Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
Section 78
Appeal against the refusal of planning permission by Mid Devon District Council in respect of:
Outline application for the erection of 60 dwellings and construction of new vehicular access
onto highway to the west of the site.
Land at NGR 302469 114078 Higher Town Sampford Peverell, Tiverton, Devon
LPA Reference: 17/01359/MOUT
PINS Reference: APP/Y1138/W/19/3238631
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) Draft Supplemental Statement of Common
Ground (sSoCG) between the Appellant Place Land and Mid Devon District Council
1. The Supplemental Statement of Common Ground (SSoCG) sets out the areas of agreement
and disagreement in relation to landscape and visual matters. It is intended to be read in
conjunction with the main Statement of Common Ground (SoCG).
Description of Development
2. The site and description of development are as set out in the SoCG.
Reasons for Refusal:
3. The SSoCG deals with RFR1: The proposed outline application for 60 dwellings on this
prominent site will have a significant adverse visual impact on the surrounding landscape
character and appearance and is not compliant with policies COR2 and COR18 of the Mid
Devon Core Strategy (Local Plan Part 1), DM2(a) of the Mid Devon Local Plan Part 3
(Development Management Policies) and the National Planning Policy Framework
.Areas of Agreement
4. Table 1 summarises the matters which are agreed between Place Land and MDDC.
Additional information on these matters is also set out in the following sections.
Table 1: Agreed Landscape and Visual Matters
Areas of Agreement
Topic: Landscape and Visual
Appellant MDDC 1 The LVIA methodology, as set out in this
sSoCG The LVIA methodology, as set out in this sSoCG
2 The processing of the Application, as set out in this sSoCG
The processing of the Application as set out in this sSoCG
3 The extracts of published landscape character assessments, as set out in this sSoCG
The extracts of published landscape character assessments, as set out in this sSoCG
4 The assessment study area should be the 3km area surrounding the Appeal Site
The assessment study area should be the 3km area surrounding the Appeal Site
5 If the Inspector is so minded, the discussion on the landscape effects could focus on discussions to the ‘immediate setting’ of the Appeal Site as effects to the wider study area and published landscape character assessments are either agreed or considered sufficiently similar
If the Inspector is so minded, the discussion on the landscape effects could focus on discussions to the ‘immediate setting’ of the Appeal Site as effects to the wider study area and published landscape character assessments are either agreed or considered sufficiently similar
6 If the Inspector is so minded, the discussion on visual effects could focus on the visual receptors covered by the following viewpoints:
• 10;
• 11;
• 12; and
• 14.
If the Inspector is so minded, the discussion on visual effects could focus on the visual receptors covered by the following viewpoints:
• 10;
• 11;
• 12; and
• 14
7 The methodology used for the
assessment of landscape and visual effects included in appendix 1 of this document is in accordance with the guidance set out in GLVIA3 (CD 7.11) and the methodology for the preparation of verifiable visual montages is in accordance with Landscape Institute guidance as TGN 06/19 (CD 7.18)
The methodology used for the assessment of landscape and visual effects included in appendix 1 of this document is in accordance with the guidance set out in GLVIA3 (CD 7.11) and the methodology for the preparation of verifiable visual montages is in accordance with Landscape Institute guidance as TGN 06/19 (CD 7.18)
Areas of Disagreement
5. Table 2 summarises the matters which are not agreed between Place Land and MDDC.
Additional information on these matters is also set out in the following sections
Table 2: Landscape and Visual Matters not agreed
Areas of Disagreement
Topic: Landscape and Visual
Appellant MDDC Prospect of Resolution
1 The landscape effects to the immediate setting will be less than predicted by MDDC
The landscape effects in the immediate setting will be moderate adverse
N
2 The visual effects to visual receptors covered by the following viewpoints will be less than predicted by MDDC: • 10; • 11; • 12; and • 14.
The visual effects at Y15 for visual receptors will be as follows for the following viewpoints: 10 Moderate Adverse 11 Moderate Adverse 12 Major Adverse 14 Moderate Adverse
N
3 The Proposals do comply with Mid Devon Local Plan policies CORR2, COR18 and DM2a
The proposals do not comply with Mid Devon Local Plan policies COR2, COR18 and DM2a
N
In relation to items 1 and 2 above, the status of agreement and disagreement between the Council
and the Appellant on the extent of landscape and visual effects on individual receptors is set out in
table 3.
Element Assessment (CEC1 / DWP)
Agreed / Not Agreed.
Notes
Landscape Value
Site Overall medium Agreed See notes CEC1 p17
Immediate Surroundings
Overall medium to high Not agreed DWP1 p5
Element Assessment (CEC1 / DWP)
Agreed / Not Agreed.
Notes
Wider Study Area Overall medium Agreed See notes CEC1 p18
Landscape Effects
Site Construction Major Agreed See notes CEC1 p19 Site y1 Major Agreed See notes CEC1 p19
Site Y15 Moderate Agreed See notes CEC1 p19
Immediate Surroundings Y15
Moderate Not agreed DWP1 p4-6
Wider Study Area construction
minor Agreed See notes CEC1 p19
Wider Study Area Y1 Minor Agreed See notes CEC1 p20 Wider Study Area Y15 Negligible Agreed See notes CEC1 p20
Viewpoint overall effect
VP1 construction Minor Agreed See notes CEC1 p20
VP1 Y1 Minor Agreed See notes CEC1 p21
VP1 Y15 Minor Not Agreed See notes CEC1 p21 VP2 construction Major Agreed See notes CEC1 p21
VP2 Y1 Major Agreed See notes CEC1 p21
VP2 Y15 Moderate Agreed Subject to mitigation See notes CEC1 p21
VP3 construction Major Agreed See notes CEC1 p21
VP3 Y1 Major Agreed VP3 Y15 Major Agreed
VP4 construction Major Agreed
VP4 Y1 Major Agreed
VP4 Y15 Moderate Agreed VP5 construction Major Agreed
VP5 Y1 Major Agreed
VP5 Y15 Moderate Agreed Subject to mitigation CEC1 p22
VP6 Whitnage construction
minor Not Agreed
VP6 Whitnage Y1,Y15 minor Agreed See note CEC1 p23
VP10 construction Major Agreed
VP10 Y1 Major Not agreed See notes CEC1 p24
VP10 Y15 Moderate Not agreed See notes CEC1 p24 VP11 construction Major Agreed See notes CEC1 p24
VP11 Y1 Major Not agreed See notes CEC1 p24
VP11 Y15 Moderate Not agreed See notes CEC1 p25
VP12 construction Major Not agreed See notes CEC1 p25 VP12 Y1 Major Not agreed See notes CEC1 p25
VP12 Y15 Major Not agreed See notes CEC1 p25
VP13 construction Minor Agreed
VP13 Y1 Minor Agreed
VP13 Y15 Negligible Agreed
VP14 construction Major Agreed See notes CEC1 p26
VP14 Y1 Major Not agreed See notes CEC1 p26
Element Assessment (CEC1 / DWP)
Agreed / Not Agreed.
Notes
VP14 Y15 Moderate Not agreed See notes CEC1 p26
Table 3: Summary of landscape and visual effects and level of agreement. NB “Important” effects
(Moderate or Major) where there is not agreement are highlighted. Refs to CEC are CEC Review of
AECOM LVIA, 9th April 2018; Core Document 2.8 and refs to DWP are David Wilson Partnership (DWP)
Landscape Visual Statement, Core Document 5.4
Core Documents and Evidence Used to Support Agreement and Disagreement
Planning Application
6. Submitted LVIA (CD 1.3) and updated VVMs as Mr Hammond proof of evidence volume III
Processing of the Application
7. The following sets out the matters raised in the processing of the Planning Application LVIA’s during and after the Application:
• Cornwall Environmental Consultants (CEC) email to Mr. Rance, 29th March 2018, Core Document 2.8
• CEC Review of AECOM LVIA, 9th April 2018; Core Document 2.8;
• CEC letter to Mr Rance, 9th May 2018; Core Document 2.8;
• CEC letter to Mr Rance reviewing AECOM LVIA, 23rd May 2018; Core Document 2.8; and
• David Wilson Partnership (DWP) Landscape Visual Statement, Core Document 5.4;
Other Core Documents of relevance in relation to the processing of the Planning Application include:
• Pre-Application Response ref:17/00803/PREAPP, 27 July 2017 (CD11.1)
• Sustainability Appraisal Update, including consultant LUC recommendations January 2018 (CDX)Committee Report, July 2018 (CD4.1)
• Committee Report Minutes, July 2018 (CD4.3)
• Inspectors Letter following the Preliminary Hearings, 29th October 2018 (CD 6.19)
• Committee Report Implications, July 2019 CD4.4
Published Landscape Character Assessments and Related Studies
Natural England, National Character Area 148 (NCA 148): Devon Redlands (2013)1 (CD 7.6)
8. NCA 148 is an extensive area, extending between Exmoor and the coast, with the Site located in the northern part of NCA 148. Sampford Peverell is not mentioned in the study.
9. Relevant statements of environmental opportunity (SEO) are:
“Conserve and enhance the existing character, form and pattern of the area’s historic settlement, from single farmsteads to larger villages.” (SEO 4, page 4)
1 Natural England, National Character Area 148: Devon Redlands, http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6150022?category=587130
10. Stated relevant key characteristics of NCA 148 are:
• “Hilly landscape of villages, hamlets, farmsteads, hedge banks and winding sunken lanes…; and
• …Fields tend to be small and irregular with dense hedgerows on top of earthbanks in the transitional areas, while there is a larger, more open field pattern elsewhere.” (page 6)
11. In respect of ‘settlement and development’, the study notes:
“There is also evidence of scattered development in the open countryside and around smaller settlements…” (page 30)
12. Relevant landscape opportunities are:
“Create new landscapes around the fringes of new developments…making the most of existing landscape features and supporting the diverse landscape character and biodiversity.” (page 39)
Devon Landscape Character Assessment (DLCA) (2017)2 (CD 7.7)
13. The study area is covered by the following Devon Landscape Character Areas (DCA).
Culm Valley Lowlands
14. The Site and the “Immediate Area” is covered by DCA Culm Valley Lowlands, which extends from the east of Tiverton to the Culm Valley, to the east of the M5.
Mid Devon Landscape Character Assessment (2011)3 (CD 7.8 pp61-64 and 79-94)
15. The study area is covered by the following LCT.
LCT 3E Lowland Plains
16. The Site and the “immediate area” are covered by LCT 3E: Lowland Plains
Mid Devon Town and Village Character Assessment (2012)4 (CD 7.9 pp29, 37-41, 135-146)
17. The site and “immediate area” is covered by Settlement Character Area (SCA) 1:Upper Exe
Historic Landscape Characterisation5 (
18. The Site is classified as ‘Historic Landscape Character Post medieval’, which is described as:
“This area was probably first enclosed with hedge-banks during the later middle ages. The curving form of the hedge-banks suggests that earlier it may have been farmed as open strip-fields.”
2 Devon County Council, Devon Landscape Character Assessment, on-line, https://www.devon.gov.uk/planning/planning-policies/landscape/devon-character-areas/mid-devon-area/culm-valley-lowlands 3 Mid Devon District Council, Mid Devon Landscape Character Assessmenthttps://www.middevon.gov.uk/residents/planning-policy/adopted-local-plan-evidence/landscape-character-assessment/ 4 Mid Devon Town and Village Character Assessment, 2012, https://www.middevon.gov.uk/residents/planning-policy/local-plan-review-evidence-base/ 5 http://map.devon.gov.uk/dccviewer/?bm=OSGreyscale&layers=Historic%20Environment;14&activeTab=Historic Environment&extent=210063;25600;338387;151675
Sampford Peverell Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (adopted 2008)6 (CD7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
19. The north-east part of the Site is adjacent to part of the SP CA boundary. The SP CA appraisal and management plan figures illustrate:
• Historic development within Sampford Peverell has occurred adjacent to the road networks, with the field pattern across the Site characterised by rectangular plots between Turnpike road and Higher Town road;
• The Site is neither adjacent to any ‘visually important spaces’, nor ‘visually important areas of trees’; and
• The Site is not within any of the ‘important views’ into or out of the CA.
Grand Western Canal Visitor Guide7 (CD 7.10)
20. The guide notes that the canal meanders through both countryside and villages and that the canal’s many of its ‘original features and buildings still survive’.
21. Sampford Peverell is mentioned for its play park (c.600m to the east of the Site) and Sampford Peverell bridge.
22. The stated ‘one of the best and most popular walks’ is the Swans Nest Circular Walk, to the west of Halberton and is described as a ‘scenic route’.
Grand Western Canal Management Plan April 2020 (CD7.14)
23. This is a draft Plan which is not in the public domain at the time of preparing for the Inquiry, however MDDC have made it available to the Appellant and Third Parties and will be referring to it in their evidence. The Plan may be in the public domain at the time of the Inquiry.
24. The Management Plan aims to be consistent with the policies adopted in the Mid Devon Local Plan that seek to conserve and enhance the character and appearance of this designated heritage asset, including its setting.
25. In addition to guiding the management of the Country Park itself, the Plan also seeks to influence the wider setting of the Canal, recognising its importance in the landscape, its function as a linear corridor connecting other sites and features of conservation significance and the inextricable links between it and land-use in its catchment.
26. The stated aims of the country park include “To protect, enhance and promote enjoyment and understanding of the special biodiversity, landscape and heritage value of the Country Park.”
6 Sampford Peverell Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, 2008, https://www.middevon.gov.uk/residents/planning/conservation/conservation-areas/conservation-area-appraisals/sampford-peverell-conservation-area-appraisal-and-management-plan/ 7 Grand Western Canal Visitor Guide, on-line, https://devoncc.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicDocs/Environment/Canal/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FPublicDocs%2FEnvironment%2FCanal%2FGWC%20Visitor%20Guide%202018%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2FPublicDocs%2FEnvironment%2FCanal&p=true&originalPath=aHR0cHM6Ly9kZXZvbmNjLnNoYXJlcG9pbnQuY29tLzpiOi9zL1B1YmxpY0RvY3MvRW52aXJvbm1lbnQvRVI3SUNXSk1WWmhEclZtTlpkZVlLMUlCWWxodE4xWGZMOHZ4alpHTUM2aW5fZz9ydGltZT1BV21GY3hxNTEwZw, accessed February 2020
27. Section 4.6 refers to the published landscape character assessments and the Country Park’s own visual amenity and its impact on the wider landscape is influenced by several components, including:
• Historic canal structures (such as bridges, embankments and limekilns);
• Country Park infrastructure (such as the towpath, signage, car parks, moorings, benches, gates and fences);
• Naturally vegetated soft earth banks (only wharves and bridges have hard edges and the only section that is piled is a short section of plastic piling at Lowdwells);
• Trees and hedgerows;
• The canal and its banks (in particular, the amount of open water and the quantity and type of vegetation both in the water and on the banks);
• Adjacent land use (agricultural, residential and commercial land use, and adjacent infrastructure such as roads, power lines and modern bridges).
28. The relevant ‘Local Landscape Zone’ is set out in paragraph 4.7.5 ‘Greeenway Bridge to Sampford Peverell Bridge’, stating:
“After passing through a short, wooded cutting between Greenway Bridge and Swing Bridge, the canal crosses the highest embankment along its length, where views of the Blackdown Hills are afforded. A major breach of this embankment took place in 2012, but following extensive repairs there is now virtually no evidence of the huge scar on the landscape which was created. The Canal continues to pass through mixed farmland with outstanding views to the east until it reaches the village of Sampford Peverell.”
29. “The canal passes through the centre of Sampford Peverell. The western end of the village is characterised by attractive older buildings and St John the Baptist church, whereas the canal at the eastern end is bounded by more modern council housing on the offside. As in Tiverton, adjacent residents can rent DCC-owned offside land to use as part of their garden. The offside land contains a large number of trees, which help to screen some of the more modern housing.”
30. Section 19.1.2 sets out the main methods for conserving the landscape of and around the Canal which include:
• Screening of residential and industrial developments by planting / thickening hedges and planting trees;
• Opposing inappropriate developments which would impact on the Canal corridor either through consultation responses from appropriate DCC officers and/or through the Canal Joint Advisory Committee; and
• Maintenance of good relationships wherever possible with adjacent land owners and residents to build influence and deter / respond effectively to visually intrusive activities or developments within the Canal corridor.
31. Landscape threats include:
“Existing and potential future development within the setting of the Canal could harm its attractive rural setting, sense of tranquillity, and quality of long views; and
Detrimental impact of artificial lighting from adjacent development on rural tranquillity and nature conservation.”
32. Page 112 states:
“Landscape: The park offers an opportunity for people to experience and explore the natural environment and presents excellent views of, and access to, the wider countryside. Much of the recreational activity is based upon the attractiveness of the landscape.”
33. Section 24.2.2 states in relation to challenges that:
“Development: The Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension and other proposed housing developments close to the Canal which may take place are likely to significantly increase pressure on the Country Park and could also have a detrimental effect of the Canal’s setting. Careful consideration needs to be given to how the potential benefits of these schemes can be harnessed and how the negative aspects can be minimised.”
34. Landscape aims are stated on page 116 as:
• “Retain and restore hedgerows and standard trees;
• Keep listed-structures clear of scrubby vegetation (e.g. Ivy and Buddleia); and
• Preserve / open up views along the canal (especially towards bridges) and viewpoints from the canal (especially towards attractive landscape features such as hills, church spires etc) Seek to minimise visual intrusions.”
Appendix 1
Agreed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology
Methodology Overview
35. A landscape and visual impact assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the following guidelines:
• Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, 2013 (GLVIA 3); and
• Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 06/19.
36. The study area will be a 3km radius from the application site, reflecting that within LVIA rev.04 This will cover landscape receptors and the visual receptors (VR) identified on LVIA rev.04 Figure 1:
• VR1, VR2, VR3, VR4, VR5, VR6, VR10, VR11, VR12, VR13 and VR14.
37. VR 7, VR8 and VR9 will not be included as they are beyond the 3km study area.
38. A construction assessment is not undertaken as this is considered peripheral to the main issues for consideration at this appeal.
The landscape and visual assessment are undertaken at:
• Year 1 (winter), assuming the Proposed Development is fully built out and occupied; and
• Year 15 (summer), reflecting the year 1 assessment, except that the existing vegetation is in leaf and the proposed planting, as per the Illustrative Site Layout (CD 1.2) has established successfully.
Assumptions
39. The proposed dwellings are two storeys in height, equating to 9 meters in height, from ground level to the roof ridge line.
40. The heights of new planting are:
• Year 1 – new trees would be between 0.5m and 3.5m in height, with new hedgerows between 0.45m and 1m in height; and
• Year 15 – new trees would have grown by 1m every 3 years, such that they would be 5m taller at
year 15, between 5.5m and 8.5m in height. New hedgerows would be 2m in height.
Methodology for Sensitivity, Impacts and Effects
41. In line with GLVIA 3, the sensitivity of landscape and visual receptors is determined by an assessment of their value and susceptibility.
Landscape
Landscape Value
42. The value of a landscape receptor is based upon the consideration of any landscape designations and the following criteria outlined in GLVIA 3 Box 5.1:
• Quality (condition);
• Scenic quality;
• Rarity;
• Representativeness;
• Conservation Interests;
• Recreation value;
• Perceptual aspects; and
• Associations.
43. From the consideration of these factors, an assessment of the landscape value is based upon the criteria outlined in Table 12-1.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Landscape Value Criteria
Landscape Value Criteria
High The receptor is likely to be highly valued for one or more of its attributes and may be protected by a statutory landscape designation. The landscape receptor may contain elements/features that could be described as unique; or are nationally scarce; or mature vegetation with provenance such as ancient woodland.
Medium Receptors that have a positive landscape character but include some areas of alteration/degradation/or erosion of features; and/or perceptual/aesthetic aspects. The receptor may have some features/elements that are locally commonplace.
Low The receptor is likely to be undesignated and / or with little recognised value. Areas which are relatively common place in character with few/no notable features and/or landscape elements/features that make a contribution to local distinctiveness.
Very Low Landscapes which are detracting damaged or eroded or are considered not to contribute positively to the landscape.
Landscape Susceptibility
44. GLVIA 3 defines landscape susceptibility as:
“the ability of the landscape receptor…to accommodate the proposed development without undue consequences for the maintenance of the baseline situation and/or the achievement of landscape planning policies and strategies.” (para 5.40)
45. The landscape susceptibility criteria for this assessment are set out in Table 12-2.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-2: Landscape Susceptibility Criteria
Landscape Susceptibility
Criteria
High The landscape is likely to have a strong pattern/ texture and forms a very distinctive landscape that cannot readily accommodate change.
Medium The landscape is likely to have an intact pattern/texture and may be able to accommodate some change.
Low The landscape is likely to have a modified pattern/texture which enables the ability to accommodate change.
Very Low The landscape may be a damaged or a substantially modified pattern/texture with a very high ability to accommodate change.
Landscape Sensitivity
46. From the consideration of the above landscape value and landscape susceptibility criteria, the sensitivity of a landscape receptor is assessed, as set out in Table 12-3.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-3: Landscape Sensitivity
Landscape Sensitivity
Criteria
High Landscape with important or valued features, whether through landscape designations or distinctive components and characteristics, susceptible to small changes.
Medium Landscape with some value, of relatively common components and characteristics, reasonably tolerant of changes.
Low Landscape of relatively inconsequential components and characteristics, which is tolerant of substantial change.
Very Low Degraded landscape or landscape with very few or no natural or original features remaining, such that it is tolerant of change.
Visual Assessment
47. Like the landscape assessment and in accordance with GLVIA 3, the sensitivity of visual receptors is assessed in relation to their value and susceptibility.
Visual Value
48. The visual value of a receptor is set out in Table 12-4.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-4: Visual Value
Visual Value Criteria
High A recognised high quality view, likely to be well frequented and/or promoted as a beauty
spot/visitor destination, or;
A view with strong cultural associations (recognised in art, literature or other media) or;
A view which relates to the experience of other features, for example heritage assets in which landscape or visual factors are a consideration or;
A view which is likely to be an important part of or primary reason for the receptor being present at the location.
Medium A view, whilst it may be valued locally, is not widely recognised for its quality or has low visitor numbers. The view has may have cultural associations, or;
An attractive view which is however unlikely to be the receptor’s primary reason for being there.
Low An ordinary, but not necessarily unattractive view, with no recognised quality which is unlikely to be visited specifically to experience the views available. Although the view may be appreciated by receptors, it is typically incidental to the receptor’s reason for being there.
Very Low A poor quality or degraded view which is unvalued or discordant and is unlikely to be the receptor’s reason for being there, or;
A view which detracts from the receptors experience of being there.
49. The visual susceptibility of a receptor is set out in Table 12-5.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-5: Visual Susceptibility
Visual Susceptibility Criteria
High Residents at home;
People engaged in outdoor recreation, whose attention/interest is likely to be focused on the landscape or particular views, including strategic/ popular public rights of way;
Visitors to heritage assets or other attractions, where views of the surroundings are a substantial contributor to the experience;
Communities where views contribute to the landscape setting enjoyed by residents; and
Visual Susceptibility Criteria
Travellers on identified scenic routes which people take to experience or enjoy the view.
Medium Residents at home;
Travellers on road, rail, or other transport routes who anticipate some enjoyment of landscape as part of the journey but where the attention is not primarily focused on the landscape;
Users of Public Rights of Way or where the attention is not focused on the landscape; and
Schools and other institutional buildings and their outdoor areas, play areas.
Low Travellers on road, rail or other transport routes not focused on the landscape/particular views e.g. on motorways and “A” road or commuter routes; and
People engaged in outdoor sport/recreation which does not involve/depend upon appreciation of views of the landscape.
Very Low People at their place of work whose attention may be focused on their work/activity and not their surroundings.
50. From the above consideration of visual value and visual susceptibility, the sensitivity of a visual receptor is defined as set out in Table 12-6.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-6: Visual Sensitivity
Visual Sensitivity
Criteria
High Activity resulting in a particular interest or appreciation of the view (e.g. residents or people engaged in outdoor recreation whose attention is focused on the landscape) and/or a high value of existing view (e.g. a designated landscape, unspoilt countryside or conservation area designation).
Medium Activity resulting in a general interest or appreciation of the view (e.g. people engaged in outdoor recreation that does not focus on an appreciation of the landscape, residents) and/or a medium value of existing view (e.g. suburban residential areas or intensively farmed countryside).
Low Activity where interest or appreciation of the view is secondary to the activity (e.g. people at work or motorists travelling through the area) and/or low value of existing views (e.g. featureless agricultural landscape, poor quality urban fringe).
Very Low Activity where interest or appreciation of the view is inconsequential (e.g. people at work with limited views out, or drivers of vehicles in cutting) and/or very low value of existing view (e.g. industrial areas or derelict land).
Landscape and Visual Magnitude of Impacts (‘impact’)
51. The potential landscape and visual impacts of the Proposed Development are considered in relation to the following tables relating to:
• Scale;
• Extent; and
• Duration.
52. Table 12-7 sets out typical criteria for scale of impacts.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-7: Scale of Impacts
Impact Landscape Visual
High The total or major loss of key characteristics or the addition of new features or components that would substantially alter the character or setting of the area.
Extensive change to the composition of the existing view (e.g. widespread loss of characteristic features or the addition of new features within the view) and/or high degree of exposure to view (e.g. close, direct or open views).
Medium The partial loss or alteration to key characteristics or the addition of new features or components that are prominent but largely in keeping with the existing character or setting of the area.
Partial change to the composition of the existing view (e.g. noticeable loss of some characteristic features or the addition of new features within the view) and/or medium degree of exposure to view (e.g. middle-distance or partially screened views).
Low The limited loss or alteration of common components or characteristics or the addition of new features or components that largely reflect the existing character or setting of the area.
Subtle change to existing view (e.g. limited loss of characteristic features or the addition of new features within the view) and/or low degree of exposure to view (e.g. long-distance, substantially screened or glimpsed views).
Negligible Virtually imperceptible loss or alteration in any component or to the setting of the character area.
Barely perceptible change to the existing view and/or very brief exposure to view.
None No change to the character of setting of the area.
No change to the view.
53. Table 8 sets out typical criteria for the extent of impacts.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-8: Extent of Impacts
Impact Level Typical Criteria
Wide Beyond 4km, or more than half of the receptor
Intermediate Up to approximately 2-4km, or around half of the receptor area
Localised Site and surroundings up to 2km, or part of receptor area (up to approx. 25%)
Limited Site, or part of Site, or small part of a receptor area (< approx. 10%)
54. Table 12-9 sets out typical criteria for duration.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-9: Duration of Impacts
Impact Level Typical Criteria
Permanent The change is expected to be permanent and there is no intention for it to be reversed.
Long term The change is expected to be in place for 10-25 years and will be reversed, fully mitigated or no longer occurring beyond that timeframe
Medium term The change is expected to be in place for 2-10 years and will be reversed, fully mitigated or no longer occurring beyond that timeframe
Short term The change is expected to be in place for 0-2 years and will be reversed, fully mitigated or no longer occurring beyond that timeframe.
55. From the above tables, a conclusion of the landscape and visual impact is determined based on a criteria of high, medium, low, negligible or none.
Effects Criteria
56. The landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Development are established through the combination of the sensitivity of the receptor and the impact.
57. A guide to this combination is set out in Table 12-10. Where professional opinion considers that the effect is different to this guide, then a reasoned explanation is provided for in the assessment description.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-10: Classification of Landscape and Visual Effects
Sensitivity Magnitude
High
Medium
Low
Negligible
None
High Major Major or Moderate Moderate or Minor Minor or Negligible
Neutral
Medium Major or Moderate
Moderate or Minor Minor or Negligible Negligible Neutral
Low Moderate Minor Minor or Negligible Negligible or Neutral
Neutral
Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible or Neutral
Neutral Neutral
58. The description of the landscape and visual effects is set out in Table 12-11.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-11: Landscape and Visual Effects Descriptions
Effect Landscape Visual
Major Beneficial
Where the Proposed Development substantially improves the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape and/or enriches quality or characteristic features
Where the Proposed Development results in a pronounced improvement to the aesthetic quality or composition of the existing view
Moderate Beneficial
Where the Proposed Development largely improves the characteristic of the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape, and/or quality or characteristic features
Where the Proposed Development results in a notable improvement to the existing view
Minor Beneficial
Where the Proposed Development partially improves the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape, and/or quality or characteristic features
Where the Proposed Development causes a partial improvement to the existing view
Negligible Beneficial
Where the Proposed Development causes a very slight improvement to the existing landscape.
Where the Proposed Development causes a barely perceptible improvement to the existing view
Neutral No change to the landscape character or landscape features
No change to the composition of the view
Negligible Adverse
Where the Proposed Development barely deteriorates the existing landscape
Where the Proposed Development causes a barely perceptible deterioration to the existing view
Minor Adverse Where the Proposed Development partially deteriorates the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape, and/or quality or characteristic features
Where the Proposed Development causes a partial deterioration to the existing view.
Moderate Adverse
Where the Proposed Development largely deteriorates the characteristic of the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape, and/or quality or characteristic features.
Where the Proposed Development results in a notable deterioration to the existing view.
Effect Landscape Visual
Major Adverse Where the Proposed Development substantially deteriorates the scale, landform and pattern of the landscape and/or quality or characteristic features.
Where the Proposed Development results in a pronounced deterioration to the aesthetic quality or composition of the existing view.
59. All effects should be considered, with effects of major or moderate considered to be ‘important’ effects, to be given due regard in determining the appeal against planning policy (ref GLVIA3 para3.35). Effects of minor, negligible or neutral are of lesser concern but should not be disregarded (GLVIA3.para 3.34).
