Landscape Sensitivity Assessment – Guidance for Scotland

Consultation draft

July 2020

2

Contents page Introduction, definitions, relationship with LVIA 3 Main principles 7 Undertaking a landscape sensitivity assessment Stage 1 – define purpose and scope 9 Stage 2 – establish assessment parameters 11 Stage 3 – sensitivity assessment 15 Stage 4 – reporting 17 Stage 5 – monitoring / updating 18 Appendices 19 Appendix 1 – glossary (to be added; draft list of contents) 19 Appendix 2 – examples of field sheets (to be added) Appendix 3 – additional guidance on project set-up (in draft) 20 Appendix 4 – checklist for reviewing landscape sensitivity studies to be added Appendix 5 – references (initial list) 19 Appendix 6 – links to guidance elsewhere in UK (to be added) Acknowledgements (to be added)

3

1 INTRODUCTION 1 Landscape Sensitivity Assessments are strategic appraisals of the resilience of

landscapes to development or land use changes. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has produced this technical guide on how to undertake a landscape sensitivity assessment. It supersedes earlier guidance1 in Scotland and sits alongside SNH’s existing guidance on commissioning these assessments. The guidance corresponds to Natural England’s Approach to Landscape Sensitivity Assessment and emerging guidelines from Natural Resources Wales.

Background 2 Scotland’s landscapes are important – they play a vital role in our health, economy and

international reputation.2 They underpin our sense of place and wellbeing and are valued by communities and society. The natural and socio-cultural factors that shape our landscapes provide essential ecosystem services.

3 Our landscapes continue to change in response to natural processes and human

interventions. Decisions made about introducing built development and land management play a big part in what this change looks like. The scope for landscapes to accommodate new land uses and development without losing their character and qualities varies from place to place.

4 Landscape sensitivity may be regarded as a measure of the resilience, or robustness, of

a landscape to accommodate change arising from specified development or land management scenarios. Sensitivity studies provide an indication of this resilience in a manner which is robust, repeatable and capable of standing up to scrutiny. They are strategic and indicative and are not a substitute for a site- and proposal-specific landscape and visual impact assessment.

Development of the methodology 5 Current assessment techniques were broadly based on the Landscape Character

Assessment (LCA) Guidance Topic Paper 63 of 2002 and SNH research on good practice in 2010. This led to a web-based toolkit on how to commission an appraisal, often called landscape “capacity” studies. Although the 2010 research noted that this was usually seen as an inaccurate term, because they generally identified sensitivity rather than capacity, its use has continued because many aspects of the toolkit remain valid.

6 The 2013 publication “Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Assessment” 3rd edition

(GLVIA3) introduced a new definition of sensitivity:

Sensitivity = susceptibility (to change) + value (of landscape / visual resource)

SNH noted on its website that referring to “landscape capacity studies” did not fit with this definition but the term could continue to be used for consistency with previous work. Many “capacity” studies often dealt with sensitivity (or susceptibility) rather than capacity, and we recommended that newer studies should explain their approach particularly relating to the inclusion of “value”. While this document uses GLVIA3 terminology, it

1 Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for

England and Scotland Topic Paper 6; “Techniques and Criteria for judging Capacity and Sensitivity. 2 Programme for Government (2019) page 58, National Planning Framework 3 para 4.4 3 Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland Topic Paper 6; “Techniques and Criteria for judging Capacity and Sensitivity.

4

should be emphasised that sensitivity studies are a strategic tool and they are not the same as undertaking Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) of a particular proposal.

7 Preparation of Natural England’s “An Approach to Landscape Sensitivity Assessment”

included discussions with Natural Resources Wales and SNH and we have followed the same method stages in this guidance, with the exception of adding a fifth step on monitoring and review. Some naming is different, reflecting usage in Scotland: the Stage 2 title (establish assessment parameters) and ‘levels of sensitivity’ instead of ‘indicators of susceptibility’ in Stage 3. Definitions are based on the Natural England Approach and have been developed in correspondence with Natural Resources Wales which is also due to produce guidance. We hope greater consistency in the approach taken will be helpful.

8 Publication of this guidance does not mean that existing assessments are invalid.

Many of these provide useful evidence and understanding to inform spatial planning, though some updating may be required as development patterns and technology change. The assessment criteria are likely to remain relevant.

Audience 9 This technical guidance is primarily aimed at landscape architects who will be

undertaking a sensitivity study. It may also be of interest to those commissioning a sensitivity study, such as planning authorities. It may also be useful for those who will be using or consulting a sensitivity study, and/or using it to inform decisions.

Definitions 10 Scotland uses the widely-adopted European Landscape Convention (ELC) definition of

landscape as “An area, as perceived by people, the character of which is the result of the action and interaction of natural and human factors” (ref).

The ELC also sets out an approach to landscape that SNH presents in the following five principles4 repeated here as they are relevant to the aims of this guidance:

a. All landscapes – Every landscape is important because everyone has a right to live in and enjoy the benefits of vibrant surroundings. b. Shared landscapes – Scotland’s landscapes are a common asset and everyone has rights and responsibilities for looking after them. c. Your landscapes – People and communities should always be involved in decisions that shape their landscapes. d. Understanding landscapes – Decisions need to be based on understanding and awareness of both the cultural and natural dimensions of our landscapes. e. Dynamic landscapes – Landscapes will continue to change, but change needs to be informed and managed to ensure they remain resilient.

11 Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) is the starting point for landscape sensitivity

work. LCA identifies and explains the combination of elements and features that make landscapes distinct from one another by mapping and describing Landscape Character Types (generic) and Areas (place specific). The description of their distinctive characteristics shows how the landscape is perceived and experienced by people. LCA analyses in detail the three main physical landscape components of landform, land cover; settlement, and how all these combine to form the landscapes we see and

4 Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Environment Scotland (2019) People, Place and Landscape. A position statement from Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Environment Scotland

5

experience. Areas with similar patterns of components are classified a Landscape Character Type. LCA provides baseline information – including a shared written understanding of the key characteristics of a landscape. Scotland has national coverage of LCA, as landscape character types, at 1:50,000 scale, available from SNH’s website.

12 Landscape sensitivity, in the context of spatial planning for built development and land

management, can be defined as a measure of the resilience, or robustness, of a landscape to accommodate change arising from specified development types or land management practices. Landscape sensitivity assessment provides an indication of this resilience in a manner which is robust, repeatable and capable of standing up to scrutiny. The findings are strategic and indicative in contrast to site- and project-specific assessment (LVIA). The process assesses the resilience of landscape character, and what we value about that landscape, to a specified potential change. It also helps us understand the nature of change should a particular scenario be implemented.

13 Landscape susceptibility, within the context of spatial planning and land management,

can be defined as “the ability of the defined landscape or visual receptor to accommodate the specific proposed change without undue negative consequences”5 and landscape value is the relative value attached to different landscapes by society. They may be valued by a variety of stakeholders for a variety of reasons such as for recreation or historic interest, for example.

Figure 1 Flowchart - Broad Process of Landscape Sensitivity Assessment

14 The principles of landscape sensitivity assessment can be applied to coastal

landscapes, for example for strategic aquaculture studies. For these purposes, Coastal Character Assessment would be used as an additional information source to terrestrial Landscape Character Assessment.

5 (GLVIA3 – full ref to be added - glossary p 158)

6

How are landscape sensitivity assessment studies used?

15 Landscape sensitivity assessments are primarily used as a strategic evidence base for

developing planning and land management policy. They can inform plans, planning

policies, supplementary guidance and strategies at a range of scales, from national to

local, providing a strategic assessment of landscape sensitivity. The sensitivity study

also offers an early steer to applicants that a location might be more (or less) sensitive

than others in the area, and provides an indication of the level of assessment that may

be required to support an application. Landscape sensitivity studies are an early

indication of relative sensitivity and should inform the site selection process. They are

an additional piece of information for some development sectors or types: for example,

for wind farms alongside SNH guidance on Spatial Planning for Onshore wind farms.

16 Where they exist, landscape sensitivity studies form a starting point for the Landscape

and Visual Assessment of individual development proposals. Assessments can be

developed further to provide recommendations about development location and siting

and design. The general methodology can be adapted, generally at a more detailed

scale, to inform developers or local authorities with site selection.

Relationship with LVIA

17 Landscape Sensitivity Assessment is not used to assess the likely landscape and visual effects of individual development proposals. LVIA must be used for this. Figure 2 below provides clarification.

Figure 2 Relationship of sensitivity studies and LVIA. From NRW draft guidance, in preparation

7

MAIN PRINCIPLES OF LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

As straightforward and clear as possible 18 It is difficult to overstate the importance of clear explanations of how the judgements

were made in a sensitivity study. Assessments need to be clear, concise, proportionate and transparent using appropriate terminology. Conclusions should be easily understood by anyone. Overly complex and GIS based methodologies are less likely to be clearly understood by everyone.

Focussed on specific type(s) of landscape change

19 A sensitivity study has to consider the likely effects of a specified type of development or land use. The most common subjects for sensitivity studies in Scotland have been aquaculture, housing, woodland creation and renewable energy (principally wind farms / turbines). In Wales, studies have also been undertaken for camping and caravan sites and for telecommunications masts.

20 Identifying the relevant development scenarios, and expressing them clearly, is

important. They form the description of the type of development which is the focus for the assessment. Those descriptions need to be up to date, reflecting current technology or policy.

8

UNDERTAKING A LANDSCAPE SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

Figure 3 stages of landscape sensitivity assessment

Landscape sensitivity assessment – overview of process Stage 1 – define purpose and scope

Co

ns

ult w

ith s

tee

ring

gro

up

an

d s

take

ho

lders

Agree purpose, requirements, outputs

Identify development or land use scenarios Define study area Agree budget and timescale Identify resources available (staff, information etc.) Decide on stakeholder engagement Convene a Steering Group Appoint suitable consultant with relevant expertise.

Write project brief

Stage 2 – establish assessment parameters

Describe development or land use change scenarios

Confirm the intended scenarios. A critical review of other relevant studies may be useful.

Identify key attributes likely to affect sensitivity e.g. height, massing, movement, scale, lighting, land cover etc.

Identify and describe assessment units

Based on Landscape Character Assessment Subdivide or combine LCTs and provide more detail if required Identify key landscape and visual characteristics of potential sensitivity to the

scenarios. Identify known values for landscape and visual resource for each assessment

unit Use an understanding of the scenarios to focus on appropriate scale and level

of detail Write brief description of each assessment unit

Identify Assessment Criteria

Draft assessment criteria - likely to be for landscape & visual susceptibility and value

Test sample criteria Agree final criteria list with whole team including Steering Group

Identify Levels of sensitivity

For each criterion, set out a range of effects of higher or lower sensitivity to change to the scenario(s)

For each level of sensitivity, write a brief description of the effects of the scenario on the criterion. This basis for the fieldwork judgements.

Stage 3 – Sensitivity assessment

Assess sensitivity Carry out field work at an appropriate scale, assessing scenario against each criterion in each assessment unit.

Overall sensitivity assessment/ Collate findings

Collate assessment findings in a judgement of overall sensitivity for each assessment unit for each scenario

Include a short, well-reasoned narrative to explain and support each sensitivity judgement. Where relevant, note beneficial effects too. This section should be all that most readers require to understand if, how and why the unit is sensitive.

siting and design guidance (optional)

Identify siting and design guidelines for each unit or part of unit if required by the brief and feasible (depending on available information and policy).

Stage 4 – reporting

A detailed record with an easy-read summary

Using descriptive text, maps, photos etc., outline what the findings mean for the study area.

Information guidance provided if required Include the scope, method, findings, maps, photos, source references and

links. Highlight key messages for a wider audience. Provide, in full report or annex / supplementary report for the main client,

completed field sheets and all photos.

Stage 5 – monitoring / updating Monitoring/updating Review at suitable intervals – can coincide with development plan cycle.

9

Stage 1 Define purpose and scope 1.1 Before commissioning a sensitivity study it is essential to define the main purpose and

scope of the project. Initial ideas will normally be set down in outline by the client project manager or a small group of main stakeholders, and then honed by a wider Steering Group, once this has been set up.

1.2 The purpose or use of the landscape sensitivity study can vary. It can be required in

response to development pressures (which can themselves be driven by policy or other considerations such as the climate emergency) or be more proactive in guiding development in the future, including the following:

informing development plans,

informing responses to individual or multiple planning applications,

informing cumulative effects of development. National Policy should also be reviewed and considered.

1.3 When scoping the project the extent of the study area is an essential early consideration, as it affects not only the geographical spread of the assessment, but also the potential number of stakeholders who should be represented on the Steering Group (see section 1.13(i)). The study area may be close to or cross over important boundaries, such as local authority areas, which would require cross-boundary working. It is important that cross boundary effects are considered carefully, and that neighbouring studies are considered as part of the assessment. Engagement with neighbouring authorities will be essential to ensure that broader, regional landscape considerations are addressed by the study.

1.4 During scoping it is important to consider the budget available for the assessment. The

study may extend over one or more financial years, so it is important to secure appropriate budgets for the correct financial periods. It is good to be as specific as possible at the initial stages of the assessment. This makes it easier for tenderers to price.

1.5 Scoping of a landscape sensitivity assessment needs to broadly define what types of

development, and what development scenarios are likely to be used in the study, paying particular attention to what is being supported under current policy initiatives. It should also take account of prevailing development patterns and pressures. To ensure longevity of the assessment, anticipating future development scenarios should also be explored: this is particularly pertinent for wind turbines where turbine heights have been increasing rapidly over recent years. Once the landscape consultant and Steering Group are in place it may be useful to refine these to reflect the experience of a wider group of experts.

1.6 The timescale for the assessment should be considered from the outset. It is usually

necessary to fix a ‘snapshot in time’, so that the project includes all of the development type which has been consented and/or constructed by a certain date. The timing of the actual study contract is also an important consideration – it is vital to be realistic about how long the overall project will take. This will be influenced by such aspects as:

the time it takes to gain approval for the project budget and staff time,

the time it takes to prepare and set up the project,

the time required for the procurement process which can take up to 3 months,

the size of the study area,

the time of year – fieldwork, which is an essential constituent of landscape sensitivity assessment, can be difficult in winter months,

the need for stakeholder engagement including public consultation,

10

the opportunity to align the timescale with the Local Development Plan process,

opportunities to test, reflect on and refine the methodology,

the availability of the Steering Group to comment on drafts,

the editing process,

quality assurance at the end of the process – if this is required it should be carried out by an independent assessor, ensuring that the project outputs are clearly presented in the agreed format and are easily understood, and

availability and existing commitments of potential consultants. 1.7 Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) will form the basis of the discrete “units” of

landscape used for the sensitivity assessment. If the existing LCA is not at the desired level of scale and detail, it may be necessary to include production of new or updated LCA in the main sensitivity assessment contract, or for time to be allowed before the sensitivity assessment starts to produce this. For coastal areas a similar approach may be required for Coastal Character Assessment. Unlike on land, there is not complete coverage of coastal characterisation for Scotland. More information, and guidance on undertaking Coastal Character Assessment, is available from SNH’s website.

1.8 Before commissioning a Landscape Sensitivity Study other available information or

data which is readily available that could affect the scope of the assessment should be identified. This could include previous studies or digital mapping layers of designations, land use, ecosystem services, natural capital, historic aspects, etc. Information on development and land use patterns and pressures will also be relevant.

1.9 How the study will be used, and by whom, will determine the format of the final

assessment outputs. Consideration of these factors at the outset can help save time and effort further into the assessment. This can affect project timescales if digital applications need to be developed for online presentation, or if design and printing are required. It is likely that the primary function of the report will be to inform strategic planning by contributing to the identification of opportunities and constraints, or other considerations, which then go on to inform policy objectives and guidance. It may also contribute to landscape management objectives. It will be a reference document for use by a limited technical audience, primarily of planners and landscape architects. However, local authorities may wish to publish the findings for wider use, for example by decision-makers or developed to inform Supplementary Guidance. It is often helpful to provide a summary of the full findings and a glossary is usually required to explain technical terms regardless of audience.

1.10 The outputs may, in some cases and for some forms of development, inform further

study. Sensitivity studies can also inform, at a more detailed scale, design and development briefs.

1.11 Finally, it is a good idea to identify the critical stages at which client approval or Steering

Group involvement will be necessary, either to allow the assessment to progress smoothly, or to release funding for payment of the consultant carrying out the study. This can affect timings and budget.

1.12 Once the scope and purpose of the landscape sensitivity assessment have been initially

established there are important governance, administrative and procurement aspects which may also need to be addressed. These include establishing a project steering group, preparing a project brief, and appointing a suitable consultant. See Appendix 3 and the SNH Toolkit for more information on these aspects.

11

Stage 2 Establish assessment parameters 2.1 Description of Development Scenarios 2.1.1 Clarity on the types of development or land use to be considered by the study is important,

as this determines what will be assessed. An appropriate level of detail is required for the assessors during fieldwork. The assumptions to be made about the quality of development need stated. Usually, it’s assumed that good practice will be followed, for example:

siting, design and materials (for housing, built development);

location, species and fencing (for woodland creation);

materials, colours and cage siting and layout (for aquaculture); and

turbine layout and colour (for wind farms). 2.1.2 The scenarios should be simply stated, based on a few key attributes that define the

development or land use. An appropriate level of detail is required for the assessors to envisage the development or land use change during fieldwork. These may include:

For housing – number of storeys, indicative density per hectare, extent to which best practice is assumed (e.g. on colours, materials and structure planting;

For woodland creation – predominant species and relative scale (small, medium, large defined by general bands of hectares);

For fin-fish farms - cage diameter, numbers, layouts, feed-barge design, colours

For shell fish farms – format (trestles, buoy lines), colour, size, orientation

For wind farms – height of turbine (often the crucial defining factor), design of turbine, indicative size of wind farm (likely to be a range), any visible aviation lighting.

The assumptions made should be agreed and clearly stated. 2.1.3 The scenarios should be realistic. To future-proof the study as far as possible they may

also need to consider what technology changes can reasonably be expected and/or what is being supported under current policy. Be clear from the outset what the key issues are going to be, for example by the Steering Group sifting ideas to agree what to include. Limiting the number or range of development scenarios, e.g. by focussing on those which are immediate priorities can help to keep costs down. It also makes it simpler for the assessor and easier for the user to understand.

2.2 Identify assessment units Desk study and initial field work 2.2.1 The study area must be defined depending on the purpose and scale of the project.

Study areas could be a whole local authority area, or combination of adjacent local authorities (most likely for large developments such as wind farms). It might be decided to exclude areas unlikely to undergo the landscape change due to policy (e.g. National Scenic Areas) or lack of development pressure (e.g. areas distant from existing housing). The rationale for the study area should be made clear.

2.2.2 The study area then needs to be divided into units to enable the assessment of effects of

the development scenarios (previous section) to be weighed against the criteria (next section). The relevant Landscape Character Assessment will always be the basis for establishing the assessment units.

2.2.3 As landscape sensitivity assessment can be undertaken at any scale, this will dictate the

level of LCA which should be used. At the broader scale, SNH has produced a national map of Landscape Character Types (LCTs), with supporting Landscape Character Type

12

descriptions. If a finer grain is required many Local Authorities have mapped and described more detailed Landscape Character Areas which largely nest with the national LCTs. If finer grain LCA has not been developed for an area being considered for landscape sensitivity assessment it may be necessary to develop or commission an LCA at Landscape Character Area level for that specific area. This should nest with SNH’s national LCT map.

2.2.4 In some instances it may be necessary to sub-divide or merge Landscape Character

Types or Areas for the landscape sensitivity assessment. For example where there is variation in landscape character which affects the particular development scenarios being assessed, or where the area being assessed is very broad and / or quite varied at level of detail of the assessment. Any subdivision for this purpose must be fully and clearly explained and justified in supporting text and maps. For coastal areas Coastal Character Assessment may be required. Further information about this is available on the SNH/nature.scot website.

2.2.5 Identification of assessment units may also need to consider view-sheds or skylines in

order to take into account the likely development effects. This should also be explained and justified in supporting text and maps.

2.2.6 Consider the number of units in the study area and their size, both individually and

relatively. Too many units can make the study unwieldy and comparison between units and across the study area difficult. But over-large units may have so much variation in characteristics that analysis of the likely effects of the development scenarios is hard. The key aspect is to ensure the unit is based on relevant landscape and visual characteristics.

2.2.7 We recommend “testing” the units while they’re being drafted: e.g. “would this scenario

have similar effects here compared to other places in the draft unit? Would it have different effects in the adjacent draft unit?”

2.2.8 The assessment criteria (see section 2.3) will be being thought about at this stage, and

they can helpfully influence or refine the assessment units. For example, settlement pattern or visual envelopes may be relevant to identifying a unit.

2.2.9 Ordnance Survey base maps at an appropriate scale (likely to be1:25,000 or more

detailed) will be used for working-up the units. That is also an important way of reporting on the assessment units and they will be mapped in the report too. Mapped boundary lines of assessment units are often zones of transition – they very rarely represent a sudden change in character for example.

2.2.10 During the desk study work for this stage, designations and other recognised landscape

values such as Wild Land Areas can be noted and mapped. They are an easily identified indicator of valued landscapes and it may also be appropriate for them to inform a sieve stage to make the study area more manageable. Information for evidence of landscape values, such as Core Paths for recreational value, can also be sourced at this stage.

2.3. Assessment Criteria 2.3.1 Once the development scenarios have been agreed, the criteria against which they will

be assessed need to be drafted, agreed, tested and applied. Assessment criteria are arrived at by considering how the key landscape characteristics and visual resources would be sensitive to the scenarios. Both susceptibility and value are considered.

13

2.3.2 Assessment criteria are required for a range of reasons. They help to divide the

assessment task into manageable portions. And they are the way in which to understand and explain how development scenarios would interact with landscape.

2.3.3 Assessment criteria need to be clear and understandable, relevant and practical.

Experience of developing assessment criteria is now extensive and it can be useful to study similar reports, as well as the lists below of frequently used assessment criteria (Figures 4 and 5), when drafting them. Examples are also available on our website.

2.3.4 Assessment criteria need to be clearly relevant to the specified development and the

landscape which is being assessed. It is helpful to have criteria which relate specifically to the likely effects of the development scenarios on the landscape and visual amenity. Studies which demonstrate these likely effects, showing how the individual criterion would be affected by developments, are more likely to be clearly understood.

2.3.5 It is important to include relevant aspects of the landscape that would be affected by the

development. For example, settlement pattern is crucial when considering sensitivity to new housing.

2.3.6 It is likely that both an assessment of landscape sensitivity and visual sensitivity will be

needed. It may be that these are better handled as separate, complementary topics in terms of analysis even if their conclusions are subsequently combined to inform recommendations. However, clarify the difference between ‘visual amenity’ and ‘visibility’ in the assessment. Being visible does not automatically make an area of landscape ‘sensitive’. Studies should make it clear exactly how visual aspects have influenced the study conclusions.

14

2.3.7 Desk survey will have established designations and other recognised values.

Designation boundaries are unlikely to coincide with those of landscape character types or assessment units, but the presence of a designation in even part of an assessment unit would increase its value rating (see stage 3).

2.3.8 Other values, as listed in figure 5, may need to be considered, see figure 5; GLVIA3 may

also be helpful (pages 80-85). Value can be included as a criterion or criteria in the overall list, with indications of how this is expressed in the study area. The ways in which this is done need to be have some evidence base and also be proportionate. For example, to indicate recreational value the presence of Core Paths or other promoted routes or activities would suggest a high value. Being proportionate, there is unlikely to be a need to undertake a recreational use survey. .

2.3.9 The assessment criteria selected for the sensitivity assessment will vary according to the

type of development or land use change being considered. It is important to ensure the reasons for selecting each criterion are clearly explained. It is also helpful to be clear as to the potential sensitivities considered against each criterion to avoid possible ‘double counting’ of similar factors within the landscape susceptibility criteria. However, similar criteria and/or potential overlaps may occur in susceptibility and value criteria as they are different concepts For example, scenic designations commonly apply to landscapes with a diverse landform and land cover.

2.3.10 It is important that the whole Steering Group agrees the criteria, making sure that they

are relevant to the landscape of the area, and that the criteria make sense in the field. It is good practice to test the criteria in a couple of contrasting sensitivity units before finalising. For example, an area of ground may have a landform suited to the scenario but it may also form an important component of views. This helps avoid double-counting and omission of relevant factors.

Figure 5 – examples of value assessment criteria Designations –

International (World Heritage Sites),

National (National Scenic Areas, National Parks, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building (A), Inventory Gardens & Designed Landscapes, Battlefields, Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Local (Local Landscape Areas, Listed Buildings (B, C), Country Parks, Regional Parks) Other recognised landscape values – e.g. Wild Land Areas. Related interests: -

Recreation – Core Paths, NWCN, Munros / other hills / activities

Tourism - visitor attractions

Habitats – e.g. ancient semi-natural woodlands

Cultural Ecosystem Services framework information.

15

Stage 3 Sensitivity Assessment 3.1 The purpose of the sensitivity assessment is to carry out an analysis which identifies

how each of the criteria, or landscape and visual sensitivities, would be affected by the specified development scenarios in each of the assessment areas. This requires field work and involves professional judgement. It starts with a description of each assessment unit. This should incorporate the landscape and visual criteria (which have been identified as being those most likely to be affected by the specified development types) as well as landscape characteristics and visual resources. It is also helpful to indicate the location and brief landscape context of each assessment unit.

3.2 Field study is undertaken at an appropriately detailed scale with two qualified assessors

completing field sheets. The use of field sheets is essential for recording and agreeing the assessment. They are tailored to the study – see appendix x for an example. At least two viewpoints need to be visited per assessment unit, and it may need to be more depending on the size and complexity of the area. These are then compiled into a single description / analysis for the unit on completion of field work. A series of photographs per assessment unit should also be taken. The field sheets and the photographs are also useful for benchmarking and cross-checking when all units have been assessed. They need to be kept to ensure a record is retained and made available for future reference.

3.3 For the sensitivity assessment, generic levels of sensitivity for all the criteria need to be

identified. This is generally best using a five point scale, e.g.

Very High > High > Medium > Low > Very Low; or

High > Medium-High > Medium > Medium-Low > Low.

Broad-brush studies, depending on their purpose, might use a three point scale. More than five levels becomes too complex. It is helpful to illustrate the eventual sensitivity ratings on a base map of the assessment units, e.g. with a colour allocated to each rating. This makes it easier to note the distribution of sensitivity across the study area, and to interrogate particular areas or assessments if required. It can also be helpful to refer to appropriate siting and design pointers or guidance where included. Consequently, this is valuable at draft stage to check that the initial assessment makes sense to the assessors and steering group and any other reviewers.

3.4 For each level of sensitivity within each criterion a description is provided of how the

scenario would affect the landscape. This is what the likely effects are judged against. This is preferable to a matrix as it is more transparent and should be easier to assess in the field. These form the basis of the field sheets (see annex in due course).

3.5 The field assessment then judges which level of sensitivity is applicable for each

assessment unit in relation to the likely impacts which the specified development would have on each criterion. Thus, the analysis provides an examination of each individual criterion for each assessment unit. The use of consistent wording for the same levels of sensitivity throughout the assessment is required to enable comparison between assessment units.

3.6 The field sheets and criteria should be tested on at least two different assessment units, by the whole assessing team. This checks if the assessment units, criteria and scenarios are reasonable and sensible. It also enables benchmarking amongst the team to ensure similar rankings are assigned to similar interactions between scenarios and locations. Ideally some of this testing would be with steering group members in the field too. There should at least be client or steering group feedback on the test units before

16

the field sheets and criteria are rolled out to the whole study area. The steering group members are probably more familiar with the areas and issues than external consultants, and their practical input can be invaluable. It is also beneficial for them to understand the process more thoroughly. This part of the process can also serve as the benchmarking exercise.

3.7 When collating the judgements for each criterion, simple approaches are best. They are judgements using landscape reasoning rather than a calculation. Accordingly, avoid “weighting” or complex scoring systems or adding scores through a series of stages, because aggregate scores make it difficult to understand the underlying judgement. Methods which use GIS to process information, as opposed to being used to map the outcome, are often difficult to unravel and explain to others. There is a risk of accumulated assumptions being built into the process and not being easily understood.

3.8 Generally, effects are more straightforward to assess for susceptibility criteria and these often make up the majority of assessment criteria. Value criteria are needed to ensure an appropriate range of landscape benefits is considered and the associated judgements need to be explained particularly clearly

3.9 It is important that the sensitivity assessment for each individual criterion in each assessment unit is noted separately. Without this, it can be difficult to follow the assessor’s train of thought. Clearly expressed, this part of the assessment should give a clear rationale between early analysis and recommendations. All relevant information needs to be presented in an accessible form – crucially, there should be no ‘leaps of faith’. The reader needs to understand exactly how the sensitivity rating has been arrived at, and why.

3.10 The level of sensitivity is backed up with a short analysis of the issues identified for each

assessment unit. This can be useful when responding to planning applications. It also helps explain the rationale for the sensitivity rating. Consequently, it’s important for this to capture the key issues effectively.

3.11 When the whole study area has been assessed, a comparison between the assessment units is needed to cross-check for consistency and logic. Are similar effects rated similarly throughout or do any apparent anomalies need to be explained? This is a key stage and one where steering group input can be essential because everyone needs to agree with the findings. A range of methods – text, maps, photographs, is used to outline what the findings mean for the study area as a whole.

3.12 It’s important to keep good records of the assessment as an audit trail for the client, subsequent users, and when updating. This aids transparency and being able to understand the basis of judgements, which in turn increases confidence in the findings. The field sheets, cross-checking, and photographs are all part of this as well as draft reports.

Siting and Design 3.13 Broad “pointers” on design or enhancement, can complement the main

recommendations of the study. For example from an Orkney housing study the sequence of steadings and intervening spaces is important; any new dwellings should be attached, or immediately adjacent, to the existing building groups and close to the road. They need to be caveated because they cannot be site- or development-specific – that is the role of the LVIA. They also cannot be expected to take into account practicalities - such as land ownership - or go into too much detail.

17

3.14 It’s important that guidance is clearly based on the analysis of the assessment units and

development type. For example, it shouldn’t necessarily simply advocate screening by trees, particularly in open landscapes.

3.15 Design suggestions need to be explained and applicable at an appropriate scale. Some may be relevant for the whole study area, others may be more focussed on a single assessment unit. The more focussed descriptions of the assessment units can themselves be helpful. These may also last beyond the timescale of the project. In most studies the guidance is only offered for those areas identified as having some sort of potential to accommodate development.

Stage 4 Reporting 4.1 The findings should be presented as concisely as possible and written in plain English,

using diagrams, flowcharts and tables to aid clarity, especially where there is a lot of data to present. Reports should also be well-illustrated with maps photos and sketches as appropriate. Include caveats about how the information provided should be used in the introductory sections.

4.2 The report should be well-structured and easy to follow and navigate. A typical format,

which has worked well for previous assessments, presents an introduction/context, explanation of the methodology, followed by the outputs, findings and recommendations. A glossary should also be provided for explanation of technical terms. Consider including a non-technical summary if the intended audience includes non-professionals. It is unlikely that users will read the document like a novel, more commonly dipping in and out of the document for reference, so clear signposting to each section is important.

4.3 Landscape Sensitivity Assessments can be complex, so it is important to remember that

simpler overall messages will be more easily understood and used. It can be good practice to keep the “workings” separate from the findings, partly to distinguish the more technical aspects of the reporting separate, but also to keep the more frequently used parts more succinct. Including copies of field notes in the “workings” section or an annex is essential for transparency.

4.4 Clear explanation of the analysis carried out is critical, to make it obvious how field

observations led to the findings. This will help to avoid users of the documents incorrectly overlooking less sensitive landscapes as places where there are not issues to consider. A well explained and presented methodology section is particularly valuable should updating or further work be necessary, making it easier to replicate in the future.

4.5 If the text is to be available online in pdf format, this should be split by chapter or

assessment unit to make downloading manageable. The sections need to be clearly named to avoid confusion. The assessment may be presented wholly online where it may be possible to use other techniques such as digital 3D modelling. Think about how they would be viewed online so that relevant pieces of information aren’t separated from each other. The spatial data may be presented via an interactive map portal. Landscape sensitivity may be available as a layer, but the full document, including photographs, still needs to be accessible.

18

Stage 5 Monitoring and updating 5.1 The report should be reviewed at suitable intervals after publication to check if it is still

being used, by whom, and if there are any issues arising. This could fit with the development plan review cycle. New staff members, or those not involved in the study preparation, may need help to understand the work and be confident in applying its findings.

5.2 It can be useful, over time, to compare the study recommendations to development

patterns and decisions taken through the planning process. This would include the location of development and also any mitigation measures that were suggested.

5.3 Studies need to be reviewed periodically to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The

frequency of review will vary with the development type and amount of development pressure. The principles of the report’s findings are likely to remain sound but for some developments, depending on the amount of change or the extent to which it followed predicted locations, the ‘direction of travel’ envisaged by the previous study may have changed. See Appendix 4 for checklist.

5.4 The scale and scope of the revision task should be reviewed by a relevant group of

people. It can be a small group but should be more than one person who can consider if it is just certain parts – whether topic, scenarios or geographical area - of the study that need revisited or whether a more wholesale revision needed? This will entail considering what might have changed since the previous study, for example technologies and drivers affecting the nature of development (e.g. bigger turbines, housing types and changes in materials). The use of the landscape may have altered, e.g. increased recreation or new travel routes; and there may be new or different landscape designations or values. Depending on the outcome of this review, writing a brief to revise part or all of the study may be needed.

19

APPENDIX 1 – GLOSSARY (to be added) To include:

Landscape

Landscape Character Assessment

Landscape Character Type

Landscape Character Area

Landscape sensitivity

Landscape susceptibility

Landscape value

Landscape capacity

Landscape Objectives APPENDIX 2 – FIELD SHEET EXAMPLES (to be added) APPENDIX 3 – ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE / DETAIL on project management APPENDIX 4 – CHECKLIST FOR REVIEWING landscape sensitivity studies (to be added) APPENDIX 5 – REFERENCES (initial list) Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland Topic Paper 6; “Techniques and Criteria for judging Capacity and Sensitivity. An exploration of current thinking about landscape sensitivity and landscape capacity, to stimulate debate and encourage the development of common approaches. Available online Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (3rd ed) London, Routledge Scottish Natural Heritage (2010) Commissioned Report 385 – “Landscape Capacity Studies in Scotland – a review and guide to good practice”, as well as “Landscape Capacity Toolkit” Tudor, Christine (2019) An approach to Landscape Sensitivity Assessment – to inform spatial planning and land management. Natural England APPENDIX 6 –links to guidance elsewhere in UK

20

Appendix 3 (i) Establishment of a Project Steering Group The client will need to consider setting up a Steering Group of relevant parties to help guide the project. These are likely to be those who represent the views and interests of sectors most likely to be affected by and use the findings of the final report, such as local authorities, stakeholders and communities. The Steering Group should include Landscape Architects if possible. SNH landscape or area staff can also be included in the Steering Group as this can help with consistency and experience from elsewhere. The role of this group will be to help refine and further develop the scope and purpose of the assessment, to inform the project brief, to approve the procurement of a consultant to undertake the work, and to steer the project through its various stages to conclusion, including commenting on drafts throughout the process. It is important that the Steering Group is a manageable size, where all members are able to comfortably express their views and consensus on decisions can be reasonably reached. If large organisations, or a number of them are involved it may be worth considering whether a wider technical or review group is required to resolve technical issues, and to review report drafts with a fresh set of eyes (ii) Preparation of a brief The brief for the project should be produced in agreement with the Steering Group. It should incorporate and address all of the ‘purpose and scope’ aspects outlined in the section above and be approved by the Steering Group. Particularly important aspects to specify in relation to landscape sensitivity studies have been found to be;

Requesting detailed information about the methodology to be used, and where elements of development and flexibility exist in this. The tenderer can then demonstrate how much flexibility there is to involve the Steering Group in developing the methodology as the project progresses. It may be possible to give firm pointers on the desired methodology, especially if the study is to update a previous sensitivity assessment where the original methodology was found to be particularly effective.

Requesting a detailed outline of how much of each task/stage is allocated to each of the project team. This enables those assessing the tender to see if emphasis has been put on the correct parts of the project, and also to see how much senior staff time is allocated to each task.

Outlining the expected balance between desk study and fieldwork. Fieldwork is always essential, and tenderers should be asked to outline in detail how much time has been allocated to this, including any joint site visits with Steering Group members.

Detailing the criteria to be used when assessing tenders to ensure tenderers have addressed all of the aspects likely to be of prime importance.

The tenderers will need to know the likely study area (size, location); range of development scenarios; level of detail or grain of study; resources such as mapping or background information available; extent of steering group involvement and number of meetings; and type and format of outputs (e.g. design guidance, interactive maps). (iii) Appointing a suitable consultant There is detailed advice on how to most effectively appoint a suitable consultant for landscape sensitivity studies in the SNH/nature.scot Toolkit. [link to be added] Tenders should be assessed primarily by the client, with support from the Steering Group to ensure that all stakeholders are content with the eventual appointment. The lead consultant should be a Chartered Landscape Architect, to ensure that the technical nature of the subject is addressed. Familiarity with the development or land change scenario is needed.

21

Some knowledge of the landscapes of the study area has also been found to be beneficial in previous studies, as it enables the project to progress more quickly in early stages, without the need for a familiarisation period. It is important to assess tenders for value for money, not simply cost. This allows for potential ‘added value’ aspects, such as having more than one chartered Landscape Architect on the team or proposals to engage the Steering Group in some field work, to be considered in the procurement process. Records / project management Good record-keeping throughout the project is essential to aid reporting, and also enables the client to be able to clearly understand how decisions were made and refer back to the audit trail in future. Engagement with the Steering Group in establishing a useful and clear format is essential as they and their colleagues are most likely to be implementing the findings.