Hertfordshire Landscape Development Plan
Consultation Report
Spring 1979
Hertfordshire County Planning Department
0. Summary
0.1
The Landscape Development Plan Report sets out the purpose of landscape
development, describes the context for landscape policy in Hertfordshire and
suggests a division of the County into regions of differing landscape character, as a
basis for policy formulation. Aspects of the landscape’s historical development, its
visual and functional deterioration, its response to the needs of agriculture and its
variety and diversity of wildlife habitats are all examined. In this connection a need
is identified for promoting greater understanding of the landscape, of the forces
governing its change, and of efforts being made to guild that change.
0.2
A number of proposals for encouraging landscape development are put forward as a
basis for discussion, leading to the agreement of principles and long term aims, and
the allocation of priorities and responsibilities for future implementation. Finally,
some projects are outlined which could both encourage landscape management and
test many of the specific measures proposed to effect improvements to the
landscape.
0.3
It is suggested that revisions of the County Structure Plan Written Statement might
emerge, along the following lines:
POLICY 22 – suggested rewording:
In order to maintain landscape quality and character throughout the County, ONLY
DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIAL TO THE AREA AND OTHERWISE
ACCEPTABLE TO THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES WILL BE
PREMITTED IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. IN EACH AND EVERY CASE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPE WILL BE SOUGHT. PARTICULAR
REGARD WILL BE PAID TO THE SETTING, SITING, DESIGN AND
EXTERNAL APPERANCE OF SUCH BUILDINGS AS ARE PERMITTED IN
AREAS OF GREAT LANDSCAPE VALUE.
PARAGRAPH 2.4.19 LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT – suggested rewording
There are a few distinct edges or sudden contrasts in the landscape character of
Hertfordshire, through immense differences do exist, each landscape shading
delicately into another. There differences are expressed in a number of ways, for
example, in the physical landform and vegetation cover, the type, texture and colour
of building materials, the pattern of roads, paths and settlements, the form of
settlements and evidence of present and former farming types and methods.
Hertfordshire appears to be experiencing a gradual loss of regional and local
landscape character, which provides the County with its identity. Its people are
losing both the stimulation derived from variety and contrast, as the differences
among and between built, farmed and wild landscapes are slowly reduced.
Conserving and re-creating the character of Hertfordshire and adapting the
landscape to the needs of future generations requires deliberate, positive choices.
Landscape development signifies the process of planning, programming and
securing changes, and the guidance of long term change in the landscape. In
addition to measure for the conservation and management of the Country’s
landscape heritage, it is becoming increasingly necessary to improve the health and
appearance of areas of common-place and degraded landscape.
POLICY 23 – suggested rewording
In order to secure the maximum effort towards the management of the landscape, its
conservation, renewal and improvement and the creation of new landscapes LOCAL
PLANNING AUTHORITIES WILL SECURE LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT
MEASURES AND SUPPORT OTHER AUTHORITIES, AGENCIES AND
INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, IN
THEIR PURSUIT OF IMPROVEMENTS TO URBAN AND RURAL AREAS, IN
PARTICULAR THE COUNTY COUNCIL WILL: (details to emerge from
consultations).
1.
LANDSCAPE PLANNING AND THE LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1.1
For the purpose of this study, the landscape is defined as the whole outdoor
physical component of the environment. Landscape planning may be described as
planning for the conservation, adaptation and creation of landscapes which will
function both with efficiency and beauty, and endure in a sound state of ecological
balance.
1.2
The main goals of landscape planning may be summarised:
1. to ensure that the landscape is maintained at, or brought to, an optimum state of
health, ecological balance and visual attractiveness
2. to identify and arrest ecological and visual deterioration by means of direct
investment in landscape improvement
3. to give due consideration to natural factors and the need to establish good biotic
relationships to these factors in all forms of development and landscape
management
4. to determine and clarify the need for landscape change and to demonstrate how
this should take place
5. to co-ordinate the activities and policies of those individuals and agencies most
affecting landscape change
6. to ensure the development and operation of policies to conserve the unique
character of individual landscape
1.3
In Hertfordshire, where the actions of men have so altered the landscape, the goals
of landscape planning are still relevant through the aims and means of any
landscape strategy may comprise only a small step towards these goals. Landscape
planning has not benefited from any strategic approach, being characterises by
problem-orientated surveys commissioned in connection with major proposed
development and only recently have areas of ‘ordinary landscape’ begun to become
a focus for landscape management, within the context of the Green Belt
Management Experiment (GBME)*.
*The GBME is a Countryside Commission Experiment, now in its fourth year, which seeks
to resolve conflicts, through the project officer approach to Countryside Management, in
the urban fringe of South Hertfordshire and North Barnet.
1.4
The purpose of “landscape development” is to guide long term landscape change (as
specified in Policy 23 of the Hertfordshire Country Structure Plan). The term has
been adopted to signify the process of planning, programming and securing changes
and the guidance of long-term change, in the landscape, involving the generation
and application of planning policies and methods appropriate to the contemporary
landscape of the County. Landscape development is much more than the landscape
‘improvement’ or ‘enhancement’ which may supplement a development scheme.
Above all, it recognises the constantly changing character of the landscape, living
and evolving in response to complex cultural, social, economic and technological
influences. Particularly within urban fringe areas, this may involve developing a
new landscape pattern which can combine a visually satisfying or stimulating
appearance with a functional arrangement of land uses.
1.5
Within this context, the proposals for landscape development set out in this report
aim to fulfil five broad objectives:
1. The CONSERVATION and MANAGEMENT of landscapes and landscape
features, valuable in term of their visual, historical, ecological, cultural or economic
qualities.
2. The IMPROVEMENT of areas of less attractive, or less healthy landscape and
the CREATION of new landscapes.
3. The provision of ADVICE and ASSISTANCE to, and co-operation with, those
parties involved in changing the landscape.
4. The exertion of INFLUENCE on local authorities and public agencies to set an
EXAMPLE in land management.
5. The promotion of PUBLICITY and INTERPRETATION towards increasing
understanding of, and a long term respect for, the landscape.
1.6
This Consultation Report has been produced now, in order to provide an input to the
preparation of District Plans, which should reflect the importance of landscape
development policies and not treat landscape issues as residual, or cosmetic
additions to other District Plan matters. An Informal Information and Advice Note,
prepared in February 1978, and distributed to District Councils, suggested that
District Plans should include a provisional range of policies for landscape
development, comprising:
1. The identification of valuable features requiring conservation and / or
management and deteriorated areas requiring improvements.
2. The operation of development control procedures seeking landscape benefits in
planning permissions and adopting criteria to incorporate relevant landscape
considerations in the various “landscape zones” to be identified.
3. The preparation of a programme of action to implement landscape improvement
schemes and exemplary management of public land.
4. The establishment of an implementation and management capability through
countryside management and / or other means such as District Council Works or
Parks Departments and practical assistance to private land owners with financial aid
or the supply of materials.
5. Participation in the provision of joint education and advice services to influence
and assist landscape change.
1.7
The proposals contained in this Report, include strategic landscape policy guideline
for consideration, testing, amendment and eventual adoption by the County and
District Councils and an outline programme of action and projects for joint
implementation by the local authorities. This Report is intended as a basis for
consultation with other County Council departments, District Councils and outside
agencies and it is expected that some of the suggestions put forward will be
scrutinised in public, within the context of consultations on District Plans.
2.
CONTEXT OF LANDSCAPE POLICY
2.1
The First Review of the County Development Plan for Hertfordshire set out “Policy
Considerations for Development Control” which stressed the need to retain and
protect the existing rural character of the Metropolitan Green Belt; to pay special
attention to the effect which development would have upon Areas of Great
Landscape Value and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; to preserve
the character of Area of Great Historic Value; to consult the (then) Nature
Conservancy about development within Areas of Special Scientific Interest, and; to
continue the County Council’s policy of securing or encouraging the preservation
and planting of trees, on both publicly and privately owned land.
2.2
In recognition of the growing pressures on the County’s rural land resources, the
County Council later prepared the Hertfordshire Countryside Plan 1970, the policies
of which were consolidated in the non-statutory review of the Development Plan
“Hertfordshire 1981”. A visual assessment of landscape values was undertaken for
the Countryside Plan, which resulted in the definition of areas of distinguished
landscape, upon which were based the Areas of Great Landscape Value designated
in “Hertfordshire 1981”. The Countryside Plan pointed to the need to encourage
hardwood forestry on dominant sites; to achieve planting of small groups of trees on
unused land and; to complement the effort devoted to village Conservation Areas
with a more detailed examination of development on the edges of villages, aimed at
improving the setting of villages in the wider view of the landscape. The
Countryside Plan also incorporated a review of nature reserve and sites of Special
Scientific Interest; it included a list of 88 sites of secondary scientific importance,
and set out wildlife conservation principles for the management of various habitats.
A detailed schedule of developments capable of visual improvement was also drawn
up and the Countryside Plan concluded with a recommendation the “Local Plans”
should be prepared, which would interpret in detail the broad policies and proposals
of the Countryside Plan. It is apparent that many of the proposals of the
Countryside Plan have been overlooked, or only slowly adopted.
2.3
The re-organisation of local government in 1974 brought about a division of
responsibility in planning matters, with the result that the County Council’s
attention was focussed on strategic issues in the context of preparing the County
Structure Plan and the newly constituted. District Councils become charged with
the preparation of Local Plans. The implementation capacity for effecting the
positive proposals of the Countryside Plan did not exist at County or District level
and the economic restraint of the middle 1970s discouraged investment in landscape
and countryside recreation matters. The Hertfordshire County Structure Plan
(HCSP), submitted to the Secretary of State in 1976, identified four key issues of
structural importance; the three interacting components of the growth spiral –
employment, housing and population – and the physical environment, in which they
operate. Throughout public participation, the physical environment ranked highly
with urban and rural environment together being considered the most important
topic in responses to both voluntary and interview surveys at Phase 2 of the
participation programme. In Phase 3, the protection and preservation of
Hertfordshire’s countryside and townscape again turned out to be a very popular
aim (see HCSP4 Report of Public Participation).
2.4
Consequently, the Hertfordshire County Structure Plane Written Statement
considered the physical environment at some length, and proposed a fairly detailed
policy framework for urban and rural environmental planning. Environmental
improvement of towns and villages is the aim of Policy 17 and environmental
conservation and landscape improvement are fundamental to Policies 18 and 19
respectively. Furthermore, the protection and management of the County’s
landscape heritage and the improvement of less attractive or less healthy landscapes
was acknowledged as requiring the development of specific policies and proposals,
within the context of a separate plan, the Landscape Development Plan, which in
time may be incorporated into a complete review of Countryside Strategy (HCSP
Policy 23).
2.5
During the preparation of the Structure Plan, the County Council has been
developing an implementation capacity in the area of countryside management
activity, within urban fringe and rural environments. At present a countryside
management service operates in the Green Belt Management Experiment Area of
South Hertfordshire, and in the two further areas of Broxbourne Woods and the
Upper Lea Valley. It is the intention of the County Council to extend this service
countywide in due course. Landscape development is only one facet of countryside
management, but because of the existing and relevant capacity and expertise in this
area, this Report envisages a growing involvement of the countryside management
service in the implementation of management briefs for each of the countryside
management areas may take account of the strategic framework proposed in this
report.
2.6
The Hertfordshire Tree Planting Scheme has now been accepted by the Countryside
Commission for the organisation and administration of Commission-aided tree
planting and will form an important basis for positive landscape development
projects.
2.7
The two reports of the Standing Conference on London and South East Regional
Planning (SCLSERP)* concerning ‘The Improvement of London’s Green Belt and
the need for local authorities to take the initiative to secure the evolution of a new,
visually acceptable landscape, through their preparation and implementation of
landscape development strategies. The second Report specifically recommends that
local authorities should prepare and publish ‘annual programmes of action’ which it
is envisaged should inter alia establish policies and priorities for improvement,
which would include briefs and proposals for area management as well as specific
improvement schemes. This recommendation has been accepted by the County
Council, which is preparing its first annual programme for the whole County in the
context of this study.
*The Improvement of London’s Green Belt (SC620), 1976, and the Improvement of
London’s Green Belt, A Second Report (SC86OR), 1977. Reports of the Green Belt
Working Group of the Standing Conference on London and South East Regional Planning.
3.
LANDSCAPE REGIONS OF HERTFORDSHIRE
3.1
The particular character of the landscape changes as one moves from one part of the
country to another. Within the landscape of Hertfordshire there are few obvious
edges or sudden contrasts, through there are immense differences as each landscape
shades delicately into another. These differences are expressed in a number of ways;
the physical structure and vegetation cover; the type, texture and colour of
traditional building materials; the pattern of roads, pats and settlements and the form
of individual settlements; the prevailing, (and evidence of former) farming types
and methods; and so on. If the essential quality of the landscape in different regions
can be recognised and maintained in the changing landscape very much benefits
may accrue.
3.2
For example, it is often suggested, and generally agreed, that the experience of
landscape is essential in satisfying certain ‘basic human needs’ which may be
summarised as ‘identity’, ‘security’ and ‘stimulation’. Local and regional character,
especially where expressed in individual townscape and landscape features,
provides a sense of identity. Security may be sought in the stability of familiar
scenes and human-scale landscapes. The difference between built, farmed and wild
landscapes comprise the variety and contrast which man values in his perception of
the landscape, for providing stimulation. The continuity of a landscape, its gradual
changes and the expression of sympathy for the existing landscape, in the form and
character of changes are clearly valued. Furthermore, the consequences of ignoring
regional character differences are exemplified in the monotony of standard shopping
‘house-styles’, international architecture’, ‘bylaw housing’ and the like. The
maintenance of regional landscape character may also be of value in an ecological
sense, for to allow for continuity within an overall vegetation system is to foster a
variety in age structure and to permit the development of a richer, more complex
and therefore more stable ecological habitat.
3.3
Regional character is still highly prized, but the governing factor in maintaining this
is conscious individual choice. In landscape planning, many aesthetic value
judgements are made on the character of landscape, but this public’s increasing
detectable dislike of losing another link with the past, and their distract of what may
appear in its place, makes it necessary that local authorities give a guide in
identifying and conserving regional characteristics and encouraging changes in
sympathy with that character. There exists a considerable public awareness of the
differences in the regional character of landscape and the recommendations of this
report aim to provide a clear lead to developers and land managers in fostering these
characteristics.
3.4
The Hertfordshire landscape has been examined from a variety of perspectives,
from which there emerge a division of the County between six, roughly-defined
landscape regions* (inside back cover and illustrated in this Report). These natural
habitats, potential vegetation and man-made environments expressed in both the
built form and cultural landscape.
Regional 1: comprising the Long Marston, Hexton and Ashwell salients, northwest of the Chilterns scarp, exhibits the characteristics of a Midland landscape. A
cly plain, puntuated by outliners of chalk, this region has an open character with few
trees and large regular fields
Regional 2: comprising the area of the Hertfordshire Chiltern Hills, between Tring
and Hitchin, and other dip-slope towards Welwyn Garden City, St Albans and
Watford. The landscape is varied, containing the finest tracts of scenery in the
County, (within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and marred by the effects
of building and communications development
Regional 3: comprises the chalkland extension, north-east of the Chilterns into the
East Anglian Heights; an open and historically important landscape scattered with
complex, leafy villages.
Regional 4: the East Hertfordshire plateau, is an undulating area with a complex
mixture of smaller fields, woodlands and settlements, important both historically
and visually, and under a great variety of pressures for landscape change
*The term ‘landscape region’ has been used because the word region coveys the fact that
the areas identified are distinguished by different characteristics
Region 5: containing eleven of the County’s mediaeval towns, includes the valleys
of the Lea and Colne, and extends as far north as the Hitchin Gap. This region is
under the greatest pressure for urban and urban-related development, especially for
transport, leisure and mineral-working purposes. Although it includes many of the
parkland landscapes of Hertfordshire, it is also characterised by a degraded
appearance resulting primarily from urban fringe development and sand and gravel
extraction
Region 6: is the South Hertfordshire plateau, including the Shenley Ridge and
Browbourne Woods, but is dissected by rail and road routes from London. It is an
area of small fields, woodlands and heaths of historic and scientific interest and of
great amenity value, though under pressure because of the proximity of London and
surrounding Hertfordshire towns.
3.5
Clearly some landscape regions lend themselves more easily to definition than
others through their homogeneity of character, and inter-regional variations may
often be only gradually perceptible. Clear differences still exist, their distribution
not determined by administrative boundaries, and the framework described above
has the potential of proving a reasonable basis on which to strengthen and develop
regional landscape character. For convenience, the landscape regions will be
referred to as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
3.6
Northern Vale Salients
Chiltern Hills
North Hertfordshire Ridge
East Hertfordshire Plateau
Central Valleys
South Hertfordshire Plateau
Part Two of this Report – the following five sections – examine different aspects of
the changing landscape of the County, which have been studied in greater detail.
The main recommendation emerging from this study are drawn together in Part
Three.
4. THE HISTORICAL LANDSCAPE
4.1
The landscape is a palimpsest illustrating centuries of manipulation by man and
nature, the evidence of which may be revealed or may over time, have become
hidden. In a long-settled county such as Hertfordshire, most areas contain layer
upon layer of successive attempts at organising the land’s surface, to live on. Grow
food and bury the dead. Today’s landscape is only the latest version of these many
stages of development. The most obvious features of the “historic landscape” are
field boundaries and systems (including their vegetation, which may reflect the age
of the boundary) and settlements. The development of these features has created
distinctive landscapes in different parts of the County which are described below.
The modern landscape of Hertfordshire is largely a product of developments during
the Mediaeval period. There are few upstanding remnants of the pre-Mediaeval
landscape. However, spectacular evidence exists for whole early landscapes lying
under the soil surface, visible from the air though not at ground level. Equally,
during the Roman and Migration periods many of the foundations of the modern
settlement pattern and administrative boundaries in the countryside were laid.
The Prehistorical Landscape
4.2
The clearance of woodlands by men began early in Hertfordshire. From about 3000
BC, the chalklands of North Hertfordshire, and the river valleys to the south, were
progressively cleared of woodland and cultivated. The only upstanding fragment of
prehistoric landscape left in the County is Therfield Heath. Elsewhere, especially in
the north of the County, the ploughed remains of field systems, settlements and
cemeteries, probably of the Bronze Age and Iron Age are identifiable from air
photos.
The Roman Landscape
4.3
Further woodland clearance took place under Roman domination when St Albans
(Verulamium) and the four smaller Roman towns (at Braughing, Baldock, Welwyn
and Cow Roast Inn) demanded efficiently provided agricultural products. These
were produced on large estates, based around villas, which included large barns and
stock enclosures in their complexes of farm buildings. No Roman field systems are
known of in the County, though some of the Roman estate boundaries may have
formed the basis of later parish boundaries.
The Migration Period Landscape
4.4
When the power of Rome diminshed, and the movement of Saxon peoples had
reached Hertfordshire, many of the existing villages were established and their
names recorded in the Domesday Book. Some villages still have Saxon churches,
and many have place names dating from the eight to tenth centuries AD. By the
eleventh century most of the County’s parish boundaries were established on the
same lines as they are today. Ecclesiastical control over the landscape was
increasing and with the growth of St Albans Abbey and numerous small monastic
houses, large blocks of land came into single, ecclediastical ownership.
The Mediaeval Landscape
4.5
The modern landscape of the County owes mush to the development of the
landscape in mediaeval times. Hertfordshire’s mediaeval landscape differed from
that of the counties to the north and west, and although there are regional variations
within the County, the main features of this landscape may be summarised:
1. The lack of large, open fields cultivated in trips of different ownership. Instead,
most of Hertfordshire had small common fields which were owned by individuals,
having been improved from wasteland and taken directly into severalty. The
importance of this for the contemporary landscape is that these small fields had
boundaries with hedges and trees from this creation. As a result, they are rich in
flora and fauna and, because of their age and small size, have kept field monuments
preserved within them, undamaged by farming activities.
2. A very complex settlement pattern, with an absence of single large villages.
Instead, settlements are dispersed in the form of small hamlets, which shifted their
location gradually over the centuries, and were connected by a very complex pattern
of lanes and footpaths often connecting now deserted settlements.
3. The presence of large areas of forest, must of which was taken into Manorial
parkland. This ‘embarking’ of timber, particularly royal and ecclesiastical
parklands, caused the retention of more woodland then elsewhere. Outside the
parks, the smaller woodlands were retained for their importance to the rural
economy, especially for foraging animals and for pollard and coppice purposes.
The Post Mediaeval Landscape
4.6
The overall pattern of the rural areas of Hertfordshire is not dominated by changes
since Mediaeval times. The patterns of enclosed fields and existing settlements was
largely established by 1600, and only in the far north and west of the County do the
eighteenth and nineteenth century enclosures of the Enclosure Movement, stand out
in the landscape.
4.7
One of the major contributions of this period, to the County’s landscape is the large
eighteenth and nineteenth century development of parks, laid out accordingly to the
design and principles of the day, and centred on the country house. Country houses
provide physical evidence of the social history and domestic life of many levels of
society over several centuries. The buildings, and their attendant gates, lodges,
stables and garden buildings are monuments to fine craftsmanship, but the parks and
gardens which form the setting of such houses may often be as valuable as the
houses themselves, which they were designed to complement. In some cases, the
houses no longer remain, while the gardens still bear the hallmark longer of
designers including Kip, Bridgeman, Brown and Repton. Many hunting parks and
those landscaped parks which succeeded them, were formed by enclosing the
poorest land succeeded them, were formed by enclosing the poorest land in an area,
and have often been maintained as grazing land for centuries, preserving underlying
archaeological sites in a much better state than those areas lying outside the parks.
Previously safeguarded through their limited agricultural potential, these parks are
increasingly falling to development for gravel-winning purposes. (A description
and analysis of problems affecting the conservation of county houses and grounds is
to be found in “Change of Use of Country Houses in Hertfordshire” – Hertfordshire
County Council).
*Pollarding is the practice of repeatedly cutting a tree at about 10 feet from the ground to
produce successive crops of poles and coppicing involves cutting trees back to 4 inch
stumps about every 10 years, to produce timber suitable for making tool handles, fences
and hurdles, and for use as fire-wood.
4.8
The construction of the Grand Union Canal, at the close of the eighteenth century,
brought the Industrial Revolution into Hertfordshire, with its associated economic
and social changes, but the development of the railways during the nineteenth
century became the main means by which people began to move into the County.
During the twentieth century further road construction and the building of Garden
Cities and New Towns have stamped their own distinctive characteristics upon the
appearance of the County.
Distinctive Features of the Historic Landscape
4.9
The distinctive historic landscape features of each of the landscape regions may be
summarised:
Region 1 – Northern Vale Salients (Clay)
1. Large Mediaeval open fields, normally 2-3 per parish enclosed in the 18th and
19th centuries with regular grid iron Enclosure Movement hedgerows, containing
large rectangular fields.
2. Late enclosure boundaries are discordant with an often overlie the earlier field
systems. Earlier systems can still be traced in the form of ridge and furrow,
headland and lynchets (banks formed by the shift in soil down s sloping field,
caused by centuries of ploughing and rainfall).
3. Nucleated settlements, usually in the form of one village per parish. Deserted
settlements are frequent including Tiscott, Aldwick and Betlow.
Region 2 – Chiltern Hills (Chalk)
1. High demesne fields on the best land (e.g. 840 acres at Flamstead in the
thirteenth century) which had their origins in large manorial clearings in the
woodland. These clearings were internally fragmented by renting out to tenants,
and each tenant’s area was hedged.
2. Tenant’s fields around the settlement interspersed with wood and heath in areas
of later colonisation. These fields were small and again, usually hedged.
3. Dispersed settlements. One village in a parish may be dominant (e.g. Kings
Walden) but many smaller settlements may have existed (e.g. Wandon End).
4. A distinctive feature of unknown origin is the “street hamlet” of the dip-slope
valley bottoms, often with regularly spaces lanes running up the valley sides, at
right angles to the NW-SE roads.
5. Large areas of emparked woodland.
Region 3 – North Hertfordshire Ridge (Chalk)
1. A few, large open fields in Mediaeval times enclosed in the nineteenth century.
Few vestiges of the open field strips remain. Most of the field boundaries are
modern and rectilinear, but a few are irregular, often corresponding to parish
boundaries and may be of great antiquity.
2. Nucleated settlements of medium-sized villages, one in each parish (e.g.
Therfield). There are some deserted villages (Caldecote) and shrunken villages,
(Newham, Bygrave).
3. Villages are situated on the highest ridges of the lower and middle chalk in two
E-W lines each 3 miles from the ancient routeway of the Icknield Way. Parish
boundaries run up the slopes at right angles to the Icknield Way.
4. The region contains the best-preserved and most extensive examples of
prehistoric landscape in the County (respectively Therfield Heath and the area from
Baldock to Royston).
Region 4 – East Hertfordshire Plateau (Chalk, Clay with Flints)
1. Small irregularly shaped fields, whose origins lie in the small scattered common
fields around the settlements and the mediaeval “assarts”: cleared woodland taken
into cultivation around the edges of cultivated areas. Most field boundaries are
therefore of great antiquity. Small areas of early-enclosed woodland are also
typical.
2. This area contained a great deal of the most marginal land throughout Mediaeval
times. The change in its fluctuating limits of cultivation and its economic fortunes
resulted in many desertion (e.g. Wakeley) and shrinkage’s (e.g. Ardeley), amongst
the northern villages and hamlets. In addition, rural settlement has moved around
the parishes of this region leaving behind complexes of small plots, fronting on to
winding lanes and greens, as to Moor Green, Ardeley. A large network of lanes and
foothpaths remain in now deserted places. The Clothall-Ardeley-Westmill-Rushden
group of parishes is one of the South East’s classic areas of desertion.
3. Rural settlement is typically in small villages and hamlets, dispersed and often
the result of the shrinkage of larger, earlier settlements. Some settlements may be
approached through Mediaeval hollow ways and deep-sided lanes.
Region 5 – Central Valleys (Sands and Gravels)
1. Common arable land on the valley terraces and common pasture, often as water
meadows on the valley bottoms. Enclosure took place later than elsewhere, the
fields tending to be larger and more rectilinear.
2. Large empacked areas with distinctive wooded landscapes, usually centred on
Mediaeval manors are common.
3. Small hamlets and dispersed settlements are typical, though it is possible that
the proximity of urban centres, in Mediaeval times, stifled the growth of large areas
around them.
4. More than any other Region, this landscape has been altered and remodelled by
modern development.
Region 6 – South Hertfordshire Plateau (London Clays)
1. A classic area of early enclosure, which had taken place widely by the thirteenth
century. By 1600 nearly all the common fields had been enclose. Hedged crofts,
private woods, heath and forest typify the landscape. Fields are small, but quite
regularly rectangular.
2. Settlement is dispersed, with hamlets at the edge of the cultivated area and
isolated farms.
It is important to recognise that the form and pattern of historic landscape features
determines the ‘grain’ of much of the rural landscape. The visual intimacy of
Region 4 and the start openness of Region 3 reflect strongly their contrasting
historical development. Though based upon the County is fashioned by centuries of
manipulation by men.
Forces for Change Affecting the Historic Landscape
4.10
A fuller analysis of the forces for change must await the collection and
interpretation of additional survey information but the main agencies of change and
areas or features which appear to be at particular risk have been identified:
1. Farming activities which have had a considerable impact upon historic
landscapes, including the removal of field boundaries and hedges, the ploughing of
fields which have been under pasture for centuries, (and increasingly their deep
ploughing) and the concealment of footpaths.
2. Road improvements, particularly the widening and straightening of lanes,
involving the removal of field boundaries.
3. Modern development such as building construction and mineral extraction,
completely removing evidence of the historic landscape.
4.11
Section 3 explored how the gradual erosion of the landscape, through the piecemeal
destruction of characteristic features, results in a dilution of the differences between
landscape regions. It is the irregularities in the landscape which appear to be
particularly threatened and deserve priority attention. These include the boundaries
of small fields, small woodlands, the lanes, greens and small crofts within modern
villages, and the deserted and shrunken settlements. The regions most at risk are
those where the pressure for change combine with the landscape’s unsuitability to
adapt to modern methods. These are:
1. Region 3 – North Hertfordshire Ridge
Here the pressure from farming activities has been considerable. The Structure Plan
Report of Survey on the Physical Environment (HCSP 6.4) demonstrated that North
Hertfordshire District had by far the lowest proportion of rural historic features
preserved as upstanding features compared with the total of any District in the
County.
2. Region 4 – East Hertfordshire Plateau
Here a greater proportion of the historic landscape remains intact but current
pressures appear to be greatest. East Hertfordshire District comprises the highest
proportion of rural historic features, according to the Structure Plan analysis, but
several major losses of important features have taken place in the last few years.
Having inherited such as irregular landscape, this area is potentially at the greatest
risk from the changes in farming activity.
3. Region 5 – Central Valleys
The volume and pace of urban development and gravel extraction are the major
threat to the remaining historic in this region.
Policy Options for the Historic Landscape
4.12
There is something to commend a policy of preserving all elements of the historic
landscape which would remove the urgent need for large scale recording work on
the fast disappearing features. However, such a policy would be based on the
assumption that the landscape should be “frozen” while for centuries it has been
continually adjusting to new needs. Furthermore, it is unrealistic with the limited
powers and resources available to local authorities, to try to effect total control and
management of these landscapes.
4.13
Another option is to abandon control over landscape change altogether. This would
have the advantage of removing constraints on progress, necessary to provide food,
building materials and homes, and it may be argued that to attempt to retard current
development of the landscape is unnecessarily restrictive. Against this view, it is
clear that the rate of landscape change is now considerably faster than in the past,
undertaken on a larger scale (as in the case of mineral workings) and more severe in
its effects (as in the use of chisle ploughs). The increasing application of
sophisticated technology to farming and the institution ownership of agricultural
land for investment purposes may have contributed to the apparent decline in
custodianship of the landscape. Local authorities are now being looked to, to
provide this custodianship of the countryside in the overall public interest.
4.14
Clearly, a policy of selective preservation based upon the premise that some parts of
the landscape are more worthy of protection than others, is the most realistic and
acceptable option, affording overall priority to the interests of conservation in
defined areas. The size of these areas suggested that there are four levels at which a
selective preservation policy could be applied.
1. Regions
A regional policy would select those landscapes regions where protection or
enhancement was particularly necessary, and concentrate effort and resources
within them. The East Hertfordshire Plateau would, for example, demand greater
priority than the North Hertfordshire Ridge because there is so much more
remaining to protect and pressure for change are greater.
2. Large Areas
Large areas of concentrated historic landscape problems or potential could be
defined. Within these areas, which might be afforded a special description (e.g.
‘Areas of Historic Landscape’), effort could be directed towards protection,
management and interpretation measures. Perhaps one such area might be defined
in each landscape region.
3. Small Areas
A policy for small areas might identify particularly fine examples of historic
landscape, which may be microcosms of the surrounding landscape or areas of
special rarity or significance which are restricted in extent and different from the
surrounding landscape. Protection, management and interpretation within the small
area boundary might be more easily achieved than in the larger areas (above). A
policy of area protection may be challenged as maintaining a collection of “museum
pieces” out of step with modern needs. However, the small area may permit the
protection of areas too extensive for scheduling under the Ancient Monuments Acts
and could be an appropriate basis on which to provide interpretative facilities, which
are not taken into account in scheduling Ancient Monuments.
4. Individual Features
Special, individual features are currently the best protected areas of the landscape,
but current powers apply only to a few nationally important monuments.
5.
THE DEGRADED LANDSCAPE
5.1
The newspapers, radio and television are constantly putting landscape and
environmental issues before the public, fuelling the ‘amenity lobby’, though the
expression of public feeling is still directed more towards protecting their village
centre from a small undesirable change, than to resisting the gradual expansion of
the margin between urban and rural areas which is currently absorbing the greatest
concentration of detective landscape elements.
Derelict Land
5.2
The decision to collect annual returns of derelict land from local authorities in 1964
was accompanied by the definition of derelict land as “land so damaged by
industrial and other developments that it is incapable or beneficial use without
further treatment” which was narrowed by six categories of exclusion:
1. Land to which after-treatment conditions apply
2. Land continuing in current use, under the General Development Order
3. Land which, though not in current use, is subject to planning permission for
future development
4. Infilling sites, war damage and urban clearance schemes awaiting
redevelopment
5. Land which had blended into the landscape in the course of time, or has been
put to some acceptable form of use
6. Derelict from natural causes
5.3
Following a nil return in 1970 Hertfordshire made a return of only 54 hectares of
derelict land in the last survey of 1974 of which 22 hectares was considered as
justifying restoration. More recent restoration returns suggest that only 2 hectares
(incidentally within the category of “not justifying reservation”) have been restored.
5.4
It is widely acknowledged that the statutory definition of derelict land, though
broader than the legal definition of “land which has been abandoned by its owner”,
is till too narrow in include areas which appear to be spoiled or degraded without
them being economically derelict, and conversely to include land which is
economically derelict but gives no offence to the untrained eye, such as derelict
woodland. Furthermore, some lane, such as an abandoned chalk pit, may function
as an important site for scientific study and not require ‘ improvement’ through
visually unattractive.
5.5
The second report on The Improvement of London’s Green Belt (SC 860 R) calls
for a re-examination of the procedure for making grants available for reclaiming
derelict land, suggesting an extension of the definition of derelict land and an
increase in the rate of grant aid to Green Belt authorities, which would be
particularly useful in tackling landscape improvement schemes within
Hertfordshire’s amenity corridors.
Degraded Landscape Features
5.6
Some attempts have already been made to identify areas and features of degraded
landscape. The Hertfordshire Countryside Plan of 1970 listed over seventy
‘developments capable of visual improvement’ and more recently, the first report on
The Improvement of London’s Green Belt (SC 620) identified areas of visually
damaged and threatened landscape’ within Hertfordshire, requiring concerted
improvement effects. The Hertfordshire County Structure Plan has also recognised
the need for the preparation and implementation of a programme of landscape
improvements, affording this priority within amenity corridors.
5.7
The types of landscape requiring improvement or enhancement relate closely to the
landscape regions, though some problem landscapes reflect factors not influenced
by landscape regions. The damaged landscape discussed above is clearly most
characteristic of the Central Valleys region, while elsewhere landscape degradation
is more a result of the lack of woodland management, modern agricultural practices
and similar changes in rural land management.
5.8
The degraded landscape features of each landscape region may be briefly
summarised:
1. Northern Vale Salients
This region is particularly vulnerable to changes in agricultural practices and the
loss of ground cover. The removal of hedgerows, trees and woodlands is leaving
open to view the previously concealed large scale agricultural buildings and urbanrelated development.
2. Chiltern Hills
While this region includes mush of the most attractive landscape in Hertfordshire, it
also contains localised areas of poor landscape. The main communications route –
the M1 and A41 corridors – are particularly conspicuous, as are the urban edges of
Hemel Hempstead and Luton. Any opening-up of the landscape, for example,
through elm loss, could lead to serious degradation and the Chiltern Society is now
expressing concern over the need for renewal of the beech woodlands.
3. North Hertfordshire Ridge
This is historically an open landscape where the impact of settlement edges is
potentially significant and high masts, overhead lines and buildings are the major
disruptive features.
4. East Hertfordshire Plateau
This region has recently come under increasing pressures for agricultural change,
because of the good soils and lack of physical on farming, so the threat of landscape
deterioration through agricultural change is considerable.
5. Central Valleys
This region demonstrates the most serious landscape problems in the County.
Including all the towns and communications corridors of the Colne and Lea Valleys
and the A1(M) corridor from Hatfield to Baldock, it suffers the greatest pressure for
urban and urban-related development, especially for transport and recreation
facilities. Furthermore, the region contains the greatest reserve of sand and gravel
in Hertfordshire and both past and present extraction of minerals and consequent
filling operations have contributed considerably to its degraded appearance.
Those areas shown in SC 620 as damaged landscape* fall wholly within this region,
which also includes the majority of areas of threatened landscape.*
6. South Hertfordshire Plateau
This is a highly visible region, being crossed by many rail and road routes, shortly
to be supplemented by the construction of the M25. The more attractive areas of
landscape, being so accessible to north London are a valuable leisure resource but
require management to maintain their capacity for fulfilling a recreation function. A
major concern is the threat to the woodlands of this region, through removal or
neglect, and it is within this region that much of the County Council’s countryside
management work has initially been concentrated.
*SC 620 defined “damaged landscape” as
“general zones within which individual sites of more than about one square kilometre
exhibit serious landscape deterioration requiring urgent improvement either because they
suggest deletion from Green Belt notation or are liable to cause deterioration in adjoining
areas”.
and “threatened landscape” as
“general zones of deteriorating agricultural and woodland management, mainly on the
urban fringe, characterised for example by the incidence of neglected hedgerows, pony
paddocks, piggeries, scrap yards and public utility installations. These zones were not
sufficiently deteriorated to qualify as damaged landscape but were under threat of further
deterioration as a result of demising agricultural viability and increasing functional
change”.
Forces Encouraging Detrimental Landscape Change
5.9
Ever increasing demands upon the County’s sand and gravel resources seem
inevitable, and policies to limit their exploitation cannot remove the threat of at least
temporary damage to the landscape over long periods. Though it has been
suggested that the main effects of change in agricultural methods have already been
felt, the changes in farm and field size, farm buildings and management are by no
means complete and further losses of farmland to quasi-agricultural uses may be
expected. Recreational pressures on London’s urban fringe show no signs of
relaxing and the County Council’s general policy of restricting all development,
except that which is essential for the purposes of agriculture, to locations within
amenity corridors, will necessitate positive landscape improvements to
accommodate such development.
The continuing dereliction of woodlands, the effect of tree diseases, and the lack of
public awareness of the scale of landscape change are all causes of concern.
5.10
It is inevitable that the landscape of much of the County will continue to change, for
better or for worse, over the Structure Plan period. Unless control is exercised over
some of the present trends and action is taken to improve the most extensively
damaged areas, much of this change may be for the worse. Within the context of
insufficient powers and means for securing improvements, it is important that the
areas under the greatest pressure are given top priority and that policies are
formulated to tackle the most severe problems. Clearly, Region 5 deserves priority
attention to landscape improvements, which would appear to be necessary on a
massive scale. Degraded landscape features are already characterising Region 6 and
appear to threaten Region 4.
Policy Options for Landscape Improvement
5.11
Although landscape improvement is strongly promoted in the County Structure
Plan, the rate and scale at which it should be tackled is not specified. A large
concentration of resources into comprehensive landscape improvement has
considerable appeal, demonstrating the removal of dereliction and improvement of
eyesores which could be directly attributable to the initiatives encouraged in this
report. Realistically, such an effort would have to be confined to one demonstration
area unless a very large budget became available.
5.12
Spreading out the resources it might be possible to effect superficial, cosmetic
improvements across a large part of the County, demonstrating the County
Council’s intention of landscape improvement without tackling the causes of further
degradation, which are most marked in the land use changes of the urban fringe.
5.13
There are clearly many serious obstacles to a programme of improvements; many
cases if damaged landscape have resulted from inadequate control over
development in the past, such as in the case of mineral workings which took place
before the introduction of controls over restoration and after use. Even now, the
removal of trees or grazing of horses on urban fringe sites, can rarely be controlled
despite their contribution to landscape degradation. Much damage has occurred on
land within the ownership of large organisations, who, in holding land for its
investment value, may have no regard to the appearance of the land. The amount of
publicly-owned land capable of improvement, although at present an
embarrassment, could also provide a source of demonstration to other agencies and
private land owners.
5.14
There are clearly many serious obstacles to a programme of improvements; many
cases of damaged landscape have resulted from inadequate control over
development in the past, such as in the case of mineral workings which took place
before the introduction of controls over restoration and after use. Even now, the
removal of trees or grazing of horses on urban fringe sites, can rarely be controlled
despite their contribution to landscape degradation. Much damage has occurred on
land within the ownership of large organisations, who, in holding land for its
investment value, may have no regard to the appearance of the land. The amount of
publicly-owned ;and capable of improvement, although at present an
embarrassment, could also provide a source of demonstration to other agencies and
private land owners.
5.15
The general decline in the appearance and health of the landscape has occurred over
a matter of decades, and substantial results from reversing the trend will equally
take many years to bring about. Powers of influence and persuasion over
politicians, landowners and the public at large have to be fostered, and the long term
benefits of landscape development actions must be explained, for the returns from
tree planting and woodland management may be difficult to appreciate fully in the
short term. There is, though, a strong public interest in environmental protection
and improvement, and the County Council’s Countryside Management Services has
demonstrated the value of harnessing and organising voluntary labour, thereby
further increasing local interest and support to this end. Voluntary efforts such as
those of the Upper Lea Valley Groups, could be encouraged to promote local
concern for the landscape and extend the effectiveness of a limited budget.
Codes of Practice
5.16
Regardless of the level of on-the-ground action, local authorities may attempt to
encourage more sensitive management of the landscape and the development of
regional landscape characteristics through the promotion of advisory codes of
practice.
On publicly-owned land this would involve close co-operation between local
authorities and the various land-owning and management agencies, especially
statutory undertakers such as British Rail and Water Authorities, but advisory codes
may also be appreciated by private land managers.
5.17
‘Horseyculture’, the keeping and breading of horses for recreational purposes is
becoming a major land use in the south of the County. Planning controls may
attempt to restrict this activity to poorer land, wherever possible within amenity
corridors, where loss of agricultural land and interference with farming is
minimised. A code of practice might be appropriate to gather and pasture
maintenance methods, the siting of essential buildings, the protection of existing and
new tree and hedge planting from grazing damage and so on.
5.18
Another area within which advice, in the form of technical information, might prove
most useful, concerns the protection and planting of trees in relation to building
construction and their subsequent maintenance. Councils are often prepared to seek
increased expenditure by developers on the detailing of building elevations, or
reduction in their financial returns by insisting on lower densities of development,
but their comparatively weak attitudes towards the protection of trees on site and
new planting standards, show a lack of concern for safeguarding the environment.
In preference to recommending that the new tree planting on shrinkable clay soils,
should only take place at a considerable distance from buildings, local authorities
could encourage the construction of mare substantial foundations for the proposed
buildings. If the burden of the technical work involved in improving the
foundations could be taken off the developer, and made available to him in the form
of free advice, improved development layouts might be achieved.
The Landscape of Settlements
5.19
The edge of a settlement is usually the most distinctive lateral reference in a
landscape and the composition and appearance of this boundary has long been
inadequately considered. Special attention is drawn to the landscape setting of
settlements within Region 5 are close to merging and producing straggling urban
corridors across the County. The operation of Green Belt and Amenity Corridor
policies is designed to retain and reinforce the divisions between these settlements.
Secondly, in the other regions it is apparent that some settlements rest
unsympathetically in the landscape. Many small settlements with fine Conservation
Areas in their historic core, have an untidy, neglected appearance along their edges.
The Settlement Edge
5.20
It has mainly been due to the presence of many small woodlands that Hertfordshire
has been able to absorb so much urban growth in the post-war years while
containing the amount of visual intrusion. The loss of natural screens, either
through disease of neglect, may reveal many more distinguished edges to
development. In some instances, large scale tree and shrub planting will be
advantageous, as a buffer to development, strengthening a soft urban edge and
possibly creating in due course, a recreational facility. The large scale planting of
mixed woodland might in some instances be undertaken commercially, as an
economic proposition. Smaller woodlands and tree belts might be managed
specifically for visual amenity or recreation objectives, and in many cases small
scale planting, earth shaping and even appropriate building development, may be
necessary to improve a settlement’s landscape setting.
5.21
Ideally, each settlement should be surveyed in order to identify the most important
features of the existing visual relationship between it and the landscape and to
identify opportunities for new development or landscape treatment which will not
detract from an exiting relationship or which will create a new feature to enhance
this relationship. While it is dangerous to generalise about the appropriate treatment
for settlements, the Central Valleys and East Hertfordshire Plateau regions would
seem to deserve priority attention, the former because of the close proximity of
settlements and their frequently untidy and amorphous characteristics and the latter
because of the threat of exposure of the region’s traditionally ‘ camouflaged’
villages. Individual settlement appraisals could consider the hard and soft
boundaries, sequential views experienced when approaching the settlement along
main roads, the importance and means of maintaining open wedges penetrating
urban areas (as in Hertford and Harpenden) and the appropriate materials for
developing settlement edges, whether these are trees and hedges, buildings and
walls, or major earth shaping exercises. Such appraisals would take account of the
landscape character of the region, but would also be required to relate to an overall
appraisal of the form and function of the settlement.
Village Character
5.22
Many villages are so much a part of the landscape that it would be inconsistent mot
to mention them in the context of this report. Their visual character is to a large
degree determined by their historical development (which is briefly summarised in
Section 4) and the way in which the previous and present generations have made
use of, adapted and added to the buildings and space between them
5.23
The most obvious pressures to change village character are those from new
residential development and the effects of traffic management. While the pressure
for development in villages persists, there is evidence of a decline in village service
facilities (which is currently being investigated more thoroughly in the
Hertfordshire Rural Settlements Study). The accommodation of traffic, which could
not have been foreseen in the early development of villages, has resulted in some
changed to road patterns and the introduction of car parks into the fabric of the
village. More recently the effect of bypass construction has relieved some villages
of through traffic, creating the circumstances for reviewing the purpose, and hence
the environmental function, of village streets.
5.24
Hertfordshire has over one hundred designated Conservation Areas, the majority
within villages, and their success in conserving the appearance of these ‘historic
cores’ is undeniable. Much more disturbing is the considerable contrast between
these Areas and their immediate neighbours, to which village dwellers, local
authorities and statutory undertakers turn a blind eye. The conservation of small
‘special’ areas when this is at the expense of surrounding areas of poorer
environment is sometimes open to criticism, but when a poor quality fringe
surrounds a Conservation Area and upsets its relationship with the landscape, the
definition of the Areas must be questioned.
Policy Directions
5.25
In relation to new development within villages, planning control and guidance to
developers could be extended. The use of design guilds and development briefs can
contribute to the enhancement of settlement character. In design guidance, a
positive lead can be given by describing the vernacular architecture and illustrating
modern sympathetic designs, materials, colours and textures for each of the
landscape regions. In new development local authorities could make more use of
the development brief, to suggest layouts and groupings of buildings which blend
with the intrinsic form of the settlement.
5.26
While local authorities might concentrate their efforts on preparing and
implementing programmes for the improvement of urban edges (within amenity
corridors and the Central Valleys Region in particular), they could also devote time
to preparing and distributing detailed guidelines for village appraisals. District and
Parish Councils and amenity societies might be willing to adopt a common basis of
social and economic aspects of the village, would specifically investigate the visual
character and setting of the village. In order to do this, it would probably be
necessary to stage a pilot project within at least one settlement.
6.
THE CULTIVATED LANDSCAPE
6.1
Former investigation of landscape policy and change has tended to concentrate on
defined areas of attractive landscape. This report considers the 70% of the county
which is dominated by farming and forestry in its context as a 'working’
countryside, which in appearance ranges from the very attractive Chilterns to the
disturbed agricultural landscape close to urban areas.
Planning Control and Defined Attractive Areas
6.2
Policies for the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) have been
included in the Hertfordshire County Structure Plan and the conservation of the
quality and character of the AONB is afforded priority in the control policies
applied there. Decorum District Council and the County Council operate a
voluntary liaison scheme on the design and siting of farm buildings within the
AONB, in order to maintain some degree of control and influence outside the
application of generally unpopular Article 4 directions. If this scheme is known to
be successful, it could be extended over other selected parts of the County, but to
date little monitoring of the scheme’s use or performance has been undertaken.
6.3
Outside the AONB Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) have been defined,
wherein “special attention will be paid by local planning authorities to the effect
which any development will have on the applications for planning permission,
determined during 1977, in Areas of Great Landscape Value, has revealed that of
the 61 refusals of permission only one was based solely on the reason that the
development would detract from the appearance of the landscape of the AGLV. In
many cases of refusal, the designation was not even mentioned.
Though the designation may have prompted the improvement of some development,
in terms of its design or siting, through discussions, between officers and applicants,
the use of the AGLV policy in the control of development seems to be very small.
6.4
It can be argued that there is no sound basis for permitting any development of poor
unsympathetic design or siting whatever the area. If planning controls can achieve
high design standards within an AGLV (through this has not been proven), such a
standard of control ought surely to be operated in all areas? What the AGLV
designation does indicates, is that the landscape character of these areas is (or was)
particularly worthy of conservation and management. Within them, the natural
conditions, comprising land form and vegetation cover, create a unique visual asset
which can be easily damaged. As a basis for determining positive landscape
management and conservation priorities, the areas may require redefinition to
include other areas of visual attractiveness which are not sufficiently district from
the existing areas to warrant lesser attention. However, the pursuit of sympathetic
design and siting of development ought not to be restricted to these designated
areas.
6.5
Though it is not unusual for proposed development to be refused for ‘detracting
from the visual amenities of an area’, outside the special areas (AONB and AGLV)
there is little policy indication that development should take any account of its
landscape setting. Any new development, it appears, may be adequately screened or
blended into the landscape by the implementation of a ‘landscape plan’, usually
prepared after the submission of the basic design. It is likely that such schemes
often escape implementation, and that planting is undertaken but not maintained.
The enforcement of landscaping conditions is not generally considered a priority,
and their operation deserves further investigate. It has been noted as “cosmetics”,
even if applied more widely, is not adequate to ensure the development of attractive
landscapes. Maintenance of an attractive farming landscape must depend upon a
continuing effort by local authorities both to control or minimise the impact of
intrusive features, conserving the most valuable features in the landscape, and also,
with the awareness and goodwill of farmers, to encourage the creation and
management of new agricultural landscapes. Agreements and positive management
polices will play a major part in the creation of new landscapes, towards which
planning controls may constitute a small contribution.
6.6
A strong body of opinion favours the assumption that a well-husbanded, functional
landscape is inherently attractive. In urban fringes, and areas of metropolitan
influence, policies to protect and promote agriculture and forestry, through the
management of the conflicting interests and activities, ought to contribute to
increasing sensitive landscape management. In providing some certainty of
continuing economic use, these policies should reduce the likelihood of land being
abandoned or left in temporary use. The South Hertfordshire Green Belt
Management Experiment has begun to show that landscape improvements can be
made through the low key approach of using a Project Officer, though the Havering
Management Experience has highlighted the limits of such an approach in areas of
seriously degraded landscape (e.g. abandoned, disused mineral workings).
Landscape conservation and improvement is now a central aim in the Join
Countryside Management Projects being undertaken by the County Council, with
Countryside Commission support, in the Broxbourne Woods and Upper Lea Valley.
New Agricultural Landscapes
6.7
The greater part of the County and a vast proportion of all regions outside the
Central Valleys, are agricultural landscapes. Their development and character was
largely explained in Section 4 above. The present agricultural landscape reflects
both the past and present systems of land management and it is reasonable to expect
that the future landscape should differ from that of today as a result of future
methods of land management. The study of New Agricultural Landscapes (NAL)
by Westmacott and Worthington* analysed the changing lowland farming landscape
of a number of counties, and set out proposals for accommodating changes and
creating new features mainly through tree belt and field corner planting, particularly
on pockets of uncultivated land.
6.8
In 1974, in discussing the NAL Report, the Countryside Commission accepted the
inevitable of further large-scale changes in the appearance of the farmed lowlands,
but also sough to encourage the creation of new landscapes, different from, but not
necessarily less interesting than the old. “The new landscapes would differ
critically from those which are already often evolving because there would be a
conscious input of new features; they would not, in other words, be the accidental
product of modern farming”. Following a series of seminars, debates and
discussions the Commission published their 1977 NAL booklet on Issues,
Objectives and Action, and it is clear that they have backed away from the bold
approach described above, and are recommending a lower-key, more conservative
package of policies. While the principle of creating new agricultural landscapes is
still accepted, these are seen more as a supplement to measure of landscape
conservation.
*New Agricultural Landscapes. R Westmacott and T Worthington, 1974. (Countryside
Commission CCP 76)
6.9
The main objectives of a policy of landscape conservation, as recommended by the
Countryside Commission, are:
1. To stop the unnecessary clearance of features of landscape value.
2. To plant trees and shrubs elsewhere in greatly increased numbers.
3. To ensure that those who need advice and financial help can get it.
4. To ensure that public authorities set a good example on publicly owned land.
5. To develop higher standards of control of development in the countryside.
6. To attract and maintain the interest of the mass media and education authorities
in the subject.
The Commission suggested that the objectives should be given different priorities in
different areas, for which the Hertfordshire landscape regions provide a basis.
6.10
In those areas where change has been rapid over the last few decades, and where
many landscape features have been lost, priority should be given to the introduction
of new features to diversify and enrich the patterns of cropped land. Both the
Northern Vale Salients and the East Hertfordshire Plateau, come into this category.
6.11
Where some landscape features have been partly removed or show signs of neglect,
all objectives are relevant but the emphasis should fall on blending new features
with the best of the old that remain. The undeveloped areas of the Central Valleys,
the Chiltern Hills and the South Hertfordshire Plateau are in this category, which
also includes the North Hertfordshire Ridge, though it is the contrasting open
character of this region which ought to be conserved.
6.12
Most significant among the Countryside Commission’s own initiatives id the
establishment of New Agricultural Landscapes Projects; two have already been
agreed, with Suffolk and with Hereford and Worcester, but the Commission intends
to establish at least one in every lowland county in due course. The need for a
project in East Hertfordshire is considered a priority.
6.13
The initiative taken by the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Landowners’
Association in preparing their joint settlement of intent, ‘Caring for the
Countryside’, is much welcomed. It encourages farmers and landowners to
accommodate measures for the positive conservation of landscape and wildlife
within their farming practices, and in so doing to seek the advice of, among others,
their local authorities.
Tree Planting Scheme
6.14
It has been suggested that there are four basic reasons why farmers and society as a
whole, must attempt and succeed in planting and maintaining many more trees.
First, farm timber is likely to continue to be an increasingly worthwhile asset.
Second, the contribution that trees and woods make to visual amenity is appreciated
by millions. Third, their contribution to wildlife conservation must not be
disregarded. Finally, the collective benefit to agriculture that is derived from a
roughly textured landscape of trees, through its ability to reduce surface wind speed
and to provide shelter for stock must be taken seriously.
6.15
Small privately-owned woodlands are among the most significant landscape
features of Hertfordshire and as already noted, it has been due to the presence of so
many small woodlands that the County has been able to absorb so much urban
growth over the last three decades. Through their general over-maturity and lack of
management, many woodlands have fallen into decline and require urgent
management. Because of their considerable historic, visual and wildlife value,
small woodlands deserve much closer attention than has been available to date.
6.16
Out of a total of some 314,000 elms, over 250,000 are dead or dying through the
effect of the current aggressive strain of Dutch Elm Disease, and their loss most
marked in the arable farmland or north and east Hertfordshire. The southern and
western parts of the County remain reasonably well-wooded, but many of the woods
and copses are over-mature and under-managed. Within the developed corridors
land damaged through mineral extraction, urban fringe development and
communications systems is becoming increasing noticeable as surrounding trees
become diseased.
6.17
With the aims of conserving and improving the health and appearance of the
County’s landscape, the County Council has submitted proposals for a Hertfordshire
Tree Planting Scheme, which have bee accepted by the Countryside Commission.
Full details of the scheme have also been published. The scheme will initially run
for ten years and after few planting seasons the scheme should reach a target of
50,000 trees planted or regenerating each year (which compares with 6,000 planted
in the 1977/78 season). Initially, the scheme will aim for 20,000 trees per year but
us certain to fall short of this figure because of lack of finance. For the first year,
the County Council budget allocation is £12,000, which, with Countryside
Commission and private contributions would be converted into a total fund of
£30,000. The approximate cost of purchasing and planting whips and feathered
trees* is normally in the region of £2.50 each which would enable only 12,000 such
trees to be planted (even assuming no budget for maintenance). If part of the funds
were directed to regeneration efforts, an increased return of new trees could be
secured but this would still fall far short of the 20,000 target.
6.18
Planting at 3 metre intervals is equivalent to a density of 1200 trees per hectare,
which will enable a maximum of 10 hectares to be planted during the 1978-79
planting season. Many other countries began their schemes in the early 1970s and
Essex, for example, were planting 40,000 trees as long ago as 1974-75.
Hertfordshire, though late off the mark, may, in operating its scheme, benefit from
all that has been learnt from other counties.
6.19
It is noted that the Hertfordshire County Tree Bank will remain, to provide stock for
planting on County-owned land, for some Parish planting schemes and for schemes
using organised voluntary labour. There is no separate budget allocation, outside
the Tree Planting Scheme, for maintaining this bank.
6.20
About 10,000 hectares of woodlands of over 2 hectares exists in Hertfordshire while
smaller woodlands cover a further 1,000 hectares. If it proved possible to plant 25
hectares a year, and maintain all existing woodland and new planting, it would take
35 years to increase the wooded proportion of the County from 6.5% to 7%. With
freedom of choice of sites and careful design and siting of planting, the impact of
even this scale of planting could be considerable.
*1.1 metres to 1.8 metres in height
6.21
It is interesting to speculate on the scale of planting which could be achieved if a
Parish Council Rate of only 0.1p in the pound was levied for tree planting and was
used even without the contribution of other government or private funds. Although,
£160,000 would be available in any one year. Assuming the availability of supplies
of plants, and of suitable sites, and operating with some economies of scale which
would accompany larger scale, highly organised schemes, between 40 and 50
hectares could be planted in one season. Furthermore, planting schemes designed
on a parish-by-parish basis, could be more effective in their contribution to
landscape development, than small ‘ad hoc’ schemes.
6.22
As with other features of the landscape, the conservation of existing trees and
woods may pay much greater dividends than new planting, especially over the short
term. Natural regeneration of woodland, for example through woodland
management and the making of enclosures within and adjoining woodlands, will
therefore also be encouraged. Demonstration of the effectiveness of tree planting
and woodland management, through publicity and interpretation schemes, will be
necessary to ensure a continuing interest in the scheme from private landowners.
Planting Priorities
6.23
All applications for 50 or more trees will be considered, but priority in the allocation
of grant aid will go to areas severely denuded by Dutch Elm Disease, degraded and
urban fringe landscapes, areas of most attractive landscape and areas of open
farmland which would benefit from new planting.
New Attitudes to Tree Planting
6.24
Away from agricultural holdings, and particularly on publicly-owned land, the
location, design and maintenance factors become critical in determining the
effectiveness of planting. One of the major conflicts which seems to arise is
between the most effective form of tree planting in terms of its success rate and
regional, long-term, visual impact, and the type of planting considered appropriate
locally, in the context of parks maintenance operations and established attitudes
towards amenity space layouts.
6.25
Some of the healthiest new planting within the Green Belt Management Experiment
area, which has been subject to virtually no vandalism, is land currently used as
public open space where the replacement of elms has taken place. The planting
areas are unfenced, but are clearly delineated by their management. Adjoining areas
are mown while the new planting area has been allowed to grow wild. This is also
in a fine position, on the southern edge of St Albans, to contribute to a wider
programme of strengthening the City’s landscape setting.
6.26
Adjoining this site is a larger area, landlocked between the A5 and the M10 which is
currently vacant, and could in conjunction with many other similar sites, prove to be
an economically viable as well as visually interesting woodland. Such planting has
not taken place partly due to the lack of organisation arrangements for large scale
planting, and also because the land is shown as Public Open Space on the
Development Plan, although not used as such. Local authorities might consider the
prospect of some open spaces being planted up now, so that in 30 years’ time they
could be managed for visual amenity and recreation, (possibly in addition to time
production).
6.27
Despite some sterling efforts by District and County Councils, amenity tree planting
on publicly-owned land to date, in term of contributing towards the recreation of an
attractive and healthy landscape, could hardly be said to have scratched the surface
of the problem. In the light of the Countryside Commission’s objective, to ensure
that public authorities set a good example (of landscape management) on publiclyowned land, and government’s general obligation to act in the public interest
(specified in Section 11 of the Countryside Act, which lays a duty on all public
bodies to “have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and
amenity of the countryside” in all their operations), it is essential that both local
authorities and statutory undertakers being to set a better example in the landscape
management of their own holdings.
7.
THE LIVING LANDSCAPE
7.1
Today’s landscape is a physical and biological response to centuries of human
activity. It is impossible to identify any land in Hertfordshire which has not been
influenced by the hands of man, and so in the strictest sense the County contains no
‘natural’ landscape. Like the other counties of lowland England it comprises a
patchwork of micro-landscapes which, due to ‘natural endowments’ (macro-climate,
micro-climate, geology, slope, etc) have the desired properties to develop particular
biological states, but due to man’s interference have rarely, if ever, succeeded to
their “climax” state.
7.2
These micro-landscapes each form local habitats – dynamic, functioning systems
which respond in various ways to different levels of human intervention and
combine to give the rural landscape, and to a lesser extent the urban landscape, its
basic surface texture. Landscape is not a static background to life but is created by
the interaction of a society and the habitat it lives in: if either habitat or man
changes, the landscape inevitably changes.
7.3
The biological system must be seen as the vital element of landscape which
responds in often quite predictable ways to the constantly changing ‘management’
that man imposes on it. Though there are profound philosophical problems in
defining the ultimate purpose of nature conservation, it is seen as directly related to
the fulfilment of various human purposes, scientific, educational, aesthetic and
economic.
An Historical Perspective
7.4
Pre-agricultural Hertfordshire was predominantly Oak forest, with will, alder and
birch around the extensive marshes of the Colne and Lea Valleys. Open ground was
probably restricted to the Chilterns and small, temporary forest gaps created by tree
falls, or larger areas created by animals grazing, Most of the County’s flora and
fauna were adapted to forest life. Pioneer agriculture (some 5000 years ago)
probably introduced certain ‘open land’ species from the continent and forest
clearance over a long time, resulted in a gradual loss of species due to the
fragmentation of the habitat (species such as wild cattle, bears and beavers!).
7.5
In spite of significant clearance and agricultural development since Saxon times, the
County’s wildlife content’ in terms of range and quality of species was fairly
consent until the wartime ploughing of the 1940s. Four main types of farmland
habitats were represented:
1. Original forest fragments – increasing modified by grazing, forage and
coppicing
2. Marshes – difficult to drain
3. Permanent pastures – representing plants which colonise open ground
4. Arable land – with crops and a wide range of ‘weeds’
7.6
The proportion and qualities of wildlife habitats varied greatly with agricultural
changes and other influences, such as the development of the woollen industry and
the Black Death, and in post-war years, as a result of new farming methods.
Habitat Changes
7.7
There has been insufficient documentation of habitat change in Hertfordshire and a
completely accurate assessment of nature conservation priorities must depend upon
the results of further research. However, the opinions of naturalists suggest some
clear indications of the scale of change since the 1940s:
1. Almost half of the County’s ponds have been lost
2. Between a quarter and a half of the hedgerows have been removed
3. Half of the lost important deciduous woodland has probably been lost, much
converted into conifer plantations (e.g. Broxbourne/Wormley and Redwell Woods)
4. About half of the unimproved grassland of the low-lying wetlands have
succumbed to drainage or gravel extraction, (especially in the Lea and Colne
Valleys)
5. Probably more than half of the riparian habitats have been lost particularly as a
result of mechanical river maintenance over the last few years.
7.8
The green fields of the Green Belt are probably ‘greener’ now than thirty years ago
with the improvement of permanent pasture to grass ley (through the use of
herbicides) but these new grasslands cannot provide sustenance for one of the 24
species of butterfly which could live on a species-rich permanent pasture. In arable
areas the changes are more pronounced. Twenty ‘agricultural weeds’ identified as
common or abundant in Dony’s Flora* are becoming increasingly rare, or have been
lost altogether. Even the common poppy, once abundant, is now becoming scarce
except on recently disturbed land. The loss of plants is only the stating point for the
loss of a complex, interdependent wildlife network. The ‘weed-free’ environment
of modern crops has meant the loss of a wide range of insect populations and more
efficient drainage has resulted in less standing water, an essential habitat for many
eater invertebrates, molluscs, amphibia and birds.
7.9
It is generally accepted that the quality and variety of the ‘biological resource’ in
Hertfordshire, (as in most of lowland England) is the poorest it has ever been,
despite the sterling efforts of official and voluntary agencies to conserve a limited
number of key sites. Outside these, areas of natural habitat are dwindling, with
fewer residual uncropped areas and a dimishing number of fields farmed by oldfashioned methods. Within this County it is the effects of agriculture, both directly
(through the use of biocides) and indirectly (through hedge removal, improved
drainage etc), which have most damaged and reduced wildlife resources.
The Responsibility for Conservation
7.10
The inherent conflict between the environmental requirements of the traditional
British flora and fauna and the requirements of intensive, mechanised and chemical
agriculture suggest that more food cannot be produced by present methods, without
a continued loss of wildlife. There is obviously room for compromise, but if
wildlife conservation is to take place on the farm it must be recognised that this will
be seen as a real cost to agricultural operations. Some farmers may react well to the
initiative from the Country Landowner’s Association (CLA) and the National
Farmers’ Union (NFU) in calling on farmers to ‘care for the countryside’, but there
may well be a gap between willing farmers and important habitats which will need
to be plugged with financial incentives.
*Flora of Hertfordshire John G Dony (1967)
7.11
The Countryside Review Committee, in their paper ‘Food Production in the
Countryside’ noted that just as the well-being of the agricultural industry is
important to both farmers and non-farmers, conservation must also be the
responsibility of all who are involved in the countryside. Whereas the Government
cannot satisfactorily promote conservation policies if the agricultural industry is not
healthy, the industry ought also to accept its environmental responsibilities or face
more Government control over or intervention in its activities.
7.12
The Natural Conservancy Council’s recent publication, ‘A Nature Conservation
Review’, comprises an account of the nation’s heritage of wildlife and its habitats,
identifying and describing all “key sites”. These safeguard areas, the essential hard
core of natural conservation interest, are the keystone for national conservation
strategy, but even if all key sites could be protected and managed as desired it
would not follow that the aims of nature conservation had been attained. The need
remains to pursue more general measures for wildlife conservation throughout the
country.
Nature Conservation Zones
7.13
Although not endowed with many nationally important sites, Hertfordshire’s varied
habitats include many of ‘high and ‘intermediate’ interest. Among these are the
Oak Hornbeam/Hazel woodlands, the parklands, chalk meadow grasslands,
heathlands, some marshes and open water areas, and some of the Chiltern
beechwoods. Four ‘conservation zones’, of special wildlife interest were identified
in the Natural Conservancy Council’s review of sites, and these highlight, in a
general way, the major destruction of the most important habitat types in the County
(see opposite). Within these board zones an identification of individual fragile sites
and an assessment of the threats to their conservation would be useful. However, as
with the visual aspect of the landscape, effort has been concentrated on the
protection of the best ‘museum pieces’, while the forces which steadily erode the
wide range of intermediate quality sites have been largely ignored.
7.14
Conservation measures have been weak, even within the ‘conservation zones’. The
Wormley Woods complex, a Grade I site in the Nature Conservation Review and a
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), continues to be a threatened with conifer
conservation. Although probably the finest example of Oak Standard Hornbeam
Coppice association in Western Europe, the continued threat demonstrates that the
Natural Conservancy Council (NCC) is unable to compete with economic forces on
private land.
7.15
The Colne and Lea Valley zones have been identified because of the important open
water habitat of particular value to wildlife, but in both areas the botanic interest has
changed markedly over the last 30 years, Wet grasslands and marshes have been
converted to wet gravel pits and, while creating what if to some a more visually
existing landscape, have still lowered the conservation value if measured in terms of
the diversity, replace-ability, and ‘natural’ representation.
7.16
The maintenance of a biologically rich, diverse and healthy landscape will depend
upon the protection and management of all key sites and a greater consideration of
the ecological impact of all development, and of changes in land management
practices, throughout the County. The maximum protection and management
efforts are currently concentrated on the recognised sites. Without prejudice to this
effort, local authorities must be working towards a greater concern for the long term
health and well-being of all habitats, through both a wider protective role and a
more positive role in habitat management, particularly within the zones of greatest
interest. In accordance with the Structure Plan policy for amenity corridors,
interpretation of the wildlife resources of the County should be encouraged where
the characteristics of the representative site or area are such that it can tolerate,
without damage, the related increased in pressure.
Data Source
7.17
A variety of nature conservation data sources exists, including:
1. A vegetation survey (1976) from which habitats have been identified (based on
1972/73 air photos)
2. A river survey, (1977) undertaken for the NCC
3. A woodland survey (1978) involving a sample of 100 woodlands, undertaken by
the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Trust for Nature Conservation (HMTNC)
4. Other sources, such as Dony’s Flora, Salisbury’s Woodland Study, Transactions
of the Hertfordshire Naturalist Society, the biological records of the St Albans and
North Hertfordshire Museums etc.
7.18
The evaluation of existing information has been weak, and of restricted usefulness
at both the strategic and local levels, but the County Council is gradually developing
a comprehensive Countryside Information System which it is intended will be
capable of distribution, highlighting the most sensitive habitats and containing a
regularly updated analysis of threats to the resource.
8.
UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETING THE LANDSCAPE
8.1
There appear to be two complementary approaches to the task of broadening general
understanding and appreciation of landscape change: landscape interpretation and
landscape advice.
Landscape Interpretation
8.2
Interpretation has been described as an educational activity which aims to reveal
meaning and relationships (within the landscape) and is widely accepted as being
concerned with contributing to the attitudes and opinions of people. The
Countryside Commission has described interpretation as primarily concerned with
explaining the significance and encouraging an awareness and understanding, of the
landscape and the physical forces which bring about changes and have led to its
present appearance, and which includes the natural resources of the countryside, its
wildlife, the role of Man and the social present which contribute to the character of
an area.
8.3
Interpretation is most commonly associated with specific recreation sites, where it is
seen as enhancing the visitor’s enjoyment, in the belief that an understanding of the
countryside increases the pleasure derived from visiting it and which in turn leads to
an increasing public respect for it and an awareness of the need for its conservation
or development. The policy guidelines for amenity corridors encourage the
provision of interpretative facilities wherever appropriate (see section 7.16) on sites
of nature conservation interest and interpretative leaflets have been prepared for
Broxbourne and Bencroft Woods and Cole Green Way in addition to the Design and
Heritage series publications. The County Planning Department is also currently
considering the preparation of a leaflet explaining the purpose and operation of the
Countryside Management Service.
8.4
It is encouraging also to see evidence of private efforts directed towards landscape
interpretation and improvement. The development of an arboretum on Thames
Water’s sewage treatment works land at Maple Lodge, Rickmansworth, by the
Trees for People campaign, will, if sufficient funds are raised, also include the
construction of Europe’s first “history of trees” museum.
8.5
Effective interpretation must not only make clear the composition and value of our
landscape heritage but must also be applied to any positive schemes which arise
from this Report.
Landscape Advice
8.6
Ensuring the availability of landscape management advice, together with attracting
and maintaining the interest of education authorities, may in the long term prove to
be the most important of the Countryside Commission’s NAL objectives. The
County Council, with its specialist skills (within Planning, Land Agent’s and
Education Departments in particular) is well suited to the preparation and
distribution of landscape management advice.
8.7
Local authority staff either have the necessary specialises, or can direct enquiries
towards other specialist sources of advice. The County Council is in a position to
offer architectural, ecological, archaeological and landscape design and
management advice to outside agencies and individuals, nut in the same way as
basic design advice (e.g. in relation to residential layout) may now comprise part of
a ‘design guide’, the fundamental principles of landscape management, appropriate
to different habitats or regions within the County, could be promoted in a similar
way.
8.8
Landscape management guidelines or codes of practice, in some readily
comprehensible form, and which reflects the distinctive characteristics which have
been recognised in the different landscape regions of Hertfordshire, must be drawn
up as an essential part of the whole strategy for landscape development. The
Countryside Conservation Handbook (a series of practical advisory leaflets being
sponsored by the NFU and CLA) will go some way to resolving criticisms from
farmers of conflicting and contradictory advice from statutory bodies, and a
supplementary series for Hertfordshire, considering any landscape guidelines in
fuller details could be useful.
8.9
The organisation of an accurate and effective advice and interpretative service for
the co-ordination, presentation and distribution of interpretative material would
benefit many aspects of County Council work. In particular, effort needs to be
concentrated on the explanation, “packaging” and “selling” of landscape
development to council members, all interested bodies and the general public to
ensure their full commitment to the long term objectives of landscape conservation
and management.
9.
INTEGRATED PROPOSALS FOR LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT
9.1
The previous part of this Report examined the landscape and the pressures for
change, from a number of artificially separate viewpoints. Inevitably, some aspects
have been omitted (e.g. townscape) and others have received less than proportionate
attention. The inter-relationships between these aspects are reflected in the
similarity of approaches to landscape development which are considered appropriate
0 (thus the reasons for pitching conservation efforts at the site, small area, and
broader zone levels therefore being common to the archaeological and natural
history aspects of the landscape). In putting forward proposals for landscape
development in relation to each of the broad objectives of this study, an attempt at
integration of the various aspects of landscape has been made. At the practical level
it is intended to pull together proposals for landscape conservation, management
and improvement within the context of demonstration projects, outlined in Section
10.
9.2
The main recommendations discussed below include the following measures:
1. The encouragement of increased investment in tree planting and woodland
renewal, by public and private interests.
2. The preparation of codes of practice for landscape design and management, to
contain guidance of relevance to all land managers, related to the strengthening of
regional landscape character.
3. The management of publicly owned land as an example of the resolution of
local authorities.
4. The encouragement of landscape improvements and earlier consideration of
landscape impacts in the planning process.
5. The regular use of agreements to secure management of the landscape.
6. The negotiation of agreements as a routine procedure – in determining planning
applications, particularly within Amenity Corridors, or areas to be identified by
landscape conservation orders or landscape improvement orders.
7. The wider use of design briefs, and the preparation of settlement edge guidelines
and village character appraisals.
8. The preparation of a ‘wildlife impact checklist’.
9. The reclamation of areas of degraded landscape, within the context of a rolling
annual programme of improvement action.
10. The selective purchase of small, strategically located tracts of land, where
agreements are not favoured, and in the long term, the purchase of larger areas for
landscape improvement and subsequent resale subject to agreements.
11. The undertaking, as funds permit, of demonstration projects inter alia, for
landscape improvement and the creation of new agricultural landscapes.
12. The amendment of Hertfordshire County Structure Plan Policy 22 concerning
Areas of Great Landscape Value.
Conservation and Management
9.3
The first broad objective is to secure the conservation and management of
landscapes and landscape features of particular visual, ecological, historical,
economic or cultural value. Positive measures, developed below, include the
development and use of landscape management agreements, the purchase of land
with a view to public management and the enhancement or improved management
of protected areas. As a bais for positive action the designation of rural
conservation areas, introduction of landscape conservation orders and a change in
the Area of Great Landscape Value policy are discussed.
9.4
Central Government’s inter-departmental Countryside Review Committee has
suggested the “there is no case for introducing new legislation on the
countryside….. statutory rules lack the element of flexibility which is crucial to the
resolution of local, frequently changing …. problems”. The Countryside Review
Committee’s belief in informal arrangements for reconciling rural interest is
supported, and it is important that opportunities for the making of formal
agreements with willing landowners is not overlooked. Section 52 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1971 empowers the local planning authority to enter into an
agreement with any person having an interest in land in their area, for the purpose of
restricting or regulating the use of land. Such an agreement may contain financial
provisions as appear necessary or expedient to the authority. The local authority
may enforce such an agreement against persons deriving title from the original
owner, through the wording of the legislation suggests that while restrictive
convenants may be enforced, positive convenants – those requiring the expenditure
of money or labour by the owner – may not be enforceable. Nevertheless,
Bedfordshire County Council is using Section 52 Agreements specifically for the
conservation of historic landscape features which would otherwise have no
protection, and in particular, to give the local authority advance warning of a
farmer’s intention to change the use of a particular piece of land.
9.5
The Agreement is regarded as one of the most important powers in landscape
development, and it comes in many guises. Agreements made under Section 126 of
the 1974 Housing Act offer stronger powers for enforcement than agreements made
under Town Planning legislation. Other forms of agreement include dedicated
woodland schemes, Nature Reserve Agreements, Access Agreements and of course,
Agricultural Tenancy Agreements. The Countryside Commission has long been
recommending a form of ‘landscape agreement’ and the Peak Park Planning Board
commissioned a report, published in 1976, which studied management agreements
in both principle and practice. The Countryside Commission has just published
another report * designed to encourage the testing of more types of agreement. A
form of management agreement accompanies all Hertfordshire Tree Planting
Scheme projects, and some agreements are being drawn up in the context of
countryside management.
9.6
Although a statutory provision is required to enable a local authority to spend
money, all local authorities have a general power, under Section III of the Local
Government Act 1972, to enter into agreements which can be properly described as
being conducive or incidental to the Council’s discharging any of its functions.
Furthermore, the inclusion of a clause making any agreement pursuant to the
provisions of Section 6 of the Hertfordshire County Council Act 1960, renders the
Agreement binding on the owner’s successors in title and is therefore registered as a
Local Land Charge. The Housing Act Agreement offers a similar advantage.
9.7
The current use of Agreements is primarily in reaction to a threat to valuable
features. For example, the application to extract gravel from Panshanger Park,
between Welwyn Garden City and Hertford, which could disturb a landscape of
visual and ecological value led to the preparation of a number of Agreements to
secure the protection of parts of the application site and the future management of
the whole area. It is increasingly likely that new opportunities for making
Agreements will arise out of the ‘on-the-ground’ work of the countryside managers
and the pursuit of various agreements ought to figure in their management briefs.
The construct a forward programme of Agreements to be negotiated, would be
difficult, though this might prove important in the long term, if acknowledgement or
compensation payments were involved and choices had to be made concerning
resource allocation. Equally, such a programme would be dependent upon new
survey information being available which would indicate both the value an degree
of threat to features.
*A study of Management Agreements. M J Feist, Countryside Commission, 1979
9.8
In the short term, the effort towards securing Agreements could be concentrated
within a defined area of landscape of significant conservation value, for which
SCLSERP proposed the making of a ‘landscape conservation order’. Clearly
Agreements will be most easily negotiated where personnel are working at grass
roots level, either within the existing countryside management areas, or in the
context of the additional projects proposed later. Other opportunities will continue
to arise through the normal planning process and it is important that staff involved
in development control are on the lookout for these, and are prepared for the task of
instigating negotiations. This is returned to in the discussion of improvement action
which follows (section 9.26).
9.9
Before hurrying into too many Agreements it would be useful to research further the
advantage of various forms of Agreement, and to develop one or two model
Agreements for adaptation to various circumstances, for use by the County and
District Councils in landscape management and conservation. It will also be
necessary to monitor the effectiveness of Agreements and analyse the return on
‘investment’ in the terms of any acknowledgement payments, made to offset the
costs of management arising from an Agreement.
9.10
Where voluntary Agreements are not forthcoming, few reserve powers are available
for securing landscape management. With respect to ancient monuments, provision
exists for taking monuments into local authority guardianship. This has been done
in Essex and elsewhere, to ensure the protection of a monument. Where a neglected
landscape feature is falling into decay the availability of similar measures would be
advantageous, and again might be concentrated initially within areas defined in
‘landscape conservation orders’.
9.11
Beyond the realm of Agreements, the local authority may enter into the purchase of
land, though there is no clear power for compulsory acquisition for landscape
development purposes. (It is understood that Buckinghamshire are investigating the
possibility of using compulsory powers for acquiring and improving areas of
damaged landscape, details of which are awaited).
9.12
With increasing frequency, features of landscape interest are coming onto the open
market. When a prominent woodland is put up for sale it is understandable that the
local authority may wish to make efforts to acquire the land, in order to ensure its
continued maintenance. If a more important feature appears to become threatened
the following month, funds may no longer permit its purchase. It would again not
be all easy to identify and order in priority, all sites which would justify purchase
should the opportunity arise. Furthermore, little justification is seen for the
purchase of large tracts of land, by local authorities, for landscape development
purposes. First, the purchase of large land areas is believed to be an inefficient use
of limited financial resources; the returns from equivalent investment in countryside
management or tree planting, for example, would far outweigh any gains to be made
from the purchase and management of individual large sites. Secondly, entering
into large land purchases to achieve fundamental planning aims could seriously
weaken the standing of existing planning policies. For example, there may be
variety of opportunities for Agreements, enforcement of conditions on planning
permissions and very small site purchases, within a larger area, which would
together achieve as much as complete purchase, while reinforcing the effectiveness
of planning policies. Again this is particularly appropriate in the context of
landscape improvement within amenity corridors. Thirdly, there is no evidence yet
that public land management is in any respect more successful than private
ownership and management in achieving landscape conservation (see Section 9.36).
9.13
There is, however, a strong argument for the purchase of monuments or small or
narrow tracts of land, in strategic positions, for the purpose of wildlife conservation,
woodland management or tree planting, where the cost is small and the owner is not
amenable to management Agreements. An example might be the purchase of
hedgerows along roadside verges, (especially on the southern side of the road which
would not shade crops), to ensure their continued management. A much more
active role in land management, possibly involving land purchases is envisaged for
the Country Council within the major zones of nature conservation interest.
9.14
The conservation of valuable sites and areas is currently sought through the
designation of Conservation Areas and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The
high standard of upkeep of many of Hertfordshire’s Conservation Areas in towns
and villages in quite noticeable. It is arguable whether this is a result of the tighter
control of development, or simply a reflection of respect for the appearance of an
area whose importance has been explained to its inhabitants as a result of
designation. The legislation mentions, in addition to preservation, the enhancement
of the character and appearance of Conservation Areas without specifying particular
ways in which this should be done. One distinct problem in defining Conservation
Areas is that the areas omitted immediately become inferior, not only in terms of
their protection from unsympathetic development, but they appear to be generally
less well cared for. In any review of Conservation Areas and in the definition of
new areas, it is important that the areas should be defined so as to include the
‘landscape setting’ of the protected area. Very little thought has been given to
interpretation schemes or to programmes of enhancement within Conservation
Areas and it is open to question whether enhancement efforts should be
concentrated within these ‘best’ areas, of within the much larger, intrinsically less
attractive landscape, outside Conservation Areas.
9.15
The designation of ‘rural’ Conservation Areas, under Section 277 of the Town and
Country Planning act 1971, could be used to extend control over development
within many small settlements or areas of historic character. Conservation Areas
have traditionally been defined in areas of nucleated settlement but may be equally
applicable to dispersed settlements. Designation could help to bring the historic
significance of a landscape over to the local people, and hopefully encourage a
greater concern for their environment. This measure would be most appropriate
where there is a clustering of signification visual or historical features, or where in
the case of many country houses, a feature and its surroundings have developed as
an interrelated entity. The local authority is required to determine which areas of
special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is
desirable to conserve, and such an area need not necessarily contain any buildings.
An historic agrarian landscape (ancient field systems for example) or the landscape
grounds of a country estate may be afforded conservation area status. However, as
the built proportion of the area dimishes, the need to specify measures for the
conservation, enhancement and renewal of the living fabric increases. Schemes for
the conservation, in the sense of perpetuation of the character, of both designated
and other potential Conservation Areas, are required. As the historic raison-detre
for designation becomes less visibly obvious, the need for interpretative schemes is
also increased.
9.16
There is obviously a wider potential for the use of Conservation Are legislation,
though it is clearly not deigned primarily for the purposes described above. It may
be a long time before more appropriate legislation is available and local authorities
might be encouraged to use their present powers more widely when other positive
approaches to conservation have proven unsuccessful.
9.17
The Countryside Commission is currently staging a review of policies for Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and seems to be moving areas. The Chilterns Standing
Conference is currently considering their stance, and the need to review or develop
their policy document, ‘A Plan for the Chilterns’ in the light of this national review.
9.18
The use of any land for the purpose of agriculture or forestry is specially excluded
from the Town and Country Planning Act definition of ‘development’ (although this
is supposed to include operations in, on, over and under land), and cannot therefore
be made the subject of statutory control without changes in legislation. Control
over the appearance of permitted farm buildings has been exercised, through the
issue of directions under Article 4 of the General Development Order, (and in some
areas through the operation of the Landscape Areas Special Development Order) but
farming operations, such as the bulldozing of an unscheduled ancient monument in
order to bring land into cultivation, remains beyond statutory control. Pressure
could be brought to bear on the Government to introduce amending legislation, but
such as approach is not likely to be very fruitful in the short term. The Department
of the Environment is clearly not disposed to extending Article 4 powers without
considerable investigation, and their recent agreement to part of a proposed order in
Broxbourne Borough came only after strong and repeated pressure from the
Council. The Department of the Environment has, however, supported the same
District on its refusal for house-related activities within an Agricultural Priority
Area, and, as further support for this policy, a clear separation of farming and the
keeping of non-agricultural horses, within the classes of the General Development
Order would be worth lobbying for, as suggested in the second SCLSERP Green
Belt Report.
9.19
As discussed in Section 6, it is considered that the higher design standards, formerly
reserved for Areas of Great Landscape Value, could apply countywide. While there
is every justification for maintaining control within AsGLV there is no logical
reason for accepting lower standards elsewhere. Accordingly, acknowledgement of
the importance of landscape considerations could be achieved by outstanding the
effect of Policy 22 of the Hertfordshire County Structure Plan. This could be
amended to read:
In order to maintain landscape quality and character throughout the County,
ONLY DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIAL TO THE AREA AND
OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE TO THE LOCAL PLANNING
AUTHORITIES WILL BE PERMITTED IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. IN
EACH AND EVERY CASE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPE
WILL BE SOUGHT. PARTICULAR REGARD WILL BE PAID TO THE
SETTING, SITING, DESIGN AND EXTERNAL APPEARANCE OF
SUCH BUILDINGS AS ARE PERMITTED IN AREAS OF GREAT
LANDSCAPE VALUE.
9.20
The demonstration projects described below will help to develop our understanding
of, and approaches to, landscape conservation and management and will feed ideas
into the preparation of countryside management briefs. For the effective
implementation of landscape management proposals it is essential that priority is
attached to the continued establishment of a professionally organised countryside
management service, which is fully integrated with the strategic planning and estate
management functions of the County Council.
Improvement
9.21
The second objective of landscape development is to effect improvements to less
attractive, less interesting or less healthy landscapes. The need for landscape
improvements was acknowledged in the submitted County Structure Plan, which in
Policy 19 attaches a clear priority to landscape improvement within amenity
corridors. It is important to realise, however, that some landscapes, though
superficially attractive, may be in poor health, such as an old, even-aged woodland
within which regeneration is not taking place. Approaches to landscape
improvement are necessarily mainly of a positive kind.
9.22
Tree planting on a massive scale is needed and should be undertaken before the
stage is reached in Hertfordshire where intensive cropping diminished soil quality
and restricts the range of trees capable of being easily established, as is happening in
Shropshire. The establishment of the Hertfordshire Tree Planting Scheme is a
worthy first step towards organising tree planting and management onto a sound
footing, but the current level of finance is quite insufficient to achieve any marked
impact upon landscape development. Even if the scheme is only to meet its
restricted aims, it needs a massive injection of funds, and requires close monitoring
and evaluation during its first few years of operation.
9.23
The Scheme will provide funds for the management as well as the planting of
woodlands, and for the encouragement of woodland regeneration. The removal of
dead trees remains a costly problem, particularly where the diseased wood is of little
or no economic value, and in the absence of central government grants for elm
removal.
9.24
The reclamation of areas of damaged or degraded landscape and the screening of
areas of projected landscape deterioration (through building development or mineral
working) will require the preparation of programmes of improvement action and
local landscape improvement schemes, which in turn will necessitate the
establishment of a landscape improvement fund. In preparing the ‘Annual
Programme of Action’ (Section 2.7), the County Council will set out an overall
picture of the improvements it seeks to make or encourage over a five-year period,
with a detailed schedule of works, rolled forward annually. In the deployment of
County Council resources, the relative advantages of spreading improvement efforts
thinly over many sites, and concentrating them in one or two special areas, must be
weighed up. There is a strong case for a specific landscape improvement project
which would be complemented by continuing improvement measures within
countryside management areas. The project, which would provide a basis for
further local landscape improvement schemes, is discussed below. The
establishment of a team of specialist staff, to prepare and put into effect the
programme of improvements is likely to depend upon a much more integrated
approach by local government departments, particularly in the realms of land
agency, highways and planning.
9.25
In the longer term local authorities may be looking towards the development and
application of ‘landscape improvement order’, the designation proposed by
SCLSERP to define areas within which central government financial support for
landscape improvement might be sought. Local authorities would also benefit from
the larger and more widely applicable grants for ‘derelict land’ reclamation, which
were also argued for by SCLSERP. Wider use might also be made of existing
reserve powers for securing the maintenance of the landscape of areas of waste land
(any garden, vacant site or other open land), under Section 65 of the Town and
County Planning Act 1971.
9.26
The control of development offers many opportunities for securing landscape
improvements and management. For every major development the design ought to
demonstrate a sympathetic understanding of the landscape setting of the
development. This could be in the form of a site landscape appraisal. The design,
landscaping proposals and management arrangements ought to form a part of the
consideration of an application, and permission only be granted subject to the
satisfactory meeting of conditions or making of Agreements, as appropriate. Local
planning authorities could insist upon the achievement of the highest standards
accepting that this may necessitate refusing applications for development on the
grounds of being ‘unsympathetic to the landscape setting or resulting in the loss of
habitat’.
9.27
A major advance towards long term landscape improvement would be to ensure that
the landscape of a site is taken into account before the design of development, but
this could be further supported by attaching positive landscape improvement
measures to planning permissions wherever appropriate. Underlying the HCSP
Amenity Corridor Policy is the understanding that occasions may arise where
development may be considered acceptable, only if a positive planning gain, in
terms of landscape improvement, could be granted to accrue. The policy for
Amenity Corridors was drafted with dual aims in mind; the strategic location of
leisure facilities, and the improvement of the landscape of these visually degraded
areas. Thus, leisure proposals which satisfy the location requirements within
Amenity Corridors (and which do not conflict with the continued protection and
management of good farming and forestry land), but which contribute to the further
deterioration of the landscape, cannot be considered acceptable.
Advice and Assistance in Landscape Change
9.28
A major role, involving some work for the County Council in the near future, may
arise in giving advice and assistance to those parties involved in changing the
landscape. This may take a variety of forms, including the preparation of design
and development briefs, and specialist advisory services for landscape and wildlife
conservation, but the major task would seem to be the preparation of an advisory
code of practice for landscape design and management, made specific to each of the
broad landscape regions of the County.
9.29
The concept of the Landscape Design and Management Code has not yet been
through in sufficient detail to enable anything more than an outline to be suggested
here. However, this is seen as the most important element of future work, linking
the broad definitions of landscape regions with conservation, management and
improvement measures, and new landscape creation, at the implementation level.
Through consultations on this exercise it is intended to link together the strands of a
strategy for long term landscape change in Hertfordshire.
9.30
The County Council could prepare and adopt a code of practice for landscape
management for publicly owned land, (including highways, farmland holdings,
school sites, open spaces etc) which might also serve as an example to other
statutory and private land managers. The National Farmers’ Union and County
Landowners’ Association have already set a precedent in recommending
conservation guidelines for farmers and landowners, in their joint statement of
intent, “Caring for the Countryside”. Thames Water are already drawing up their
own conservation guidelines, and it is clearly time that local authorities followed
this example. The Countryside Commission are working on the production of a
series of practical advisory leaflets, to be known collectively as the Countryside
Conservation Handbook, and they have invited the Secretary of State for the
Environment to produce a parallel code of practice for managing publicity owned
land in the countryside. (The Commission is also awaiting a report on the landscape
conservation policies and practices of both new and old established institutional
landowners, which should be of great interest to this County).
9.31
Some aspects of the Code might be specific to subjects, such as guidelines on the
management of specific habitats, which others may be specific to landscape regions,
for example, concerning the choice of trees and shrubs, for new planting, or the
choice of colours, materials and layouts for new buildings. In some circumstances,
it may be appropriate to prepare an overall package of advice (e.g. dealing with the
identification and conservation of archaeological features) and to accompany this
with descriptive material relevant to each landscape region. Advice on landscape
design might be more restricted, but it seems likely that, where the services if a
landscape architect are not available to a developer, he may derive some guidance
from a simple code of landscape design, enabling his scheme to be better thought
out in advance.
9.32
The form as well as the content of this advice will require careful preparation.
Some of the more detailed advice might best be circulated with the papers of groups
such as the CLA or Civic Societies, and a summary of advice and guidance to
farmers might usefully be distributed in Farmers’ Weekly. A loose-leaf or folio
format for the Design and Management Code might be the best way to ensure that
the variety of interested parties are offered the most appropriate advice.
9.33
The whole idea of such as Code suggests the need to establish close consultation
and liaison will all specialist interest involved in landscape development which may
even require some new consultative machinery to be set up.
9.34
Especially on the edges of settlements, greater attention must be paid to landscape
development in the preparation of planting schemes and the design of new
development. Indeed, settlement edge guidelines, comprising a variety of
management and planning measures might include the preparation of design briefs
for all settlement edge sites which have the potential for improvement, and for those
which it is intended to develop. The much wider use of the design brief could speed
up the planning process, as well as ensuring that sympathetic development takes
place, in which the need for cosmetic improvements or screening is minimised. The
basis for such brief in villages might be a village character appraisal, undertaken
perhaps in the context of a broader village analysis, and for which again the local
authority might prepare guidelines to enable voluntary and local groups to make a
contribution.
9.35
It may be appropriate for the County Council, in consultation with the Nature
Conservancy Council, to prepare a “wildlife impact checklist” to be used by
development control officers in determining the likely effects of proposed
development on nature conservation interests. This proposal needs further
development, but such a checklist might serve as the basis for stronger control
policies in the longer term.
Influencing Exemplary Management of Public Land
9.36
Public land ownership is apparently not yet the surest way of securing a varied,
healthy and attractive landscape. The Countryside Commission has pointed out (in
‘New Agricultural Landscape: Issues, Objectives and Action’) that sadly, many of
those charge with managing public land do not seem to have, as part of their code of
practice, good standards of landscape management and improvement”. The Nature
Conservancy Council has recommended that the landowning departments of
national and local government should take particular care to implement a rural land
use strategy on their lands, and thus set an example to other landowners. This is
partly reflected in Circular 108/77 (DOE) which asks local authorities to ensure that
where they own or hold land for any purpose, their own estate management
practices take nature conservation fully into account. The idea of local authorities
‘setting a good example’ on publicly owned land is one of the Countryside
Commission’s NAL Objectives, and bears out the intentions of S.11 of the
Countryside Act 1968, which charges every Minister, Government department and
public body to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and
amenity of the countryside. Decisions to maintain or increase the amount of trees
and shrubs on publicly owned land must be influenced by the statutory obligations,
(such as S.11), of those who are responsible for managing it properly and in the
public interest.
9.37
The County Council has a great opportunity to set a good management example on
its farmland estates, and on a wide range of smaller tracts of land, including school
sites and other education land, highways land, and on array of smaller plots, across
the County. Large tracts of land are also held by statutory undertakers and in all
cases, the concern of the land manager for the health and appearance of the
landscape, seems difficult to achieve. Only by ‘putting their own house in order’
may a local authority expect to secure the co-operation of private individuals in
landscape management agreements.
9.38
Exemplary public land management would involve gradual changes to local
authority policies and practices. There will be occasions when agricultural
tenancies could be revised to take full account of landscape and wildlife
considerations. The agreement of tenants to an overall farm management plan,
drawn up with the assistance of specialist advice from landscape architects and
ecologists as well as agriculturists, might have to be compensated for by an
appropriate rent reduction, and new criteria would have to be employed in the
selection of tenants. An initial focus for District Councils could be a review of their
management practices for public open space and surplus land sites. If open space is
to fulfil both amenity and recreational functions some standards, such as gang
mower access to all parts of the site, must be relaxed.
9.39
In addition to making improvements to the appearance and setting of their own
development, local authorities might seek ways to influence other statutory
undertakers to continue this example. Water authorities have been responsible for
operating fixed standards relating to riverbank tree planting, which show little
sympathy for the appearance of the landscape, though there are now clear signs of a
greater environmental awareness entering into their codes of practice. If the local
authorities are to continue to foster changes of attitudes among statutory
undertakers, they cannot afford to overlook any management of their own land. In
this respect, it is essential that the County Council revises its practices concerning
the design, layout and management of land adjoining highways: as much landscape
damage may be caused by the straightening of rural lanes (involving hedgerow loss
and replacement with urban style fences and lawns) as by the development of new
roads.
9.40
Once confidence has been gained in local authority landscape management, on
established and ‘surplus’ sites, advances could b made towards the purchase of land
for the specific purpose of local authority landscape improvement, perhaps through
the operation of a revolving fund. Also in the longer term, emphasis must be placed
on the interpretation of public management work (e.g. through the operation of
demonstration farms).
9.41
The proposed Design and Management Code (discussed in 9.30) should contain a
model code of practice for the guidance of other public and private agencies
responsible for land and landscape management.
9.42
It may also be necessary in the longer term, for local authorities to issue statements
demonstrating their observance of S.11 of the Countryside Act, through new
initiatives of the type discussed above, should minimise such a need.
Education and Publicity to Further Respect for the Landscape
9.43
In the long term, priority must be afforded to furthering a general understanding of
the landscape, particularly amongst young people, to ensure that future generations
have a greater awareness of environmental matters, and an improved capability for
contributing towards tackling environmental problems. There may be scope for
new initiatives in schools environmental education programmes, which should be
investigated. The establishment of an interpretative capability at County Hall might
assist the County Council to make the most of their investments in landscape
development and more generally in environmental management.
9.44
The need to adopt a high standard of advice and interpretation in relation to
landscape design, management and conservation, has been noted, and will require
the preparation of various forms of landscape guidance and the development of
interpretative skills. Interpretation measures are desirable, initially on public sites,
of ecological, cultural, historic or other interest. However, a recurring problem is
that the public, and members of local authorities, will expect to see visible returns
on expenditure, over the short term. When many of the effects of landscape
development will only really be appreciated in the long term, it will be a specialist
task to publicise and make capital out of local authorities’ efforts.
9.45
The involvement of school children, other students, Youth Opportunities
Programme staff, and local society members, especially in survey and practical
management work, may take a lot of organising but this could be compensated for
by the gains in public support for and appreciation of environmental policies.
9.46
Most of all, interpretative skills must be made available as a central part of the
Demonstration Projects, discussed in the following section.
Further Study
9.47
Finally, it is apparent that further attention must be paid to come of the aspects
which have necessarily been omitted, or received too little attention in this Report.
For example, the plight of small woodlands, the visual impact of mineral workings,
the landscape of urban areas and the conservation of artefacts of our more recent
cultural heritage all merit further study.
9.48
This Report analyses many aspects of the changing landscape, suggests measure for
landscape development, and proposes a framework of landscape regions, against
which to guide long term changes in the landscape of the County. It provides a
basis for wide consultations, from which will follow the preparation of codes of
practice for landscape design and management, appropriate to the urban, urban
fringe and rural parts of the focus of a countywide strategy for landscape
development.
10
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
10.1
The area-based, project officer approach has already been adopted in Hertfordshire
for the implementation of countryside management, in the light of experience from
the experimental project in South Hertfordshire and Barnet. Indeed, it is intended
that many of the suggestions made in this report may filter the Countryside
Managers within their overall field of activity. The project approach facilitates the
investigation and implementation of policies, through an action-oriented, detailedlevel, compromise process. The project officer, for the demonstration projects, who
would normally have a semi-independent status, is ideally placed to secure
agreement and co-operation among locally conflicting interests. It is the approach
much favoured by the Countryside Commission and proven in a number of
exercises.
10.2
For landscape development, the project approach has the particular advantage of
drawing together the various aspects of landscape considered in this report and
testing some of the more unusual and optimistic suggestions, in an experimental
atmosphere. Each project might experiment with different methods of
implementation, sources of finance and so on, and could usefully be designed to
maximise visible impact for the purposes of demonstration. For example, to screen
effectively, with earth shaping and on-and off-site planting, half of an ugly,
prominent landscape feature and provide on-the-spot interpretation of the scheme,
might go a long way to demonstrating the measures necessary for landscape
improvement and the lead being shown by the local authority.
Each project would require the preparation of a clear contextual brief to ensure the
maximum contribution of the project to the application and testing of landscape
development measure.
A Landscape Improvement Project
10.3
The first priority project ought to be concerned, with the improvement of an area of
damaged, urban fringe landscape. The project Officer could be backed up by a joint
team of officers of local government and agencies involved, who would work
together to prepare a programme of land management action. This project would
aim to demonstrate the integration of local planning methods and initiatives with the
established project officer management approach, extending landscape
improvement measures across urban, fringe and inter-urban areas and providing an
example for other amenity corridor landscape improvements.
10.4
The preferred location for this project is in the Upper Colne Valley amenity
corridor, between Watford and St Albans/Hatfield, and might involve four or five
District Councils in addition to the County Council and statutory undertakers, such
as Thames Water. Involvement and financial support would be sought and expected
from the Countryside Commission and other Central Government agencies. The
project would aim to tackle some of the more difficult problems of landscape
improvement which the Green Belt Management Experiments have come up
against, such as the restoration of mineral workings and abandoned waste land and
the fulfilment of the strategic recreation function of the Green Belt. The project
would create the implementation capability, within a small area, to back up the
seriously damaged vacant sites or open land, and to effect the restoration of derelict,
unsightly and neglected land.
10.5
Unlike the countryside management projects, this would concentrate on landscape
improvements, and aim to make a significant visual impact within a relatively short
time horizon, of some five years. The nature of the project, which will certainly
require some use of heavy machinery and specialist equipment and involve
negotiations with private landholders at a senior level, will necessitate a large
financial input. However, the returns should be great through demonstrating the
intentions of local authorities, and gaining prestige from taking positive action
towards landscape improvement.
10.6
The project dovetails neatly with the proposals for an annual programme of action
for the improvement of the Green Belt, already approved in principle by the County
Council. A joint, County and District, project team should be set up to undertake
preparatory work, prior to the launch of the project later in 1979.
A New Agricultural Landscape Project
10.7
Another, very difference project, but also deserving some degree of priority, is the
establishment, in conjunction with the Countryside Commission, of a New
Agricultural Landscapes project, as part of their overall scheme for lowland
counties.
10.8
This project would be located in eastern Hertfordshire and would involve a variety
of surveys at the detailed local level. The project would demonstrate the
identification and conservation of valuable landscape features (especially historic
features in this case) and the creation of new landscape features over an area of two
or three parishes, within the context of broad principles for the gradual development
of a new landscape pattern, related to modern agricultural needs in the longer term.
10.9
The estimated cost of this type of project has already been calculated, by the
Countryside Commission as about £12,000 a year of which the Commission pays
75% for 5 years. The project officer’s task would be both to influence local
landowners and managers, and to get work done on the ground, to conserve
landscape features, to arrange for tree and shrub planting and so on, in a similar way
to he project officer’s work in the Green Belt Management Experiment, but with the
clearly defined objective of reversing the decline in the health and appearance of the
rural landscape. This project would act as an experiment from which local
authorities would learn new approaches to landscape management as well as being a
working demonstration to other land owners and managers.
10.10 The onus is on the County Council to approach the Commission, to being
negotiations on the project. With such a large proportion of the costs borne by the
Commission, this is a very cost-effective exercise from the County’s viewpoint, and
will enable further detailed investigation of measures to conserve historic and
archaeological landscape features.
A Demonstration Farm Project
10.11 Following a preliminary, detailed survey, this project would be carried out along
similar lines to the Countryside Commission’s national Demonstration Farms
project, which is aimed towards improving the advice available to landowners and
farmers concerned with the multi-purpose use and management of land. It would
aim to show the successful integration of farming, forestry, wildlife conservation,
sporting, recreational and amenity interests within a comprehensive farm
management plan.
10.12 There would clearly be advantages in undertaking such a project on a publiclyowned farm holding, assuming the availability of a willing tenant. In due course, a
selection of demonstration farms might be established, each concentrating on
different farming activities.
An Urban Edge Project
10.13 While the landscape improvement project would be concerned, inter alias, with the
edges or urban areas, an additional, mainly office-based exercise, could be mounted
to explore the feasibility of strengthening the visual envelop of urban areas through
landscape development measures perhaps in the Stevenage-Hithchin-LetchworthBaldock area. The design solution could form the bottom-drawer plan for guidance
of the countryside manager, when the countryside management service is introduced
to this area.
10.14 Such an exercise could usefully be combined with the necessary definition of the
inner edge of the Green Belt, or other policy of restraint, around one or more urban
areas. Such a boundary must seek to recognise environmental thresholds and there
will be a need to create new, long-term physical barriers where the proposed
expansion of settlements cannot be accommodated within existing natural and
visual limits.
10.15 This project would provide an opportunity to investigate the feasibility of largescale urban edge tree planting schemes as part of a deliberate enhancement
programme, utilising the results of environmental appraisal work already undertaken by the County Planning Department and develop the settlement edge
guidelines, (discussed in 5.20 and 5.21).