landscape indicators for strategic environmental assessment - issues to consider

8/2/2019 Landscape Indicators for Strategic Environmental Assessment - Issues to Consider

1/11

Landscape Indicators for Strategic Environmental

Assessment of LTPs issues to c onsider

A disc ussion pa pe r prepared for: Countryside Agenc y (LAR Division)

Prepa red by : Peter Nelson and Maritta Bod en

(Land Use Consultants)

Draft Com pleted Quality Reviewed Approva l for Issue

7th July 2005 Sarah Young

8th July 2005

Pete r Nelson

8th July 2005


2/11

1

LANDSCAPE INDICATORS FOR SEAs

OF LOCAL TRANSPORT PLANS

PURPOSE

1. This note d ic usses the deve lop ment and app lica tion of landsc ape indica tors

in SEAs of Loc a l Transport Plans (LTPs). It b egins by summarising the und erlying

requirements and then considers baseline information that is likely to be

ava ilab le to most loc a l authorities. The prac tica l difficulties of quant ifying the

nature and magnitude of landscape changes are acknowledged and the

mo st p rom ising a rea s of investiga tion a re highlighted . The note stresses tha t

for most authorities it will be necessary to develop individual and locally

relevant indicators in the absence of national standards which are under

development.

LANDSCAPE OBJECTIVES, TARGETS AND INDICATORS

2. Landsc ape is one of the environm enta l c harac te ristics tha t is spec ifica lly

identified in the SEA Direc tive a nd in the UK Reg ulations (Environm enta l

Assessment of Plan and Prog rammes Regulations S1 2004 No 1633). It is

essentia l tha t every SEA o f an LTP should g ive d ue weight to land sc ape issues.

3. The SEA Direc tive and UK Reg ulat ions do not spec ific a lly require the use of

objectives, targets or indicators, but they are a beneficial mechanism to

de sc ribe , ana lyse and c ompa re environme ntal effec ts. An objective is a

statement of what is intended, specifying a desired direction of change.Targe ts should be set to describe what results are required within a specific

timescale and indicators provide the tool for determining whether or not

ta rge ts are me t.

4. The basic req uirem ents for a ll forms of transport ind ica to rs a re set out in theFull Guidanc e on Loc al Transpo rt Plans, Sec ond Edition, DFT (2005). This sta tes

that indicators should be based on the hierarchy of targets defined within

LTPs. In add ition, the p lan should inc lude Loca l Transport Targe ts for outc ome

indicators that are visible and clearly linked to the plan authorities wider vision

and ob jec tives.

Sc ope

5. To be effec tive, ind ica tors need to be ta rge ted on measurable a ttributes. This

is less easy to achieve for landscape than for other environmental

c ha rac te ristic s like noise or a ir and w ater qua lity. Nevertheless it is possible to

define landscape characteristics that are measurable in a qualitative if not

quantita tive wa y. Land sc ape in this context is taken to inc lude both

c ountryside and townsc ap e.

6. Polic ies and proposa ls in loc a l transport plans can a ffec t landsc ape and

tow nscape in two basic ways. Firstly they can imp ac t on q uality lead ing

either to the enhancement or deterioration in features that are valued by

soc iety. Examp les wo uld inc lude unsymp athetic roa d widening in a

designated landscape, or construction of a fly-over adjacent to a major


3/11

2

pub lic build ing. Sec ond ly, LTP policies and prop osa ls c an a ffec t the

c harac ter of the land sc ap e or townsc ap e. Effec ts of de velopme nt or

changes in transport patterns on character are likely to be more subtle and

take place over longer time spans than those affecting quality. A third

c onsideration relates to the fa c t tha t LTP polic ies and prog ram me s can a ffec t

not only the physical form a nd p erc ep tions of land scap e a nd to wnscap e, buta lso p eo ples enjoym ent of these a ssets.

PROVIDING BASELINE INFORMATION

7. It is com mo n expe rienc e tha t it is ea sier to create indica tors than to find the

evidenc e tha t will ensure the ind ic a tor is effec tive. With bo th landsc ap e and

townsc ape the re is rea lly no substitute for p rop erly resea rc hed assessme nts of

existing q uality a nd charac ter as a basis for develop ing indica tors.

8. Landscap e Quality: In its 2002 Rural White Paper, the Go vernme nt c a lled for anew indicator of change in countryside quality in order to ensure that policies

are develope d on sound evidenc e. The Countryside Ag enc y (CA) has

c om missioned resea rc h which is lea d ing towa rds an ind ic a tor for c hange incountryside quality based on an analysis of:

The t ransformation in wo od land bo undary fea tures,

Agriculture, Settlement and d evelopm ent,

Sem i na tural habitats,

Histo ric fea tures,

Rivers and coastal elements within the Joint Character Areas ofEngland.

9. Potent ial indica to rs c over:

The extent or stock of characteristic landscape element (semi natural

vegetation, types of woodland, build and settlement, hedgerows andtrees),

Whether these characteristic elements are in good condition and

subject to appropriate management (roadside verges, conditions of

streams and rivers, uptake of woodland grants and countryside

stewa rdship sc hem es, SSSI co nd ition and anc ient mo numents a t risk,

The extent and form of new elements in the countryside (roads,

communication infrastructure, Greenfield development),

A measure of key factors affecting the countryside experience -

(tranquillity/disturbance) and benefits it has to offer (e.g. access,

experienc e o f wild life).

Source :Tracking Changes in Co untryside Qua lity Constructing a n Ind ica to r

of Change in Countryside Quality, June 2004, Nottingham University

Consultants Ltd and CRN 85 Countryside Quality Counts, CA, 2004.


4/11

3

10. These indica tors on cha nge in countryside qua lity a re held in ma p form and

include an a ttribute d ata ba se w hich c an b e d isag grega ted to a regional and

character area level through the Countryside Quality Counts (CQC) website.

Further work will be undertaken by CA and its successor, Natural England,

including the updating and revision of new landscape typologies, integration

of CA descriptions with information from historic landscape characterisationand refinement of methods used to create the CA profiles for the next

assessment, so that they can be more spatially explicit and consistently

described.

11. Outputs from the resea rc h programme may not be readily ava ilab le to loc al

authorities in the short term, but all authorities have maps showing the extent

of areas with sta tuto ry designa tions includ ing Nat iona l Parks, AONBs and

Conservation Areas. Othe r designa tions ma y also a pp ly inc lud ing Heritage

Coasts, World Herita ge Sites, and loc a lly defined histo ric o r sc enic a rea s. All

such areas should be identified on maps as a basis for assessing effects on

quality.

12. Landscape (and townscape) character is equally important when assessing

the pote ntia l and ac tua l effec ts of LTPs bec ause it relate s to the environm ent

that affects everyones daily lives; changes to it are no less important than

those a ffec ting areas of highe st qua lity. Landsc ap e c harac ter assessme nt

(LCA) is widely ac c ep ted as an e ffective tool for de sc ribing land sc ap e type s

and simila r me thods exist for c ha rac te rising tow nsc apes. Every loc a l autho rity

should develop landscape and townscape character appraisals for their

a rea s as a b asis for eva luat ing a nd influenc ing land scape c hang e.

13. Tranquillity : is anothe r pote ntially va luab le ind ic a tor for landscape and

environmental effects of transport schemes and there is continuing research

into ways of rec ording tranquility. A pa rticipa to ry appra isa l c onsulta tion has

been undertaken in Northumberland National Park and the West Durham

Coalfield to und ersta nd what tranq uillity is, is not and w hy it is important. The

stud y wa s subseq uent ly extended to c over the Chilterns AONB. Consultat ions

were held with key local stakeholders and countryside users (Understanding

Tranq uillity, CRN 95).

UNDERSTANDING LIKELY EFFECTS OF LTPS ON LANDSCAPE

14. In order to develop landsc ap e indica tors it is imp ortant to unde rsta nd the

nature o f the e ffec ts tha t LTPs ma y have sinc e these c an be both d irec t andind irec t. Large sca le deve lop me nt p rojec ts a re likely to have rea d ily

discernable impacts on landscape and townscape that can be measured

using the techniques specified in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

(DMRB) and the New Ap proa c h to Transport Assessment (NATA) and rela ted

professional guida nce. How eve r, many p olic ies and plans are likely to ha ve

subtler effects; for example, encouraging modal shifts from private cars topub lic transport, or introduc ing schem es like c ar sha ring. These initiat ives ma y

reduce levels of congestion and improve peoples overall perceptions of the

environment of either highways or public open spaces without being readily

d isc ernab le as a c hange in landsc ape qua lity, c harac ter or tranquillity. The

cumulative benefits may, in any event, be masked by the fact that there is no


5/11

4

appreciable change in traffic density since the measure may only

d iscourage growth in tra ffic ra ther than reduc e the existing flow levels.

15. Given the p rac tica l c onstraints tha t have been outlined ab ove it is c lea r tha t

the process of developing landscape and townscape indicators must be

pragma tic and take into c onside ration how monitoring will ac tually be c arriedout.

DEVELOPING LANDSCAPE INDICATORS

16. Loc a l authorities who are wrestling with the problem of c rea ting effec tive

indicators should consider setting up a small group of professional and

informed individuals (representing professional staff in transport and

land scap e, land scap e c onservation b od ies and c ivic and am enity soc ieties)

to b rainstorm an a pproa c h for their a rea . The a im should be to a gree on the

classifications to be employed and the process for evaluating chosen

indica tors. Idea lly, the g roup should be c onstituted a s a pa nel to overseefuture monitoring work. The group should aim to cove r land scape qua lity,

c harac ter and p ublic enjoyment.

17. Idea lly the setting of ob jec tives, ta rge ts and ind ic ators should take p lace as

part of the sc op ing sta ge of the SEA and befo re baseline surveys a re

c om plete d . For example a key issue for ma ny prote c ted land sc apes and

sensitive character areas is the degree of light pollution to which they are

exposed . Transport corridors c an have a ma jor adverse influence if

unsympathetic lighting solutions are adopted and it is therefore desirable to

record those stretches of road which are lit and the type of overhead lighting

employed . It is muc h easier to a rrange for this information to be c ollec tedand p resented in map fo rm when the requirement is identified a t the outset o f

the SEA, ra ther than as a bolt-on extra in the fina l stage s whe n time and

resources a re o ften no t a va ilab le.

Preparing Baseline Information

18. Baseline c harac teristics tha t can be rea d ily desc ribed and ma pp ed from

pub lished sources include:

Histo ric set tlem ents,

Histo ric Parkland and Ga rdens,

Urba n parks and op en spa c e, Archa eo log ic al sites and bat tlefields,

Monuments, follies, and other landmarks, Environm enta lly Sensitive Areas, whe re landsc ape q ua lity ha s p layed

an important part in designation,

Important woodlands, open grasslands or features of geological

importanc e g iven SSSI sta tus (eg . Limestone p aveme nts c overed by

Limestone Protec tion Orders).

19. Baseline cha rac teristics tha t may need to be ob ta ined b y survey, if the

relevant stud ies have not b een undertaken inc lude:

Important streetscapes (due to architectural style, landscape

c harac ter etc .)


6/11

5

Prom inent buildings of histo ric a l and / or a rc haeo log ic a l interest

20. Where a Landsc ape Cha rac te r Assessme nt exists this should ma ke refe renc e

to a number of landscape criteria that may be relevant when setting targets

and indic a to rs for LTPs. These c rite ria inc lude :

landscape quality (intactness of the landscape and the condition of

features, scenic qua lity,

rarity,

representativeness,

conservation interests, wilderness, histo rica l and c ultura l assoc iations, and ,

tranquillity which is a c om posite feature rela ted to low levels of built

deve lop ment, tra ffic , noise a nd artific ial light ing.

Source : Landsc ape Cha rac ter Assessme nt Guida nce for England and

Sc ot land , Ca rys Swanick and LUC, 2002

Developing Objec tives and Indicators

21. Experienc e shows tha t most landsc ape ob jec tives a re set too broa d ly to be of

p rac tica l releva nc e to transport issues. This is illustrate d by the o b jec tive of

Protecting and enhancing landscape and townscape which is used in a

number of published SEAs of LTPs. It is very d iffic ult to develop p rac tica l

indicators unless specific features of landscape or townscape are descibedthat a re subjected to p otential c hang e through the ac tivities or developm ent

prop osed in LTPs.

Indicators need to provide a good indicator of change in character, have

resonance (capture public attention), be capable of measure and use

meaningful data that is either easily available or capable of being easily

collected.

Source: Landsc ape Cha rac te r Assessme nt; Top ic Paper 2: Links to other

Susta ina b ility Tools.

22. Spec ific guidance on land sc ape ind ic a tors is provided in Guidelines for

landscape and visual assessment, second edition which suggests that

indicators of significance and sensitivity c an include protec tive d esigna tions,

areas of nature or heritage conservation interest, scenic quality or the

presence of detracting features. Impac ts tha t LTPs should t ry to monitor

include:

Landscape degraded by traffic, congestion, air quality, visual

intrusion, landscape erosion or areas where on current transport trends

there is likely to be significant loss of landscape character and/or

quality,

Areas where transport has had or is likely to have a significant impacton landsc ap e,


7/11

6

Land sc ap e de signa tions where c harac ter/q uality has be en e rod ed .

23. Two New App roa c h to Transport Assessme nt ob jec tives tha t a re releva nt to

landscape are:

Environmental impact (protection of the built and naturalenvironment),

Accessibility to improve access to facilities for those without a car and

to red uc e severanc e (see TAG Unit 2.11).

24. Loc a l Authorities who are p reparing SEAs for LTPs should also conside r wha t

information ma y be ava ilab le on landscape ind ic a tors from highe r tier SEAs or

SAs, inc luding work on reg iona l spatia l strateg ies. The South West Reg iona l

Spatial Strateg y, for examp le, quote s two indica tors under the ob jec tive of

Ma inta in and imp rove e nvironmenta l quality and assets w hic h are:

Countryside Quality Counts Nationa l Indic ator of Change , and , CPRE Tranq uil Area s.

25. These broa d ind ic a tors ma y help to provide a conte xt for wo rk a t loc a l

authority level but they are unlikely to be sufficiently detailed for use at local

level unless spec ific surveys have a lrea dy be en c arried out . As a sta rting

po int, land scap e indica tors should be ba sed on w ork alrea dy undertaken a t

local authority level, such as landscape character area assessments, or

supp lementa ry p lanning guidanc e on design standards. Hav ing de fined

areas of imp ortanc e, ta rge ts or ob jec tives should b e set, for example:

Targe t:Transport schem es within the LTP should have no net adverse e ffec t on

the character or quality of protected landscape, historic settlements

etc..

Indicator:The LPA w ill underta ke a review (annua lly, 5 yea rly) of the effe c ts of

new transport schemes on protected landscapes, historic settlements

etc..

26. In c onsidering the po tent ia l imp ac t of transpo rt sc hemes, the indica tors

should be designed to measure not only physical change brought about byconstruction work, but also the direct and indirect effects on landscape

quality brought about by changes in traffic volume, density, vehicle type and

vehicle speed, as in the c ase o f the Plymo uth LTP which c a lls for me asurement

of traffic levels on sensitive routes passing areas designated for their

landscape quality or tranquility. Where tranquility ma pp ing has taken plac e

it should be possible to provide a quantitative basis for the assessment, but in

othe r cases a q ualita tive judge me nt will be c a lled for.

27. Considera tion should a lso be g iven to the use of indica to rs to rec ord positive

change in landscape character or quality arising from sustainable transport

initiatives for example improvement of the public enjoyment of sensitive


8/11

7

landsc apes or tranq uil area s throug h substitution o f bus services for priva te c ar

ac c ess, or the introd uc tion o f c ar-sharing sc hemes.

EXAMPLES OF LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE INDICATORS

28. In this c onc lud ing sec tion examples a re g iven of releva nt baseline informa tion

and the typ es of indicato rs tha t ma y be used . The lists a re not exhaustive.

Local authorities should seek to identify those indicators that are relevant to

the specific landcape issues in their area and can be effectively monitored

ove r time.

Subjec t Area: Land scap e

Objec tive 1: To p rote c t landsc ape fea tures and a ssets from inap prop ria te

transpo rt- related de velop ment.

Objec tive 2: To a void g row th in roa d traffic a nd c onseq uent d ete rioration in

the character, quality and enjoyment of sensitive landscapes through traffic

movem ent,cong estion, adverse a ir qua lity, and visua l intrusion or landsc ape

erosion.

Baseline Informa tion

Required

Potential SEA

Indicator

Target Sourc es of

dataEnvironmentallySensitive Areas, where

land scap e q uality hasplayed a n imp ortant

pa rt in d esigna tion

Daily flow of vehicleson key sec tions of

roa d p assing throughsensitive a reas

Set spec ific ta rgets interms of %age dec line

(or restric ted grow th) intraffic flows

Routinehighway

monitoringprogrammes

Examples of BaselineInformation

Potential SEAIndicators

Target Sourc es ofdata

Designated landscapeprotection area s

Landscape character

areas

Imp ortant woo dlands

Op en g rasslands

Fea tures of g eolog ica l

importance (eg scarp

slopes, limestone

pavements, d rumlins)Histo ric Parkland and

Gardens

Archae ologica l sites

and ba ttlefields

Prominent buildings ofhistorical a nd/ or

archa eological interest

Monuments, follies, and

other land ma rks

Assessment of theland scap e or other

environmental effectsof LTP polic ies or

proposals resulting in

ma jor c onstruc tion

within identified areas

suc h a s:

Airport extensions

New flight p aths

New road / rail routes Roa d widening

Transpo rt

interchanges,

Ca r pa rks

Park and ride sites

No significant a dverseland scap e effec ts from

transport-relateddeve lopm ent in

sensitive landscape

areas

EIAs of majorprojects

Monitoring of

development

control

planning

decisions


9/11

8

Objec tive 3: To minimise the impac t of transport p rop osa ls on sensitive

landscape a rea s c aused by light p ollution.

Baseline Informa tion

Required

Potential SEA

Indicator

Target Sourc es of

dataCurrent distribution of

roa d lighting scheme s

within and a djac ent to

(within 1 mile) of

protected landsca pe

(Nationa l Park / AONB/

Heritage Coast

Tranquil Area Ma ps

Leng ths of road w ith

ove rhead lighting

columns

No a dd itional lighting to

be introd uced (or)

All new light ing

scheme s to b e

designed to red uce

glare and lateral light

displacement

Highways

Authority

Objec tive 4: To promote e njoyment of areas of high landsc ape qua lity and

spe c ial cha rac ter.

Townscap e

Objec tive 1: To avo id dama ge to a nd , whe re possible, enha nc e the visua l

appe aranc e a nd a esthetic qua lities of sett lements throug h transpo rt-related

de velopme nt with pa rtic ular empha sis on d esigna ted heritag e and

c onservation a rea s.

Examples of Baseline

Information

Potential SEA

Indicator

Target Sourc es of

dataProtec ted landscap e

areas

Landscape character

areas

Loc al a uthority records

of innovative transport

scheme

No. of new p ublic

transport, sha red

transport or otherinnovative access

schemes

Lengths of Rights of

Way, trails, access

trac ks, Quiet Lanes

and Greenways

within notified areas

A m ea sure o f use i.e.

no. o f passeng ers

transported annually

Length of netwo rk

Local

authority

records

Commissioned

surveys


10/11

9

Sources of Informa tion

Guidanc e is ava ilab le throug h the Department o f Transport s Transport

Analysis Guidance website www.we bTAG.org.uk and for landscape inparticular und er the Landsc ape Sub O b jec tive TAG Unit 3.3.7, Dec em ber 2004

References

1. SEA Direc tive 2001/ 42/EC on the Assessment of the Effec ts of Ce rtainPlans and Prog ramm es on the Environme nt.

2. UK Regulations (Environmental Assessment of Plan and ProgrammesRegulations S1 2004 No 1633).

3. Full Guidanc e on Loca l Transport Plans, Second Ed ition, DFT (2005).4. Rural White Paper, Our Countryside: the future, a fair deal for rural

England 2000, Defra.

5. Tracking C hanges in Co untryside Q ua lity Co nstructing a n Ind ica to r ofCha nge in Countryside Qua lity, June 2004, Nottingham University

Consultants Ltd.

6. CRN 85, Count ryside Qua lity Counts, CA, 2004.

7. CRN 92, Und ersta nd ing Tranq uility, CA 2005.

Examples of Baseline

Information

Potential SEA

Indicators

Target Sourc es of

dataSignifica nt urban vista s,

and imp ortant views for

loca l residents

Tree lined avenues and

streets

Squares, round abouts

and other trafficintersections with

extensive landscaping

Urba n pa rks and op en

space,

Important building

fac ad es in terms ofarchitec tural qua lity or

historical interest

Imp ortant Streetscape

with p rominent

buildings, monuments

or street furniture ofhistorical a nd/ or

archa eological interest

No. and typ e o f LTP

policies and proposals

that have the

po tential to alter theapp earance and

qualities of important

townsc ap es

No. and size (a rea

covered) of

pedestrianisation

schemes, trafficca lming m ea sures,

etc.

No. of deve lopm entschemes

ac comp anied by

detailed land scap e

and tow nsca pedesign

Achievement of

goals set out in

relevant Loc al

DevelopmentFramework

Documents

SEA of the LTP

Routine

monitoring byPlanning

Department


11/11

10

8. Environmental Assessment, Vol 11, Design Manual for Roads andBridges, Highways Ag enc y (as ame nded , 2005).

9. Transport Ana lysis Guida nc e, TAG , Unit 1.1 New Ap proach to TransportAssessment. 2005.

10. Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England andSc ot land , Ca rys Swanwick and LUC, 2002.

11. Guidelines for Landsc ape a nd Visua l Assessment, Sec ond Ed itionLandscape Institute and Institute of environmental Management and

Assessment, Spons 2002.

12. Ma pp ing tranquility defining and assessing a va luab le resource, CPRE2005.

Case Studies reviewed a s a b asis for this guidanc e no te

Scop ing rep orts fo r LTPs of Derby City Counc il, North East Lincolnshire, West

Sussex, and Plymouth.