3. SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY

The methodology for the report is illustrated in the flowchart below and described in more detail in the text that follows.

The methodology was informed by the documents listed in Appendix 1, including guidance developed for use in Scotland which is specific to wind energy development schemes and is widely accepted for use in England and Wales.  The following good practice documents were particularly informative:

• Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity (Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Agency, 2006). 
• Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA). The Landscape Institute and the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment (Second edition 2002) replaced by GLVIA Third edition April 2013.  This is the industry standard for landscape and visual assessment.

Both Topic Paper 6 and GLVIA advocate the use of professional judgement and an understanding of landscape character to help inform broad assumptions as to what makes one landscape relatively more or less sensitive than another to particular forms of development.   Key to this is an understanding of which aspects of the landscape are particularly susceptible to the type of development proposed.  These include physical, perceptual and experiential characteristics.  The susceptibility of these is first assessed individually before being combined and a judgement for overall sensitivity made through balanced assessment of all the characteristics.

The assessment was informed by data gathered from the sources of baseline information listed in Appendix 1, including maps, relevant landscape and historic character assessments, LANDMAP, field work and consultations with the Steering Group.

LANDMAP is the formally adopted methodology for landscape assessment in Wales and has been extensively used to inform this study in accordance with GLVIA.   LANDMAP is an all-Wales GIS based landscape resource where landscape characteristics, qualities and influences on the landscape are recorded and evaluated into a nationally consistent dataset.  LANDMAP comprises five spatially related datasets (layers) - Geological Landscape, Landscape Habitats, Visual and Sensory, Historic Landscape and Cultural Landscape.  Information on each is detailed in the LANDMAP Methodology: Guidance for Wales (CCW, 2008). 

Each of the five spatial layers are subdivided into discrete geographical units (GIS polygons) referred to as aspect areas.  Each mapped aspect area is defined by its recognisable landscape characteristics and qualities.  Accompanying each aspect area is a description (Collector Survey record) which describes and documents the landscape character, qualities and features.  Management recommendations are also provided, together with an overall evaluation score, contextualised from a local to international scale of importance.

Each Collector Survey records information from the unique perspective of the LANDMAP layer concerned, with each LANDMAP layer being produced independently for each of the five layers.  Therefore when key characteristics are referred to across several layers for the same geographic area, the value of their importance is typically emphasised.  However, it is only by assessing each layer on its own, that it becomes clear which aspects of the landscape character and qualities are sensitive.

Although GLVIA recommends that data from all five LANDMAP layers should be used in any assessment, the Cultural Landscape information provided in the Cultural Landscape layer was not sufficiently detailed to be useful for this study⁸.

⁸ LANDMAP Information Guidance Note 3 doesn’t identify any specific evaluation criteria for Cultural Landscape

Study Area
As shown in Figure 3, the study covers the whole of the local Planning Authority area for Conwy and Denbighshire, excluding Snowdonia National Park.   It includes areas with particular landscape interests notably the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Llangollen Canal World Heritage Site, Conwy Castle World Heritage Site, Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB, Great Orme Heritage Coast, Cynwyd and Llandrillo AOB, Registered Historic Landscapes and Registered Parks and Gardens.

The assessment took account of coastal and seascape issues only where they were relevant to the assessment of landscape character and sensitivity of the coastline between Lavan Sands (to the north west) and the Point of Ayr (to the north east).  Consideration of offshore wind energy developments were not in the remit of the study.

Due to the height of turbines and their wide ranging visual influence, any development will typically affect the landscape in which it is located and also neighbouring landscapes.  Existing and proposed wind energy developments beyond the Councils’ boundaries were therefore included in the baseline for the assessment, focusing on those within 10km of the boundary.  This report is principally concerned with wind energy developments of smaller to medium scale, therefore for the purposes of this study it was considered that this is the distance where the potential for significant visual effects arising from small to medium scale wind energy developments is most likely to arise.

Landscape sensitivity and capacity studies are typically based on existing local landscape character assessments which subdivide the landscape into landscape character types (LCTs) or landscape character areas LCAs); ideally LCAs (refer to Appendix 7 for definitions).  These are then reviewed and the key characteristics of each LCA (or LCT) which are potentially sensitive to any given development (key sensitivity criteria) are identified.  Whilst these key sensitivity criteria may vary according to the nature of the development being considered, the methodological approach between studies is generally similar.  In this case, there wasn’t a current consistent landscape character assessment covering both Conwy and Denbighshire⁹.  After consideration with the Steering Group, the Clwyd Landscape Assessment 1995 was considered to be the most appropriate baseline for the purpose of this study, due to the following reasons:

• The Clwyd Landscape Assessment covers the most of the study area (approximately 85%).
• Although it was produced 18 years ago the landscape character types within the Clwyd Landscape Assessment are closely linked to the landscape character areas of the more recent Denbighshire Landscape Strategy (produced in 2003), which is based on an analysis of data from the five LANDMAP layers.
• LANDMAP uses the Clwyd Landscape Assessment 1995 as a key data source.
• The landscape character types were generally considered to be of a suitable scale to use as the reporting units for the study. 

The Clwyd Landscape Assessment breaks much of the landscape of the study area down into 27 LCTs.  For the purpose of this report these LCTs were subdivided into geographical areas and are referred to as landscape units (refer Appendix 7 for definition).  The term landscape units has been used for the purpose of this report as the areas are not formally recognised as LCAs.

The 15% of the study area which was not covered by the Clwyd Landscape Assessment was subdivided into three landscape units, primarily based on Special Landscape Areas as described in Conwy’s Revised Background Paper 27 - (August 2012). This approach was endorsed by the Steering Group.

⁹ Although the Visual and Sensory Aspect Area (VSAAs) boundaries could have been used as the reporting units for sensitivity, the scale of these (>300 across the study area), was considered too detailed for this strategic study.

Figure 5 illustrates the 42 landscape units which were devised.  Due to the Clwyd Landscape Assessment plan not being available in GIS or any other digital format, the original paper based plan was scanned in and digitised into GIS format and then overlaid onto a current 1:50,000 OS base of the area.

A key step in the study process was to identify and understand the aspects of the landscape which are more likely to be affected by wind energy development as it is these characteristics which ultimately define how much development could potentially be accommodated or not in a particular area. 

The criteria defined in Table 1.3 and Table 1.4 are based on current good practice and were agreed with the Steering Group.  They include criteria relating to landscape character and visual amenity as well as other aesthetic, perceptual and experiential aspects, for example scenic quality, remoteness and tranquillity.  They also include criteria relating to the value of the landscape¹⁰, as defined by the presence of any landscape designations and undesignated landscapes which have been evaluated by LANDMAP as Outstanding or High¹¹.   It is important to emphasise that a landscape which is highly valued by society may still be able to accommodate some wind energy development in the right location - if it fits with the characteristics of the landscape and doesn’t compromise the reason why value is attached to the landscape and in the case of designated landscapes, does not compromise the purpose for designation.  Conversely a landscape that isn’t designated may be highly sensitive to wind energy development if it has particular characteristics which are very sensitive to wind energy development.

¹⁰ Although not strictly a sensitivity criterion as defined by Topic Paper 6, designated landscapes are typically highly vulnerable to change associated with wind energy development, therefore they were included in the assessment of sensitivity.

¹¹ TAN 8 states that to identify the landscape value of an area, existing information on landscape value derived from LANDMAP should be mapped.  A concentration of Outstanding and High evaluation scores in a given area can be significant.  However it does not mean a blanket ban on development; it is the underlying information from which the evaluations are derived that must be judged in order to arrive at an assessment of sensitivity based on value.

Table 1.4 identifies the LANDMAP datasets which were used to help assess the sensitivity of each criteria and how they have been used to indicate lower or higher sensitivity.  This was supplemented by information from existing assessment work (see Appendix 6).

The sensitivity of each landscape unit within the study area was assessed against each of the sensitivity criteria and graded using a transitional three point sensitivity scale, higher, medium or lower as described in Table 1.2 below.

Table 1.2: Definition of Sensitivity

The overall assessment of sensitivity of each landscape unit was then evaluated and an overall grade of sensitivity was assigned using a more detailed five point sensitivity scale, low, medium, medium-high, high and very-high. This process involved a balanced approach, considering all the assessed criteria and focussing particularly on the susceptibility of the key landscape characteristics of each unit to wind energy developments. All of these evaluations represent the judgement of two qualified and experienced landscape architects, based on both desk top studies and field surveys.  The overall evaluations of sensitivity are not based on any mathematical formula (for example – assigning scores and adding up the lower, moderate and higher scores and averaging them out) there is also recognition that sensitivity does vary locally within the landscape units and that the overall evaluation represents the general sensitivity across the landscape unit to reflect the strategic nature of this study.

Table 1.3: Criteria for Assessing Landscape and Visual Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development

Table 1.4: Source of Data Relevant to the Sensitivity Criteria

This part of the study involved desk and field survey, the latter being undertaken both in the early stages of the study (familiarisation) and later to help verify and refine the desk based sensitivity assessments. 

The first step in the process was to:

• Identify and evaluate the existing landscape of the study area, including its distinctive characteristics, existing landscape designations and effects of existing wind energy developments. 
• Identify and evaluate the existing views and visual amenity of the study area.
• The following information was reviewed as a desk exercise:
• Ordnance Survey maps and aerial photography.
• Designated and nationally/regionally valued landscapes, including the Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB, Cynwyd and Llandrillo AOB, SLAs, Registered Historic Landscapes, Registered Parks and Gardens.
• Information from LANDMAP datasets (all five Aspect Areas).
• Natural and Built Heritage GIS mapping data.
• Existing landscape character assessments.
• Registered Historic Landscapes, including Dyffryn Clwyd (The Vale of Clwyd), Pen Isaf Dyffryn Conwy (Lower Conwy Valley), Creuddyn a Chonwy (Creuddyn and Conwy), Gogledd Arllechwedd (North Arllechwedd), Y Berwyn (Berwyn), Pen Isaf Dyffryn Elwy (Lower Elwy Valley), Mynydd Hiraethog (Denbigh Moors), Dyffryn Llangollen ac Eglwyseg (Vale of Llangollen and Eglwyseg), Comin Treffynnon a Mynydd Helygain (Hollywell Common & Halkyn Mountain) , Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal World Heritage Site, Registered Parks and Gardens and visually prominent Scheduled Monuments.
• Existing wind energy developments within the study area.

The findings of the desk survey, which were subsequently refined following field survey work, are presented in Section 3.  They include an overview of the key landscape characteristics of the study area, a description of existing and consented wind energy developments and their effect on the landscape and comments on any issues of existing and potential cumulative effects.

This part of the study required the preparation of sensitivity assessment sheets for each landscape unit, as presented in Section 4. 

The key features of each landscape unit are described before being evaluated against the sensitivity criteria described in Table 1.3 and Table 1.4 using a three point grading:  higher, medium or lower (described in Table 1.2, Section 1).   Those characteristics which are considered particularly susceptible to development are highlighted.  Finally a judgement on the overall sensitivity of each landscape unit to change associated with wind energy development is made, based on a more detailed five point sensitivity scale: low; medium; medium-high; high; and very high.   

Appendix 6 includes a CD containing 21 plans which represent data taken from LANDMAP overlaid onto the study area (as listed in Table 1.4). This information was used to make initial judgements on sensitivity which was then backed up and or moderated following further desk top studies and the site visits.

On completion of the draft assessment, field surveys were undertaken to help test and refine the findings and provide the following information: 

• Better understanding of the general characteristics of the landscape including the effects of existing wind energy developments and any forces for change which it may be experiencing.
• Analysis of the landscape, in terms of the characteristics and qualities which affect its sensitivity to wind energy development, including the special qualities of any designations which apply.
• Appreciation of the variations within individual landscape units and more detailed understanding of scenic quality and landscape condition.
• Appreciation of the nature of any visual amenity issues.
• Understanding of the degree of intervisibility, both between landscape units within Conwy and Denbighshire and with landscapes in neighbouring authority areas. 
• Important views to and from each landscape unit were recorded, identifying distinctive features such as iconic viewpoints, views to and from designated landscapes, skylines or uninterrupted horizons (both land and sea).  It is important to understand how the landscape is experienced both from fixed viewpoints and sequentially as people travel through an area.
• Understanding of how individual characteristics either alone or in combination make one landscape more sensitive than another.  This helped identify any specific strategic sensitivity / capacity constraints which may reduce the potential of particular landscape areas to accommodate wind energy development.

The fieldwork also briefly considered the likely implications of the different wind energy development typologies in relation to different aspects of the landscape.  The acceptability of the different wind energy development typologies varies across all landscape units.   In small scale sheltered valleys for example, there are clear technical constraints to large and medium typologies.   Similarly, areas with significant landscape sensitivities to large scale development such as the Clwydian Range and Dee Valley AONB, may only be suitable for single very small turbines.

Based on the results of the field surveys, the draft evaluations of landscape unit sensitivity were refined and the final sensitivity assessment and accompanying summary tables for each landscape unit prepared.

The final step in Stage Two involved combining the landscape units into larger landscape strategy areas.  This was informed by the sensitivity assessments, supplemented by an analysis of intervisibility, key visual receptors, topography (including ridgelines and water-sheds based on LANDMAP information), Ordnance Survey and GIS data, landscape character, observations made during field studies and discussions with the Steering Group.

A judgement was then made on the overall sensitivity of each of these strategy areas based on an assessment of their constituent landscape units.  To allow for more refined judgement, the overall sensitivity of strategy areas was judged on a five point scale - low, medium, medium-high, high and very high.  As before, these levels are based on professional judgement rather than a mathematical scoring system or matrix analysis as discussed previously.

This stage in the study applied professional judgement to determine the most appropriate landscape objective(s) and the relative capacity of each of the identified strategy areas by combining the landscape and visual sensitivity evaluation with issues of intervisibility and potential cumulative effects that may arise should further development take place.

Landscape capacity for wind energy development reflects not only the presence of different landscape characteristics and values, but also the grouping and height of the turbines in relation to the scale of the landscape.  To help evaluate this, a series of generic wind energy development typologies based on past wind energy development applications and anticipated future trends, was identified..  The almost endless possible permutations of turbine numbers and heights made the choice of an appropriate range of typologies difficult.  There was, however, a clear need to establish appropriate typologies to enable the provision of meaningful guidance, including guidance on single and pairs of turbines below 60m to blade tip, which are becoming increasingly common in planning applications and enquiries.

The five categories (micro, small, medium, large, and very large) which were identified and agreed with the Steering Group are is presented in Table 1.5 overleaf and illustrated in Figure 9 in comparison to other well-known local landmarks to provide a sense of scale.

A proposal will normally be considered as falling  within  the  category  that  represents  the  biggest  type  for  which  it qualifies.

Table 1.5: Wind Energy Development Typologies

¹²These values are for guidance only and should not be taken as a criterion for determining typology. Efficiency and energy outputs are continually subject to advances in technology and operational efficiency, therefore it is recognised that these values are likely to change.

Applications and enquiries for smaller to medium scale wind energy projects are applicable to the wider study area.  Here, turbine height (rather than just the number of turbines) and how this relates to landscape scale and landform, is a key consideration as well as localised issues including settlement separation, views from settlement edges and routes. Applications and enquiries for large and very large scale wind farm developments are most commonly associated with TAN 8 SSA A.  The large and very large typologies have been included within Table 1.5 above for reference; however, the capacities for these categories are not dealt with as part of this study, as developments of this scale are not considered to be appropriate outside the TAN 8 Area.

Whilst output is used to define different scales of wind energy development in the Councils’ emerging Local Development Plans, there are a number of specific  conditions (in relation to height, rotor diameter or number of turbines), which influence the landscape and visual effect of a proposal and which can therefore change the categorisation of a proposal regardless of output.  Indicative outputs are presented in Table 1.5 for reference; however, this information should not be used to determine which typology applies to proposed wind energy developments.

Landscape Objectives
The Design Commission for Wales (DCfW) in its 2012 document, Designing Wind Farms in Wales, applied Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) guidance to the development of its own guidance relating to the development of wind farms.   In this document three landscape objectives are discussed in relation to ‘wind farm’ developments as follows: 

• Landscape Protection: a ‘landscape with no wind farms or infrequent wind farms’.
• Landscape Accommodation: a ‘landscape with occasional wind farms’.
• Landscape Change: a ‘landscape with wind farms’.

This landscape sensitivity and capacity assessment for wind energy development was commissioned to identify the sensitivity of the landscapes of Conwy and Denbighshire, specifically in relation to ‘wind energy’ development as opposed to ‘wind farm’ development. The above DCfW guidance has therefore been slightly modified and an extra objective added to reflect the scales of wind energy development which are being addressed in this report. It is important to note that these should not be seen as rigidly prescriptive objectives.

Each landscape strategy area is assigned a landscape objective, or in some cases several landscape objectives, to assist the Councils’ decision making on new applications.  These landscape objectives then form the basis for recommendations on the wind energy development typologies which may be appropriate in each of the strategy areas.

The relationship or thresholds of landscape change that may arise from development vary depending on the landscape and the nature of the potential development.   It is assumed however that there is typically higher capacity for wind energy development in areas of lower sensitivity where landscape change is considered more acceptable.  Conversely areas of higher sensitivity, particularly those which are designated are likely to have very limited capacity.  In addition, larger strategy areas may be able to accommodate a greater number of developments.

An overall indicative landscape capacity has been derived for each landscape strategy area by considering the following:

• Overall landscape and visual sensitivity to wind energy development which determines the objective for the area.
• The range of visual experiences; how the landscapes of the area are seen and contribute to strategic and local issues.
• Operational and consented wind energy developments within and adjacent to each landscape strategy area.
• The size of each visual compartment.  There may be scope for a greater number of developments within large strategy areas before a capacity threshold is reached.

Whilst the indicative landscape capacity helps to identify the type of developments which could be potentially accommodated, this does not in itself suggest that planning applications for wind energy development in these areas will be appropriate.  Other variables such as environmental designations and technical constraints, the site specific siting, layout and design and need for the development are beyond the scope of this assessment and will need to be considered on a case by case basis.

The general relationship between landscape sensitivity, landscape objectives and capacity is illustrated below. 

Guidance has been formulated for each strategy area to help direct development to the most appropriate locations in landscape and visual terms.  This guidance broadly indicates what type(s) of wind energy development (if any) may be considered appropriate and highlights specific design and siting issues.  Any specific constraints which may reduce the potential of particular areas to accommodate wind energy development are noted as are any potential cumulative and cross boundary effects of wind energy development.

A number of more general guidance notes have also been developed to be read alongside this specific guidance; these are found in Section 6.