JCA No. 122 - High Weald
Overall comments (note 1)
This character area is mostly designated as AONB. It is a very distinctive, relatively high and undulating area with very attractive villages and vernacular buildings set in a with a small scale landscape pattern of woodlands and mixed farming including orchards and hops. While the topography and vegetation would help biomass crops to be visually absorbed into the landscape, there are likely to be other constraints, and in practice opportunities could be extremely limited. The landscape is accessible, well populated despite its rural nature, and under considerable pressure. It is very vulnerable to changes which could adversely affect its special qualities and character. It is also important to consider the potential cumulative impact of SRC.
| Generic landscape characteristics (note 2) | Key landscape characteristics (note 3) | Potential effects (PA, N, PB) (note 4) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC | Miscanthus | ||
| Topography (note 5) | Underlain by sands, soft sandstones and clays – giving rise to hilly country of east-west running ridges and valleys |
N - clay soils and lower areas may offer most potential for SRC |
N - Acid infertile soils may be unsuitable for Miscanthus |
| Woodland (note 6) | Extensive broadleaved woodland cover with high forest, small woods, coppice with and without standards, shaws, plus steep wooded valleys. |
PB - While mixed woodland types and extensive cover would help to assimilate biomass crops, the balance between woodland and open land needs to be maintained. Consider cumulative impact |
PB - Mixed woodland types and extensive cover would help to assimilate Miscanthus |
| Boundary features (note 7) | Small and medium sized fields enclosed by a network of hedgerows and wooded shaws. |
PB - Strong hedgerow and shaw network would help to contain and accommodate biomass crops. Avoid field enlargement |
PB - Strong hedgerow and shaw network would help to contain and accommodate biomass crops. Avoid field enlargement |
| Agriculture (note 8) | A predominantly grazed grassland agricultural landscape – mainly sheep with some cattle and pigs. Textured landscape including orchards, soft fruit and hop gardens in Kent. |
PB - Potential for limited addition of biomass crops into areas of mixed farming. Avoid replacing fruit or hops by SRC |
PB - Potential for limited addition of biomass crops into areas of mixed farming. Avoid replacing fruit or hops by Miscanthus |
| Settlement and development (note 9) | A dispersed but relatively dense settlement pattern of hamlets and scattered farmsteads traditionally located on the ridges. Church towers and spires on the ridges are local landmarks. Some large towns. |
N - Avoid planting on ridges |
N – Avoid planting on ridges |
| Semi-natural habitats (note 10) | Extensive ancient semi-natural woodland, notably high number of small ponds, plus heathland, notably at Ashdown Forest, and some remaining unimproved herb-rich meadows. |
PA - Avoid semi-natural habitats |
PA - Avoid semi-natural habitats |
| Historic features (note 11) | An essentially medieval landscape reflected in pattern of settlement, fields and woodland. Strong influence of the Wealden Iron Industry (15th – 17th century). Grand houses and parklands a feature of the area today. |
PA - Avoid known archaeological sites and their settings and respect historic landscape character |
PA - Avoid known archaeological sites and their settings and respect historic landscape character |
| Rivers and coasts (note 12) | Main ridges, deeply dissected by tributaries in narrow valleys. Major rivers of the Rother, Brede, Ouse and Medway flow in broad valleys. |
N – Some potential for SRC in lower broader valleys. Avoid coastal locations. |
PA – Few opportunities for Miscanthus likely in river valley and coastal locations |
| Views and inter-visibity (note 13) | Good views from higher open areas and ridges over Low and High Weald. |
N – Avoid biomass crops where there would be an adverse impact on views as the area is well populated and accessible. |
N – Avoid biomass crops where there would be an adverse impact on views as the area is well populated and accessible |
The information contained in the above table and accompanying footnotes has been produced by Natural England, on behalf of Defra, to assess opportunities and optimum sitings of energy crops
1. Overall comments
This section summarises the key characteristics of the JCA and the potential impacts and issues concerned with energy crop planting. It aims to provide an overall indication of the suitability for biomass crop establishment. In JCAs where the physical characteristics are so extreme that it is unlikely that land managers will want to plant biomass crops this is generally noted.
2. Generic landscape characteristics
The headings are based on those used in Natural England’s Countryside Quality Counts (CQC) project, with the addition of ‘topography’ and ‘views and inter-visibility’. They provide a way of breaking down the physical and visual qualities that help to make up the landscape. The potential impacts of energy crops have been assessed against this common framework.
3. Key landscape characteristics
This section aims to highlight for each of the generic categories, the specific landscape features and characteristics within each JCA that may be relevant to the growing of energy crops
4. Potential effects
This section summarises the main potential effects of SRC and miscanthus on each of the key landscape characteristics and features. In making the assessment we considered both the presence or absence of crops, and the the effects of scale and pattern in the landscape. Where the impacts are likely to differ between SRC and miscanthus this has been noted. Although it is very difficult to estimate impacts at such a general level we have attempted to assess whether the landscape impact could be beneficial, neutral or adverse, as follows:
- PB - Potentially beneficial
- N - Neutral
- PA - Potentially adverse
5. Topography
Topography, or landform, is often one of the main influences on landscape character, particularly in hilly or upland areas. We have summarised the overall topography of each area, together with an explanation of any specific or exceptional areas or major landform types. Topography will influence how obtrusive energy crops might be in some areas, or how they might fit in well in others.
6. Woodland
This covers all types of woodland, from ancient and semi-natural woodlands to commercial plantations, and includes broadleaved, conifer and mixed woodlands. As well as woodland type, we are interested in the pattern and scale of woodlands and how woodland cover varies across the JCA. In some areas there are close associations between specific types of woodland and particular landforms. Issues of concern include how biomass crops might contribute to or impact on local patterns of woodland cover, and what layouts or scale might be appropriate.
7. Boundary features
These include all forms of traditional boundaries, including hedgerows, stone walls and ditches. We are also interested in field patterns, particularly where these are of historic importance or are distinctive to the area. Issues considered included whether the establishment, growth or harvesting of energy crops could have an impact on traditional and valuable boundaries, either through direct damage (eg to allow access for farm machinery) or by obscuring or affecting the integrity of existing field patterns.
8. Agriculture
Agriculture includes arable, pasture (livestock), horticulture and mixed farming. In areas that are already intensively cropped, energy crops are likely to be less of an issue, and the impacts could be beneficial or neutral depending on scale. Adverse impacts are more likely in pastoral areas, particularly in low intensity, unimproved grassland areas. In areas where there is an existing underlying trend from grass to arable, the assessment has taken account of any existing landscape and land management priorities that may exist.
9. Settlement and development.
This covers population centres, roads, other infrastructure and mineral workings. In most cases energy crops are unlikely to have a significant impacts. However, in some cases there may be issues concerning the scale or pattern of planting where this would impact on the character of the local road network, or significantly affect the setting of towns or villages.
10. Semi-natural habitats
In this section we are concerned with the presence or absence, scale, and pattern of semi-natural habitats, other than woodland which is covered under 6. In general, many impacts will only be apparent at the detailed site level, which is outside the scope of this exercise. We have only commented where it is likely that biomass crops would impact on semi-natural habitats that are an integral part of the landscape.
11. Historic features.
Historic features refer not just to visible monuments and remains, but also historic areas such as parks and battlefields. As well as the presence or absence of features, we are interested in their density and pattern of distribution, and whether they are above or below ground. Specific, extensive archaeological or historic landscapes are noted. Issues considered included whether planting would obscure or damage historic sites, or whether it would affect the setting or integrity of a historic site. It is important to note that historic remains are extremely widespread and many have not been fully recorded. At this scale we have only referred to obvious sites and concentrations of sites. More detailed site assessment will normally be necessary.
12. Rivers and coasts
Water plays a key role in determining landform and defining landscape character. Issues of concern include whether energy crops could obscure watercourses or disrupt drainage patterns, and any hydrological and coastal management issues.
13. Views and inter-visibility
In some JCAs, views in, out or across an area are a key characteristic of the landscape. These may be broad, sweeping views or local, intimate ones. A key concern will be whether biomass crops would obscure or otherwise have an impact on the nature of these views.
Page last modified:
15 March, 2007
Page published: 10 December, 2002