Forces for Change: Borough-Wide
Community Perceptions of the Test Valley Landscape
Above all, the greatest overall impression was that the local communities find the countryside within which they lived unspoilt, rich and tranquil, even ‘superb’, with ‘lovely places to go’. The variety of the landscape is notable with particular importance attached to the ‘New Forest’ part of the Borough, the open aspects of the downs, the lush farmland and river of the Test Valley and the tributaries within wooded valleys. Few unattractive elements were mentioned except for the quarries along the river valley sides.
a) Views from the Initial Focus Group Meetings
The River Test is generally considered the Borough’s greatest asset. It is prided by residents as one of the finest trout streams in the world, with good water quality, and as the defining feature of the Borough. Residents value it as an example of the natural beauty of the area.
Beyond the River Test, the Test Valley Borough landscape is not considered to have a strong identity, although many recognise that the north differed from the south and that the River Test Valley defines and links the Borough. It is recognised that parts of the south lay within, or were similar to, the New Forest. Otherwise the landscape is considered to have little in common with its neighbours such as the Wiltshire Downs. Local people seem generally unaware of the special wildlife habitats of the Borough but value what they see. The decline in some species, mostly birds, and the rise in others such as deer and pheasants (perhaps from a decline in hunting) is however noticed.
Access to the Test Valley countryside is a particular issue, with many people commenting on lack of footpaths, car parks serving accessible areas, information about the area and areas where the public are welcomed. There is particular support for more country parks. As a result few feel that the countryside plays a significant role in their lives. Many find woodland more attractive to walk in, compared to the openness of the downs. The north is considered better served than the south, except for within the New Forest. Generally, people valued more highly the landscapes to which they have access, and their perceptions of the different types of landscape were closely related to their accessibility.
It is not thought that the landscape has a strong historical tradition, with the notable exception of Romsey, the River Test trout fisheries, Danebury Hill Fort, historic houses in the south and the typical thatch, flint and red brick buildings. Andover is perceived as all new and unrelated to the history of the rest of the Borough.
The greatest source of change is seen to be:
Alterations in farming practice, in particular loss of pasture and farm buildings, poor maintenance of hedgerows (hedge cutting is a big issue) and ditches, the creation of larger fields and introduction of large areas of single crops
Changes in farming management are blamed for increased flooding, loss of wildlife, increased polluted watercourses
The over expansion of urban areas (in particular Andover) and loss of traditional local ways of looking after the landscape
The increase in golf courses and equestrian activity
Changing social structure resulting in alterations to the built form of the villages and heavier traffic.
The expansion of Andover is a key concern to the north Test Valley residents. The spread of development into rural areas was likened by one resident to a spider growing at the expense of the farming communities. In contrast the small ‘sleepy’ villages around Andover with their traditional thatched dwellings are much valued.
There is no particular perception that any one area is more in need of protection than another: all green rural areas and their villages are considered worth protecting. Many see farmers as the guardians of the countryside and the character of the landscape and therefore both the credit and criticisms are accredited to the farming community. Little mention is made of the role of the local authorities or environmental groups. There was more interest in the conservation of the existing landscape than in creating new landscapes, and in fact there was some criticism of ‘excessive and artificial landscaping’ as a part of new developments.
b) Summary of Views from the Workshop
The following cover the more general views expressed at the workshop. Particular comments on the landscape character types and character areas have been included under the Community Perceptions in the Test Valley Community Landscape Project: Landscape Character Assessment. March 2004. The main themes have been picked out from the contents of the transcripts.
Purpose of the Study: there was concern about the purpose of the study and whether the participants were wasting their time. Residents felt that they should have been made more aware of the purpose of the meetings and some were suspicious of the motives behind the study. A general suspicion about planning and scepticism about whether their views will be taken on board were strongly expressed. This was, however, balanced by recognition that if views were taken on board, and the finished study was used in the planning process, then their participation would be worthwhile.
Change: many were well informed of the causes of change and saw the process as long term. People had an understanding of humankind’s role in the evolution of the landscape and recognised that it was impractical to halt progress. The realities of the farming economy, leading to a different type of land management, perhaps with a stronger recreational and tourism focus, was understood.
Whilst the need for change was appreciated, some of its impacts caused concern, for example in terms of water resources, especially when coupled with climate change.
Hedgerows: views varied on the main causes of damage. Some residents believed that hedgerow removal to enable larger-scale mechanisation of farming was still taking place, whilst others thought that the practice had more-or-less ceased. Others were critical of the standards of maintenance of roadside hedges. The skill involved in managing hedgerows properly was valued, as well as the contribution that good hedge management makes to the landscape.
Woodland: when asked about the priority for woodlands residents saw the replacement of conifers with broadleaves, the creation of a more diverse woodland habitat and the opening up of woodland for public access as important objectives.
Fields: importance was attached to local history. The tradition of naming fields, and the way that farmers still use those field names today, was specifically mentioned. The fragmentation of traditional field patterns through hedgerow removal, or in the case of the downs, putting up fencing, were a cause for concern.
Heathland: perceptions varied as to what constituted heathland, particularly where it is dominated by gorse and pine. There was a perception that overgrazing has resulted in the destruction of the heathland.
MOD land: The subject raised a number of concerns amongst residents about potential development of disused sites, light and noise pollution and the visual impact on the landscape of the structures and landforms (eg the rifle butts) associated with them.
Minerals and Waste: People felt that Test Valley had provided more than its fair share of minerals and did not want to see any more extraction. The quality of restoration was seen to be an important issue.
Natural beauty: the report was criticised for the lack of adequate reference to the beauty of the area and for being overly negative.
Terminology: this was generally a problem. For example, terms such as ‘intrusion’, ‘enrichment’ and ‘remoteness’ have particular meaning for landscape professionals that are not shared by the wider community. A plea was made to use language that everyone would use, and to avoid the misuse of terms such as ‘intimate’. As an issue, this prompted some lively discussion as residents debated whether an area was secluded, rural or remote.