcorridor.maintainlightfilteringofviewsofthenewbuilding,couldbepositionedto maximise thescreeningeffectfrom this property. :Ifnecessary,thereisscopetoplantahedgeforscreeningpurposesalong PrincipleviewfromfrontofpropertyissouthtoMilitaryRoadwhichvirtuallyformstheskyline,withtheinner edgeof thesouthern boundarywallto thecottage. nosignificantdistanthorizonthedrawtheeye.RoofofexistingNNPAvisitorcentreisvisible aboveoldearthworksontheforegroundbutisvisuallyindistinct.Theeasternendofthenew buildingwithitsglazedcaféwouldbehigherandmaterialsmorecontemporaryinappearance. Peopleonthecaféterraceandthegreenroofobservationpointabovethecaféwouldbevisible, introducingcolourandmovementintotheview,withassociatedpossibleincreasednoiselevels abovethesoundofanytrafficmovements.However,proposedeventsspacesbetweenthe building and the B6318wouldbe hidden fromview.Thewestern end of the YHA facilitieswouldbe visibleasaretheexisting,butwithslightlylessfilteringfollowingselectedtreeremovalonthe Vallum.Thisisoneviewwherethescreening/filteringofthenewbuildingbytreecoverwouldbe significantlyhigherwhen deciduous trees areinleaf, than duringwintermonths. : . Page|33 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. PM8HenshawtoOnceBrewedminorcountry160m:Thevisualeffectonreceptorsatthisviewpointisbasedontheconditionof roadMaindirectionofapproachtotheOnceBrewedfacilitiesfortouristsleavingtheA69.Viewsfromthesiteattimeofcompletionofthecontractedworksandsotheeffectsof 375409,566515theroadaretransientwithdirectviewsintothesouthernfieldoftenfilteredbyroadsidevegetation,mitigatingscreenplantingisnottakenintoaccount.Itisanticipatedthatas butthesiteisseeninthecontextofthefirstopendramaticviewsofPeelCragandtheWhinSilltheplantingmatures,after10yearstheadversesignificanceofvisualeffects ridgelineastravellerscrossthelocalridgelineandtheNNPboundaryanddropdownintothewouldbereducedto,reducingfurthertoaftertwenty BrackiesBurnvalley.years,whenthenewstructureplantingwouldblendseamlesslywiththe existing tree groups eitherside. : TheNNPALandscapeDiscoveryCentrewouldbehiddenbehindtheexistingwoodlandalongthe easternsiteboundarybuttherewouldbedirectopenviewsoftheYHAaccommodationblock. Whereastheproposedneutralfacingmaterialsofstoneandtimberforthevisiblepartofthe buildingwouldsitcomfortablyinthelandscape,thecoloursandreflectivenatureofparked vehiclesinthesouthernfieldwoulddrawtheeye.Althoughthefareasterncornerofthecaféis likely tobeseen projecting out from behind thesemi-maturewoodlandblock, parkedvehiclessuch ascars,vansandminibuseswhicharecurrentlyvisiblewhenpresentintheYHAcarparkinthe north easterncorner,would be removed fromview. OtherbuildingssuchastheTwiceBrewedInn,WestTwiceBrewedandEastBogfarmarealso visibleintheview,butthenewbuildingisgreaterinscale.Thescaleofthenewparkingareais significantlyforeshortenedintheviewsothatcarsatthesouthernendofthecarparkwould screenthosefurtheruptheslope.Parkedcoacheswouldbeseen,butagainstawoodland backdrop. : VP1MilitaryRoadcorridortothewestofthe320:In time,screen plantingwouldreducethislevel ofsignificance to . TwiceBrewed InnThisroadisthemainroutefortouristspassingthroughthisvaluedlandscapebutneardistance 374872,566838viewstendtobetransitory.TheeyeoftravellersislikelytobedrawntoprominentviewsofPeel Crag to the north. : Thenorthernpartofthesiteisscreenedfromviewbyexistingbuildingsandvegetationcover. Althoughlimitedtransientviewsoftheuppersectionofthesouthernfieldarepossible,evenwhen containingparkedcars, thisisunlikelyto draw the eye. : . Page|34 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. VP2PROW nr. Melkridge TileryCampsite1.95km:Proposednativestructureplantingwouldreducethesignificanceofthis Aviewfromaminorrecreationalroutebutwhichprovidesopenvistasnorthinwhichtheprofile 373400,566040effect to and drama of theWhinSillescarpmentis particularlylegible. : Theproposednewbuildingwouldbehiddenbyexistingtreecoverinthelocalitybutalimitedview ofthesouthernfieldispossible.Althoughindistinctinthebroaderlandscapeatpresent,this elementofthesiteismorelikelytocatchtheeyewhencontainingparkedcars(whichmayreflect strongsunlightattimes)andtheproposedplayarea.Itisworthnotinghowever,thatvehicles moving on theB6318 are a regular featurein thisview. : . VP3‘PeelBothy’,National Trustholidaycottage460mNone required. : Holidaycottage ownedbyNational Trust. 375278,567410 Nopermanentresidentsbutoccupierslikelytobestayingforthepurposeofrecreational engagementwith the landscape. : Principleviewsfromthefront ofthepropertyaresouthward acrosstheBrackiesBurnvalley.From thiselevatedposition,unlikeSpringwellCottage,muchmoreextensiveviewsoverthesouthern valleyridgetotheNorthPenninesAONBbeyond,arepossible.Theglazednorth-eastfacingcafé islikely to be visiblein the positionwhere the currentvisitorcentreisseen now. The YHA facilityis likelytobelessfilteredintheviewthantheexistingbuildingduetoproposedselectivetree removalontheVallum.Theactualscaleofthebuildingwouldbebrokenupbytheretainedtree coverwiththeresultthatvisiblesectionsofthebuildingwouldbeinkeepingwiththescaleofthe neighbouringTwiceBrewedInn,butwouldblendmoresuccessfullyintothevisualtextureofthe landscape.Inthisview,otherelementssuchastheNorthPenninemoorsonthehorizonandthe propertyofSeatsidesinitsprominentlocationontopoftheBrackiesBurnvalleyridgearealso likely to register asfocal points of interest. : . Page|35 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. VP4Milecastle 39nr‘SycamoreGap’, (Hadrian’s1.05km:None required. WHSandnationalrecreationalroute.Regionalvisitordestinationofcontemporarycultural WallPathandPennineWay) significance. 376150,567717 : TheOnceBrewedsitefeaturesinthemiddlegroundofvistaswhichextendasignificantdistance totheNorthPennines–weatherpermitting.Inthisviewsouthward,thelandscapeappearstobe verysimpleandrollingandtheOnceBrewedsitefacilitieswouldregisterwithreceptorasafocal pointofinterest,setwithinaclumpofexistingtrees.Thevisiblesectionsofnewbuildingwould comparefavourablyintermsofscalecomparedwiththeneighbouringTwiceBrewedInn. : . VP5HotbankCrags,(Hadrian’sWallPathand3.3kmNone required. : WHS and national recreational route. PennineWay) 378045,568616 : Siteisonlyjust discernableinlong distanceviews gainedfromjust belowtheWhinSillridge. From the ridgeitself thesiteishidden by anexisting plantation. : . Page|36 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 6.2.2Thepositioningoftheproposedbuildinganditsalignmentwithinthesitehasbeeninfluencedbyadesire torespondpositivelytoboththedetailedsitecharacteristicsandthebroaderlandscapecharacter.The alignmentofthebuildingmaximisestheopportunitytobedthestructureintotheslopingtopography, 6.1.1Mitigationofpotentialsignificantadverseeffectscanbeaddressedthroughtheprocessesofpreventionor therebyminimisingthevisualeffectsofprovidingatwostoreybuildingsonthesite,whileatthesametime avoidance(thepreferredoption);throughreduction,orthroughcompensation(generallyconsideredtobe makingthemostofthevisualconnectionwiththedramaticviewsofPeelCragstothenortheast.Italso theleastfavourableoption). allowsthegreenrooftomergewiththeexistinggroundlevelsinaseamlessintegrationoflandscapeand building.Thegreenroofitselfisalsointendedtoreducetheapparentvisualmassoftheproposednew 6.1.2ThissectionoftheLVIAexplainshowareviewofpotentiallandscapeandvisualeffectshasbeena builtstructure. fundamentalpartofthebroaderiterativedesignprocessforTheSillprojectandthatthemitigationof 6.2.3ThepositioningofthebuildingavoidsadversephysicalimpactontheVallumScheduledAncient potentialadverseeffectshasbeenconsideredfromtheearlieststagesofthefirstsiteanalysisand Monumentandfacilitatestheretentionofthemajorityofthekeytreesonthenorthernandwesternsite identificationofsiteconstraintsandopportunities.Aswellasprovidinganoverviewtothedesign boundariesandthevisualscreening/filteringfunctionwhichtheyperform.Muchoftheproposedtree developmentoftheprojectandidentifyingthemainmitigationmeasuresembeddedinthefinaldesign removalonthenorthernboundaryisdrivenbyadesiretoimprovethelegibilityandinterpretationofthe scheme,italsoreviewsalternativedesignoptionsforthecarparkingelementwhichwererejectedonthe Vallumasaheritageassetandpromoteitspreservation. basisoflandscapeandvisualconsiderations.Itthenconsidersmitigationproposalsrelatingspecificallyto 6.2.4Similarly,toprotectandenhancethesettingoftheVallum,adecisionwastakentoremoveanycar thepotentialconstructionandpost-constructionphasesoftheproject. parkingorservice/deliveryareafromthezonebetweenthenorthernelevationofthebuildingandthe Scheduled AncientMonument. 6.1.3Theimpactthatthemitigationmeasuresincorporatedwithinthedevelopmentproposalareexpectedto 6.2.5Withregardtothelayoutofexternalspaces,thecarparkingforthenewfacilitieshasbeenlocatedtothe haveonthepotentialsignificantadverselandscapeandvisualeffectsidentified,istakenintoaccount southofthebuildingwhereitisscreenedfromviewsgainedfromtheHadrian’sWallandtheWorld within theassessmentprocesssetoutinsection5. HeritageSite.Alternativelocationsforthecarparkingwereconsideredduringthedesignprocesspriorto beingdiscountedandthesearereviewedinsection6.3below. 6.2.6Thelayoutofthefinalcarparkdesignisintendedtobalancearequirementtodeliverasmanyparking spacescloseto themainbuildingaspossiblewiththedesire toprovidegreeninfrastructure throughoutthe 6.2.1.Rightfromtheoutset,thedesignbriefforTheSillprojecthasspecifiedthattheproposednewfacilitieson carparkwhichwouldbreakupthevisualmassoftheassociatedhardlandscapingandintegrateitintothe theOnceBrewedsite(ie.theLandscapeDiscoveryCentreandnewyouthhostel)shouldbe‘ofthe landscape.Theresultisaseriesof tiers totheparkingprovisionwhichworkwiththeexistingcontours. landscape’andalandscapearchitecthasbeenpartofthedesignteamworkingcloselywiththeproject architectfromthepreliminarysiteanalysisstage.Communityconsultationhasalsotakenplace throughout 6.2.7Theexistingtriangleofwoodlandontheeasternboundaryisretainedsoastomakethemostofits thedesignprocessandhasinformedthefinaldevelopmentproposal. screeningpotential.Coachparkingislocatedalongitswesternedgesothattheselargervehiclesare positionedagainstabackdropofmature treecover. Page|37 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 6.2.8Wherepotentialadverseeffectscannotbeavoided,inordertominimisethevisualeffectsofproposedcar parkingwithintheopenfieldtothesouthoftheexistingfacilitiesonsite,thesouthernedgeoftheparking 6.3.1Duringtheearlystagesofthedesignprocess,anumberofoptionsfordeliveringtheappropriatenumber hasbeensetbackfromabreakinslopewhichmeansthatparkedcarswouldbescreenedbythelocal ofparkingspacesrequiredwereconsideredbeforebeingrejected.TheseareillustratedinFigure10. landforminviewsupthefieldfromtheadjacentpublichighwayasitcrossestheBrackiesBurn.Italso meansproposedscreenplantingcanbepositionedonsubtlemoundingalongthesouthernedgeofthe 6.3.2Asanalternativetoextendingtheproposeddevelopmentfootprintbeyondthesouthernboundaryofthe parkingareatherebymaximisingitsscreeningimpact.Whereappropriate,hazelorwillowhurdleswould existingsite,options forusing theadjacent field to theeastofthesitewereexamined. Inthepast,overflow beusedtoactasawindbreaktofacilitateplantestablishmentandtoprovideanearlyscreentoparked parkingfortheexistingNNPAfacilityhasbeenaccommodatedonoccasioninthenorthernpartofthe vehicles. easternfield,butthiswasrejectedasamoreformalsolutiontoaccommodatingincreasedparking numbersduetothepotentialadverseeffectonviewsfromtheWorldHeritageSiteandonknown 6.2.9Throughouttheexternalsitelayout,nativetreeandshrubplantinghasbeendesignedinamannerthatwill archaeologicalfeatures. allowittointegratevisuallywithexistingplantingbeyondthesiteasitmatureswhenseeninthebroader landscapecontextinviewsfromthesouthoftheBrackiesBurn.Similarly,plantspeciesassociatedwith 6.3.3Theuseofthelowersectionsofthesamefieldasanadditionaloroverflowcarparkwhererejectedfor theWhinSillareproposedforthegreenroof(ratherthancommerciallyavailablesedumcarpets)inorder similarreasons.Italsobecameapparentthatthelocalhighwayauthoritywasconcernedaboutissuesof tocreatevisual texturesandcoloursmoreappropriateto thelocallandscape. highwaysafetywithregardtoanyproposednewvehicleaccess/exitpointtothefield.Inaddition,the 6.2.10Proposedmaterialsfortheconstructionofthenewbuildingandoftheexternalareasofhardstandinghave permanentuseofsuchalargesectionofthefieldforcarparkingwouldhavecompromisedtheviabilityof beenselectedwithaviewtominimisingadversevisualeffectsandreflectingexistinglandscapecharacter. the fieldforagriculturalpurposes. Theproposeduseofwhinstoneandsandstoneasfacingmaterialforthebuildingmakesreferenceto locallyavailablebuildingmaterialsandwherepractical,externalhardsurfaceswouldbeformedorsurface dressedwithgranularmaterialssuchasgravelorwhinstoneaggregate. 6.4.1Section5.3ofthisreportidentifiesthepotentiallysignificantadverselandscapeandvisualeffectsthat 6.2.11Wherethelossofwildlifehabitatintheformoftreeandshrubcoverorsemi-improvedgrasslandis mightbeassociatedspecificallywiththeconstructionphaseoftheproposeddevelopment.Measuresto unavoidable,itisintendedthatnewhabitatsshouldbefullyintegratedwiththefabricofthebuildingand mitigatesucheffectsaregenerallysecondarymeasuresinthattheyarenotanintegralpartofthe externalstructuresascompensation.Although25no.individualtreesand710m2ofnativestructure proposeddevelopmentbutrelatemoretothemannerinwhichtheconstructionprocessiscarriedoutand plantingwouldbelost,c80no.newindividualtrees,1,745m2ofnativestructureplantingand110linearm toworkingmethodsorconstraintsidentifiedwithinthebuildingcontractdocumentation. ofnewhedgingwouldbeplantedaspartofthedevelopment.Intime,itisproposedthatthenew developmentwouldenhance thebiodiversityofthesite. 6.4.2Thepositioningofsitecabinseitherwithinthesiteoronadjacentlandshouldbecarefullyconsideredin ordertominimiseanyassociatedadversevisualeffects.Thisislikelytobemostrelevanttothe 6.2.12WithregardtolightingandtherequirementtocomplywiththeDarkSkyParkLightingManagementPlan, constructionphaserather thananydemolitionphase. externallightingistobekepttoanabsoluteminimum.Adetailedlightingschemeisnotcurrentlyavailable butitisanticipatedthatitwillfollowtherecommendationssetoutinboththeLMPandtheLightingImpact Assessmentpreparedforthedevelopment.Movementactivatedlightingandcut-off/timingdevicesare likelytobeemployedasnecessarytogetherwiththeuseofconcealedsourcesofredlightforexternal footpathlinkswiththecarparkingarea. Page|38 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 6.4.3Thevisualeffectsofthepostdemolitionphase,whenexistingbuildingshavebeenlevelledandstockpiles6.5.2Inasimilarvein,amanagementplanforthegreenroofwouldberequiredtoensurethatitisadequately ofcrushedconcreteandstonehavebeenformedforreuseintheconstructionphase,wouldbeminimisedmaintainedandthatthenecessaryexpertiseisavailabletomonitorandguidethemaintenanceprocessso if theconstructionphasecommencedimmediatelyaspartofthesamecontract.thatitrespondsappropriatelytothevariousevolutionarystagesoftheplantcommunitiesevolvingonit.It mustalsobecapableofrespondingtoanyunforeseenevents-particularlyastheprocessofestablishing 6.4.4Opportunitiestostorestrippedsoilsonsiteinamannerthatprovidestemporaryscreeningtovehiclewhinvegetationin the formofagreenroofisunique toThe Sillproject. movementandconstructionoperationsshouldbemaximised. 6.4.5Workingmethodswillberequiredtoaddresstherequirementtoreduceexternallightemissionstothe minimumnecessaryforsafeworkingandrestrictionsonworkinghoursduringwintermonthsmaybe employed. 6.4.6Thetimingofvegetationremovalwouldberestrictedsoastoavoidthebirdnestingseasonandthe buildingdemolitionphasewouldneedtobecarriedoutinstrictaccordancewiththebatmitigationstrategy formingpartofthebatlicenceissuedbyEnglishNature. 6.4.7ProtectivefencingcompliantwithBS5837:2012‘Treesinrelationtodesign,demolitionandconstruction’ wouldbemaintainedthroughouttheconstructionphasetoprotecttherootprotectionareasoftreestobe retained. 6.5.1Aftercompletionoftheconstructionphasetherearecertainelementsrelatingtothemanagementofthe sitewhichwouldberequired toensurethedeliveryofkeycomponentsoftheprimarylandscapeandvisual mitigationstrategy.Oneofthemostimportantofthesewouldbethemaintenanceofthesoftlandscaping and,inparticular,thescreenplantingtothecarparkareas.Toensurethisiscarriedoutinanappropriate manner,acomprehensivemaintenanceregimecoveringanappropriateestablishmentperiodfornew nativestructureplantingwouldformpartofthesoftlandscapespecificationfortheproject.Issuesrelating toplantreplacements,thinningandpruningoperationstopromotehealthygrowthratesandrapid establishmentwouldbecovered. Page|39 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 7.1.1Insection6itwasnotedthatthelandscapeeffectsassessedasbeingofmoderatetosubstantialadverse significanceatthetimeofcompletionoftheworksarethesubjectofamitigationstrategybasedon reducingtheadverseeffectsidentifiedratherthanpreventingthem.Asthemitigationreliesonthegrowth ofsoftlandscapestructureplantingtoperformascreeningandfilteringfunction,itwouldtaketimeforthe mitigatingbenefitstobeapparentonsite.Plantgrowthratesonthisexposedsiteareexpectedtobe slowerthanmightbeanticipatedonmostconstructionprojects,butitissuggestedthatasignificant reductionintherelevantadverseeffectswouldbenoticeablewithin10years,andcontinuetoreducefora furthertenyearsafterwhichpointtheadverseeffectwouldbediminishedtoapointrequiringnofurther mitigation.Thisbeing thecase,itisconsideredthat therearenopermanentadverseeffectsofsignificance relatingtolandscapeandvisualeffectsanticipated forthisproject. Page|40 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. BrewedispartofamuchlargerareawhichhasrecentlybeenawardedDarkSkyParkstatusbythe InternationalDark Sky Association,makingitthelargestareaofprotecteddarkskyin Europe. Assuchany newprojectinvolvingexternallightingmustcomplywiththe ExteriorLightingMasterplan. 8.1.1Thisreportconsiderstheanticipatedlandscapeandvisualeffectsarisingfromtheconstructionofa proposednewLandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHosteltoreplacetheexistingNorthumberland 8.1.5ThelandscapeoftheareacoveredbythisreportisdominatedbytheWhinSill,awellknowngeological NationalParkvisitorcentreandYHAhostelatOnceBrewed. featureintheregion,runningfromUpperTeesdaletotheFarneIslandsontheNorthumberlandcoast. 8.1.2Theassessmentmethodologyusedinthisreportisbasedonthe‘GuidelinesforLandscapeandVisual Thishighridgeofhardrockdefinesthenorthernskylinewithinmuchofthestudyarea,thesouthern ImpactAssessment’ThirdEdition:2013(LIandIEMA).Thelevelofsignificancegiventoidentified skylinebeingdefinedbyanothersmallerridgerunningparallelwiththeWhinSill.Thissecondridgemarks landscapeandvisualeffects(effectscanbeadverseorbeneficial)dependsonthecombinationofthe thesouthernboundaryoftheNationalPark.TheroadB6318(knownlocallyastheMilitaryRoad)follows sensitivityofthelandscapeelement,/landscapecharacter/vieworobserver,andthescaleoftheeffects thelineofthelandscapecorridorformedbythesetworidgelinesandprovidesthemainroutefromwhich predicted.Whendefiningthesensitivityoftheexistinglandscape,onemustconsiderthevalueattachedto toviewthedramaticWhinSill,Hadrian’sWallandthesimplelandscapedominatedbyroughgrazingin it.Thecriteriaformakingsuchjudgementsaresetoutinsection4inordertomaketheassessment whichsettlementissparseandtreecoverisgenerallyrestrictedtosmallclumpsaroundisolated processas transparentaspossible. properties.TheareaisrichinRomanheritagesitesandthelineoftheRomanWallisalsotherouteoftwo 8.1.3Itshouldbenotedthatissuesrelatingspecificallytothepotentialeffectsoftheproposeddevelopmenton NationalTrails–theHadrian’sWallPathandthePennineWay.TwoNationalCycleRoutesconnectthe thehistoriclandscapeandthesettingofsitesofculturalheritagesignificancehavebeenassessedby areaof thedevelopmentsitewiththeWhin Sill, thelocalRomansiteof VindolandaandtheA69. specialistlandscapehistorianswithintheCulturalHeritagechapteroftheEnvironmentalStatement 8.1.6TheproposeddevelopmentsiteitselfislocatedonthesouthsideoftheMilitaryRoadwhichformsits preparedfortheproject.Consequently,adetailedanalysisofsucheffectshasbeenexcludedfromthis northernboundaryandextendssouthwardstothebottomoftheBrackiesBurnvalley.Thenorthern report. sectionofthesitecontainstheVallumScheduledAncientMonumentbutisdominatedbytheexisting visitorcentreandYHAbuilding,bothofwhichareoflittlearchitecturalmerit.Themajorityoftreesonsite areassessedinthesite’streereportasbeinginfairtopoorcondition.Theirmainvalueisinthescreening 8.1.4Abriefreviewofexistingplanningpolicyandmanagementstrategyframeworksforthelandscapeinwhich theyprovidetotheexistingfacilitiesonsite.Southoftheexistingbuildings,atheuppersectionsofa thesiteislocatedconcentratesmainlyontheNorthumberlandNationalParkManagementPlanandthe slopinggrazedfieldprovideanattractivesettingtoviewsoutacrosstheBrackiesBurnvalleyandthe NorthumberlandNationalParkDevelopmentFramework.Thesedocumentsconfirmjusthowspecialthe lowersectioniscomparativelyenclosedatthebottomofthevalley,providingasenseofpeaceand landscapeisaroundOnceBrewed.Itisalandscapewithadistinctcharacterandamuchvaluedsenseof intimacynotavailableelsewhereonthesite. tranquillityandcontainsarichculturalheritageaswellasbeingalandscaperichinbiodiversityand 8.1.7Asmightbeexpected,inthenighttimelandscape,sourcesoflightarelimitedtoisolatedpropertiesand geology.ThedesignatedHadrian’sWallWorldHeritageSiteanditsassociatedManagementPlan carheadlamps.Lightsources from thebuildingsaregenerallyhidden, themostnoticeableimpactresulting indicatesthelandscapebeingconsideredisofinternationalvalue.Inaddition,thelandscapearoundOnce fromuncoveredexternalwallmountedlightsonthenorthernsideof thebuildings. Page|41 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 8.1.8Thereisnodoubtthattheproposeddevelopmentsiteislocatedwithinahighlyvaluedlandscapeofminorcountrylane,againthebuildingsarewellscreenedbytreesanditisthefieldtothesouthwhichcan internationalimportanceintermsofitsculturalheritageanditsdarkskies.Inaddition,itisperceivedasaclearlybeseen. ‘specialplace’withasenseoftranquillitythatbringswithitaspiritualqualityandassuch,itisofnational 8.1.13MostofthepropertieswithinthehamletofTwiceBrewedhavenoorverylimitedviewsofthesite.Only importancefortherecreationalopportunitiesitprovides.Oftheexistingfeaturesonsite,themainfeatures threehavedirectviewsofthesitefromthenorthandtwofromthesouth.Peopleinprivateresidencesand ofsignificancearethetreecover,thedrystoneboundarywalls,thefieldtothesouthandtheRoman visitorsengagedinrecreationalactivitieswhichfocusonthisvaluedlandscapeareconsideredtobehighly earthworkoftheVallum. sensitivetochangesintheview. 8.1.9UsingelectronicOrndnanceSurveydata,amapcoveringtheareawithina15kmradiusoftheOnce 8.1.14AplanoftheproposedLandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostelschemeisshowninFigure7.and BrewedsiteisusedinFigure4toshowtheareafromwhichthegroundleveloftheexistingsitecanbe imagesof thebuildingshowninFigure8. seen.Thisisonlytheoreticallyastheprocessbywhichthemapisproducedassumesthereareno 8.1.15Thedesignoftheproposedbuildingisinspiredbythedistinctivelandformsofthelandscapeinwhichitis landscapefeaturesabovegroundlevelwhichcouldscreenorinterrupttheviewfromanygivenpoint. located.ThenorthfaceofthebuildingcapturesaspectsofthenorthfacingWhinSilloutcropitselfwiththe 8.1.10Becausethestrongridgelinesinthelocallandscapecontainviewsofthesitetoalargedegree,onthe southfacingsideofthebuildingbeingsofterinform.Themainfeaturesofthebuilding(whichisa northsideoftheRiverSouthTyneandtheA69corridor,theareafromwhichthesitecanbeseenis maximumoftwostoreys)areaglazedcaféfacingnortheastsoastomakethemostofdramaticviewsto restrictedtoashortsectionoftheMilitaryRoadcorridor(including thelineofHadrian’sWallandtheWorld PeelCragsontheWhinSillescarpmentandtotheRomanWall;alongYHAaccommodationblockonthe HeritageSite)andamuchsmallerareaonThorngraftonCommonjusteastofVindolandaRomanfort. westside,andagreenroofwhichtakestheformofalongramprisingoutofthegroundatthenortheast 8.1.11Intheory,viewsofthesitearealsopossiblefromvantagepointssouthoftheRiverSouthTyne,mainly cornerandwhichdoublesbackonitself,eventuallyendingataviewpointabovethecafé.Thegreenroof fromhighergroundwestoftheRiverAllenandsouthofHaydonBridge,mostofwhichfallwithintheNorth is tosupportestablishingplantcommunitiesassociatedwith theharshconditionsof theWhin Silloutcrop. PenninesAreaofOutstandingNaturalBeauty.However,fieldworkhasshownthatattheselonger 8.1.16TheNationalParkAuthorityarekeenthatthenewfacilityshouldbewellintegratedwiththelandscape. distances(5+km)the Once Brewedsiteisdifficulttoidentifyandhasalowvisualprofilewithinthebroader However,astheLandscapeDiscoveryCentreistofunctionasa‘gateway’tothelandscapeofthe landscape. NationalPark,itshouldstillbedistinctive,actingasamarkerin thelandscape. 8.1.12The facilitiesat Once Brewedaremostlikely tobeseen firstwhen travellingontheMilitaryRoad. Because 8.1.17Intermsoftheproject’sexternalspaces,itisintendedthattheyshouldblendwiththeexistingrural oftheexistingtreecoveraroundtheboundariesofthesitetothenorthandthewestwhichservesto landscape.Onthenorthernboundarythelargesttreeswouldbekeptbutthepoorestqualitytreesand screen thebuildingsonsite, thedirectionof travelverymuchinfluenceshowmuchof thesitecanbeseen. shrubswouldberemovedfromtheVallummakingiteasiertosee.Theywouldbereplacedbynewtrees Whentravellingfromtheeast,theexistingvisitorcentreisvisiblebuttheYHAbuildingislargelyhidden. plantedoutsidetheprotectedarchaeologicallysensitivearea.Onthewesternboundary,mostofthe When travelling from thewest,virtuallyallbuildingson thesitearescreeneduntil theobserverisalongside existingtreecoverwithintheYHAgardenwouldberetainedaswouldthefootpathlinktotheTwice thesite.Inviewsfromthenorth(ie.theHadrian’sWallWorldHeritageSite,theHadrian’sWalland BrewedInn. PennineWayNationalTrails)althoughvehiclesparkedintheYHAcarparkatthenortheasterncornerof thesitearevisible,thebuildingsarewellscreenedbyexistingtreesontheVallumanditisthe neighbouringTwice Brewed Innwhichdrawstheeye.Whenapproaching thesite from thesouthalonga Page|42 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 8.1.18OntheeastsideofthesitenewdrystonewallswouldformtheedgeofthebuildingandtheexistingYHAman-madematerialswhichareastrongcontrastto thenaturalappearanceof the field. Vehiclescouldalso carpark(whichiscurrentlyinthemostpubliclyvisiblepartsofthesite)wouldberemoved.Asaresultreflectglarefromthesunincertainlightconditions.Thenegativeimpactofthisonthefieldwouldbe therewouldbeonlyonevehicleaccesspointintothesiteandthatwouldbeinthepositionoftheexistingmoderatelytosubstantiallysignificantsotheschemeincludesscreenplantingwithinandaroundthecar entranceintotheNationalParkvisitorcentrecarpark.Nearthesouthfacingmainentrancetothenewparkwhich,onceestablishedwouldreducethenegativeimpacttolowsignificanceafter10years.After20 buildingtherewouldbeanentrancecourtyard,acyclestoreandbinstorebuiltindrystonewallingwithayears thecarparkwouldbevirtuallycompletelyhidden. greenroof,andanoutdoorclassroomspace.Justtothesouthofthesespaceswouldbeanuppercar 8.1.24Inconsideringthepotentialimpactofthedevelopmentprojectonthespecialcharacterofthishighly parkwhichwouldleadpastanewplayareaintoalowercarparkfurtherdownthefieldwhichiscurrently valuedandsensitivelandscape,theassessmentlooksat:thescaleofthenewbuildingandexternal usedforgrazingsheep.Theexisting triangleofwoodlandon theeasternsiteboundarywouldberetained. facilities;theformofthebuilding;thematerialsproposedforboththebuildingandtheexternalspaces 8.1.19ThefieldslopesdowntotheBrackiesBurnandatthebottomofthevalleyitisproposedthatthemoreincludingthecarparkintermsofcolour,textureandlevelsofreflection;signage;thefunctionofthe enclosedflattergroundshouldbeusedasbothaneventsspaceandanoverflowcarpark.Thiswouldbebuildingasapotentialprimaryvisitorattractionintheregionandtheimpactofthepotentialincreaseinthe doneinamanner thatallowedthisattractiveareatostayasagreen field.numberofvisitorstothesite;lighting;movement,andnoise.Themainnegativeimpactsallrelatetothe impactofextendingcarparkingintothesouthernfield.Asnoted,oncetheplantingproposedaroundthe 8.1.20Anewfootpathwouldlinkallthecarparklevelstothemainbuildingandthesepathswouldhavelowlevel carparkinghasgrownenoughtoformascreen,thisnegativeimpactwouldbereducedtolowlevelsafter lightingactivatedbymovementinhoursofdarknesswhennecessary.Allexternallightingwouldbekeptto 10yearsandlow–negligiblelevelsafter20years. aminimumandwouldbedesignedsoastopreventlightpollution. 8.1.25Theimpactoftheproposeddevelopmentonthequalityofviewsfromwithinthesurroundinglandscape 8.1.21Outsidethesiteboundary,onthenorthsideoftheMilitaryRoadoppositetheOnceBrewedsite,anew areassessedusingselectedrepresentativeviewpointswhichhavebeenagreedwiththeNationalPark pathwouldbemadethroughanexistinggroupoftreessurroundedbyawallinordertocreateasafer planningauthority.TheseviewpointsareidentifiedinFigure11andincludeviewsfromkeypointstothe routefromthesite,overtheroadtotheWhinSillandPeelCrags.Inaddition,anexistingfieldboundary northalongHadrian’sWall/thePennineWay/Hadrian’sWallPath,aswellasviewsfromtheMilitary wallwouldbeloweredtoimprovesightlinesattheexistingroadjunctionatthenortheastcornerofthe Roadtotheeastandwest,andfromnear/moredistantviewpointstothesouthonthesouthsideofthe site. BrackiesBurnvalley.Whereviewsareconsideredtobeparticularlysensitiveorsignificant, photomontagesoftheproposeddevelopmenthavebeenproducedusingcomputergeneratedimagesto showhowthebuildingwouldlookinthelandscape.Thesekeyviewpointsareidentifiedbythereference 8.1.22Duringtheearlyphasesoftheconstructionprocessinparticular,whentheexistingbuildingsare ‘PM’.Otherviewpointslabelled‘VP’areshowninaphotographwiththelocationoftheOnceBrewedsite demolishedandearthworksarecarriedout,themovementandnoiseofconstructiontrafficwouldhavea marked. substantialadverseeffectonthesenseoftranquillity.Althoughseendirectlywithoutanyscreeningfrom onlyafewviewpoints,theconstructionsitewouldreadasanurbanfeatureoutofkeepingwiththe 8.1.26Theimpactoftheproposeddevelopmenton theviewsidentifiedcanbesummarisedasfollows: characterofthelocallandscape.Thiswouldbetemporaryhowever,andtheimpactwouldgenerally -TheeffectonviewsfromwithintheHadrian’sWallWorldHeritageSiteandfromthetwoNational reduceastheexpectedc.18monthconstructionprojectprogressed. Trailsisassessedasbeingofnegligiblesignificanceincreasingtolowadversesignificanceatthe 8.1.23Bytheendofthebuildingworks,theremovaloftheexistingpoorqualitybuildingsandtheimprovements closestviewpoint(PeelCrags); tothesettingoftheVallumwouldbebeneficiallandscapeeffects.Themainadverseeffectonthe landscapewithin thesitewouldrelateto thecreationof thenewcarparkon theupperandcentralsections of thegreenfieldsouthoftheexistingvisitorcentre.Thisislargelydueto theintroductionofvehiclesand Page|43 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. -FromtheMilitaryRoadcorridor,theschemewouldhavenegligibletolowadverseimpactwhen approachingfromthewest,increasingtolowtomoderateadverseimpactwhentravellingfrom 8.2.1ThelandscapeoftheWhinSillescarpmentisindeedaspeciallandscape,prizedforitsuniquelandscape theeast.Thelattereffectcanbereducedtolowadversein timewith themitigationproposed. character,senseoftranquillityandforitsdarkskies.Aseriesofpoliciesandmanagementplanshave -Fromproperties/publichighwayonthesouthsideoftheBrackiesBurnvalleytheimpactonthe beenputinplacetoprotect theseaspectsandmake themrelevant tothelivesofthosewholiveandwork viewwouldbeoflow tomoderateadverseimpact,reducingwith timetonegligible–lowasscreen intheareaandmoreaccessibletothosevisitorswhowishtoengagewiththelandscapeinamanner plantingestablished.FromholidayrentalpropertiestothenorthoftheMilitaryRoadthenegative whichiscompletelysustainable.Thefactthatthenewfacilityisdesignedspecificallywiththeaimof impactwouldvary fromlowtomoderatedependingondistance from thesite. deliveringthisbroadobjectiveandthat,toanextent,theprojectrepresentsare-birthoftheexistingsite facilities,islikelytohaveapositiveinfluenceonthewaythebuildingisperceivedandinterpretedinthe -Theimpactoftheschemeonviewsinwhich thesiteofVindolandaisvisiblewouldbenegligible. landscapeby thosewhovisititorviewitwithoutanydirectengagement. 8.2.2Thatthenewbuildingistofunctionasa‘gateway’totheNationalParklandscapemeansitisexpectedto haveapresenceworthyoftheroleanditisthis‘public’profilewhichmustbecarefullybalancedagainst 8.1.27Themainreasonfortherelativelylimitedadverseimpactofthedevelopmentproposalonthelandscape therequirementtominimiseadverseeffectsonthevaluedandsensitivelandscapeandvisualcharacter anditsviewsisthatrightfromthefirststagesofthedesignprocess,theintegrationofthebuildingandits ofboththesiteandthebroaderlandscapeofwhichitisapart. associatedcarparkingintothelandscapehasbeenaprimaryobjective.Thisisreflectedinthewaythe 8.2.3Thefundamentaldesignconceptbehindthedesignofthebuildingandtheexternalworksappearsto buildingandcarparkingispositionedonsiteandhowitrelatesto thelocallandform. have‘builtin’asignificantcomponentofthemitigationstrategyforthedevelopmentwhichwouldassistin 8.1.28Inaddition,thematerialsproposedforthebuildingandtheexternalhardlandscapeelementshavebeen integratingitintothelandscapetoasignificantdegree.The ‘ selectedfortheirnaturalcoloursandtexturesandnewplantingwouldbecarriedoutusingspeciesthat ’withintheNationalParkLocalDevelopmentFrameworknotesthatsustainablecontemporary grownaturallyinthearea. designistobesupported.Theproposedbuildingundoubtedlyhascontemporarythemesbutthedesign 8.1.29Although theextensionofcarparkinginto the field to thesouthof theexistingbuildingsisseen tohave the followsmanyoftherecommendations,suchasusinglocallyavailablematerials;notbreakingtheskyline; potentialtogeneratesomeofthemostadverseimpactsonthelandscapeandcertainviewsinthearea, avoidingasuburbanisingeffect;useofnativeplantspeciesetc.tohelpblenditintothelocallandscape. onbalance,thelayoutproposedisconsideredtobethebestoptionavailable.Otherlayoutswhich 8.2.4TherearethreeprincipleaspectsoftheWhinSilllandscapeuponwhichanewbuildingofsizeand exploredthepotentialtoprovideparkinginthefieldtotheeastofthesitewereconsideredandrejectedon charactercouldpotentiallyhaveanadverseeffect:i)landscapeelementswithinthesite;ii)landscape thebasis thattheywerelikely tohaveunacceptablelevelsofnegativeimpact. character;iii)visualquality. 8.1.30Itisnotedthatappropriatemanagementplansfortheproposedplantingandgreenroofvegetationmust 8.2.5Withregardtoanticipatedeffectsonthephysicallandscapeelementswithinthesite,bothadverseand beputinplaceaftertheworksonsitearecompletedinorderthatthesefeaturescanperformtheroles beneficialeffectsarerecordedinitiallybutwithtime,itistheadverseeffectswhichdiminishandthenet intendedintermsofscreeningandintegratingthebuildingintothelandscape.Theplantingisrequiredto beneficialeffectswhicharestrengthened. reducethefewindividualeffectswhichhavebeenidentifiedasbeingofmoderatetosubstantialadverse significance,toanappropriatelevel.Asignificantreductioninadverseimpactwouldbeseenwithinten yearswithcontinuedreductionoccurringduringthenext tenyearperiod. Page|44 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. 8.2.6Theeffectsoftheprojectonlandscapecharacterhavebeenreviewedindetailagainstvariouscriteriaand itisnotedthatgenerally,ininstanceswhereaneffectof‘moderateadverse’significanceisidentified,itis inrelationtotheextensionofthecarparkintothesouthernfield.Asabove,thisadverseeffectisone whichcanreadilybemitigatedintime(effectivewithinthefirsttenyears)toaleveloflowandultimately negligiblesignificance. 8.2.7GiventherecentawardofDarkSkyPark(goldtier)statustotheareainquestion,theissueofpotential adverseeffectsonthequalityofthenightskyandthenighttimelandscapeisofparticularresonance. Thisreporthasfoundthatthepotentialforgreatestadverseimpactoccurswhenthesouthernpartofthe siteisexperiencedfromthelowerpartsoftheBrackiesBurnvalleywhich,byitsverynatureinvolves transientviewsexperiencedbycomparativelyfewreceptors.Frommoreelevatedpositions,thepotential foradverseimpactdiminishesanditisconfirmedthatanticipatedimpactonnighttimeviewsofthe broaderlandscapeasexperiencedfromwithintheNorthPenninesAreaofOutstandingNaturalBeauty, wouldbenegligible. Inallinstances, thesoftlandscapingproposedtoaddressmitigationissuesrelatingto thecarparkinparticular,wouldsuccessfullymitigateagainstadverseeffectsonlandscapecharacter relatingtoexternallighting. 8.2.8Intermsoftheeffectsofthedevelopmentprojectonkeyviewsandthevisualcharacterofthearea,ithas beenseenthatbeyonddistancesof5kmtheanticipatedchangeintheviewwouldbenegligible.Fromthe viewpointsofinternationalvaluegainedfromthelineofHadrian’sWallWorldHeritageSite,thevisual effectsareassessedasbeingoflowadversesignificanceatworst. 8.2.9Fromviewpointsclosertothedevelopmentsitewhereanoverallvisualeffectofmoderateadverse significanceisanticipated,itisseenthatproposedmitigationmeasuresintheformofappropriateplanting wouldreducethislevelofsignificance to‘low–negligible’over time. 8.2.10Giventhatmuchofthesecondarymitigation(ie.thatwhichreduceseffectsratherthanpreventsthem)is dependentonnewstructureplanting,itisimportanttoconsidertheoveralleffectofthisplantingitselfand itisconcluded thatoncemature, thebeltsofnative treeandshrubplantingproposed for thesouthern field inparticular,wouldsitcomfortablyintheview,readingasnaturalextensionsofexistingblocksoftree plantingeithersideofthe field. 8.2.11Insummary,itisconcludedthatnoenduringadverselandscapeorvisualeffectsofsubstantialor moderatesignificanceareanticipatedinassociationwith thedevelopmentproposaloutlinedinthisreport. Page|45 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 ‘TheSill’LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel, OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualImpactAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityand TheYouthHostelAssociation. SCHEDULEOFFIGURES Figure1SiteContextPlan Figure2Existing Site Plan Figure3LandscapeCharacter Areas Figure4ZoneofTheoretical Visibility(1:100,000scale) Figure5Views towardssite fromViewpointsVP6–9withintheNorth Pennines AONB Figure6ZoneofTheoretical Visibility(1:25,000scale) Figure7Proposed SiteMasterplan Figure8Proposed ArchitecturalDetails Figure9ProposedTreeRetention &Removal Plan Figure10RejectedCar ParkSketchOptions Figures11–18Photomontage ViewpointsPM1– PM8 Figures19–20Viewpoints VP1-5 Page|46 GlenKempLtd.,January2014 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ExistingBuilding ProposedBuilding PhotomontageViewpointPM1-AsExistingPhotomontageViewpointPM1-Proposed ProposedBuilding TwiceBrewedInn Photomontagescaledsothatwhenheldatarm'slength,itreflects thesizeoftheimageofthedevelopmentasitwouldappearinthe FIGURE11. fieldwhenseenwiththenakedeye. PHOTOMONTAGEVIEWPOINT PM1 WINSHIELDCRAGS GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure11. 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ProposedBuilding ExistingBuilding PhotomontageViewpointPM2-AsExistingPhotomontageViewpointPM2-Proposed Seatsides ProposedBuilding TwiceBrewedInn Photomontagescaledsothatwhenheldatarm'slength,itreflects thesizeoftheimageofthedevelopmentasitwouldappearinthe FIGURE12. fieldwhenseenwiththenakedeye. PHOTOMONTAGEVIEWPOINT PM2 PEELCRAGS GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure12. 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ProposedBuilding ExistingBuilding PhotomontageViewpointPM3-AsExistingPhotomontageViewpointPM3-Proposed ProposedBuilding Photomontagescaledsothatwhenheldatarm'slength,itreflects thesizeoftheimageofthedevelopmentasitwouldappearinthe FIGURE13. fieldwhenseenwiththenakedeye. PHOTOMONTAGEVIEWPOINT PM3 MILITARYROADCORRIDORTOTHEWEST(nr.TwiceBrewedInn) GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure13. 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ProposedBuilding ExistingBuilding PhotomontageViewpointPM4-AsExistingPhotomontageViewpointPM4-Proposed ProposedBuilding Photomontagescaledsothatwhenheldatarm'slength,itreflects FIGURE14. thesizeoftheimageofthedevelopmentasitwouldappearinthe PHOTOMONTAGEVIEWPOINT PM4 fieldwhenseenwiththenakedeye. MILITARYROADTOTHEEAST GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure14. 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ExistingBuilding ProposedBuilding PhotomontageViewpointPM5-AsExistingPhotomontageViewpointPM5-Proposed PeelCragsProposedBuilding Photomontagescaledsothatwhenheldatarm'slength,itreflects thesizeoftheimageofthedevelopmentasitwouldappearinthe FIGURE15. fieldwhenseenwiththenakedeye. PHOTOMONTAGEVIEWPOINT PM5 SEATSIDESRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY& PROW GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure15. 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ExistingBuildingProposedBuilding PhotomontageViewpointPM6-AsExistingPhotomontageViewpointPM6-Proposed ProposedBuilding VindolandaRoman Fort Photomontagescaledsothatwhenheldatarm'slength,itreflects thesizeoftheimageofthedevelopmentasitwouldappearinthe FIGURE16. fieldwhenseenwiththenakedeye. PHOTOMONTAGEVIEWPOINT PM6 'LONGSTONE'VIEWPOINT& PROW,THORNGRAFTONCOMMON GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure16. 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ProposedBuilding ExistingBuilding PhotomontageViewpointPM7-AsExistingPhotomontageViewpointPM7-Proposed ProposedBuilding Photomontagescaledsothatwhenheldatarm'slength,itreflects thesizeoftheimageofthedevelopmentasitwouldappearinthe FIGURE17. fieldwhenseenwiththenakedeye. PHOTOMONTAGEVIEWPOINT PM7 SPRINGWELLCOTTAGE,NATIONALTRUSTHOLIDAYCOTTAGE GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure17. 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ExistingBuilding ProposedBuilding PhotomontageViewpointPM8-AsExistingPhotomontageViewpointPM8-Proposed TwiceBrewedInnProposedBuilding Photomontagescaledsothatwhenheldatarm'slength,itreflects thesizeoftheimageofthedevelopmentasitwouldappearinthe FIGURE18. fieldwhenseenwiththenakedeye. PHOTOMONTAGEVIEWPOINT PM8 HENSHAWTOONCEBREWEDMINORCOUNTRYROAD GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure18. 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ExistingBuilding SouthernField PhotographicViewpointVP1-MilitaryRoadcorridortothewestoftheTwiceBrewedInn(nr.VallumLodgeGuestHouse) ExistingBuilding ExistingBuilding PhotographicViewpointVP2-PROWnearMelkridgeTileryCampsitePhotographicViewpointVP3-PeelBothy,NationalTrustholidaycottage FIGURE19. PHOTOGRAPHICVIEWPOINTSVP1-VP3 GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure19. 'TheSill'LandscapeDiscoveryCentreandYouthHostel,OnceBrewed.LandscapeandVisualAssessment NorthumberlandNationalParkAuthorityandTheYouthHostelAssociation ExistingBuilding PhotographicViewpointVP4-Milecastle39nr.SycamoreGap(Hadrian'sWallPathand PennineWay).NB:SiteisnotvisiblefromSycamoreGapitself. ExistingBuilding PhotographicViewpointVP5-HotbankCrags(Hadrian'sWallPathandPennineWay) FIGURE20. PHOTOGRAPHICVIEWPOINTSVP4-VP5 GlenKempLtd.,January2014Figure20. APPENDIX G VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN, VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT VillageSpecific Plan VisualImpactAssessment Prepared for: TheCity of Del Mar Planning and Community Development Department 1050 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Prepared by: KTU+A Planning and Landscape Architecture 3916 Normal Street San Diego, CA92103 March13, 2012 Revised July 5, 2012 VisualImpact Assessment Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0PURPOSE OF THE STUDY............................................................................................. 3 2.0PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................ 3 3.0ASSESSMENT METHOD................................................................................................. 5 4.0VISUAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT................................................................. 5 4.1Project Setting ....................................................................................................... 5 4.2Regulatory Setting................................................................................................. 7 4.2.1State Scenic Highway Program................................................................. 7 4.2.2California Coastal Act................................................................................ 7 4.2.3Del Mar Community Plan........................................................................... 7 4.2.4Scenic View Protection Ordinance............................................................ 7 4.2.5Tree Ordinance.......................................................................................... 8 4.2.6Design Review........................................................................................... 8 4.2.7Historic Preservation Overlay Zone........................................................... 9 4.2.8Other Municipal Code Regulations............................................................ 9 4.3Visual Character Units.........................................................................................10 4.4Project Viewshed and Views...............................................................................23 5.0EXISTING VISUAL RESOURCES AND VIEWER RESPONSE .....................................36 5.1Methods used for Visual Resource Analysis.......................................................36 5.2Existing Visual Resources...................................................................................37 5.2.1Scenic Resources....................................................................................37 5.2.2Existing Visual Character.........................................................................41 5.2.3Existing Visual Quality.............................................................................41 5.3Methods of Predicting Viewer Response.............................................................42 5.3.1Existing Viewer Groups, Viewer Sensitivity, and Viewer Exposure.........42 6.0VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT..................................................................................45 6.1Method of Assessing Impacts.............................................................................45 6.2Definition of Visual Impact Levels........................................................................45 6.3Analysis of Candidate Key Views........................................................................45 6.4Analysis of Key View Simulations........................................................................46 6.5Impact Assessment Summary.............................................................................65 7.0VISUAL MITIGATION.....................................................................................................67 7.1Visual Mitigation Options.....................................................................................67 7.2Visual Impacts After Mitigations..........................................................................68 8.0REFERENCES ................................................................................................................71 List of Figures Figure 4-1: Project Location and Village Specific Plan Boundary................................................. 6 Figure 4-2: Viewshed and Human Eyesight Dynamics...............................................................24 Figure 4-3: Determining Ocean Views from Slopes....................................................................26 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| i VisualImpact Assessment Table of Contents Figure 4-4: Viewshed Trendline with Existing Buildings along CDM..........................................27 Figure 4-5: Viewshed Trendline with Proposed Buildings along CDM........................................28 Figure 4-6: Viewshed Trendline Net Difference..........................................................................29 Figure 4-7: Viewshed of Existing Buildings along CDM..............................................................30 Figure 4-8: Viewshed of the Proposed Buildings along Camino del Mar....................................31 Figure 4-9: Viewshed Net Difference of Building Heights...........................................................32 Figure 4-10: Ocean Viewsheds and View Corridors Along and Through Camino del Mar.........33 Figure 6-1: Key View Simulation “A”...........................................................................................47 Figure 6-2: Key View Simulation “B”...........................................................................................49 Figure 6-3: Key View Simulation “C”...........................................................................................51 Figure 6-4: Key View Simulation “D1”.........................................................................................53 Figure 6-5: Key View Simulation “D2”.........................................................................................55 Figure 6-6: Key View Simulation “E”...........................................................................................57 Figure 6-7: Key View Simulation “F1”.........................................................................................59 Figure 6-8: Key View Simulation “F2”.........................................................................................60 Figure 6-9: Key View Simulation “F3”.........................................................................................61 Figure 6-10: Key View Simulation “F4”.......................................................................................62 Figure 6-11: Key View Simulation “G”.........................................................................................64 List of Tables Table 5-1: Visual Quality Assessment of Character Units..........................................................41 Table 5-2: Summary of Viewer Groups.......................................................................................44 List of Appendices APPENDIX ACANDIDATE KEY VIEWS............................................................................. A-1 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| ii Visual Impact Assessment 1.0PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to assess the visual impacts of the proposed Del Mar Village Specific Plan, also referred to as the Village Specific Plan. The study also proposes measures to mitigate any adverse visual impacts associated with the implementationof the plan and its effect onthe visual environment. 2.0PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of a new Specific Plan for the Villagethat is designed to implement the vision found inthe Community Plan. Some of the major policies that may affect the visual environment resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan include: ·increased development potential within the study area; ·requirements for a build-to line requiring a street wall along the walk for storefronts; ·requirements for various setbacks from property lines and stepbacks of upper building elements; · raised height limit to 26’-0” on the western side of Camino del Mar to match the allowed height limit on the eastern side; ·height limit bonus for an additional 4’ 0” on top of the26’-0” for articulated rooflines; ·creation ofa mixed-use zone for commercial properties that also allows residential development at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre; ·permittingparking structures in both the mixed-use and public facilities zones; ·redesignedsidewalks and on-street parking to be continuous and aligned within the public right-of-way; and, ·redesignedCamino del Mar to be a 2-lane roadway with roundabouts at key intersections. The new Specific Plan would allow building parcels to increase their maximum development potential from the existing .45 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)toa 1.0 FAR. Proposed allowed building heights would be 26 feet above Camino del Mar for properties that face Camino del Mar to allow two stories. Side street parcels within the Specific Plan would be allowed to have a 26’-0”heightfrom their average street front property elevation. Roofarticulation features may extend an additional four feet, but would not be allowedto create habitable space. Three parcel-specific Specific Plans have been previously adopted and fall within the Village Specific Plan boundaries: the Hotel Specific Plan (L’Auberge), the Plaza Specific Plan (Del Mar Plaza and 1435 Camino del Mar), and the Garden Del Mar Specific Plan th (941Camino del Mar and 307 10Street). Both the Hotel and Plaza have been developed according to their adopted Specific Plans. The GardenDel Mar site remains entitled, but undeveloped and vacant. No build-out is anticipated beyond that which is currently constructed at either the L’Auberge Hotel or the Del Mar Plaza, excluding 1435 Camino del Mar. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 3 Visual Impact Assessment Computer model outputs showing existing buildings (top), maximum building envelopes (middle) and theoretical infill buildings (bottom). These views are looking from the north, thth by the Del Mar Plaza at 15Street, southward to 9Street. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 4 Visual Impact Assessment 3.0ASSESSMENT METHOD The study follows Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds for visual impacts identified by the State of California and further defined by the Association of Environmental Planners. In addition, methods used at the federal level have also been included, eventhough this study is not a NEPA document, they are relevant for visual studies. The processes from the federal level used in this visual impact study generally followthe guidelines outlined in the publication "Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects," Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), March 1981, as well as processes known as “Visual Resource Management”methods from the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the National Forest Service. Local, state, federal guidelines and national standards commonly suggest six steps for conductingvisual impacts. They are as follows: A.Define the project setting and viewshed. B.Identify key views for visual assessment. C.Analyze existing visual resources and viewer response. D.Depict the visual appearance of project alternatives. E.Assess the visual impacts of project alternatives. F.Propose methods to mitigate adverse or significant visual impacts. 4.0VISUAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROJECT 4.1Project Setting The Village Specific Plan boundary is shown in Figure 4-1.The plan occupies approximately 40 acres within the urbanized town center of Del Mar. The Village Specific Plan generally encompasses the central business district corridor that is along Camino thth del Mar between 9Street and approximately the easterly alignment of 17Street. th Street west to Stratford Additionally, commercial and post office properties along 15 Court are included. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 5 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-1: Project Location and Village Specific Plan Boundary VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 6 Visual Impact Assessment 4.2Regulatory Setting 4.2.1State Scenic Highway Program California's Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change, which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. There are no designated or eligible scenic highways in the area listed in the California Scenic Highway Program. 4.2.2California Coastal Act Under the California Coastal Act of 1976, scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas are considered and protected as a visual resource. Permitted development shouldbe sited and designed to protect public views to and along theocean and scenic coastal areas. The act also requires minimizing the alterationof natural landforms, to assure that they are visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. The City implements their Local Coastal Plan (LCP) through the Community Plan, various policy reports, the San Dieguito Lagoon Enhancement Program, as well as other goals and policies adopted by the City Council to guide future development within Del Mar. Aesthetic components of the LCP relevant to the Plan area includedevelopment of a community center with attractive walkways and landscaped court and open spaces, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, and architectural style which retains a small-town character and preserves public ocean viewsand public access to the coastline. 4.2.3Del Mar Community Plan The Del Mar Community Plan(1976 amended 1985) includes goals and policies that address aesthetics. The overall goal is to “\[p\]reserve and enhance the special character of Del Mar, the elements of which are a village-like community of substantially single- family residential character, a picturesque and rugged site, and a beautiful beach.”Other goals applicable to aesthetics include minimizing the impact of vehicles on the character of the City, and preserving and enhancing the “special residential characterand small town atmosphere with its harmonious blending of buildings and landscape in proximity to a beautiful shoreline.” As identified in the Community Plan, Camino del Mar is a scenic roadway and views of the Pacific Ocean and other visual resources such as bluffs and trees are to be protected. Jimmy Durante Boulevard (formerly Turf Road), Crest Road, Carmel Valley Road, Coast Boulevard, and Del Mar Heights Road are also considered scenic roadways; however, the Plan area is notlocated within the scenic views identified for preservation for these roadways. 4.2.4Scenic View Protection Ordinance DMMC Chapter 23.51 provides for protection of trees, scenic views, and sunlight that contribute to the character of the City and benefit to residents. This chapter is informally known as the Scenic View Protection Ordinance and gives residents the right to preserve scenic views or sunlight that existed at the time they purchased or occupied the residence or in the last 10 years, whichever is shorter. Scenic views are defined as “a view of the ocean, lagoons, canyons, the community and its landscapes and urban forest character, or other scenic vistas, from the Primary Living Area of a residence.” Primary Living Areas are defined as the “\[single\] portion of a residence from which a Scenic View is observed most often by the occupants and guests at the residence.” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 7 Visual Impact Assessment Under this ordinance, vegetation and trees must be properly maintained within 300 feet of residential properties to preserve scenic views and sunlight. The Municipal Code has established a procedure to resolve conflicts regarding protected trees, scenic views and sunlight rights. 4.2.5Tree Ordinance The Tree Ordinance (Chapter23.50of the DMMC) provides for the orderly protection of trees, including the following measures: B.In the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, as well as general aesthetics of the community and the importance of the ecology of the area, the City of Del Mar finds it necessary to encourage conservation of trees and the application of management techniques to create a healthy, diverse urban forest, including but not limited to pruning, thinning, trimming, shaping, and selective planting and removal of trees and vegetation within the City of Del Mar on private as well as public property. \[Ord. 749\] C.The species Torrey Pine, the species Monterey Cypress, and all species of trees located within the Central Commercial zone and the environmentally sensitive Open Space Overlay zone are of particular significance to the City, and should therefore be protected to conserve the environmental qualities of the City. To further enforce this protection, the City of Del Mar prepared a Public Tree Policy Manual in 2004. This manual directs tree preservationin order to preserve the community’s unique, village-like atmosphere, which is distinguished by its community forest. Trees species of particular concern include Torrey pines and Monterey cypress, although the manual indicates all trees within the Plan area are considered significant. A Tree Removal Permit is required to remove a Protected Tree, except in certain situations outlined in the Municipal Code Chapter23.50.050. In the case of public trees, a separate Encroachment Permit from the City is also required (this statement does not apply to the City or its contractors). Implemented through the Design Review process, trees are also required to be protected during construction to prevent tree loss. 4.2.6Design Review Ordinance The Design Review Chapter 23.08 of DMMC Title 23 (also known as Design Review Ordinance) requires all new construction or major remodeling projects within the Plan area toobtain a Design Review Permit (DRP). The purpose of the DRP is to “to achieve and protect a residential, seaside community which isbothbeautiful and pleasant in character, by fosteringand encouraging good design which encompasses the useof harmonious materials and colors, compatible proportional relationships and appropriate use of landscaping, and to protect the citizens of the City of Del Mar.” The DRP process includesseveral evaluation components, including many related to aesthetics. Overall, the evaluation components provide the following guidance: ·Minimize the disruption of existing natural features such as trees and other vegetation, natural ground forms, and view. This includes blending proposed grading with existing topography. ·Include landscaping that matches existing landscaping in the area and compliments and visually softens buildings. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 8 Visual Impact Assessment ·Unattractive features shall be screened from view. ·Minimize blockage impacts to public and private coastal views, and retains scenic resources. ·Development shall be similar in scale and design (including style, materials, or colors) relative to the surrounding neighborhood; however, similar or identical building façades shall be avoided on adjacent parcels. ·Design lighting to reduce adverse impacts to the local neighborhood and be architecturally integrated. ·Views and designs shall be considered in all elevations. The Design Review section of the Design Regulations (Section 23.08.070) does not allow projects where “design unreasonablyblocks significant public coastal views” or “unreasonably encroaches upon primary scenic views of neighboring property.” As the above information isonly a summary of several pages of evaluation components, please refer to the Design Review Ordinance for more information. As a part of the Design Review aesthetics analysis, story poles may be required to indicate the proposed alignment and massing of adevelopment. Story poles are required for projects that involve a new structure, a second-story addition to an existing structure, or any addition which, in the estimation of staff or the Design Review Board, may cause concerns about inappropriate bulk and mass, or view blockage.The story pole analysis shall be completed per the City’s story poles application guide. The Design Review Board, or City Council, has the authority to impose conditions on projects to protect and enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding area, and to ensure that projects fullymeet the criteria as set forth in Chapter 23.08 of the Municipal Code. As stated in Chapter23.08.100, conditions shall bereasonably related to the project. 4.2.7Historic Preservation OverlayZone TheDMMC designates the HP-OZ. The HP-OZ protects the architectural and historic integrity of certain historically significant properties located within the City. The Stratford Square and the City Library are the two sites within the Plan area with HP-OZ th designations. In addition, the residence at 110 15Street, the former train station, the Powerhouse Community Center located west of Coast Boulevard, and the “Rock House,” a residence located adjacent to the east side of the Plan area are nearby properties with HP-OZ designations. 4.2.8Other Municipal Code Regulations Other DMMC regulations also indirectly regulate aesthetic impacts. Supplemental Municipal Code zoning regulations in Chapter 30.86 pertain to undergrounding utilities; fences; screening ofunsightly uses including garbage storage space; rooftop structures (chimneys and vents); yard landscaping; andyard projections. The zoning code provides height and density restrictions. Within the Plan area, height restrictions include 26 feet for properties along east side of Camino del Mar and 14 feet along the west side of Camino del Mar. Currently, 70 percent of the structures on the west side of Camino del Mar are nonconforming in that they already exceed this 14-foot building height restriction. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 9 Visual Impact Assessment Assignment of a maximum FAR, the amount of building square footage relative to the size of a development parcel is a primary means by which Del Mar and other communities control the visible bulk and mass of structures. The maximum allowable FAR in the Central Commercial Zone is 0.45 and the Public Facilities Zone does not have a FAR limit. Forty percent of the existing buildings in the Village already exceed the current CC Zone 0.45 FAR limitation. In addition, signs are regulated by Municipal Code Chapter 30.84. 4.24.3VisualCharacter Units Avisual characterunit is a portion of the regional landscape that can be thought of as an outdoor room exhibiting a distinct and definablevisual character. A characterunit will often correspond to a place or districtthat is commonly known among local viewers. A total of seven visual characterunitshave been identified either within the specific plan boundary or adjacent to the boundary: Civic, Residential, Commercial, Hotel, Plaza, Vacant, Street and Streetscape.These units are important to establish the context of the visual environment. Impacts to a visual environment resulting from project changes, all depend on the visual character setting in which these changes occur. CivicCharacter Unit Civic spaces within the Village Specific Plan boundary include the City Hall, the Library, and the Post Office. All three of these buildings are unique in character and are set off the street.The City Hall site is underutilized and consists of a building on the corner of th Streetand a large parking lot adjacent to Camino del Mar. Camino del Mar and 11 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 10 Visual Impact Assessment ResidentialCharacter Unit The residential neighborhoods are both to the west and east of Camino del Mar. The architecture and landscape ranges in style. The buildings are tucked behindthe main streets and are either moderately or highlyhidden by mature landscape and trees.The buildings heights are limited to protect views to the oceans and generally follow the topography. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 11 Visual Impact Assessment CommercialCharacter Units The commercial characterunit along Camino del Mar varies in architectural style and character. The buildings are limited and consistent in height because of the current restrictions in the municipal code. The setbacks on the buildings vary and are inconsistent, which createsa variable pedestrian space between the roadway and building façade. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 12 Visual Impact Assessment Hotel and PlazaCharacter Unit The Plaza development at the north end of the study areaincludes a variety of view- oriented restaurants and retail that take advantage of the topography. The project is generallyoriented around a pedestrian experience. The Plaza includes an underground parking garage at the north end of the characterunit. Across the street to the west is the L'Auberge Del MarHotel. It creates a visual gateway into the commercial core of Del Mar. Both of these developments include manicured landscapewith modernized, well- maintainedarchitecture. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 13 Visual Impact Assessment Vacant/ ParkingCharacter Unit Most of the lots in theDel Mar Villagearea are developed, though the intensity of development is only moderate compared to many downtown areas of similar size to Del Mar.Much of the land not occupied by buildings is used for surface parking.Large lots are found at the City Hall, and diagonal parking is in frontof several businesses along Camino del Mar. There is one parcel that is vacant. This parcel is comprised of an asphalt-pavedsurface with a wooden fence surrounding the site. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 14 Visual Impact Assessment Street and StreetscapeCharacter Unit The existing right-of-wayalong Camino del Mar is 100 feet wide with parking, bike lanes, two lanes of travel in each direction and a median. The parking along this street is inconsistent and includesparallel, head-inand diagonal parking. There are mature plantings within the median, which include random groupings of large, mature trees. The pedestrian spaces between the face of curb and buildings fronting Camino del Mar vary greatly because of the buildings setbacks and other unique site constraints. The paving, planting, furnishings, lighting, and signage are inconsistent. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 15 Visual Impact Assessment RecreationCharacter Unit The recreation characterunit includes Powerhouse Park and the bluffs and coastline along the Pacific Ocean.Manylocal residents and visitors use these areas for a variety of recreational opportunities. Powerhouse Park consists of an expansive lawn with tables and benches. Adjacent to this park headingsouth, there are pathways on top of bluffs that are covered in native and non-native vegetation with direct views to the ocean below that individuals use for walking and running. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 16 Visual Impact Assessment Existing ArchitecturalForm and Street Character The City of Del Mar has an eclectic and unique character resulting from a mixture of architecture, landscape, parkingfacilities, and the streetscapeelements. Camino del Mar is themain road through the cityand development is concentrated on each side of it. It is comprisedof two travel lanes in both directions with bike lanes inconsistently located along its length. Parking includesof a variety of parallel andangled parkingwith some of it within the right of way. Other spaces arearranged in a “town and country” style on private property in front of buildings.The north and southbound lanes are divided by landscaped medians with mature trees and a variety of smaller shrubs and groundcover. Architectural Character:One of the major contributors to the eclectic style of Del Mar is the variety of architectural styles present along Camino del Mar. The buildings generally take elements from a specific architectural style or period but do not always follow one style consistently. The mixture of styles from lot to lot creates a distinctive style and character. This occurs throughout the Specific Plan area.A good example of this mixture th can be seen on the west side of Camino del Marsouth of15Street. The photograph on the leftillustrates three unrelated styles forthree different buildings. Thebuilding on the far right was built in the Tudor Revival style while the building at the far left has elements of Spanish Revival. The building in the middle has no distinct style but was built during the 1970s.It is this blendof variety of mixed stylesthat contributes to the eclectic feel and unique characterofthe Village ofDel Mar. Although the architectural styles of the buildings are different along Camino del Mar, there are consistencies with respect to materials, doors,and windows openings. The buildings incorporate a variety of materials. All types of colors, textures and materials from stucco finishes to brick can be found alongCamino del Mar. Doors and windows also have a significantimpact on the success of the pedestrian environmentand overall streetscape. The buildings that contribute most to the streetscape environment are the ones thatactivate the pedestrian experience.These buildingstypically havedoors that are easily identifiableand windows that allow for shop displays startingno morethan 24”’ above the exterior gradeand extend to at least 6’in height. The majority of buildings along Camino del Marhave larger display windows with easily accessible doors. Below are two photographs that illustrate the use of these larger windows and door entries. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 17 Visual Impact Assessment The architectural style varies, fromTudorand Scandinavianarchitecture to Polynesian hip roof styles. Though of different heights and scales, these two buildings are good examples of period and style consistent structures that add to the sense of place of Del Mar. Other buildings do not portray much of a style and are either dominated by the front lot parking areas or tend to be modern architecture with limited indoor/outdoor spatial connections. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 18 Visual Impact Assessment Street Character:Just as the buildings are architecturally varied, the sidewalk conditions and building placements along Camino del Mar are varied as well. The sidewalk is sometimes constructed of brick pavers, concrete, or a combination of materials. Buildings are sometimes set back to accommodate larger café areas and planting areas and other times buildings are placed in a zero lot line condition. The photograph below (upper left) shows two buildings with two different setbacks. The building on the left has incorporated the additional setback distance for a covered porch and clothing sales rack while the building on the right is utilizing the space for exterior cafe seating. Larger setbacks can also be used to create courtyards or additional exterior space to be shared amongst buildings. The photograph below (right) shows two buildings with a building between that is setback more than 10’. This large setback allows for some relief from the building edge, but also provides an area of larger outdoor sale opportunities or alternatively a café or restaurant. Variations in setbacks enhance the streetscape experience and add interest to the physical environment while creating opportunities for additional exterior uses. The addition of different sidewalk materials and varied building setbacks contribute to the unique character of this area. The variation between design elements indicates that changes to the area will not dramatically contrast or “stand out” by being different. A unifying design element is missing from this portion of Del Mar. Efforts in the future may attempt to provide uniformity through the walkway materials, street lights, benches and plant material found along the corridor. Recently, some efforts have been made in terms of adding a “Del Mar” branding to its benches and trash receptacles. Also, many of the sidewalk areas recently added are providing a consistent exposed chipped rock aggregate that will help to provide a unifying element along the street. Manybuildings along Camino del Mar address the pedestrian experience successfully. Although the average sidewalk width is approximately 10’, the sidewalk contains many streetscape elements including, benches, planter boxes with small shrubs, outdoor cafes, clothing racks, signage and other human scaled elements. The photograph at the left illustrates an example of how street elements set the character of the streetscape. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 19 Visual Impact Assessment Plazas associated with some of the larger developments are often activated by outside eating and sitting areas. Shade, water features and defined spaces are often included. Though both examples have outdoor spaces at the front of the buildings, the image on the left lacks activation of its space based on adjacent land uses and lack of seating facilities. Some buildings do not have clear windows that encourage window-shoppingand others are negatively affected by the angle parking that forces the walkways away from the street. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 20 VisualImpact Assessment There is a great deal of variety in rooflines and overall forms, as well as setbacks and parking areas. Many of the streetscapes are highly detailed with plant material, overheads, seating and fountains. Very nice examples include those with a great integration of interior or exterior spaces or those that have used plant material and seat walls to define a transitional space from public to private. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 21 Visual Impact Assessment Some areas have great spatial definition, some created away from the street while others are spatially flat and linear with limited façade variations that define the street wall. The street wall varies and is often determined by the sidewalk and angle off-street parking. Pedestrians are not always up against the road edge, which makes for a non-contiguous street edge. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 22 Visual Impact Assessment 4.34.4Project Viewshedand Views ViewshedDefinition:the natural environment that is visible from one or more viewing points (Merriam-Webster). From a Geographic information systems (GIS) standpoint, viewshedscan be described as the determination of visibility of a surface DEM (digital elevation model) by one or more observer points located on that surface. The visibility of each surface cell center is determined by comparing the altitude angle of the cell center (surface) with the altitude angle to the local horizon of each observer point. The local horizon is computed by considering the intervening terrain between the point of observation and the current cell center. If the point lies above the local horizon,itis considered visible (seeFigure 4-2). The landform surface model was obtained from an existing digital elevation model. The resolution of each surface cell analyzed in the model is 10 meters by 10 meters, or approximately 1,076 square feet. Viewshed Processes: A viewshed for a single vantage point may be run across a surface in order to predict what can be seen from that single vantage point. This is valuable in validating whether areas across the surface are visible or not from that specific location. This does not, however, give us quantitative information about the degree of visibility fora given area. To simulate how many project features, or how much project area can be seen, a viewshed can be run from the project features (or area) using this surface. Many visual test points are used in these models and the visible points can be added up to give an idea of the overall extent of the Viewshed. The dynamics of the Del Mar visual environment requires the development of two distinctively different viewshed types. Views of the Pacific Ocean are an important aspect of living in Del Mar. They affect property values and the quality of life. Though one large body of water, the ocean in visual terms has: ahorizon line or background view; an open water view or middle ground view; and a coastal beach / shore view or a foreground view. The proposed buildings on Camino del Mar have the potential of blocking views of the oceanby interceding or piercing the view corridor. A viewshedmodelwas developed first to determine the leading edge of the oceanas seen by all of the residents on the slopes east of Camino del Mar. Then, theleading edge of this view was selected and a viewshedmodelwas developed to show the areas that can see the multiple points along this linear leading edgein the ocean. Interceding buildings along Camino del Mar, as well as other topography in the area, determine what can see this leading edge and what cannot (seeFigure 4-4). It shouldbe noted that vegetation and other buildingsoutside the Specific Plan areaare not in the model, so the results should be considered as the worst-case situation. The real viewshedmodelcan be dramatically less than thisdue to other buildings and vegetation. The computer model was then modified to include increased building heights allowed in the Specific Plan and another viewshedmodel was calculated (see Figure 4-5). Finally, the difference between the current viewshed and the proposed viewshedbased on the building height differences was calculated (see Figure 4-6). Using the processes above, the viewsheds to the project and from the project were analyzed. As shown in Figure 4-7, the majority of the buildings along Camino del Mar are visible from residences located uphill between Camino del Mar and Luneta Drive and again at the residences to the north and south of Crest Drive. Locations along Camino del Mar also have high visibility of other buildings along Camino Del Mar.The remaining areas within the City have a low to moderate visibility of the buildings along Camino del Mar. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 23 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-2: Viewshed and Human Eyesight Dynamics VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 24 Visual Impact Assessment A second series of viewshed models were developed that show the visibility of the buildings themselves, without regard to the background ocean views. This second viewshed model was run showing the areas that can see the current buildings along Camino del Mar. Then the computer model was adjusted by increasing building heights to 30’ with variable roof heights from 26’ to 30’ (see Figure 4-8). The difference between the building heights and their affect on the viewshed extent is shown on Figure 4-9. The view corridor summary mapshown onFigure 4-10, illustrates where view corridors exist through the Specific Plan area to the Pacific Ocean. This analysis indicates locations of primary, secondary, intermittent and partial ocean view corridors. Generally, primary view corridors consist of the east-west streets that extend through the Plan area to the bluffs. The secondary views corridors originate from roadways located to theeastof the Plan areaalong streets that either do not go all the way through Camino del Mar, or where the angle of the streets a few blocks to the east of the Specific Plan area, allow for additional views to the west. The analysis also locates where intermittent views of the ocean are visible from Camino del Mar, generally where buildings are currently missing, or large gaps between buildings are available. In some cases, the elevation along Camino del Mar, affords some minor views towards the northwest, over existing single story buildings. Finally, this analysis determines where private parcels along Camino del Mar, have portals, gaps or plazas on the street that allow users of Camino del Mar to see small portions of ocean views. However, most of these views are very confined or are currently blocked by other buildings and trees. The Viewshed summary map also indicates areas to the east of Camino del Mar that have been grouped into view categories. Upper slopeseast of Camino del Mar above a certain elevation(shown in light yellow), see entirely over the buildings along Camino del Mar. In some cases, they may see the views of buildings in the specific plan area, but they are not blocking middle-ground views of the ocean beyond the beach, nor do they interrupt the horizon line. Whether buildings are 14’ or 30’ from this area, their presence would not be considered a blocking of a view corridor to the ocean. This zone is overlaid on the Viewshed maps indicating visibility of the trend line in the ocean. Those area that are a very pale yellow, do not have visibility of the ocean, due to interceding topography and canyon landforms. Those that have anorange to red color showing through the pale yellow, have increasing degrees of visibility of the ocean. Thelower slopes show in bright yellow on Figure 4-10, are those from approximately one to two blocks east of Camino del Mar. Depending on topography, these roadway segments and private parcels, potentially have a small portion of their views blocked by buildings that are 26’ or taller. Several existing buildings currently block views of the lower portions of the ocean, and dozens of mature trees also interrupt these views. In general, a building between 26’ and 30’would be part of the viewing scene of the middle-ground from this area, and the near shoreline out past the trend line (shown on Figures 4-3 to 4-6). The horizon line is not likely to be interrupted by buildings up to 30’. The next zone shown on Figure 4-10 (in red) includes parcels that are generally from ½ block to 1 block from Camino del Mar. These properties do have views blocked off by buildings on the east side that are greater than 14’ in height and buildings on the west side of about 20’-24’ in height. Some views do exist from this location, but most of these properties are either commercial properties on the back side of the eastern lots on Camino del Mar, or front the alley. Finally, the green zone shows areas along Camino del Mar that have there views of the ocean completely blocked by any building that is 6’ to 14’ in height. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 25 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-3: Determining Ocean Views from Slopes This figure shows the ocean views as seen from the slopes east of Camino del Mar. The deeper the red, the more houses (indicated with blackdots) that can see this part of the ocean. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 26 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-4: Viewshed Trendline with Existing Buildings along CDM Viewshed of thetrendline (dashed line) on the ocean determined to be the most visible part of the near ocean that most structures on the slopes east of Camino del Mar can see (given current buildings and landforms that block views). VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 27 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-5:Viewshed Trendline with Proposed Buildings along CDM Viewshed of the ocean (trendline) given increased building heights(from 26’ to 30’ variable roofline)along Camino del Mar. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 28 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-6: Viewshed Trendline Net Difference Net difference of areas where portions of the view of theocean (trendline) would be partially blockedby building heights along Camino del Mar versus existing building heights. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 29 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-7: Viewshed of Existing Buildingsalong CDM Areas in color indicate those areas of Del Mar that can see existing buildings along Camino del Mar. Red areas can see most all buildings, whereas areas with no color see no buildings. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 30 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-8: Viewshed of the Proposed Buildings along Camino del Mar The viewshed shown indicates areas that can see the existing and proposed buildings.New buildings have replaced existing buildings where it has been assumed the site would redevelop. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 31 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-9: Viewshed Net Difference of Building Heights Net difference of properties affected by changes in building heights(note that blue colors indicate minor change in visibility while orange indicates a more dramatic change). VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 32 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 4-10:Ocean Viewsheds and View Corridors Along and Through Camino del Mar VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 33 Visual Impact Assessment Most of the east to west streets have views of the ocean, but the amount of ocean seen can vary dramatically as you head to the east, where just one block will allow you to see over most buildings. Views heading north or southbound on Camino del Mar are much more limited. Where they do appear, it is the result of a break in building masses and wheremature plant material does not exist. A few midblock views can be seen between buildings. A portion of the ocean can be seen from across from the east side of the street, though more dramatic views can be seen from the west side. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 34 Visual Impact Assessment Other openings exist, but contain a large amount of walls or landscaping that blocks most of the view. Current buildings block most of the views as seen from the road or sidewalk. Even a depressed 14’ building cannot be seen over the top from this side. Where buildings are missing, views do exist. Views over buildings occur once you head east up the streets and gain altitude. Views over the west side buildings from the first half block eastward only occur over the top of 14’ buildings. It is likely that buildings at 26’ to 30’ will not be seen over unless you travel east of the alleyway. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 35 Visual Impact Assessment 5.0EXISTING VISUAL RESOURCES AND VIEWER RESPONSE 5.1Methods used forVisual Resource Analysis Individual visual resources, when combined,make up the uniqueness of visual character. The visible individual components of a landscape include landform, landcover, water bodies, vegetation and man-made development. Step 1: Identify Visual Character – Visual character is descriptive and non-evaluative, which means it is based on defined attributes that are neither good nor bad in themselves. A change in visual character cannot be described as having good or bad attributes until it is compared with the viewer response to that change. If there is public preference for the established visual character of a regional landscape and resistance to a project that would contrast that character, then changes in the visual character can be evaluated. Step 2: Assess Visual Quality – Visual quality is evaluated by identifying the vividness, intactness andunity present in the viewshed. This method should correlate with public judgments of visual quality well enough to predict those judgments. This approach to evaluating visual quality can also help identify specific methods for mitigating each adverse impact that may occur as a result of a project. The three criteria for evaluating visual quality can be defined as follows: Vividness is the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they combine in distinctive visual patterns. Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and man-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. It can be present in well-kept urban and rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings. Unity is the visual coherence and compositional harmony of thelandscape considered as a whole. It frequently attests to the careful design of individual manmade components in the landscape. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 36 Visual Impact Assessment 5.2Existing Visual Resources 5.2.1Scenic Resources The City of Del Mar begins at the edge of the Pacific Ocean and follows the topography up toward the east. Many residencesand businesses in Del Mar have views of the ocean. Under the California Coastal Act of 1976, scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas are considered and protected as a visual resource. Permitted development should be sited and designed to protect views to and along theocean and scenic coastal areas. The act also requires minimizing the alterationof natural landformsto assure that they are visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, wherefeasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. th View of Pacific Ocean from residential neighborhood along 10 Street VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 37 Visual Impact Assessment There are a diverse collection of street trees in the Village Plan area, including Eucalyptus species,and Monterey Pinesand Torrey Pines along Camino del Marin the medians and throughout the residential neighborhoods. The Tree Ordinance (Section 23.50) of the Del Mar Municipal Code provides for the orderly protection of trees, including the following measures: B. In the interest of the public health, safety and welfare, as well as general aesthetics of the community and the importance of the ecology of the area, the City of Del Mar finds it necessary to encourage conservation of trees and the application of management techniques to create a healthy, diverse urban forest, including but not limited to pruning, thinning, trimming, shaping, and selective planting and removal of trees and vegetation within the City of Del Mar on private as well as public property. \[Ord. 749\] C. The species Torrey Pine, the species Monterey Cypress, and all species of trees located within the Central Commercial zone and the environmentally sensitive Open Space Overlay zone are of particular significance to the City, and should therefore be protected to conserve the environmental qualities of the City. Specimen Torrey Pinesare found throughout the City of Del Mar VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 38 Visual Impact Assessment The Del Mar Municipal Code designates the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HP-OZ). The HP-OZprotects the architectural and historic integrity of certain historically significant properties located within the City, but also provides the means to designate additional properties as historically significant.Within the HP-OZ, no building, improvement, structure, or portion thereof shall be erected, constructed, demolished, relocated, converted, altered, or enlarged, nor shall any lot or premises be excavated or graded unless approved by the Design Review Board. The City of Del Mar has two designated Historical Sites. Both Stratford Square (1438– th 1454 Camino del Mar; 225West15Street) and the City Library (1309 Caminodel Mar) have HP-OZ designations and have been designated by the City as historic landmark properties. The Del Mar Library and Eucalyptus trees along Camino del Mar Stratford Square VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 39 Visual Impact Assessment Adjacent to the Plan area are other parcels with the HP-OZ designation, including a linear parcel west of the Post Office along the east side of the railroad tracks, the Powerhouse park located west of Coast Boulevard, and the Ivan Gayler Trust located adjacent to the th Street. east side of the Plan area, north of 15 Powerhouse Park The State Scenic Highway Program lists highways that are either eligible for designation as a scenic highway or are already designated asa scenic highway.Designation as a scenic highway depends on how much of the natural landscape travelers can seethe scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on the traveler's enjoyment of the view (Caltrans, 2010). While there are no state designated or eligible scenic highways in the area listed in the California Scenic Highway Program, the Community Plan does designate scenic roadways. Camino del Mar is a scenic roadway and views of the Pacific Ocean and visual resources such as bluffs and trees are to be protected. Jimmy Durante Boulevard (formerly Turf Road), Crest Road, Carmel Valley Road, Coast Boulevard, and Del Mar Heights Road are also considered scenic roadways. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 40 Visual Impact Assessment 5.2.2Existing Visual Character The City of Del Mar is made up of an eclectic style of architecture, landscape, parking areas, and streetscapes. Camino del Mar isthevisually prominentroad through the city. It ismade up oftwo travel lanes in both directionswithbike lanes and eitherparallel or angled parkingalong much of its edges.In most locations, thenorth and southbound lanes are divided by landscaped medians with mature trees and a variety of smaller shrubs and groundcover. The pedestrian walkways adjacent to the road havevariable widths due toa variety of building setbacks. The walks are sometimes difficultto navigate because they arediscontinuous and the widths are inadequate for the number of people along the walkduring peak times. The walkway surfaces and landscape along the road is also made up of a variety of materials and includes a few large trees. There is a consistent change in elevationand landform from the ocean moving toward the east. The majority of the buildings in Del Mar are limited to two storiesin order to protect ocean views.The architecture is a mixture of historical and modern styles but also contain a few obsolete or poorly detailed buildings that detract from the visual intactness of this corridor. The common design form found along the eclectic collection of architectural treatments, is the dominance of human scale and visual interest provided by the variety of shops and outdoor spaces. The changes in building materials, display of public art or shop items for sale, all carry with it, a very human scale. Theprimaryconcentrationof businessesincludesoffice, retail, restaurants, and hotels located along Camino del Mar. The residential areas take advantage of the ocean views and are located to both the east and westof Camino Del Mar.The beach and adjacent bluffs along with Powerhouse Park provide recreational opportunities. 5.2.3Existing Visual Quality The visual quality of each characterunit is shownin Table 5-1: Visual Quality Assessment of CharacterUnits. This qualitative evaluationtakes into account the vividness, intactness, and unityof the study area. Table5-1: Visual Quality Assessment of CharacterUnits CharacterUnitVividnessIntactnessUnityOverall Visual Quality CivicLowto Low LowLow Moderate Moderate ResidentialModerateModerateHigh Moderate CommercialModerateModerateLow Hotel and PlazaHighHighHighHigh Vacant/ ParkingLowLowLowLow Street and ModerateModerateLowModerate Streetscape RecreationHighHighHighHigh VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 41 Visual Impact Assessment 5.3Methods of Predicting Viewer Response Viewer response is composed of two elements: viewer sensitivity and viewer exposure. These elements combine to form a method of predicting how the public might react to visual changes brought about by a project. Viewer sensitivity is defined both as the viewers’ concern for scenic quality and the viewers’ response to change in the visual resources that make up the view. Local values and goals may confer visual significance on landscape components and areas that would otherwise appear unexceptional in a visual resource analysis. Even when the existing appearance of a project site is uninspiring, a community may still object to projects that fall short of its visual goals. Viewer exposureis typically assessed by measuring the number of viewers exposed to the resource change, type of viewer activity, duration of their view, speed at which the viewer moves, and position of the viewer. High viewer exposure heightens the importance of early consideration of design, art, and architecture and their roles in managing the visual resource effects of a project. 5.3.1Existing Viewer Groups, ViewerSensitivity, and Viewer Exposure A summary of the viewer sensitivity and exposure can be found in Table 5-2and are described below. A total of 7 viewer groups include pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, retail workers or customers, and hotel and restaurant workers or customers, office workers, and residentswere considered. Pedestrians are individuals utilizing adjacent walks withinthe projectarea. The view of theproject would be in the foreground for this group and as a pedestrian moving along the corridor of Camino del Mar, the viewing duration would beshort tomoderate, depending on their walking speed and dwell time in front of shops and restaurants. Pedestrians using this area have a moderate sensitivity to visual change. Many of the pedestrians are visitors to Del Mar and don’t frequently visit the area to notice changes. Bicyclists are individuals biking along Camino del Mar.Del Mar sits along a popular route that runs along the coast and bicyclists throughout the region use the bike lanes along Camino del Mar. The number of bicyclists is moderatewhen comparing them to the quantity of other viewer groupssuch as vehicular drivers, but still significant enough to note. Similar to the pedestrians, the project is in the foreground as bicyclists are travailing through the projectarea, but the viewing duration is short resulting in lowviewer exposure and low viewer sensitivity. Motorists are drivers and passengers utilizing surface streets inthe projectarea. The viewer sensitivity to changeis moderateto low. There are existing views to the ocean along Camino del Mar and through street corridors running in the east/west directionalso exist to see views of the ocean. Camino del Maris sometimes unfavorably used as an alternative route to Interstate 5 which runs in the north / south direction, parallel to Del MarVillage. This roadway is often congested during night and morning commute times. It is also congested during weekends and when special events such as the San Diego County Fair and Del Mar Racetrack are running resulting in a high quantity of viewers. Theviewing duration is short and the project is in the foreground of the view resulting in a moderate viewer exposure. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 42 Visual Impact Assessment Retail Workers or Customers are individuals working or purchasing goods or service in the projectarea. This viewer group has amoderate viewer exposure. The quantity of viewers and the viewing duration is moderate, and the view of the project is in the foreground. Retail workers and customers have a moderate sensitivity to the viewand changes. They are oftenconcerned with the aesthetic and visibilityof storefronts or blockage of businessfaçades andthe visual relationship of the immediate visual environment. Hotel/ Restaurant Workers or Customersare individuals working or procuring services at a hotel or restaurant within the project area. This group has a high sensitivity to changes in the visual environment. They rely on the visual resource of the ocean to create a unique experience for patrons orcustomers. They are also concerned with the façade of the buildings and visibility of immediate surroundings and aesthetics. The proposed project is in the foreground of this viewer group’s view. The viewing duration is moderate and the quantity of viewers is moderate resulting in a moderate viewer exposure. Office Workersare individuals working in a business within the project study area. There is a low quantity of viewers within this group, but the viewing duration is moderate to high. The view of the proposed project is inthe foreground. The viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity to changesare low to moderate.This viewer group does not rely on the visual resources to enhance their business, but it is an added benefit. Homeowners/Residentsare individuals owning homes adjacent to the project. There are no residentswithin the project boundary; however, due to the topography of Del Mar, thegradual slope up from the ocean in the eastern direction resultsin residentswith views to the project. Residentshave a high viewer exposure because of their long viewing duration, and close proximity tothe project. The quantity of viewers is high, and under the existing Del Mar Municipal Code, individual residents’ private views are protectedas seen by anowner’s designated primary viewing room.In addition, many of the residents in Del Mar have a partial or full view of the ocean from their residence and so the viewer sensitivity is highto visual changes. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 43 Visual Impact Assessment Table5-2: Summary of Viewer Groups Distance fromViewer Viewer Quantity of Viewing to Project Viewer Viewer GroupViewersDurationCorridorExposureSensitivity Short to ModerateForegroundLowModerate Pedestrian Moderate LowShort ForegroundLowLow Bicyclist Lowto HighShort ForegroundModerate Motorist Moderate Retail ModerateModerate ModerateModerateForeground Worker or Customer Hotel / Restaurant ModerateHigh ModerateModerateForeground Worker or Customer Low to Low to Office LowModerateForeground ModerateModerate Workers Foreground to Home HighLongHighHigh Middleground Owners VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 44 Visual Impact Assessment 6.0VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1Method of Assessing Impacts The visual impacts of a project under CEQAare determined by assessing the visual resource change due to the project and predicting viewer response to that change. Visual resource change is the sum ofthe change in visual character and change in visual quality. The first step in determining visual resource change is to assess the compatibility of the proposed project with the visual character of the existing landscape. The second step is to compare thevisual quality of the existing resources with projected visual quality after the project is constructed. The viewer response to project changes is the sum of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity to the project. The resulting level of visual impact is determined by combining the severity of resource change with the degree to which people are likely to oppose the change. This project is particularly interested in impacts to view corridors. The process for view quality impacts is to first determine the extent of view corridors, model a viewshed and then determine if the project islikely to block a view corridor of distant viewing scenes of the ocean. 6.2Definition of Visual Impact Levels This document will use the following levels of impact to determine significance: Low -Minor adverse change to the existing visual resource, with low viewer response to change in the visual environment. May or may not require mitigation. Moderate -Moderate adverse change to the visual resource with moderate viewer response. Impact can be mitigated within five years using conventional practices. Moderately High -Moderate adverse visual resource change with high viewer response or high adverse visual resource change with moderate viewer response. Extraordinary mitigation practices may be required. Landscape treatment required will generally take longer than five years to mitigate. High – A high level of negative change to the resource or a high level of viewer response to visual change such that architectural design and landscape treatment cannot mitigate the impacts. Viewer response level is high. Based on CEQA thresholds, a High or Moderately High Adverse impact would be considered as a significant impact. 6.3Analysis of Candidate Key Views It is necessary to select a number of possible key viewpoints that most clearly display the visual effects of the project. These candidate key views represent the primary viewer groups that would potentially be affected by the project. Based on fieldwork, viewer groups, probable changes,viewing duration, and viewer sensitivity, candidate key views were selected and building massings were draped over the existing conditions to help understand the impacts of the Specific Plan. Descriptions of the candidate key views can be found in Appendix A. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 45 Visual Impact Assessment 6.4Analysis of Key ViewSimulations Because the study area is visible from a very large area, key views that most clearly display thevisual effects of the projecthave been selected for simulation. These key views represent areas where visually prominent project features would affect existing views. The existing visual quality of each of these key views and the initial contrasts have been evaluatedand discussed below. 6.4.1.1Key View Simulation “A” th This key view looksnorthboundonthe west side of Camino del Mar, south of the 12 Streetintersection and is depicted inFigure 6-1. Existing Visual Quality / Character The existing visual character of the buildings in the key view are uniform in scale. The mature trees and planting along the street also create a uniform view and are considered to be visual resources contributing to the character ofthe area.However, large gaps in storefronts along Camino del Mar create avisual environmentthat is not intact for a pedestrian ormotorist. Proposed Project Features This series of simulations depicts a transition of the proposed allowable buildingheights. The first image shows the infill of buildings, whichwould include the allowable increase 14feet for the first floor. The second image shows a secondstory on the west side of Camino del Mar for a total of 26 feet. The third image shows the building with a four-foot maximum articulated roof for a total of 30 feet. Note that a partial parkingreconfiguration is shown on this image, representing a probable phasing whereby portions of blocks adjacent to new development will be reconfigured while other portions may remain with “town and country” (storefront parking on private property)parking until redeveloped. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed changes have a low visual contrastandmay actually increase the visual qualityof the streetscapeas seen by a pedestrian or motorist along Camino del Mar. There is an opportunity to improve the vividness and unity of the spacethrough the design of the pedestrian environment. The building heights are not excessive in terms of scale and massing compared with other buildings along Camino del Mar. The articulated roofline (30’) does not increase the appearance of height above the flat roof (26’) version. No existing views along this segment of Camino del Mar will be affected by these changes. Viewer Response The reaction to the proposed changes will not likely be negative from this view point. The majority of the viewers include motorist bicyclists and pedestrians. Their sensitivity and exposure to the view is low to moderate mostly because of the short viewing duration and with the exception of the motorists, the low quantity of viewers. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting visual impact of this view hasa low adverse changeand might actually improve the uniformity, intactness, and vividness of the view. The changes to the view would not require mitigation and would be considered less than significant. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 46 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-1: Key View Simulation “A” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 47 Visual Impact Assessment 6.4.1.2Key View Simulation “B” th This view looks north on the eastside of Camino del Mar south of the 12Street intersection and is depicted inFigure 6-2. Existing Visual Quality / Character Same as Simulation “A”. Proposed Project Features Same as Simulation “A”. Change to Visual Quality / Character Same as Simulation “A”. Viewer Response Same as Simulation “A”. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting visual changeof this key view would only havea low adverse change and might actually improve the uniformity, intactness, and vividness of the view. The changes to the visual environmentwould not require mitigation and would be considered less than significant. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 48 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-2: Key View Simulation “B” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 49 Visual Impact Assessment 6.4.1.3Key View Simulation “C” th This key view looks north on Camino del Mar just south of the intersection at 11 Street and is depicted inFigure 6-3. Existing Visual Quality / Character The majority of the buildings on the west side of Camino del Mar are blocked by mature trees and planting in the median. Along the east side of the street, the buildings, landscape and setbacks are not vivid, norare theyuniform. The pedestrian environment is disrupted by the parallel parking along the street and in front of store fronts. For a pedestrianor a motorist,the visual experience is not intactnor would it be considered a high visual quality area. Proposed Project Features The proposed project features include the reconfiguration of the street to include angled parking, improved streetscape, infill of buildings, and the roundabout at the intersection. Additional parkway planting is proposed to improve the pedestrian environment, while assuring that the visibility through the traffic circle is open and clear for safety purposes as well as to make sure that trees do not block view corridors from the eastto the west on th 11. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed changes have a low visual impact and may actually increase the intactness of the view as seen by a pedestrian or motorist. The proposed features would eliminate a large mature tree in the existing median reducing the vividness of the median, but it would be replaced by other trees on the parkway side of the street. Overall, the walkway environment and the roundabout itself, will increase the visual quality of the area due to increased landscaping, improved paving materials and the decrease in the scale of the street resulting from the proposed improvements in the street. Viewer Response The reaction to the proposed changes will not likely be negative from this view point. The majority ofthe viewers include motorist bicyclists and pedestrians. Their sensitivity and exposure to the view is low to moderate mostly because of the short viewing duration and with the exception of the motorists, the low quantity of viewers. Overall, the scale tothese viewers is positive and the pedestrian and vehicular environments have been clarified and improved in visual quality. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting visual impact of this view has a low adverse change and might actually improve the uniformity, intactness, and vividness of the view and improve the visual environment. Because the large mature tree would be eliminated, the replacement of this tree in the immediate visual area is assumed to be part of the project as proposed. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 50 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-3: Key View Simulation “C” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 51 Visual Impact Assessment 6.4.1.4Key View Simulation “D1” This view looks west from the library patio adjacent to Camino del Mar and is depicted in Figure 6-4. Existing Visual Quality/ Character This view is high in intactnessand visual quality. Thisis an important view of the ocean. In addition, the architectural character represented in the view along Camino del Mar is vivid and characteristic of Del Mar in its pedestrian scaled buildings, Spanish style architecture,large storefront windows, anddiverse pedestrian environments. Proposed Project Features Proposed project features include an extension of the height toward the back of the parcel with an upper level building, while the pedestrian scaled architecture is maintained along Camino del Mar. The preservation of the front portion of these very human-scaled and high visual quality buildings is important and it is assumed that the Design Review Board process would require something similar to what is shown in the simulationssuch design features. Note that the proposed roadway and parking is not simulated in this view, since the primary concern here is of view corridor blockage and building massing and scale and its affect on the existing character. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed project will have a highly adverse affect on the view corridor from this location due to blockage of the view of the ocean from this public viewing location. However, the number of viewers is considered to be low. But, because of the view quality the impact should still be considered significant.The height difference between a 26’ flat roof and the 30’ articulated roof would be not different since they both would block the views in this location. The impact to the existing scale and character of the storefronts and adjacent buildings is considered to be a moderately adverse impact. Much of the character and scale is left intact as seen in the simulation. The overall height increase, though it impacts the view corridor, it does not impact the scale and massing orthe visual character of the storefronts. Viewer Response This view represents what a person sitting on the library patio would see. The number of viewers and viewer duration islow resulting in a low viewer exposure. The viewer sensitivity would be high. Thisis an important view of the ocean and the viewers would be concerned and notice this change. Viewer response to the changes in the building massing and scale compared to the adjacent building and streetscape environment would not be considered high. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting impact on the view corridor from a public viewing place would be moderateto highly adverseand considered potentially significant. Though alimited number of viewersare likely to see this, it would stillbe considered potentially significant. Ultimately, the Design Review Ordinance would not allow future development to substantially block scenic views and the potentially significantview impact would be avoided. The changes to the visual quality and character of the area would also not be considered significant, given the assumptions thatthe DRB review process requirementswould resultin a similar design as shown in the simulation. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 52 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-4: Key ViewSimulation “D1” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 53 Visual Impact Assessment 6.4.1.5Key View Simulation “D2” This view looks northwest from the east side of Camino del Mar in front of the library and is depicted inFigure 6-5. Existing Visual Quality / Character This view is highly intact. Different from Key View D1, there is not a view of the ocean in this view given the height and position ofthe existing buildings. Again, the architectural character represented in the view along Camino del Mar is vivid and characteristic of Del Mar in its pedestrian scaled buildings, Spanish style architecture, large storefront windows, and a diverse pedestrian environment. In addition, the streetscape provides uniformity for the character of the area. Proposed Project Features Proposed project features include the existing architecture and extended building height on the back side of the parcel. Setback and stepbacks are indicated in the rendering to create visual interestand protect the first floor scaled buildings that do establish some of the character of the village. The pedestrian realm is enhanced with outdoor dining, shopping, seating, and plantings where setbacks occur along Camino del Mar. Change to Visual Quality / Character By maintaining some of the existing architectural character, on the front of the parcel facing Camino del Mar, the change to the view sceneand visual characteris moderate. The pedestrian scale of the buildings are maintained and the visual character remains intact.But the overall change to the visual environment is not considered to be that dramatic. Viewer Response Depending on a viewer’s outlook and opinion, some viewers may consider this change objectionable while others may not. The reaction to the proposed changes will not likely beoverly negativefrom this viewpoint, but they may be adverse. Themajority of the viewers including cyclists and pedestrians, will see this view from a transitory or moving perspective. Their sensitivity and exposure to the view is low to moderate mostly because of the short viewing duration, movementand low quantity of viewers. Resulting Visual Impact The resulting impact on the view corridor from this public viewing place would be low and would not be considered significant. The changes to the visual quality and character of the area would not be considered significant, given the assumptions that the DRB review process would result in a similar design as shown in the simulation. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 54 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-5: Key View Simulation “D2” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 55 Visual Impact Assessment 6.4.1.6Key View Simulation “E” This view looks west to the ocean across Camino del Mar from the north side of 12th Street at Maiden Lane and is depicted in Figure 6-6. Existing Visual Quality / Character This view represents a typical view corridorto the ocean found on most of the numbered streets running in an east/west direction. The view is considered to behighly intact, though it is partially blocked by mature vegetation. This is also typical of most of the view corridors in the study area. These views are important to the City of Del Mar and create a vivid view and uniform rhythmof views when driving, riding or walking down the street. Thisis an important view of the ocean though itis somewhat interrupted by large mature trees in the middle ground and background. However,enough of a view still exists to be of concern.Based on the simple simulations, it can be seen that most of the view to the ocean is maintained with the proposedbuilding heightsof 14’, 26’ or 30’.The side stepback on the second floor is considered to be important to protecting this view corridor. Proposed Project Features Proposed features in this view include the new building heights. The chamfer at the corner lots will help to keep some of the view corridor when approaching from the north or south as a pedestrian. In addition, the ten-foot stepback on the upper floor helps to maintain the views to the ocean and the view corridorso it is not excessivelyblocked. Change to Visual Quality / Character The change to the visual quality and character would be moderate to low. The massings of the buildings are similar to the existing forms, though higher. The visual quality of the existing buildings on the west side are not high. Replacement buildings are likely to have a higher visual and design quality.The existing vegetation is already partially blocking the scenic vista to the oceanand would not be affected by the project. Viewer Response Currently residents, retail workers and customers have a partial viewofthe ocean that is interrupted by mature plant material. The viewer exposure and sensitivity to these changes would be low. The extended heights on the buildings donot completely remove theview of the ocean and the scenic vista is maintained.The proposed scale is not out of character with other buildings in the area. Resulting Visual Impact The resulting visual impact of this view would be considered low to moderately adverse. The scenic vista to the ocean is mostly preserved, though a small notch would be affected. This blockage would not be considered significant. The change to the visual character and quality is also considered to be low to moderate. Depending on the final design of replacement buildings, the visual character could be improved along withthe overall visual quality. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 56 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-6: Key View Simulation “E” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 57 Visual Impact Assessment 6.4.1.7Key View Simulations “F1, F2, F3, and F4” Key view F1looks west toCamino del Mar from the south side of 14th Street near the intersection and is depicted in Figure 6-7. Key viewF2 looks west to Camino del Mar from the south side of 14th Street, mid-block and is depicted in Figure 6-8. Key viewF3looks west to Camino del Mar from the south side of 14th Street at Maiden Lane and is depicted in Figure 6-9. Key View F4 looks west to Camino del Mar from the intersection of 14th Street and Luneta Drive is depicted in Figure 6-10. Existing Visual Quality / Character This series of views is typical ofthe view corridors to the ocean fromthe numbered streets running in an east/west direction. This view is consistent along Camino del Mar andis highly intact. These views are important to the City of Del Mar and are typical of residential views on the lower slopes east of Camino del Mar. The view of the ocean is blocked by existing buildings when a viewer is standing at Camino del Mar. Where there are no buildings, the view is partially blocked by mature trees in the background. Moving up the hillside to the east, the views to the ocean open up and more of thevistais revealed. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed building heights from a massing and scale perspective are not in contrast with other buildings in this area. The changes to the visual quality are also not likely to negatively contrast with the current setting, assuming a Design Review Board process that will assure that elements of the Del Mar Village are repeated and existing high quality architecture and storefronts are preserved. Viewer Response Currently residents, retail workers and customers have a partial view of the ocean that is interrupted by mature plant materialand overhead powerlines. The viewer exposure and sensitivity to these changes would be moderate. The extended heights on the buildings do not completely remove the view of the ocean and the scenic vista is maintainedby the preservation of the view corridor on one of the lots. The view could actually be improved if the background utilities were removed.Also, increased public views would be possible with the development of a Paseo plaza open to the public, between these buildings. The removal of surface parking would also be an improvement. Resulting Visual Impact The resulting visual impact of this view would be considered low to moderately adverse. The scenic vista to the ocean is mostly preserved, though a portion would be affected from the lower slope within the first half block from Camino del Mar.A moderately adverse impact that would be considered less than significant would result to the views in thiscorridor. A low to moderately adverse impact thatis also less than significant, would result to the character of the area, assuming that the Design Review Board process would result in a similar form and character of as show in previous simulations. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 58 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-7: Key View Simulation “F1” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 59 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-8: Key View Simulation “F2” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 60 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-9: Key View Simulation “F3” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 61 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-10:Key View Simulation “F4” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 62 Visual Impact Assessment 6.4.1.8Key View Simulation “G” This view looks north to the intersection of Camino del Mar and is depicted inFigure 6-11. Existing Visual Quality / Character The majority of the buildings on the east side of Camino del Mar are blocked by mature trees and plantings in the median. Along the west side of the street, the buildings, landscape and setbacks are neither vivid noruniform. The pedestrian environment is disrupted by the parallel parking along the street and in front of storefronts. For a pedestrian, the visual experience is not intact. In addition, thereare gaps in the building storefronts along Camino del Mar. Within the view, the trees in front of the library are an important visual elementand enhance the visual characterof the area. Proposed Project Features The simulation shows a series of images to depict a sequence of potential build outand roadway environment changes. The second image shows the realignment of the street to include angled parking, a bike lane, the realignment of the sidewalk, and one lane of traffic. The last image includes building infill and other enhancements tothe pedestrian environment. Change to Visual Quality / Character The proposed changes have a low visual impact and may actually increase the intactness of the view as seen by a pedestrian or motorist experiencingthe space along Camino del Mar.The overall scale and dominance of the roadway does improve and is not as expansive and vehicular dominant. Viewer Response The reaction to the proposed changes will not likely be negative from this view point. The majority of the viewers include motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. Their sensitivity and exposure to the view is low to moderate mostly because of the short viewing duration and with the exception of the motorists, a low quantity of viewers. Resulting Visual Impact Overall, the resulting visual impact tothis key view would bea low adverse change since some of the visual environment would be improved through new design features and new spatial organization and visual interest improvements. The proposed project changes would not be considered to be significant. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 63 Visual Impact Assessment Figure 6-11: Key View Simulation “G” VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 64 Visual Impact Assessment 6.5Impact AssessmentSummary The City of Del Mar does not currently have guidelines for determining significant thresholds. Therefore, CEQA, Appendix G was used to determine the level of impacts the project is likely to cause. The following criteria apply: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Many of the vistas in Del Mar are currently blocked by mature shrubs and trees or other existing buildingsand landforms. There are scattered scenic vistas throughout Del Mar of the ocean depending on the topographic setting of the viewer. The most substantial scenic vistas of the ocean occur at the streets running west and east. The Village Specific Plan takes these vistas into account by requiring stepbacks from the side streets on the upper levels and a chamfer corner at the first level of proposed corner lots buildings. This design detail helps to reduce the adverse visual impactsassociated with view corridor blockage, but does not completely eliminate adverse effects on viewsnot located along the east-west street corridors. The proposed changes wouldpotentiallyresult in a moderate impact on some scenic vistasnot located along east-west street corridors, such as View D1and mitigation may be required. Ultimately, the Design Review Ordinance requires projects to be designed so that they do not unreasonably block significant public coastal views or scenic views fromtheprimary living area of residences. With the implementation of the Design Review Ordinance through the Design Review Board review process, potentially significant scenic vista impacts would be mitigated.Therefore, the proposed project is considered to have a significant impact on scenic vistas.This impact would be considered unmitigable. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited totrees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within the Village area defined by the Specific Plan Boundary? The traffic circles and the realignment of the street have the potential to reduce the number of mature trees found along Camino del Mar. Other trees will be removed, but many more will be added as a result of the proposed new developments and streetscape improvements. These tree removals and additionswouldhave the potential for either an adverse or positive change to the visual environment depending on the viewer and the viewer location. The removalof mature trees could potentially open views to the ocean. However, the trees along Camino del Mar are also considered to be characteristic of the Del Mar settingandare a scenic resourceand help to strengthen the vividness of the City. The proposed specific plan does not make recommendations to remove or modify any existing historic buildings; therefore, there are no adverse changes to the historic buildings. The view of the ocean must be considered as a scenic resource. The increase in building heights proposed in the Village Specific Plan may result in afull or partial blocked view of the ocean for a variety of viewer groups. As a viewer moves up the hillside to the east, the resulting visual impact becomes less adverse because of the changingperspectiveresulting from rising topography. The combination of these changes would result in a moderate to high visual impact and would need to be mitigated. Therefore, a significant impact to scenic resources and visual resources would be expected, some of which can be mitigated through replacement of visual resources and the Design Review Board review process. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 65 Visual Impact Assessment Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualityof the site and its surroundings? The existing character of Del Mar is moderate in vividness, intactness, and unity. Most of the existing inconsistenciesare the varying building setbacks and the lack of a visually identifiable pedestrian environment. Theproposed changes in the Village Specific Plan would create a uniform visual environment. The proposed changes would result in a low visual impact and in some situations, would actually improve the visual character and quality of the site.There may be some circumstances where visual character may be removed and not replaced with the same level of pedestrian scale, building material quality and overall character. However, it is assumed that through the application of design guidelines and the Design Review Board process, that projects will be of a higher quality and will address the visual character of the area and any removal of character elements will be replaced by new improvements. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on the visual character or visualquality of the specific plan area. Create a new source of substantial light or glare thatwould adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Shade calculations on adjacent residential units were completed for the longest day of the year, December 22. Using computer modeling, it has been determined that the proposed increase in the height of the building will not result in a low adverse change to the shadow pattern on adjacent buildings. Existing conditions currently result in a partial shade pattern on the façade of residential buildings at 8am; however, the shade pattern disappears from the façade by 9am. The same is true when the building heights are increased. Computer modeling was also used to evaluate the shade patterns on Camino del Mar during the equinox and solstice. The models showed an increase in shadow patterns as the building heights increased. During the longest day of the year, shadow patterns form the buildings on the west side of the street stretched to the median by mid afternoon, but did not shade the entire corridor of Camino del Mar. The proposed setbacks and articulation in the buildings will result in more light coming through the buildings to Camino del Mar, and therefore results in a low adverse change. The proposed building height increase would result in a low adverse change to the glare and ambient light into the nighttime sky.This impact would not be considered to be significant. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 66 Visual Impact Assessment 7.0VISUAL MITIGATION 7.1Visual Mitigation Options Visual mitigation for moderate to highly adverse project impacts addressed in the key view simulation assessments of the previous chapter, are discussed below. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts of the project. ·Because it is impossible to determine the impact on individual residents within this study, the proposed project is subject to design review to guard against unreasonable view blockage from public areas or from neighboring properties. Story poleswill be erectedto fully determine visual impact of individual residence as part of the Design Review process. TheDesign Review Board will review the proposed development’s affect on individual residenceon a project-by project basis. The views will be evaluated from each residence, based onthe property owner’sprimary viewing location within the residence. ·The proposed Village Specific Plan required stepbacksand the articulationof roofs on buildings. This variety in architecture will result in more light into the project and adjacent residential unitsas well as increased visual interest. ·Mature trees are considered to be a scenic resourceand add to the vividness and intactness of the City. A few of these trees maybe disturbed withthe realignment of median andthe addition of roundaboutsper the improvements in the Village Specific Plan.A tree replacement or relocation plan should be createdand implemented to reduce the visual impactsbecause of the tree removal. Any tree requiring removal should be replacedwith a tree ofsimilar size or relocated in close proximity to the existing tree without blocking scenic views to the ocean. ·Where setbacks of the proposed building occur on Camino del Mar, the space between the building and curb shall be utilized for the pedestrian. Amenities such as awnings, outdoor dining, seating, shopping, and plant material must be usedto enhance the pedestrian scale. · Cohesive site amenities should be utilized throughout the Del Mar Village to create visual intactness in the urbansetting. This will improvethe unity and intactness of the Villageand enhance the visualpedestrian setting. Consistent site amenities are shown on the following pages. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 67 Visual Impact Assessment 7.2Visual Impacts After Mitigations ·Substantial impactson scenic vistas With the implementation of Design Review Board review, the use of story poles, setbacks, stepbacks and corner lot 45 degree chamfers on corner lots,the significant impact on scenic vistaswould be avoided. The Design Review Ordinancewould ultimately not allow redevelopment that would substantially impact scenic vistascan be lessened but they would remain significantafter mitigations. Since the view blockage cannot be eliminated, its impacts would be, but notto a level below significance. ·Substantial impacts on visual resources With the protection of significant tree resources found in the corridor and the replacement of trees that are to be removedin accordance with the Tree Ordinance, this significant impact on visual resources in the specific plan area, would be reduced to below a level of significance. The mitigation assumes that approximately 50% of the biomass removed, would be replaced and that this bio- mass would grown to approximately 75% of the removed tree resources within a 3-5 year period. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 68 Visual Impact Assessment Bencheswith City Branding Sidewalks with a consistent finishand a minimum width throughout the Village Tree Grates VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 69 Visual Impact Assessment Planting Signage with City Branding Trash and Recycling Receptaclewith City Branding VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 70 Visual Impact Assessment 8.0REFERENCES Camino del MarStreetscape Plan, Andrew Spurlock Martin Poirier Landscape Architects, December 1996. The Community Plan for the City of Del Mar, California, March 1976 with 1985 amendments. U.S.D.O.T., Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy, Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects, U. S. Department of Transportation. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| 71 Visual Impact Assessment APPENDIX ACANDIDATE KEY VIEWS The locations of these keyviews are shown on the photo location mapon the following page. Based on fieldwork, viewer groups, probable changes, viewing duration, and viewer sensitivity,candidate key views were selected and building massings were draped over the existing conditions to help understand the impacts of the Specific Plan. The yellow masses indicate a maximum building envelope for the west side of Camino del Mar, and the red buildings represent the maximum building envelopes on the east side of the street. Please note the massing overlays are not intended to look realistic in any manner, and foreground elements have not been removed, so some perspective distortions do exist in these graphics. VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-1 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View Photo Location VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-2 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #1 thth This view looks west from the north side of 15Street at 412 15. This view is not recommended for simulation. This view shows the affect of the 30’ maximum height on the ocean view; it does not interrupt the horizon line. Candidate Key View #1 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-3 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #2 thth This view looks southwestfrom the northside of 15Street at 412 15. This view is not recommended for simulation since the proposed changes will not interrupt the horizon line. Candidate Key View #2 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-4 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #3 thth This view looks westfrom the northside of 15Street at 383 15.This view is not recommended for simulation since potential changes do not fully block the horizon. Candidate Key View#3 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-5 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #4 th This view looks west from the parking lot east of Maiden between 14Street and Parish. This view is not recommended for simulation since current regulations would block view. Candidate Key View #4 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-6 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #5 thth This view looks westfrom the east side of Maidenbetween 14and 15Street. This view is not recommended for simulation since it would be blocked by current regulations. Candidate Key View #5 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-7 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #6 thth This view looks west from the south side of 14street at 349 14. This view is not recommended for simulation because the existing foreground vegetation blocks the proposed changes. Candidate Key View #6 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-8 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #7 thth This view looks west from the south side of 14street at 323 14.This view is not recommended for simulation as a sequence as the building in the foreground will most likely not change. Candidate Key View #7 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-9 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #8 thth This view looks west from the north side of 14Street at 327 14. Thisview is not recommended for simulation it be used in a sequence with Error! Reference source not found.andError! Reference source not found.. Candidate Key View #8 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-10 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #9 th This view looks west from the southeast side of the intersection of 14Street and Maiden. This view is not recommended for simulation as the building in the foreground will most likely not change. Candidate Key View #9 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-11 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #10 th This view looks westfrom the northwestside of the intersection of 14Street and Maiden. This view is not recommended for simulation, but shows a sequence of views to the horizon line the with Error! Reference source not found.. Candidate Key View #10 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-12 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #11 thth This view looks westfrom the northside of 14Street at 30914. This view is not recommendedbutshows how the view corridor could be kept open if development was not allowed in the street extension. Candidate Key View #11 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-13 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #12 thth This view looks west from the east side of Camino del Mar between 13Street and 14 Street. This view is not recommended for simulation since no ocean view exists. CandidateKey View #12 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-14 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #13 th This view looks west from the north side of 13Street at the Del Mar. This view is not recommended for simulation since only a minor view opening exists. Candidate Key View #13 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-15 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #14 th This viewlooks westfrom the north side of 13Streetatthe Del Mar. This view is not recommended for simulation since only a minor view opening exists. Candidate Key View #14 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-16 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #15 th This view looks westfrom the south side of 13Streetat305.This view is not recommended for simulation since a 14’ building would block the view. Candidate Key View #15 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-17 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #16 This view looks westfrom the east side ofCamino del Marat1247 Camino Del Mar. This view is not recommended forsimulation since a 14’ building would block the view. Candidate Key View #16 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-18 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #17 thth This view looks westfrom the northside of 12Street at 38112. This view is not recommend for simulation but shows the stepbacks on the side street and the heavy vegetation blocks some views. Candidate Key View #17 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-19 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #18 thth This view looks westfrom the southside of 12Street at 389 12. This view is not recommended for simulation due to the background vegetation. Candidate KeyView #18 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-20 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #19 th This view looks southat the intersection of 11Street and Camino del Mar. This view is not recommended for simulation since the existing buildings most likely will not change with the proposed heights and FAR’s. Candidate Key View #19 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-21 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #20 thth This view looks westfrom the southside of 11Street at 331 11. This view is not recommended for simulation since too much vegetation blocks the view. Candidate Key View #20 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-22 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #21 thth Thisview looks westfrom the southside of 11Street at 317 11. This view is not recommended for simulation but shows a corner lot setback and could show a roundabout in the simulation as well. Candidate Key View #21 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-23 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #22 thth This view looks northwest from the south side of 10Street at 411 10. This view is not recommended for simulation, butshows the proposed building are less of an impact moving up the hill. Candidate Key View #22 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-24 Visual Impact Assessment Candidate Key View #23 th This view looks southatthe intersection of 9Street and Camino del. This view is not recommended for simulation of the roundabout. Candidate Key View #23 VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN July March 2012Page| A-25