JCA No. 140 - Yeovil Scarplands
Overall comments (note 1)
The Yeovil Scarplands are a varied landscape of open ridge tops, secluded combes and well-populated vales. The exposed, high land and the steep slopes are not well suited to biomass plantings, although there are opportunities in the wider valleys and clay vale. SRC is more suited to the river valley bottoms and floodplains, linking to existing willows and small woods. Miscanthus is suited to the lower valley slopes and undulating vales, particularly towards the west where plantings can be accommodated within the existing pattern of mixed or arable farming.
| Generic landscape characteristics (note 2) | Key landscape characteristics (note 3) | Potential effects (PA, N, PB) (note 4) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC | Miscanthus | ||
| Topography (note 5) | Series of jurassic limestone scarps with ridge tops (downland) and combes (valleys) |
N/PB - Impractical on scarp slopes and valley sides, but possible opportunities within clay vale |
N/PB - Impractical on scarp slopes and valley sides, but possible opportunities on gentle slopes and within the clay vale |
Wide valley bottoms opening into undulating clay vale |
|||
| Woodland (note 6) | Broadleaf woodland and conifer plantations on the scarp slopes and deep combes |
N - impractical on steep slopes |
N - impractical on steep slopes |
Small woodlands and copses in shallow combes throughout the farmland |
PA - Potentially adverse impact elsewhere as large blocks would contrast strongly with pattern of small woods/copses. |
N – woodland may help to break up views of plantings |
|
| Boundary features (note 7) | Irregular pattern of medium sized fields in the vale, with thick hedges on banks and scattered boundary trees |
PA – large-scale, plantings of contiguous fields will mask field patterns |
PA – large-scale plantings of contiguous fields will mask the field patterns |
Rectilinear pattern of larger fields on the downland tops and valley bottoms with low hedges and few trees |
N/PA - whilst appropriate in larger fields in vale, would create some enclosure on the downland tops |
N/PA - whilst appropriate in larger fields in valleys, would bring some enclosure on the tops |
|
| Agriculture (note 8) | Mixed farming dominated by lush grassland but with frequent arable fields. |
N/PB – opportunities to plant within the existing pattern of arable and grassland mix |
N/PB – opportunities to plant within the existing pattern of arable and grassland mix |
Arable with frequent orchards in the west |
|||
Pasture dominates on steep slopes |
PA – generally impractical; also loss of pastoral character |
PA – generally impractical; also loss of pastoral character |
|
| Settlement and development (note 9) | Farms on valley sides and villages in valley bottoms |
N – location of planting and any structures should respect local views from settlements and public rights of way |
N – plantings should respect local views from settlements and public rights of way |
Riverside towns (Yeovil, Sherborne, Milborne Port) |
|||
Ridge and valley roads linked by narrow lanes |
N – impractical beside lanes with steep access into fields |
N – impractical beside lanes with steep access into fields |
|
| Semi-natural habitats (note 10) | Patches of unimproved limestone grassland with scrub on scarp slopes |
N/PA – impractical on steep slopes; also loss of grassland habitat |
N/PA – impractical on steep slopes; also loss of grassland habitat |
| Historic features (note 11) | Prehistoric hill forts and barrows on ridge tops |
PA – Avoid these and other known archaeological remains and their historic landscape settings. |
PA – Avoid these and other known archaeological remains and their historic landscape settings. |
Medieval farmsteads and deserted settlement remains |
|||
Small manor houses and large mansions with landscape parks |
|||
| Rivers and coasts (note 12) | Headwaters of the river Brue, Yeo and Parrett with stream-side willows |
N – opportunities for riverside plantings in wider valley bottoms and clay vale |
N – opportunities for riverside plantings in wider valley bottoms and clay vale |
Valley spring-lines and flushes |
PA – physical impact and masking these small-scale landscape features on valley slopes |
PA – physical impact and masking these small-scale landscape features on valley slopes |
|
| Views and inter-visibity (note 13) | Open views across downland ridges |
|
PA – creates enclosure and restricts views |
Extensive views into the lower farmland from high ground |
N – where planted in more enclosed, lower-lying vales. |
N – where planted on lower slopes and more enclosed, lower-lying vales. |
|
Secluded valleys with restricted views and sense of remoteness |
|||
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 gen10 May, 2007e 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:
29 March, 2007
Page published: 10 December, 2002