anaerobic digestion plant at bearley farm, tintinhull...

Anaerobic Digestion Plant at

Bearley Farm, Tintinhull,

Somerset – Planning

Application

Landscape & Visual Impact

Assessment

January 2014

On behalf of:

Greener For Life Energy Ltd,

The Cricket Barn, Nomansland,

Tiverton, Devon EX16 8NP

Bearley Anaerobic Digester Landscape and Visual Assessment

Page 1

Landscape and Visual Assessment

SUMMARY

1. This report presents the findings of a landscape and visual assessment that has been

undertaken to identify the likely effects of the proposed Bearley Farm Anaerobic Digester

on the landscape character and visual amenity of the locality.

2. The assessment process has been based on the current published good practice

guidelines for landscape and visual assessment (LI/IEMA, 2013) and has drawn on

information provided within the local development plans that cover the study area and

the landscape character assessments which cover the study area.

3. The assessment has involved information review, photography, and computer-based

data processing and analysis, using a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to identify the

main areas and sensitive receptors where the proposed development could potentially

be visible from.

4. The assessment has studied the potential construction, operational and decommissioning

impacts that may arise as a result of the proposed development in the context of the

mitigation measures proposed as part of the application.

5. The assessment has found that the significant effects of this proposed development

would be limited to:

• The character of the landscape of the site and immediately surrounding area.

This would be limited to an extremely small part of the Visual Character Region 7,

and the landscape area of Lower Lias Clay Vales, Rivers and Flood Plains.

• The visual amenity of residents in properties up to approximately 0.7km from the

proposed development, with open views towards the proposed development.

These are limited to Bearley Farm.

6. Therefore, it is considered that the significant effects on landscape and visual amenity as

a result of the proposed development would be limited and acceptable in this location

in landscape character and visual amenity terms.

INTRODUCTION

7. This report presents the findings of a landscape and visual assessment that has been

undertaken to identify the likely effects of the proposed Bearley Farm Anaerobic Digester

on the landscape character and visual amenity of the locality.

8. The assessment has concentrated on a 5km radius study area for landscape character,

landscape designations and visual amenity, which is considered sufficient to identify all

likely significant effects on landscape and visual amenity (see Figure 1 – 5km Zone of

Theoretical Visibility (ZTV)).

9. The assessment is illustrated by Figure 1 – 5km ZTV, Figure 2 – Landscape Character Areas

and Figure 3 – Designations and Receptors, by Viewpoints 1 - 6 and supporting

information is provided in Appendix 1 – extracts from the Landscape Character

Assessments. All references are listed at the end of this report.

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

Assessment Approach


Page 2

10. The assessment has examined the effects of the proposed anaerobic digester in the

context of the existing landscape and visual baseline within 5km of the proposed site.

Good Practice Guidance and Data

11. The assessment process has been based on the current published good practice

guidelines for landscape and visual assessment (LI/IEMA, 2013). The assessment has

drawn on information provided within the local development plans that cover the study

area (see list of references) and the landscape character assessments which cover the

study area (see list of references).

Assessment Process

12. The assessment has involved information review, photography, and computer-based

data processing and analysis, and has been undertaken in several stages, as presented

in the following sections of this report:

• Predicted effects and mitigation – a review of the visual characteristics of the

proposed development to identify the aspects with the potential to give rise to

landscape and visual effects and a description of the measures that have been

incorporated into the design to mitigate these effects.

• Landscape and visual context – a review of the existing landscape and visual

baseline of the study area, to identify landscape character, landscape

designations and visual receptors in the study area.

• Visual analysis – visibility analysis using computer-generated zones of theoretical

visibility (ZTVs) to identify the locations in the study area from where the

anaerobic digester could in theory be visible (based on topography only) and a

viewpoint analysis to predict the changes to views as a result of the proposed

development from a selection of viewpoints that represent the main visual

receptors in the study area.

• Landscape assessment – an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed

development on landscape fabric, landscape character and landscape

designations in the landscape study area.

• Visual assessment – an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed

development on the visual amenity of receptors in the visual study area.

• Conclusions – a summary of the findings of the landscape and visual

assessments.

Prediction Methodologies

13. The prediction methodologies for the viewpoint analysis, landscape assessment and

visual assessment are provided at the beginning of these sections.

PREDICTED EFFECTS AND MITIGATION

14. A detailed description of the proposed development and information on the installation

of the various components of this proposed development are provided in Volume 1 -

Supporting Statement of the Planning Application.

15. It is the visual appearance of the proposed development and associated activities and

any proposed changes to the existing landscape fabric that are the main aspects of the

development with the potential to affect landscape and visual amenity and these are

summarised below for each of the three distinct phases of the development – the

construction, operational and decommissioning phases.


Page 3

Construction Phase

16. The construction phase would be approximately 5-9 months (depending on weather

conditions), and the activities and temporary features which would be visible on the site

would include:

• Excavation and construction of the digestion plant foundations (approximately

65m x 30m dia x 1.5m deep).

• Erection of the anaerobic digestion plant.

• Creation of parking and hardstanding areas

• Pre-slurry and buffer tank separator to be located in a 3.75m pit.

• Installation of an operation building (approximately 7.4m x 10m x 5.5m).

Installation of digester tanks (and substrate feeder (approximately 7.4m x 3m x

3.4m) gas flare 5.2m, separator (approximately 7m x2.5m x 6.6m)

• Gas conversion plant

• Excavation of the pipe trenches (approximately 0.5m wide).

• The presence of the HGV deliveries to site and movement of vehicles on-site.

• Reinstatement works around areas disturbed by the works.

17. The visual effects of the various aspects of the construction phase would be temporary,

intermittent and short-term with each aspect lasting only part of the 5-9 month

construction programme.

18. As the field is currently used for arable crops, there would be limited loss of ground

vegetation as a result of the temporary construction compound, building foundations

and pipe trenches. Ground disturbance would be minimised by good site management

with full reinstatement over all temporarily disturbed and excavated areas.

19. The likely effects of the construction phase on the existing landscape fabric of the site are

considered in the Landscape Assessment below.

Operational Phase

20. The main elements that would be visible over the anticipated 20-year operational life of

the proposed development would be:

• Anaerobic digester – consisting of a digester, digestate storage tanks, a buffer

tank, a separator and a substrate feeder. This is described in more detail in

Volume 2 – Process Information of the Planning Application. Both the digester

and the digestate storage tanks would be cylindrical tanks, the digester will

measure 45m diameter and 7m in height, and the digestate storage tanks will

measure 30m and 32m in diameter, the smaller of the tanks would feature a

domed central section to the roof, an additional 7.5m in height at its peak. The

remaining digestate storage tank and digester will be flat roofed. The buffer

tank would be located between the two main tanks and would also be

cylindrical, measuring 12m in diameter and 4m in height with a flat roof. The

separator would measure approximately 6.5m x 3m to a height of approximately

6.6m. The substrate feeder would measure 10m x 3m.

• CHP and operation building structures (approximately 13m x 10m x 5.5m).

• Car parking/hardstanding area.

• Landscaping proposals – Planting of a woodland belt along the southwest

boundary to reduce the visual impact of the development and to aid in the

integration of the proposals into the local landscape.


Page 4

• Regular deliveries to and from the site (under 10 tanker/tractor movements per

day on average).

• Regular visits to the site for operational and maintenance purposes, involving a

commercial van type vehicle every day.

21. From a landscape and visual perspective, the number of visual elements present over the

anticipated 20-year operational phase has been minimised by developing a planting

scheme/ landscaping proposals to aid in the integration and screening of the

development in the locality. In addition, the operation building, gas conversion plant

and gas flare, have all been situated close to the main digester and adjacent to the

existing hedgeline to facilitate as much screening as possible from surrounding features.

The existing field entrance and track are also being used as part of the proposed

development which will further reduce the impact on the landscape. Furthermore, the

existing agricultural activities would be able to continue up to the perimeter of the

development, thereby minimising the area of land taken out of agricultural production.

22. Therefore, the only aspects of the operational phase that are likely to give rise to

significant effects on landscape character and visual amenity during the operational

phase are the digester, the digestate storage tank, separator and operation building and

these are considered in the Landscape and Visual Assessments below.

Decommissioning Phase

23. The decommissioning phase would be undertaken over a period of approximately 4

weeks, and the activities and temporary features which would be visible on the site

would include:

• The presence of HGV deliveries collecting materials and components from the

site and the movement of vehicles on-site.

• Dismantling and removal of the digester tanks, buffer tank, separator, substrate

feeder and operation building.

• Excavation and removal of the track, hardstanding/ car park and upper

foundations to the built form to allow the farming operations to resume over

these parts of the site.

• Reinstatement works over the areas disturbed by the works.

24. The effects on landscape and visual amenity during the decommissioning phase would

be minimised by the limited duration of the works, by removing all above ground

structures and materials, by leaving all deep below-ground structures in place (including

the lower part of the foundations and the pipes which would be disconnected) and by

restoring the ground disturbed by the works.

25. The likely effects of the decommissioning phase on the landscape fabric of the site are

considered in the Landscape Assessment below.

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL CONTEXT

Landscape Fabric

26. The proposed development would be located in a single field north of Tintinhull village.

The field is currently used for growing arable crops and the only landscape elements is

the hedgerow forming the northwest field boundary, the other field boundaries are open

with wire and post fencing.

Landscape Character


Page 5

27. Within 5km of the proposed development there are three landscape character areas

(LCAs), identified within the South Somerset Landscape Character Assessment (The

Landscapes of South Somerset) covering the study area. These are shown on Figure 2.

The 5km study area would be located within Visual Character Region 7, Central Plain,

Moors and River Basins. The site itself would be located with the landscape character

area of Lower Lias Clay Vales, Rivers and Floodplain. The key characteristics and

descriptions for the three LCAs within 5km of the proposed development, as defined

within the Landscape Character Assessment, are provided in Appendix 1 and an

assessment of the effects of the proposed development on the character of these LCAs

is provided in the Landscape Assessment below.

Landscape and Recreational Designations

28. There are no national or local landscape designations in the 5km radius study area.

Visual Receptors

29. The visual receptor locations within the 5km radius study area are illustrated on Figure 1

and include:

• Settlements – the villages of Tintinhull, Long Sutton, Kingsdon, Ilchester, Ash,

Martock, Long Load, Stoke Sub Hamdon, Montachute and Chilthorne Domer.

• Individual residential properties – scattered cottages and farmsteads.

• Visitor attractions – Tintinhull House, Ilchester Museum and Treasures House.

• Long distance recreational routes – Monarch’s Way, Leland Trail, Macmillan Way

West, River Parrett Trail and National Cycle Route 33.

• Local public rights of way – footpaths, bridleways and byways open to all traffic

(BOATs).

• Public highways – including the A37, A303, A3088, A372, B3165, B3151 and a

network of minor roads.

30. The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Access Lands Maps show that there are two

areas of access land within 5km of the site. One is located north of Matlock,

approximately 4.5km west of the proposed development, the other is located south at

Stoke Sub Hamdon, approximately 4.9km south of the proposed development.

VISUAL ANALYSIS

Theoretical Visibility Analysis

31. The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) has been generated using a computer-based

intervisibility package, the Ordnance Survey Landform Profile Digital Terrain Model (DTM)

with height data at 50m intervals and a model of the proposed development. For this

exercise, the proposed development was studied and six points denoting the broadest

extents and the highest points of the development were taken as the points to be

assessed within the ZTV. These points and their heights above ground level (AGL) are

listed on Figure 1, for reference.

32. Figure 1 illustrates the potential visibility of the proposed development only, using the six

points set out in the key as the targets and so illustrates the locations in the study area

where topography would permit views of at least these points on the proposed

development. This ZTV suggests that the proposed development would potentially be

visible from 2km before becoming more fragmented beyond this distance throughout

the 5km radius study area. The ZTV shows the east and north have the most potential


Page 6

visibility and also shows a distinct lack of potential visibility of the proposed development

beyond 3km within the west of the study area due to the screening effects of

topography.

33. However, this ZTV is based on bare terrain topographical data only. It does not take into

account the screening effects of minor topographic features, vegetation such as

woodland, hedgebanks, hedgerows and built structures and therefore tends to over-

emphasise the extent of visibility in this type of well vegetated and undulating landscape,

providing a worst case scenario. In reality, these surface features would fragment and

reduce the extent of most of these zones of theoretical visibility, and would almost

certainly reduce the amount of the proposed development visible from any given

location.

34. The ZTV does not illustrate the decrease in the scale of the proposed development with

increased distance from the development which is better illustrated by the viewpoint

analysis.

Viewpoint Analysis

Viewpoint Locations

35. Six viewpoints were selected as representing some of the most open locations within the

5km radius study area and having taken advice from South Somerset District Council.

These viewpoints are listed in Table 1 below and the locations of these viewpoints are

shown on the ZTV (Figure 1).


Viento Environmental Limited Page 7

Table 1: Viewpoint Locations

Vp

no Location Easting Northing

Elevation

(approx)

Distance

(km)

Bearing

(approx)

Local

Planning

Authority

Landscape Character

Area

Recreational

and Transport

Routes

Visual

receptors

1 Ashmead

Drove 348718 122079 11mAOD 0.8 W

South

Somerset

Lower Lias Clay Vales,

Rivers and

Floodplains

Walkers

2 Ash Drove

footpath, Ash 348284 121203 36mAOD 1.6 SW

South

Somerset

Silts and Marls Low Hill

Country

Local

Footpath Walkers

3 Footpath, Ash 347994 12105 51mAOD 1.9 SW South

Somerset

Silts and Marls Low Hill

Country

Local

Footpath Walkers

4

Footpath,

north of

Tintinhull

350226 120293 48mAOD 1.9 SE South

Somerset


Rivers and

Floodplains

Local

Footpath Walkers

5 Load Bridge,

Long Load 346727 123831 11mAOD 3.4 W

South

Somerset Moors and Islands

Walkers

Road users

6 Hamdon Hill

Country Park 347676 117348

107mAO

D 5.2 S

South

Somerset


Rivers and

Floodplains

Country Park,

Local

Footpath

Walkers

Landscape and Visual Assessment Bearley Anaerobic Digester

Page 8

Prediction Methodology

36. The following viewpoint analysis has combined the visual receptor sensitivity at each

viewpoint location with the predicted magnitude of change in the view in order to

determine the overall impact and whether or not this would be a significant change in

the view for each visual receptor type at each location.

37. All visual receptors are people and are assumed to be equally sensitive to change.

Accordingly, visual receptor sensitivity is determined in terms of the sensitivity of each

location for each receptor type (rather than the sensitivity of the receptors per se), using

a five point relative scale – high, high/medium, medium, medium/low and low, and

taking into account:

• Receptor activities – for example, relaxing at home, undertaking leisure,

recreational and sporting activities, at work etc.

• Movement and duration – whether receptors are likely to be stationary or

moving, which influences how long they will be exposed to the change at any

one time.

• Frequency – whether receptors will be exposed to the change daily, frequently,

occasionally or rarely.

• Orientation/direction – of receptors in relation to the development.

• Purpose/ expectation – of receptors at that location.

• Importance of the view/ location – popularity of the location as indicated by

designations, inclusion in guidebooks, and visitor facilities provided.

38. The magnitude of the change in the views from the twelve viewpoints has been assessed

using a five point scale – very substantial, substantial, moderate, slight and negligible and

also the intermediate categories of very substantial/substantial, substantial/moderate,

moderate/slight and slight/negligible. This magnitude of change scale is a relative scale

and is not an absolute scale. It is based on the assessor’s interpretation of largely

quantifiable parameters, including:

• Distance and direction of the viewpoint from the development.

• Extent of the development visible from the viewpoint.

• Field of view occupied by the development (horizontal and vertical angles of

view) and proportion of view (as a percentage of the panorama).

• Context of the view and degree of contrast with the existing landscape and

built elements (background, form, composition, pattern, scale and mass, line,

movement, colour, texture, etc).

• Scale of change with respect to the loss or addition of features in the view. For

the addition of built form, this includes the relative scale of the development

and whether the development would be overwhelming, overbearing,

dominant, prominent, visible, noticeable, discernible or barely discernible.

• Duration and nature of the effect, eg direct/ indirect, secondary, cumulative,

temporary/ permanent, short term/ long term, intermittent/ continuous,

reversible/ irreversible, etc (as related to the nature of the development, not the

receptor activity).

39. The sensitivity and magnitude of change have then been combined as per the matrix in

Table 2 below. Overall impacts of major/moderate and above are considered

significant effects (ie material to the planning decision) and are shaded dark grey in

Table 2 below. Overall impacts of moderate+ are also likely to be significant for

residential receptors with primary views in this direction (sensitivity high) and so these are


Page 9

shown shaded in medium grey and are an indication of the threshold or limit of

significance. Overall impacts of moderate+ may be significant for recreational receptors

and/or road users if experienced over a sustained length of a route or over most of a

zone, area or location, but this cannot be established by way of the viewpoint analysis

(which examines changes in view from single point locations only) and so this has been

considered in the Visual Assessment (para 77 onwards). A moderate impact on its own

would not result in a significant impact. If a linear route has several moderate impacts

along it, or along a sustained section, then this could result in a significant impact for the

route as a whole, or for the section of the route in question. Therefore, moderate impacts

can contribute to a significant impact, but would not cause a significant impact itself.

These are shaded light grey in Table 2 to highlight the potential to contribute towards

significant impacts.

Table 2 – Assessment of Overall Impact and Significance

LOCATION

SENSITIVITY

MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE

V sub V

sub/

sub

Sub Sub/

mod

Mod Mod/

slight

Slight Slight/

neg

Neg

High Major+

+

Major+ Major Maj/

mod+

Maj/

mod

Mod+ Mod Mod/

min+

Mod/

min

High/

medium

Major+ Major Maj/

mod+

Maj/

mod

Mod+ Mod Mod/

min+

Mod/

min

Minor+

Medium Major Maj/

mod+

Maj/

mod

Mod+ Mod Mod/

min+

Mod/

min

Minor+ Minor

Medium/

low

Maj/

mod+

Maj/

mod

Mod+ Mod Mod/

min+

Mod/

min

Minor+ Minor Min/

neg+

Low Maj/

mod

Mod+ Mod Mod/

min+

Mod/

min

Minor+ Minor Minor/

neg+

Min/

neg

Viewpoint Analysis

40. The findings of the viewpoint analysis are provided in Table 3 below.

41. This analysis was undertaken in the field. It is illustrated by the images in Viewpoints 1 to 6

which show the existing views in the direction of the proposed development from each

of these locations. In these figures, photographs illustrate the existing views from each

viewpoint and are labelled to indicate the approximate extent of the application site. It

should be made clear that the application site extends over a greater area than the built

form within the proposed development. However, the full application area is indicated

on the photographs. The field of view varies for each viewpoint and so there is no set

viewing distance for these images.


Page 10

Table 3: Viewpoint Analysis

Vp

no Location NGR

Distance

(km)

Viewpoint observations Visual

receptors

Sensitivity Magnitude of

change

Overall effects

1 Ashmead

Drove

348718

122079 0.8

Application site would occupy the view

to the northeast. The built form of the

proposed development would be

located beyond the existing boundary,

with lower features screened by existing

hedgerows. Proposed planting along

the hedgeline would filter views of the

built form to a degree although the gas

dome would be clearly visible.

Walkers High/

Medium Moderate Moderate+

2 Ash Drove

footpath, Ash

348284

121203 1.6


to the northeast. The built form would

be located in the middle distance,

against the landscape. From this

location the gas dome, digestate tank,

gas flare and operation building would

be the most visible elements, with the

other structures screened. However the

proposed planting would screen all of

the development. Gas dome visible for

several years as the woodland matures.

Walkers High/

Medium Moderate Moderate+

3 Footpath,

Ash

347994

121105 1.9


to the northeast. The built form would

be visible in the middle distance,

against the landscape. The view from

this location would be similar to that

obtained in viewpoint 2.

Walkers High/

Medium

Moderate/

Slight Moderate

4

Footpath,

north of

Tintinhull

350226

120293 1.9


to the northwest. The tree lined bank of

the A303 which would screen the

development completely.

Walkers High/

Medium

Slight/

Negligible Moderate/Minor


- Page 11

5 Load Bridge,

Long Load

346727

123831 3.4


to the southeast. Foreground

vegetation will screen the proposed

development from view except for

tallest feature, the gas domed section.

Road users Medium Negligible Minor

6 Hamdon Hill

Country Park

347676

117348 5.2

Application site would occupy the site

to the north. The development would

be located in the middle distance

against the landscape. From this

distance to development would be

noticeable but not the individual

features would not be distinguishable.

Walkers High Slight/

Negligible

Moderate/

Minor+


Page 12

Findings of Visual Analysis

42. Despite being in a flat area, given the good levels of vegetation within the landscape of

the study area, in general terms the visibility of the proposed development would be

confined to an area local to the proposed site. This has been illustrated by the

viewpoints which are consistently located at high points within the landscape as the only

areas where views out across the surrounding area are available. Consistently these

viewpoints show very good levels of vegetation within the views, and well vegetated

skylines. The proposed development would generally be located within the landscape

and predominantly screened from the study area, save for the highest part of the

proposal; the domed section of the digester.

43. Taking into account the visual analysis (ZTV) and the viewpoint analysis these findings

suggest that the proposed development would result in a significant change in the view

for some high sensitivity receptors (eg some residents) immediately surrounding the

application site and within approximately 1km of the site,, for some high/medium

sensitivity receptors (eg tourists, equestrians, cyclists and walkers (on local routes))

immediately surrounding the site (eg but for no medium sensitivity receptors (eg

motorists).

44. However, even within these zones, there are locations where the proposed development

would be largely or entirely screened by topography, built form and/or intervening

vegetation for some receptors such that views from within these zones would be

intermittent and the zones of visibility would be much more fragmented than suggested

by the ZTV in Figure 1 and the proportion of the proposed development that would be

visible would be reduced in some locations. An example of this is Viewpoint 5 where the

proposed development would be entirely screened. In these instances the magnitude of

change in the view and resulting overall effects are likely to be reduced in a similar way

to Viewpoint 5.

45. A more detailed discussion of the likely effects on the visual amenity of receptors in

settlements and residential properties, at visitor attractions, on recreational routes and on

public highways is provided in the Visual Assessment below.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

46. This assessment draws on the review of the predicted effects of the development, the

landscape fabric of the site, the key characteristics of the LCAs, the purposes/objectives

of the landscape designations, the visibility analysis and the viewpoint analysis, and

discusses the significance of the predicted effects on:

• Landscape fabric of the site.

• Landscape character.

• Purposes of the landscape designations.

Effects on Landscape Fabric


47. Landscape fabric is composed of the physical components of the landscape (eg

landform, land cover and landscape elements and features). Developments can bring

about both direct and indirect effects on landscape fabric. Direct effects occur where

changes to the fabric of the landscape arise as the result of physical disturbance, for

example, the loss of landscape elements such as hedgerows, walls and trees. Indirect

effects are consequential changes that are separated from the source of the change in


Page 13

a temporal or spatial manner, for example changes in vegetation downstream as the

result of modifications to surface water patterns upstream in a catchment area.

48. This assessment of effects on landscape fabric considers the existing landscape fabric of

the site and the predicted effects of the development, and makes a judgement as to

whether there are likely to be any significant beneficial or adverse changes to landscape

fabric based on the following two definitions:

• Significant beneficial effects on landscape fabric - could occur where

important/mature/diverse/distinctive components, which had previously been

lost or degraded as the result of agricultural operations or other development,

would be added, reinstated or improved.

• Significant adverse effects on landscape fabric - could occur where existing

important/mature/diverse/distinctive components would be permanently lost (or

long term temporarily lost) and the effects cannot be adequately mitigated.

Construction Phase

49. There would be some adverse effects on landscape fabric during the construction phase

as a result of the loss of ground vegetation, however as the field is used for arable crops,

there would be limited loss of ground vegetation as a result of the footprints of the various

built forms within the proposed development and from the pipe trenching. Using the

existing site entrance and track would also further reduce the loss of ground vegetation.

50. A planting plan is proposed as part of the application utilising species native to the area

to create a woodland belt along the southwest boundary. This will create screening for

views from the southwest such as Viewpoint 2. This would take time to establish but

overall would have a slight beneficial effect on landscape fabric.

51. Therefore, overall there would not be any significant (adverse or beneficial) effects on

landscape fabric as a result of the construction phase.

Operational Phase

52. There would be no effects on the landscape fabric of the site during the operational

phase, as there would not be any further alterations to the landscape fabric of the site as

a result of the operation of the proposed development.

Decommissioning Phase

53. There would be minimal disturbance of landscape features during this phase as below

ground structures (eg lower part of the building foundations, pipes and cables) would be

left in situ and there would be reinstatement of the ground over all ground disturbed by

the works. Therefore, there would be a negligible effect on landscape fabric during the

decommissioning phase.

Effects on Landscape Character


54. Landscape character is composed of physical, biological and social components,

combined with aesthetic and perceptual factors. This assessment of effects on

landscape character considers the existing landscape character of the site and study

area and the predicted effects of the development, and assesses the area within which

there is likely to be a significant change to landscape character, based on the following

two definitions:


Page 14

• Significant beneficial effects on landscape character - are likely to occur where

the proposed development would materially enhance the quality (condition) of

the landscape, would complement the existing character and/or where

particularly valued characteristics, previously lost or degraded, would be

reinstated.

• Significant adverse effects on landscape character - are likely to occur where

the proposed development would become a key or one of the defining

characteristics of the landscape, would contrast with the existing character,

and/or where existing key characteristics would be permanently lost or

changed.

55. Whether predicted changes to landscape character would be significant depends on

the key characteristics of the landscape, landscape designations (as an indication of

landscape value and condition), the nature of views and the extent to which views

contribute to landscape character, on the scale or degree of change to the landscape

resource and the nature, extent and duration of the effects that would be brought about

by the proposal.

56. For the landscape unit in which the development is proposed, all the above factors have

been taken into account in order to determine whether the predicted changes in

landscape character would be significant and the spatial extent of that effect has been

determined by those key characteristics of the landscape unit that would be affected,

the scale of the development and the extent of the actual zones of visibility.

57. For landscape units that are further away, the nature of views, the extent to which views

contribute to the character of the landscape and the predicted changes to those views

are the main factors that have determined whether the predicted changes in landscape

character are likely to be significant. Where particular views are an essential

characteristic of a landscape unit, where the proposal would become a defining

characteristic of those views and those views are not already characterised by built

development, then a significant adverse change in character may result, whereas for a

landscape unit whose character is derived mainly from its component features, views of

the proposed development are less likely to result in a significant change in landscape

character.

Effects on Character of the Site Landscape

58. There would be some short-term effects on the character of the site as a result of the

construction phase, particularly the construction of the hardstanding, the excavations of

the trench and foundations. Overall, the construction phase would be short-term, with

the various activities lasting for only small parts of the overall timescale. The presence of

construction machinery and activities would be transient (temporary, short-term and

reversible) and ground and vegetation disturbance would be limited. Therefore, the

effects of the construction phase would not result in a significant beneficial or adverse

effect on the landscape character of the site.

59. The main effects on the landscape character of the site would occur during the

operational phase as a result of the presence of the new hardstanding area, separator,

operation building, substrate feeder, digester, digestate storage tanks. All these elements

would be located within the Lower Lias Clay Vales Rivers and Floodplain LCA.

60. The hardstanding area would not affect any of the existing characteristics of this LCA

and, once weathered, would appear similar to other farm hardstandings in this

landscape. Each proposed structure is a single storey building and would appear similar


Page 15

to other agricultural buildings in this landscape. Therefore, it is considered that these

features would not detract from or enhance the existing landscape but would be

consistent with the existing character of the landscape and so would have a negligible

effect on the character of this LCA.

61. The proposed digester, digestate storage tanks, operation building and separator would

introduce sizeable built structures into the field which is currently used for arable crops. In

particular the separator, operation building and digestate storage tank would be large

structures. As a result, the separator, operation building and digestate storage tank

would become a key characteristic of the site landscape and, although few existing key

characteristics would be lost or changed, they would contrast with the existing character

such that the separator, operation building and digestate storage tank would result in a

significant adverse change to the character of the site landscape.

62. The decommissioning phase would be very short-term, ground disturbance would be

very limited in extent and there would be the removal of the built form and the

reinstatement of the ground on completion of the works, which should return the site to its

current character. Therefore, the decommissioning phase would result in a significant

beneficial effect on the landscape character of the site relative to the operational phase

but no change in character relative to the current landscape character of the site.

63. Therefore, there would be a significant adverse long-term but temporary change in the

character of the site landscape for the duration of the operational phase but the site

would be returned to its present character by the end of the decommissioning phase.

64. However, it would be impossible to site a digester of this scale in the UK without

significantly affecting the character of at least the site and immediate surroundings. The

key issue is how far this change in landscape character would extend and whether this

change would be acceptable.

65. As noted in paragraph 22 above, the only aspects of the development that are likely to

give rise to significant effects on landscape character (and visual amenity) during the

operational phase are the proposed separator, operation building and digestate storage

tank, and the effects of the presence of these features on the character of the wider

landscape are considered below.

Effects on Character of Wider Landscape

Central Plain, Moors and River Basins: Lower Lias Clay Vales, Rivers and Floodplain

66. The key characteristics and more detailed description of this LCA are provided in the

extract in Appendix 1. The area is the most extensive within this region, it extends from

the moors near Long Load north-east to the edge Ancient river gravel and ‘head’

deposits of sandy loams and limestone create low undulations. A broad area of mixed

farming, with arable mainly located on slightly drier clay ridges or islands. Hedges are

generally kept low and hedgerow trees are fairly infrequent. There are a great number of

ditches and rhynes, often reed filled, and fewer hedges around Illchester and to the west.

The River Yeo has been straightened and embanked; the rivers are amongst the most

natural features in this heavily modified landscape.

67. There are no landscape designations within this part of this LCA (within the study area).

This is a fairly large LCA, the most extensive in the Central Plain Moors and River Basin

region.

68. The ZTV in Figure 1 suggests that the proposed development would potentially be visible,

from much of this LCA within the 5km radius study area, at least in theory based on


Page 16

topographical considerations only. However, in reality there are well vegetated field

borders which would screen the much of the smaller structures of the proposed

development entirely. Three of the viewpoints are located within this LCA, with no

visibility of the proposed development expected from one of these viewpoints, Viewpoint

4, Tintinhull Footpath. Viewpoint 6 is located over 5km, outside of the study area, the

development would be visible but given the distance would not be distinguishable. The

remaining viewpoint, Viewpoint 1 is the closest viewpoint and is located within a wildlife

area, though the gas dome would be visible from this location the additional proposed

planting would screen the development from views within this area. This illustrates that in

general the proposed development would be visible from close proximity within this LCA,

but beyond this visibility would be very intermittent and partial. Viewpoints 4 and 6 both

support this finding, and where no significant change in landscape character of the LCA

is expected.

69. Looking at the visibility of the proposed development within close proximity, the

viewpoints illustrate that the most open visibility of the proposal would be from locations

immediately adjacent to the site (Viewpoints 1). Beyond this, the good levels of existing

vegetation would quickly serve to screen large parts of the proposed development, in

conjunction with the planting proposals. Even in winter months, as illustrated by the

viewpoint photographs taken in December,, existing vegetation would provide an

effective filter to views of the proposal. From more open locations within the LCA, but at

a slightly greater distance, such as from Viewpoint 6, Hamdon Hill Country Park, the

proposed development would be more visible, but seen in the context of existing built

form where it would be a discernible element, but it is not considered that it would

become a key characteristic of the landscape. Therefore, assessment has found that

only in the immediate locality of the site, such as from Viewpoints 1 and within

approximately 50 – 100m of the proposed development is it likely that the proposal would

be so visible as to become a key characteristic of this LCA, resulting in a significant

change to the landscape character of a very small part of the LCA.

Central Plain, Moors and River Basins: The Moors and Islands

70. The proposed development would be located approximately 0.9km southeast of the

Moors and Islands LCA at its closest point. The area is described within the assessment as

‘lying almost at sea level these are great grassy vistas interrupted only by distant herds of

cattle or willow.’ The key characteristics and a more detailed description of this LCA are

provided in the extract in Appendix 1.

71. No landscape designations are contained within this part of this LCA.

72. The ZTV suggests the proposed anaerobic digester would only be partially visible from

limited parts of this LCA within the 5km radius, as illustrated by Figure 1. Viewpoint

Analysis has found that in reality the potential visibility of the proposed development

would be much more limited than that suggested by the ZTV as shown in Viewpoint 5,

Load Bridge, Long Load. This is due to the screening effects of local and intervening

vegetation and is illustrated by the viewpoints themselves. Viewpoint 5 is located at a

distance of over 3km from the proposed development and would gain visibility of only

the domed section of the digester due to the screening effects of existing mature

planting, even in winter months. As a result, the introduction of the built form on the site

would have a limited effect on the character of this LCA as it would be only a very

intermittently and partially visible feature, consistently seen from a distance where it

would be a discernible element only occasionally. Therefore, the proposed


Page 17

development would not become a key characteristic of this LCA and would not result in

a significant effect on the landscape character of this LCA.

Central Plain, Moors and River Basins: Silts and Marls Low Hill Country

73. The proposed development would be located approximately 0.9km west of this LCA at its

closest point. The key characteristics and a more detailed description of this LCA are

provided in the extract in Appendix 1. The area is described within the assessment as ‘a

continuation of the rolling arable landscape which lies between the Vales of Illchester

and Yeovil Sands. Fields and roadsides are confined by elm hedges of some age and

many fields down to permanent grass are often yellow with spring buttercups. There are

centres of arable production particularly south and west of Martock. Fields are large and

some hedges weak and gappy with a few struggling trees.

74. There are no landscape designations within the LCA within the 5km radius study area and

within the study area views from the LCA were generally found to be fairly enclosed.

75. The ZTV suggests the proposed anaerobic digester would only be partially visible from

part of this LCA within the 5km radius, as illustrated by Figure 1. The ZTV suggests that

potential visibility of the proposed development from this LCA would be limited to within

3km of the proposed development. Only one viewpoint is from this LCA, Viewpoint 3. This

shows that the development would only be partially visible from this viewpoint, which

would be typical of views within the LCA where topography allows. As a result, no

significant changes to the landscape character of this LCA are expected as a result of

the proposed development.

Effects on Landscape Designations

76. There are no national or local landscape designations within the study area; and so the

proposed development would have no effects on any national or local landscape

designations.

VISUAL ASSESSMENT


77. Visual amenity arises from a visual receptor’s experience of the visual world around them

and the value they place on a particular view or views. It is possible for a development

to result in a significant change in the view from a particular location without resulting in

a significant effect on the visual amenity of any receptors if, for example, the location is

not accessible to receptors or if the view is acknowledged as having limited value. An

important differentiation to make at this stage is between visual amenity and residential

amenity. Impacts on residential amenity encompass the assessment of potential

acoustic impacts and odour impacts combined with the impacts on the visual amenity

of residents. No assessment of residential amenity is contained within this chapter.

However, the impacts on the visual amenity of residents within settlement areas are

discussed in more detail below.

78. For the purposes of this assessment, the predicted changes in views have been examined

and significant effects on visual amenity have been identified where the proposed

development would result in a significant effect on the primary view(s) at a location or

along a route and the view(s) is/are valued and can be appreciated by receptors who

are at that location for purposes that include the appreciation of the view(s).

79. Significant effects on visual amenity can be perceived as beneficial, adverse or neutral

and this depends largely on the perceptions and opinions of the individual receptors


Page 18

and, to a certain extent, on the type of development proposed. The polarisation of

public opinion on renewable energy is such that it is difficult to define significant changes

in a view as having a definitely beneficial or definitely adverse effect on visual amenity

for all members of the public who may experience that view.

80. Accordingly, the assessment identifies whether the predicted effects on visual amenity

would be significant or not significant and, whilst it is expected that these significant

effects would be placed on the negative side of the planning balance, it is important

that the broad range of public opinions on such effects is also taken into account in the

decision making process.

81. This assessment draws on the predicted effects of the development, the visibility analysis

and the viewpoint analysis, and discusses the significance of the predicted effects on the

visual amenity of receptors at a range of visual receptor locations within the study area.

Within this study area these include settlements, individual residential properties, long

distance recreational routes, the local public rights of way network and public highways.

Settlements

82. The visual analysis suggests that there could be significant changes in the view for high

sensitivity receptors, such as residents in their properties, within approximately 0.7km of

the proposed development. All of the settlements within the study area are located

beyond this distance and so no significant change in the view for any of the residents

within any settlements in the study area would occur as a result of the proposal.

Individual Residential Properties

83. The only residents located within 0.7km of the proposed development who may gain

open views of the proposal are at Bearley Farm and could experience a significant effect

on their visual amenity. Viewpoint 1 is located within this distance and illustrate the types

of views of the proposed development that these residents might experience, some

partial visibility of the proposal may be available, however it is also often the case that

residential properties have vegetation associated with them, along boundaries and

within garden areas. Garden vegetation and farm buildings will screen much of the

development from any views at this location.

84. Additionally, as noted above, significant effects on visual amenity can be perceived as

beneficial, adverse or neutral and this depends largely on the perceptions and opinions

of the individual receptors and, to a certain extent, on the type of development

proposed. Therefore, these predicted significant effects on visual amenity could be

perceived as positive or negative by these residents depending on their personal opinion

of renewable energy developments.

Long Distance Recreational Routes

85. Leland Trail and Monarch’s Way follow the same route through the study area, entering

the site to the east and heading south from Ilchester to Montachute where it leaves the

study area. At their closest point the routes are 2.1km from the proposed development.

The ZTV suggests that views of the site will be potentially available between Sock Farm to

just north of Ilchester cemetery. However, as seen in Viewpoint 4 visibility of the

development beyond the A303 is limited due to roadside planting and at a distance of

over 2km away there would be no significant change in the view for users of this route.

86. The River Parrett Trail is present in the study area to the southwest of the proposed

development, 4.5km at its closest point from the proposed development. The ZTV (Figure

1) suggests that there would be no visibility from this route within the study area.


Page 19

87. The National Cycle Route 33 is located at 4.7km south of the proposed development at

its closest point. Stoke Sub Hamdon, Viewpoint 6 is the closest viewpoint from this route

and shows a typical view that users of the route may experience. As can be seen from

Viewpoint 6 the development would not be noticeable at this distance. Therefore there

would be no significant change to the visual amenity to users of this route.

88. Macmillan Way West enters the study area to the northwest for a short stretch through

Long Sutton, at its closest point it is 4km from the proposed development at its closest

point. The ZTV suggest that views from this route would be minimal and given that this is

over 4.5km from the proposed development there would be no significant change in the

view for users of this route within the study area.

Local Public Rights of Way

89. There is a network of public byways, footpaths and bridleways in the surrounding area,

the closest of which is the footpath north of the proposed development. The ZTV suggests

fairly consistent visibility of the proposal from this route, but as Viewpoint 1, 3 and 4

illustrates vegetation screening within the local area would partially screen much of the

development from views along these routes. The viewpoint analysis has suggested that

the limit of significance for high/medium sensitivity receptors such as users of the local

public rights of way network would be immediately surrounding the site (ie within

approximately 100m of the site)). There are no public rights of way located within this

distance and so no significant effects on the visual amenity of any users of these routes

within the study area would occur as a result of the proposed development.

Public Highways

90. Public highways in the study area include the A37, A303, A3088, A372, B3165, B3151 and

a network of minor roads. The viewpoint analysis has predicted that, for medium

sensitivity receptors, such as motorists and their passengers, significant changes in the

view are unlikely to occur. This has been illustrated by Viewpoints 5 where no significant

effect on the visual amenity of motorists is expected due to the levels of existing

vegetation within the landscape and the proposed planting associated with the

application.

CONCLUSIONS

91. This assessment has examined the likely effects of the proposed development on the

landscape and visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.

92. The significant effects of this proposed development would be limited to:

• The character of the landscape of the site and immediately surrounding area.

This would be limited to an extremely small part of the Visual Character Region 7,

and the landscape area of Lower Lias Clay Vales, Rivers and Flood Plains.

• The visual amenity of residents in properties up to approximately 0.7km from the

proposed development, with open views towards the proposed development.

These are limited to Bearley Farm.

93. There would not be any significant effects on landscape fabric, the character of the

landscapes beyond the immediate surroundings of the site, or the visual amenity of most

residents, or walkers, equestrians and cyclists on any long distance recreational routes or

motorists on any, A, B and local road network within the study area.

94. Therefore, it is considered that the significant effects on landscape and visual amenity as

a result of the proposed development would be limited and acceptable in this location.


Page 20

REFERENCES

Countryside Agency (2002) Visualising Renewable Energy in the Landscape of 2050.

DCLG (June 2006a) Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and

procedures. A Consultation Paper.

DCLG (June 2006b) Amended Circular on Environmental Impact Assessment. A Consultation

Paper.

DETR (1999) Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and

Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 293) as amended by the Town and Country Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (SI

2000 No 2867) and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

(Amendment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 No 3295).

Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013)

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition

Landscape Institute (March 2011) Photography and Photomontage in landscape and visual

impact assessment (LI Advice Note 01/11)

South Somerset District Council (1996) Landscapes of South Somerset

Swanwick C (2004a) Landscape Assessment Series – Topic Paper 6 – Techniques and Criteria

for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity

Swanwick C (2004b) Landscape Assessment Series – Topic Paper 9 – Climate Change

anaerobic digestion plant at bearley farm, tintinhull...

Documents