Landscape character

Previous page | Next page | Contents

• Policy POSP6: Landscape character
• Policy PODM20: Development and landscape
• Policy PODM21: Land raising
• Policy PODM22: Excavated material
• Policy PODM23: Utilities infrastructure development
• Policy PODM24: Trees, woodlands, hedges, scrub and shrubs and development
• Policy PODM25: Protection and enhancement of settlement fringe landscape character

Policy POSP6: Landscape character

Reasoned Justification

Landscape means an area as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors (definition from the European Landscape Convention).

The quality and uniqueness of the landscape, both visually and historically, are central to the attractiveness, distinctiveness, and diversity of the Broads. It has high economic and cultural value and is a major draw for visitors to the area. The Authority recognises the need for a ‘living landscape’, with development necessary to support local communities and the economy being permitted, subject to policies that protect and enhance the essential qualities of the landscape, since it is that landscape which provides the basis of their livelihoods.

While the Broads landscape as a whole (including the land and waterways) is protected for its natural beauty and national significance, there are areas that have suffered from inappropriate development or neglect and where landscape changes would be beneficial. The aim is to work with landowners and infrastructure providers to mitigate adverse impacts.

The term ‘seascape’ refers to the entire coastal landscape, as well as adjacent open water areas, including views from land to sea, from sea to land and along the coast part of the Broads.

Reasonable alternative options

The original policy, with no amendments.

No policy

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 1 ?

B: Keep original policy: 1 positives. 0 negatives. ? Overall, positive.

C: Preferred Option - amend policy: 1 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall, positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has been used and applications have been determined in accordance with the policy.

Why has the alternative option been discounted?

With the Broads being a protected landscape, it is prudent to have a strategic policy relating to landscape. The additions to the original policy strengthen the policy.

Back to top

Policy PODM20: Development and landscape

Reasoned Justification

Despite its distinctiveness, the landscape of the Broads is not homogeneous and there are some areas more able to accommodate change than others.

The Authority has undertaken a Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), which identifies 31 distinctive local character areas. The LCA provides information on the key characteristics that combine to give a particular area its unique sense of place, incorporating information on topography, land cover and important landscape features.

Where appropriate, development proposals will be expected to be accompanied by a landscaping strategy that assesses the impact of the proposal on the landscape and details the measures that will be implemented to mitigate any adverse impact.

Applications considered to have potentially significant adverse impacts on landscape and visual amenity should be informed by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and appropriate landscape mitigation. Applications with potential to impact upon sensitive landscape areas may require a Landscape Appraisal, even if they do not meet the criteria for a full LVIA. Landscape Appraisals and LVIAs should be completed in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition published by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessments. Applicants will be advised at a pre-application stage whether a Landscape Appraisal or LVIA is likely to be required, and the scope of assessment including viewpoints will be agreed.

To make sure development proposals do not have a detrimental effect on the distinctive landscape character, condition, features, and sensitivities, including amenity and experiential qualities, the Landscape Character Assessment should be considered by applicants and will be used by the Authority to assess the impact of development proposals and the suitability of any proposed mitigation measures. There may also be occasions when the Landscape Character Assessments of our constituent districts are of importance to a particular scheme or proposal.

The Broads Biodiversity Action Plan and county species and habitat action plans will be used when assessing the appropriateness of landscaping schemes and the potential for enhancements to Broads’ BAP habitats^[87].

The Broads is a mainly open and low-lying environment. However, there are areas where trees and other natural features form essential features of the landscape, providing vital habitats for a range of species and having potential historic/cultural significance in demonstrating traditional land management. See Policy PODM24: Trees, woodlands, hedges, scrub and shrubs and development. Where a development would involve works that could affect any tree or landscape feature, detailed site plans showing the species, spread, roots and position of these features will be required. This plan should be accompanied by an arboriculture assessment carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standard that explains which features, if any, will be removed or cut back, and how any of these features will be protected during the development. Details of replacement trees or hedges, including measures for maintenance and aftercare, should also be included.

In terms of water-smart landscaping, The Royal Horticultural Society have a webpage on Trees for Climate Change^[88], which includes trees that are resistant to drought and therefore are water efficient.

The Authority has produced guides^[89] to help applicants assess and respond to landscape when preparing schemes, as well as setting out approaches to submitting relevant information.

Reasonable alternative options

The original policy, with no amendments.

No policy

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 1 ?

B: Keep original policy: 1 positives. 0 negatives. 2 ? Overall, positive.

C: Preferred Option - amend policy: 3 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall, positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has been used and applications have been determined in accordance with the policy.

Why has the alternative option been discounted?

The Broads is a protected landscape and therefore should have a policy relating to impact of development on landscape. As such, not having a policy is discounted. The amended version is favoured because it clarifies the policy, and the additions make it stronger.

Back to top

Policy PODM21: Land raising

Reasoned Justification

Land or buildings are often raised above the existing ground level, usually to reduce the risk of the site flooding, although such results are not guaranteed. Dredgings or material imported or won on site (for example resulting from a new mooring basin) may be disposed of on-site and the land raised. Such land management to maintain land levels is a historic practice in the Broads. However, the impact of land-raising can have adverse impacts:

• It can serve to divert flood water onto neighbouring land, particularly in areas primarily affected by fluvial flooding, so the flood risk policy must also be adhered to. Land raising is not permitted within Flood Zone 3b Functional Floodplain unless it is to reinstate previously sunken land, as this would prevent the floodplain from functioning.
• Land in the Broads is often wet and of poor load bearing capacity. Surcharging of land with soil or other material may lead to the site sinking over a period of time.
• On sites near each other, it affects the relationship of the site to surrounding plots and to access roads. On waterside sites, the relationship to the river or broad is changed, often leading to the need for higher piling and quay heading, potentially affecting the visual amenity of views from the water.
• It can be damaging to ecology, geomorphology, trees, and other vegetation on the site.
• It can change the character of the landscape – land-raising can increase the height and prominence of new buildings.
• It can affect the ability to provide alternative flood storage capacity in the drainage compartment.
• Material placed on top of other material can create problems for archaeology and heritage assets and the understanding of past human interaction with the environment.

Subject to the factors that must not be adversely affected, some land raising may be necessary for habitat creation/restoration purposes.

Where land-raising could be part of a scheme, applicants are required to explain what issues it seeks to resolve, and which other options have been considered and why they have been discounted, as well as justifying the raising of land. A topographical survey may be required.

The disposal of excavated material policy is also of relevance.

Reasonable alternative options

No policy.

Amended, preferred policy.

The original policy, with no amendments.

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 4 ?

B: Preferred Option: 4 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall, positive.

C: Original policy: 4 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall, positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has been used and applications have been determined in accordance with the policy.

Why have the alternative options been discounted?

The changes to the policy are preferred as they clarify impacts from such processes on heritage assets and archaeology and refer to further evidence that will help in the determining of applications.

Back to top

Policy PODM22: Excavated material

Reasoned Justification

Typically, because of most types of development, excavated material is left to be disposed of. This could result from buildings and their foundations; in the Broads there are also scrapes (for nature conservation and wild fowling), wildfowling lakes, fishing lakes (for recreation), dykes (for drainage), mooring cuts or mooring basins (to moor boats).

These developments can lead to materials that need to be accommodated somewhere on site or taken off site. The disposal of spoil/material is often an oversight by developers. On occasion, there are presumptions of how to dispose of this material that may not be acceptable for the area, or the material is left on site, which can result in the establishment of vegetation that is not the norm for the area.

The Authority will require information from the applicant relating to the volume of likely excavated material and the plan for disposal and other options that have been considered. If the material is to be kept on site, detailed plans are required.

This policy will make sure that disposal is considered early in the scheme design process and could be incorporated positively (beneficial re-use). It could result in improved disposal of material with landscape character and habitat benefits. Of importance to disposal of material is the section on peat, the section on archaeology, and the guides referred to earlier in this section. The land-raising policy in this Local Plan is also of relevance. When disposing of material, the Environment Agency^[90] needs to be contacted as a licence may be required.

The soils section will be of relevance and so too will PODM21.

Reasonable alternative options

No policy

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 2 ?

B: Preferred Option: 2 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall, positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has been used and applications have been determined in accordance with the policy.

Why have the alternative options been discounted?

Given that schemes tend to result on excavated material, it is an issue worthy of its own policy and therefore it is preferred to have the policy.

Back to top

Policy PODM23: Utilities infrastructure development

Reasoned Justification

For the purposes of this policy, ‘utilities infrastructure’ includes telecommunications, electricity, gas and water and associated paraphernalia.

The Authority understands the importance of utilities infrastructure for local communities and the economy, including rural broadband coverage and extending 4G coverage and the rollout of 5G infrastructure. However, by its nature, utilities infrastructure and its associated equipment has the potential to have a significant impact on the landscape, built environment and wildlife of the Broads. In particular, the open and low-lying character of the area increases the likelihood of installations forming visually prominent features that detract from the special character of the Broads.

Planning applications for utilities infrastructure development must be accompanied by supplementary information on the area of search, details of any consultation undertaken, details of the proposed structure and measures to minimise its visual impact, photomontages, and technical justification for the proposed development, as appropriate. Measures to reduce the visual impact of a proposal will be secured by planning condition where necessary. To avoid the proliferation and visual impact of new utility installations, preference will be to accommodate new installations on existing masts and/or within existing utility apparatus sites where this represents the least environmentally intrusive option. Applicants who choose not to mast or site share where there is an opportunity to do so should submit a statement setting out the extent of the area of search and fully justifying their reasons for discounting this option.

The Authority will require all telecommunications operators to demonstrate that their proposed installation would be in conformity with the latest national guidelines on radiation protection. To this end, the submission of information to certify compliance with the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP^[91]) standards will be sufficient to demonstrate that a proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on people's health.

Because of the rapid pace of change in technology, permissions could be temporary so that utilities infrastructure is required to be removed when no longer necessary to meet the requirements of the operator.

The Authority, working with utility providers, has had some success in getting some cables that were visible in the landscape, underground. For example, at Buckenham Marshes and Barsham Marshes. We continue to work with utility providers to investigate ways of undergrounding other cables that are prominent in the landscape.

The setting of the Broads will be an important consideration for our constituent districts when they determine planning applications for utilities infrastructure. The Authority will refer to the Landscape Sensitivity Study^[92] (or successor document) in the first instance. While this study considered solar farms and wind turbines, some utilities structures are similar in scale and bulk.

The Cabinet Siting and Pole Siting Code of Practice may be of relevance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cabinet-siting-and-pole-siting-code-of-practice-issue-2-2016. Please note that this may be updated from time to time.

Reasonable alternative options

The original policy, with no amendments.

No policy

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 5 ?

B: Keep original policy: 4 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall, positive.

C: Preferred Option - amend policy: 5 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall, positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has been used and applications have been determined in accordance with the policy.

Why has the alternative option been discounted?

Utilities infrastructure can have an impact on the Broads and so a policy is prudent. The change referring to lighting and dark skies is preferred as some schemes may have lighting associated with them.

Back to top

Policy PODM24: Trees, woodlands, hedges, scrub and shrubs and development

Reasoned justification

Trees, woodlands, hedges, and shrubs are an integral part of the Broads landscape and add great beauty, a sense of place and character to, and are a defining feature of the Broads Authority Executive Area. Trees and woodlands enhance the landscape and provide important landmarks, complementing the natural and built environment by providing screening, perspective, focal points, privacy and seclusion and they define and separate public open spaces. They provide shade for people and riverside trees play an important role in keeping rivers cool. Riverside trees also provide woody debris for flow dynamics and roots for fish spawning. They also provide habitats, with mature wet woodland being one of the rarest types of woodland habitat in the UK and continental Europe (and connectivity) for an exceptional range of wildlife and form a “carbon sink” helping to absorb and store and counteract the harmful effect of climate change. This policy, relating to trees, scrub, woodlands including riparian, wet and dry woodland, hedges, and shrubs affected by development, will further the Authority’s aim to preserve the variety, number and quality of trees woodlands, hedges, and shrubs within the Broads Authority Executive Area and to ensure that development contributes to the maintenance or enhancement of the tree and woodland cover of the Broads. Due to the impacts on navigation and the open character of some parts of the Broads landscape, and the priority habitats of grazing marsh and fen and the unique peatland-based ecosystem of fen and the requirements of breeding and wintering birds of the marshes, tree planting will not always be appropriate.

For the purposes of this policy, ‘protected trees’ include those protected by a tree preservation order, tree(s) within a conservation area, an ancient, aged, or veteran tree or any other tree of category B or A as per BS 5837:2012, Table 1. Whilst there is no precise definition of an ‘ancient tree’ there are three guiding principles: 1) trees which are of interest biologically, aesthetically, or culturally because of their age; 2) trees that are in the ancient stage of their life; 3) trees that are old relative to others of the same species. A commonly accepted technical definition of an ancient tree is “a tree that shows characteristics of having passed beyond its mature phase.” Such characteristics might typically include a large girth, signs of crown retrenchment and hollowing of the stem.

In terms of suitable compensation for irreplaceable habitats, this would be on a case-by-case basis and could include biodiversity and habitat enhancements and replacement planting.

The NPPF, similarly, defines an ‘ancient’ or ‘veteran tree’ as ‘a tree which, because of its age, size and condition, is of exceptional biodiversity, cultural or heritage value. All ancient trees are veteran trees. Not all veteran trees are old enough to be ancient but are old relative to other trees of the same species. Very few trees of any species reach the ancient life-stage’.

Consistent with the NPPF’s advice on protecting valued landscapes, the presumption of this policy is that existing viable trees, woodlands, and hedgerows of value should be protected unless their loss is unavoidable. Where new development is proposed, the preference will always be to incorporate trees, woodland, and significant hedges into the development. Where the loss of any tree is unavoidable as part of a development and meets the tests as set out above, replacement provision will be required and conditioned as part of any permitted development. Where specific on or off-site planting proposals are negotiated as part of the overall enhancement of a particular development site, the replacement, protection and maintenance of trees, woodland, and hedges would normally be specified by condition or secured by a planning obligation, either a section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking.

Wet woodland/carr is characteristic of the Broads. It is a European priority feature under the conservation (natural habitat) regulations 1994 and is listed as a feature in the Broads SAC.

Delivering the policy

• Where a proposed development retains existing trees on-site, a satisfactory arboricultural impact assessment and preliminary arboricultural method statement, undertaken by a suitably experienced arboriculturalist, should be submitted in accordance with BS5837 and the Broads Authority validation checklist.
• This statement should analyse the potential impact on the retained trees.
• Where proposed development would have an impact on trees, particularly where it would impinge on root protection areas of trees both within and outside the development site, a site specific arboricultural method statement should be submitted.
• The statement should demonstrate mitigation measures are in place to ensure that development works do not harm the existing tree.
• In terms of advice on choosing and designing trees:
• Choose species that are climate adapted and mature to a scale that provides substantial canopy cover.
• Include new street trees on existing streets where possible as part of regeneration and redevelopment in existing neighbourhoods.
• Position street trees on median strips, in verges, between parking bays, and/or on pavements of sufficient width.
• On sites close to the sea, plant salt tolerant species such as Whitebeam or Holm Oak. Hawthorn and Pedunculate Oak are also tolerant of cold exposed sites.
• Plant tree species which are resilient to hotter summers and wetter winters resulting from climate change.
• Avoid planting non-native ornamental species within rural settings.
• Plant trees which have a mature height, spread and canopy height that works with its functional setting, for example avoiding species with low level branches next to footways and carriageways.

Reasonable alternative options

No specific policy. Rely on PODM10 (Green Infrastructure) and PODM14 (Natural Environment).

Amend policies PODM10 (Green Infrastructure) and PODM14 (Natural Environment) to include a greater emphasis on trees, woodlands, hedges and shrubs.

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: Preferred Option – policy on Trees, woodlands, hedges and shrubs and development:

6 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive

B: No specific policy. Rely on DM8 and DM13. 0 positives. 0 negatives. 6 ?

C: Amend policies DM8 and DM13 to include a greater emphasis on trees, woodlands, hedges and shrubs. 6 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall positive

Why have the alternative options been discounted?

Whilst options B and C rate the same in the Sustainability Assessment, given the importance of trees and hedgerows in nature recovery, air pollution management and climate change mitigation, but also given how important it is that there is the right tree in the right place, option C, a new policy, is favoured.

Back to top

Policy PODM25: Protection and enhancement of settlement fringe landscape character

Reasoned Justification

There are many areas in the Broads where traditional landscape features and elements are being eroded because of unauthorised and/or unsympathetic development.

Settlement fringe is a landscape type found repeatedly throughout the Broads, where settlement and semi natural/natural environment converge. The Broads’ Landscape Character Assessment identifies areas that are classed as Settlement Fringe. Invariably around any settlement there are pressures for use other than for traditional agriculture. Many of these pressures are generated as a direct result of recreational and leisure activities. Developments can be varied and include garden extensions with their associated fencing and features, allotments, poultry keeping, horse keeping, sports pitches, pond construction (fishing and wildfowling), storage of scrap items and so on.

The proximity of a settlement can also influences the presence and extent of strategic infrastructure such as poles and cables for telecommunications and electricity supply.

The land subject to these types of development pressure will generally have the basic underlying characteristics of the prevailing landscape type within the locality. It can become heavily modified though the annexation, subdivision, changes of use or introduction of ancillary buildings and structures that meet the needs of the activity.

The changes on the areas of land subject to these activities can both individually (depending on their scale and nature) and cumulatively (if it is following a trend in an area) have an effect on the landscape character of an area through changes to the traditional land use and land cover. The landscape character of an area is determined by distinct and recognisable patterns of both elements, or by characteristics (both physical such as topography, soils water quality vegetation and perceptual such as visual, sound, tranquillity) that make one landscape different from another, rather than better or worse.

Many activities will require the submission of a planning application. As part of that process, consideration as to the likely impacts on the landscape character of an area will be an aspect the planning authority will need to consider.

Some site-specific policies relate to areas on the fringe of settlements, such as the Acle policies that refer to infrastructure requirements like cemeteries and playing fields which could lead to a more ordered landscape than the current agricultural land use. Such important infrastructure benefits the community. The policies refer to the importance of landscaping any such schemes. Other policies allow modest development in some settlement fringe areas, but again tend to state that a semi-natural appearance of the area will be retained or that the defined area will be kept generally free of buildings, and above ground structures or the semi-natural quality of the area retained.

Reasonable alternative options

No policy

Sustainability appraisal summary

The following is a summary of the assessment of the policy and alternative(s).

A: No policy: 0 positives. 0 negatives. 1 ?

B: Preferred policy: 1 positives. 0 negatives. 0 ? Overall, positive.

How has the existing policy been used since adoption in May 2019?

According to recent Annual Monitoring Reports, the policy has been used and applications have been determined in accordance with the policy.

Why has the alternative option been discounted?

As stated in the supporting text to the policy, settlement fringe is a landscape type found repeatedly throughout the Broads, where settlement and semi natural/natural environment converge. The Broads’ Landscape Character Assessment identifies areas that are classed as Settlement Fringe. Invariably around any settlement there are pressures for use other than for traditional agriculture. As such, a policy is favoured.

Previous page | Next page | Contents

• [82] Landscape Character Assessment (broads-authority.gov.uk) ↑

• [83] Landscape Sensitivity Study (broads-authority.gov.uk) ↑

• [84] Broads planning guides (broads-authority.gov.uk) ↑

• [85] The Design Guide is being finalised at the time of writing. ↑

• [86] Water-smart landscaping: using plants that are not dependent on additional watering/do not require a large amount of water. The Royal Horticultural Society have a webpage on trees for climate change, which includes trees that are resistant to drought and therefore are water efficient. Royal Horticultural Society (2021) ‘Trees for Climate Change’. www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?PID=712. ↑

• [87] Broads BAP at Biodiversity (broads-authority.gov.uk) ↑

• [88] Trees for climate change / RHS Gardening ↑

• [89] Landscape and Landscaping Guide and Biodiversity Enhancements Guide at Broads planning guides (broads-authority.gov.uk) ↑

• [90] Go here for more information: www.gov.uk/topic/environmental-management/waste↑

• [91] International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP.org) ↑

• [92] Landscape Sensitivity Study (broads-authority.gov.uk) ↑