DNS: EIA Scoping Direction

3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

23 December 2020

1 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Site Description ...... 2 3. Proposed Development ...... 3 4. History ...... 3 5. Consultation ...... 3 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Approach ...... 3 6.1 Baseline ...... 4 6.2 Reasonable Alternatives ...... 4 6.3 Currency of Environmental Information ...... 4 6.4 Cumulative Effects ...... 5 6.5 Mitigation ...... 6 6.6 Population and Human Health...... 6 6.7 Transboundary Effects ...... 6 7. Environmental Impact Assessment: Aspects of the Environment ...... 7 7.1 Aspects Scoped In ...... 7 Landscape and visual ...... 7 Historic Environment ...... 7 Biodiversity ...... 7 Construction Noise...... 7 8. Table 1: The Planning Inspectorate’s Comments ...... 8 9. Other Matters ...... 13 9.1 Habitats Regulation Assessment ...... 13 9.2 SuDS Consent...... 13 9.3 The National Development Framework (Future Wales: the national plan 2040) .... 14 Appendix: Consultation Responses ...... 15

Prepared by:

Chris Sweet MPlan Giulia Bazzoni MA PIEMA

1 2 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

This Scoping Direction is provided on the basis of the information submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 November 2020, in addition to consultation responses received. The advice does not prejudice any recommendation made by an Inspector or any decision made by the Welsh Ministers in relation to the development, and does not preclude the Inspector from subsequently requiring further information to be submitted with the submitted DNS application under Regulation 24 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Wales) Regulations 2017 (as amended) (“The 2017 Regulations”).

1. Introduction

The Planning Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate”) received a request under Regulation 33 of the 2017 Regulations for a Scoping Direction in relation to a proposed development for a solar photovoltaic electricity generating station (‘solar park’ or ‘solar farm’) and associated ancillary development by YnNi Newydd. The site of the proposed solar farm crosses the border between Wales and England, with some 16 MW of the overall 30 MW falling within the boundary of Flintshire County Council. It is that part of the site that falls to be considered as a Development of National Significance in Wales, with the remaining area subject to a planning application to Cheshire West and Chester Council in England. Whilst only part of the site lies within the jurisdiction of the Welsh Ministers (WMs), in line with established best practice for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), this Scoping Direction is based upon the consideration of likely significant effects from the proposed scheme as a whole and the subsequent Environmental Statement (ES) should be prepared on the same basis. The request was accompanied by a Scoping Report (SR) that outlines the proposed scope of the ES for the proposed development.

This Direction has taken into account the requirements of the 2017 Regulations as well as current best practice towards preparation of an ES. In accordance with the 2017 Regulations the Inspectorate has consulted on the SR and the responses received from the consultation bodies have been taken into account in adopting this Direction.

The Inspectorate is authorised to issue this Scoping Direction on behalf of the WMs.

2. Site Description

As set out at paragraph 3.2 of the SR, the application sites cover an area of approximately 49 ha of relatively flat, low lying agricultural land with an elevation of between approximately 3-6 m above ordnance datum (AOD). The land within the application site is divided into six medium-sized fields between four ha and 10 ha, and two smaller fields of between two ha and four ha. The fields are bound by a combination of hedgerows, trees and drainage ditches, with a small area of woodland adjacent to the southern boundary. The land within the application site boundaries is currently used for agricultural purposes with the main use comprising improved pasture for livestock grazing.

2 3 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

3. Proposed Development

The proposal is for a solar photovoltaic electricity generating station (‘solar park’ or ‘solar farm’) and associated ancillary development (including switchroom, fencing and security measures, access tracks, battery storage and both onsite and offsite cabling), with an installed generation capacity of up to 30 MW. As noted above, some 16 MW of that capacity would fall within the jurisdiction of the WMs. The scope of the EIA should include all elements of the development as identified in the SR, both permanent and temporary, including the proposed grid connection and taking account of all phases of development. This Scoping Direction is written on that basis. In line with the requirements of Regulation 17 and Schedule 4 to the 2017 Regulations, any reasonable alternatives considered should be presented in the ES. The reasons behind the selection of the chosen option should also be provided in the ES, including where environmental effects have informed the choices made.

4. History

As noted in the SR, the site is currently in agricultural use. There is no other relevant planning or development history.

5. Consultation

In line with Regulation 33(7) of the 2017 Regulations, formal consultation was undertaken with the following bodies: • Relevant Local Planning Authority [Flintshire County Council (FCC), incorporating responses from Clwyd & Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) and Airbus] • Natural Resources Wales (NRW) • Cadw • Dŵr Cymru (DCWW)

In light of the cross-boundary nature of the proposal, consultation was also undertaken with: • Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWaC)

Responses received are included in Appendix 1.

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Approach

The Applicants should satisfy themselves that the ES includes all the information outlined in Schedule 4 of the 2017 Regulations. In addition, the Applicant should ensure that the Non-Technical Summary includes a summary of all the information included in Schedule 4. Consider a structure that allows the author of the ES and the appointed Inspector and Decision Maker to readily satisfy themselves that the ES contains all the information specified Regulation 17 and Schedule 4 of the 2017 Regulations. Cross refer to the requirements in the relevant sections of the ES and include a summary after the Contents page that lays out all the requirements from the Regulations and what sections of the ES they are fulfilled by.

3 4 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

As the assessments are made, consideration should be given to whether standalone topic chapters would be necessary for topics that are currently proposed to be considered as part of other chapters, particularly if it is apparent that there are significant effects and a large amount of information for a particular topic.

The applicant’s proposed scope for the ES is based on the production of a range of other assessments and information to be provided as part of the application submission rather than the ES. Notwithstanding the issues set out later in this direction, the Inspectorate agrees with this approach where appropriate. For a number of the topic areas to be scoped out of the ES, the developer intends to include application documents that sit outside of the ES and provide information that will support their consultation(s) and the decision- making process. The developer is encouraged to liaise with key consultees regarding non- ES application documents which are not a legislative requirement of the DNS regime. If agreement cannot be reached over non-ES application documentation, then the developer may wish to explore whether the Inspectorate can help provide clarity via its statutory preapplication advice service.

The ES should focus on describing and quantifying significant environmental effects. The Inspectorate welcomes the stated intention to provide a separate Planning Statement to address the applicant’s case for the proposed development.

6.1 Baseline

Schedule 4 of the 2017 Regulations states that the ‘baseline scenario’ is “A description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment” (emphasis added). The baseline of the ES should reflect actual current conditions at that time.

6.2 Reasonable Alternatives

In line with the requirements of Regulation 17 and Schedule 4 to the 2017 Regulations, any reasonable alternatives studied by the Applicant should be presented in the ES. The reasons behind the selection of the chosen option should also be provided in the ES, including where environmental effects have informed the choices made.

It is worth bearing in mind that under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (“the Habitats Regulations”) unless it can be clearly shown to the Welsh Ministers that the project would have no adverse effect on the integrity of any designated sites, it would have to be shown that there is no feasible alternative solution (see advice note from IEMA). Further advice regarding the Habitats Regulations is provided in the final chapter of this Scoping Direction.

6.3 Currency of Environmental Information

For all environmental aspects, the applicant should ensure that any survey data is as up to date as possible and clearly set out in the ES the timing and nature of the data on which the assessment has been based. Any study area applied to the assessments should be clearly defined. The impacts of construction, operation and decommissioning activities should be considered as part of the assessment where these could give rise to significant environmental effects. Consideration should be given to relevant legislation, planning policies, and applicable best practice guidance documents throughout the ES.

4 5 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

The ES should include a chapter setting out the overarching methodology for the assessment, which clearly distinguishes effects that are 'significant' from 'non-significant' effects. Any departure from that methodology should be described in individual aspect assessment chapters. Where professional judgement has been applied this should be clearly stated.

The ES topic chapters should report on any data limitations, key assumptions and difficulties encountered in establishing the baseline environment and undertaking the assessment of environmental effects.

6.4 Cumulative Effects

The SR recognises the importance of including cumulative effects in the scope of the ES and the applicants have sought to identify relevant schemes using online search tools. In light of the comments below, the applicant should liaise with the relevant local authorities regarding other schemes, as local knowledge may provide a clearer picture of the schemes that need to be considered during production of the ES.

Based on the information set out in the SR, the approach to the assessment of cumulative impact is considered largely appropriate. The proposed 5 km radius is considered an appropriate starting point for identifying cumulative effects. However, the SR suggests that the search has been limited to other solar farm development, where there may be other forms of development that could result in cumulative effects in combination with that proposed. If other forms of development are to be excluded, the reasons for doing so should be clearly set out in the ES.

Effects deemed individually not significant from the assessment could cumulatively be significant, so inclusion criteria based on the most likely significant effects from this type of development may prove helpful when identifying what other developments should be accounted for. The criteria may vary from topic to topic.

Best practice is to include proportionate information relating to projects that are not yet consented, dependent on the level of certainty of them coming forward.

All of the other developments considered should be documented and the reasons for inclusion or exclusion should be clearly stated. Professional judgement should be used to avoid excluding other development that is close to threshold limits but has characteristics likely to give rise to a significant effect; or could give rise to a cumulative effect by virtue of its proximity to the proposed development. Similarly, professional judgement should be applied to other development that exceeds thresholds but may not give rise to discernible effects. The process of refinement should be undertaken in consultation with the LPA, NRW and other consultees, where appropriate.

The scope of the cumulative assessment should be fully explained and justified in the ES.

The Planning Inspectorate’s guidance for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects – Advice Note 17: Cumulative Effects Assessment sets out a staged process for assessing cumulative impacts that may be of relevance to the Applicant.

5 6 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

6.5 Mitigation

Any mitigation relied upon for the purposes of the assessment should be explained in detail within the ES. The likely efficacy of the mitigation proposed should be explained with reference to residual effects. The ES should provide reference to how the delivery of measures proposed to prevent / minimise adverse effects is secured (through legal requirements or other suitably robust methods) and whether relevant consultees agree on the adequacy of the measures proposed.

6.6 Population and Human Health

The Applicant should ensure that the ES addresses any significant effects on population and human health, in light of the EIA Regulations 2017. This could be addressed under the separate topic chapters or within its own specific chapter.

6.7 Transboundary Effects

Schedule 4 Part 5 of the EIA Regulations requires a description of the likely significant transboundary effects to be provided in an ES. The ES should address this matter as appropriate.

6 7 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

7. Environmental Impact Assessment: Aspects of the Environment

This section contains the Inspectorate’s specific comments on the scope and level of detail of information to be provided in the Applicant’s ES. Environmental topics or features are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the Applicant and confirmed as being scoped out by the Inspectorate. In accordance with Regulation 17(4)(c) the ES should be based on this Scoping Direction in so far as the Proposed Development remains materially the same as the Proposed Development described in the Applicant’s Scoping Report.

The Inspectorate has set out in this Direction where it has / has not agreed to scope out matters on the basis of the information available at this time. The Inspectorate is content that the receipt of a Scoping Direction should not prevent the Applicant from subsequently agreeing with the relevant consultees to scope such matters out of the ES, where further evidence has been provided to justify this approach. However, in order to demonstrate that the matters have been appropriately addressed, the ES should explain the reasoning for scoping them out and justify the approach taken.

Should the applicant wish to, due to a material change in circumstances after this Scoping Direction has been finalised, it is open to them to submit a request for an updated Scoping Direction. If the development itself materially changes, a fresh Scoping Direction should be sought.

7.1 Aspects Scoped In

Subject to the comments provided below the following topics are scoped into the ES:

Landscape and visual Historic Environment Biodiversity Construction Noise

Where no comments are provided in the table below, it can be read that the Inspectorate agrees with the approach set out in the SR, subject to relevant comments from the consultees.

7 8 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

8. Table 1: The Planning Inspectorate’s Comments

ID Reference in Issue Comment Scoping Report Cumulative Effects

2.7 Developments to be As noted above, the proposed 5 km radius is considered appropriate. ID.1 included. However, consideration of the potential for cumulative effects should not be limited to solar farm development. Other forms of development should be considered and the reasons for exclusion captured in the ES. The applicant should liaise with the LPAs to identify relevant forms of development.

Proposed Development

4.1 Extent of development. As noted above, the scope of the EIA should include all elements of the ID.2 development as identified in the SR, both permanent and temporary, including the proposed grid connection.

4.1 Grid Connection The ES should consider the effects of the grid connection to the electricity ID.3 network, where relevant. Where details are not available, a high level assessment should be provided.

If the intention is to apply for consent separately, it should be noted that following amendments to The Developments of National Significance (Specified Criteria and Prescribed Secondary Consents) (Wales) Regulations 2016, an electric line above ground of up to 132kV associated with a DNS Generating Station is specified as a DNS in itself.

8 9 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

ID Reference in Issue Comment Scoping Report Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

6.4.1 Cumulation. See above. Developments assessed should not be limited to solar schemes ID.4 only. The ES should demonstrate how sites have been identified and where appropriate, excluded from further assessment.

6.5.1 Receptors for inclusion. The Inspectorate is satisfied with the list of receptors as it relates to Wales. ID.5 However, in its consultation response, CWaC has recommended other landscape and viewpoint receptors for inclusion and the Inspectorate supports that view. The applicant is therefore directed to consider those further receptors and to liaise with CWaC over their inclusion in the ES.

6.7.1 Applicants’ questions. Save for comments ID.4 and ID.5 above regarding cumulative impacts and ID.6 proposed viewpoints / receptors, the Inspectorate agrees with the approach to LVIA set out in the SR. It should be noted that whilst the 5 km study area is considered appropriate, it should not lead to the exclusion of receptors further out where the results of ongoing work suggest effects that warrant assessment might occur.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

7.3.6.1 Applicants’ questions The Inspectorate largely agrees with the scope of assessment and proposed ID.7 methodology. However, CPAT has recommended that a pre-determination geophysical survey of the whole application site be carried out as part of the assessment that underpins the ES. Given the current level of information regarding the potential for buried archaeology, the Inspectorate agrees and therefore directs that such a survey should be used to inform the baseline for assessment of effects in the ES. It is recommended that the applicant liaise with CPAT as appropriate.

9 10 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

ID Reference in Issue Comment Scoping Report The applicant should also take note of comments from Cadw regarding the need to ensure that the ES takes account of the differences in guidance and approach to the historic environment between England and Wales. Particularly the weight to be given to measures designed to offset impacts.

Applicant’s proposed Aspects to be scoped out

Biodiversity ID.8 Table 8.2 Bats It is noted that trees and hedgerows are to be maintained and that whilst there are some possible roost sites, at the time of survey no bat presence was identified. However, given that the design and layout of the scheme has not been finalised and the requirements of the construction phase are not known, it is not considered possible to rule out significant effects on bats at this point.

While the Inspectorate welcomes the stated approach of minimising works that would potentially impact on these species, it considers that it is premature to scope Bats out of the ES at this stage. Survey work should be undertaken to confirm the presence or absence of sensitive receptors, before it can be determined whether the development is likely to have impacts. Additionally, the ES should consider not just the construction works, but the potential for pre-commencement intrusive investigations to affect sensitive receptors.

Biodiversity (Bats) is therefore scoped in to the ES.

ID.9 Table 8.2 Great Crested Newts Based on the information provided, the Inspectorate agrees that Great Crested Newts can be scoped out of the ES. However, the applicants’ attention is drawn to the comments provided by NRW and other consultees regarding the need for information to be included at application stage.

10 11 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

ID Reference in Issue Comment Scoping Report ID.10 Table 8.2 Birds The survey work carried out to date does not include surveys for wader or overwintering birds or for breeding ground-nesting birds and is therefore considered suboptimal. Moreover, the submitted Ecological Report suggests that the presence of Teal, a qualifying species for the Dee Estuary SPA and an assemblage species for the Dee Estuary RAMSAR site, has been reported on site, presenting the potential for a functional link with those designations. Given the level of information currently available, the Inspectorate therefore considers that Birds should not be scoped out prior to such survey work being undertaken and any findings being appropriately assessed. The applicant should refer to comments provided by NRW and the LPAs and should liaise with those bodies when establishing timings and appropriate methodology.

Biodiversity (Birds) is therefore scoped in to the ES.

Noise ID.11 8.3.5.1 Construction Noise The approach to Noise set out in the SR is considered generally appropriate and it is acknowledged that operational noise is unlikely to result in significant effects. However, given the lack of specific information covering construction methodology, it is considered premature to scope out potential effects from construction noise. The effects of construction noise should be assessed as information becomes available and should be taken into account in the relevant sections of the ES as appropriate.

Construction Noise is therefore scoped in to the ES.

11 12 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

ID Reference in Issue Comment Scoping Report Other matters ID.12 Paragraph Flood Risk It is agreed that Hydrology can be scoped out of the ES. However, the 8.5.3.2 applicant should note that the results of the proposed FCA may need to inform the design of the scheme and that therefore any implications from the FCA should be factored into the preparation of the ES as appropriate.

ID.13 8.9 Risk of Major Accident It is agreed that Risk of Major Accident can be scoped out of the ES. However, the applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments made by Airbus regarding the potential for solar panels to attract nesting birds and therefore to present an increased risk of bird strike relating to activities at Hawarden Airport. It is recommended that the applicant seek to address this issue at application stage, liaising with Airbus as necessary to establish an agreed position.

ID.14 Section 8.0 Transportation & Based on the information provided, the Inspectorate is satisfied that these Access matters can be scoped out of the ES. However, the applicants should give Land & Soil due consideration to the comments by consultees regarding information to Pollution & Nuisances be provided at the application stage. Waste Glint & Glare Human Health Socio-Economics

12

9. Other Matters

This section does not constitute part of the Scoping Direction, but addresses other issues related to the proposal.

9.1 Habitats Regulation Assessment

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 require competent authorities, before granting consent for a plan or project, to carry out an appropriate assessment (AA) in circumstances where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects). The competent authority in respect of a DNS application is the relevant Welsh Minister who makes the final decision. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient information to the competent authority to enable them to carry out an AA or determine whether an AA is required.

When considering whether or not significant effects are likely, applicants should ensure that their rationale is consistent with the CJEU finding that mitigation measures (referred to in the judgment as measures which are intended to avoid or reduce effects) should be assessed within the framework of an AA and that it is not permissible to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on a European site when determining whether an AA is required (‘screening’). The screening stage must be undertaken on a precautionary basis without regard to any proposed integrated or additional avoidance or reduction measures. Where the likelihood of significant effects cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information the competent authority must proceed to carry out an AA to establish whether the plan or project will affect the integrity of the European site, which can include at that stage consideration of the effectiveness of the proposed avoidance or reduction measures.

Where it is effective to cross refer to sections of the ES in the HRA, a clear and consistent approach should be adopted.

The Planning Inspectorate’s guidance for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects – Advice Note 10: Habitat Regulations Assessment relevant to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects may prove useful when considering what information to provide to allow the Welsh Ministers to undertake AA.

Given the potential for a functional linkage with the Dee Estuary SPA / RAMSAR site outlined above and the application site’s proximity to the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC, the applicant should ensure that sufficient information is provided with the application to allow the WMs to carry out an AA or to determine that it is not required. The Applicant is reminded that a Stage 1 screening exercise should also be conducted taking into consideration potential impacts from the development on all conservation objectives of the identified designated sites, both alone and in combination.

9.2 SuDS Consent

Whilst a separate legislative requirement from planning permission, the Applicant’s attention is drawn to the statutory SuDS regime that came into force in Wales in January 2019. The requirement to obtain SuDS consent prior to construction may require iterative design changes that influence the scheme that is to be assessed within the ES and taken through to application. As such, it is recommended that the applicant contact the local SuDS Approval Body early on.

14 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

9.3 The National Development Framework (Future Wales: the national plan 2040)

The Welsh Government published an updated draft of the NDF in September 2020. This latest iteration is a working draft that represents the Minister’s response to the public consultation on the draft version. It is currently subject to a period of scrutiny by the Senedd which will continue until February 2021. It may be further amended by this process. Once the NDF is finalised, it will form the highest tier of the development plan hierarchy in Wales. Should the application be submitted after the NDF is finalised, the application will need to address the contents of the NDF.

14 15 DNS: EIA Scoping Direction 3251545: Bretton Hall Solar Farm

Appendix: Consultation Responses

• Flintshire County Council (incorporating CPAT and Airbus) • Natural Resources Wales • Cadw • Dŵr Cymru • Cheshire West and Chester Council

15

Andrew Farrow Chief Officer (Planning, Environment & Economy) Prif Swyddog (Cynllunio, Amgylchedd ac Economi)

FAO – Christopher Sweet 3251545 Your Ref/Eich Cyf

Planning Inspectorate Wales Our Ref/Ein Cyf 061299

(via e-mail to Date/Dyddiad 16/12/2020 [email protected] ) Ask for/Gofynner am Miss H Parish

Direct Dial/Rhif Union

Dear Sir,

The Developments of National Significance (Procedure) (Wales) Order 2016 (As Amended) Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Wales) Regulations 2017 (‘the Regulations’)

Local Authority Consultation of the Scoping Opinion - Proposed Solar Farm at Land at Bretton Hall Farm, Chester Road, Bretton, Chester, CH4 0DF

Thank you for your consultation letter of 12 November 2020 requesting the Council’s advice on the scope of the EIA and proposed methodologies outlined in the Scoping Report for the above proposal.

We are in general agreement with the scope as set out within the applicant’s Scoping Report. A basic scoping matrix is attached with this letter and should be read in conjunction with the comments set out below. Responses from our consultees are summarised within the relevant sections within this letter, and we would advise that the applicant should refer to, and expand upon these matters raised within the environmental statement, or supplementary information should a planning application for this proposal be submitted.

The County Council has taken into account its consultation responses and considered the specific characteristics of the proposal, the type of development and the environmental features likely to be affected by the development. The County Council has undertaken consultation with internal consultees and local consultative bodies, as it is understood that PINS have consulted national bodies such as Cadw and Natural Resources Wales. Although this advice seeks to ensure that any future environmental statement includes such information that is considered reasonably required to determine any future application based on the current proposal, we would

County Hall, Mold. CH7 6NF www.flintshire.gov.uk Neuadd y Sir, Yr Wyddgrug. CH7 6NF

The Council welcomes correspondence in Welsh or English Mae’r Cyngor yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg neu’r Saesneg be obliged that you could stress to the applicant that further information may still be required once the environmental statement and application has been submitted.

As you will be aware, any environmental statement submitted must contain at least the information referred to in Schedule 4 of the above Regulations. The Statement must address the baseline conditions, likely significant impacts, the probability of effects and the proposed mitigation measures. The information provided should be that which is necessary to demonstrate the risks, likelihood of occurrence and likelihood of any significant impact (this includes an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant).

Introduction

Advice has been sought by the Planning Inspectorate Wales on the scope of the EIA and the proposed methodologies in the submitted Scoping Report for the construction and operation of a circa 30MW solar farm development with associated infrastructure, including:  Solar PV modules mounted on to frames to form arrays;  Transformer units;  Switchroom;  Fencing and security measures;  Access tracks;  Battery storage;  Onsite cabling, and  Offsite cabling connecting the main switchroom to the Saltney Primary Substation (grid connection).

A cross-boundary application

It is apparent that the application site is divided by the boundary between the administrative areas of Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC), and Flintshire County Council (FCC); the northern area of the application site lies within FCC and the southern area which lies within the jurisdiction of (CWAC). Therefore, two planning application to seek planning permission for this development would need to be submitted; one to each council for determination of that part of the proposal which lies within its jurisdiction. The scheme however should be described and assessed as a whole in the planning statement and within the required environmental statement. Accompanying plans should also illustrate the application site and where it lies within each local authority jurisdiction. For example, for the DNS submission to PINS, the development site within Flintshire should be outlined in red with an alternative red dashed line to illustrate the development area within CWAC so that the total development can be considered. Conversely, the application that is submitted to CWAC should show the development areas within Cheshire outlined in red and with a dashed red line within the land that lies within Flintshire’s jurisdictions.

Description of Site, Surroundings and Proposed Development

The application site comprises an area of approximately 49-hectares of relatively flat, low lying agricultural land with an elevation of between approximately 3-6m above ordnance datum (AOD). The land within the application site is divided into six medium-sized fields between four-hectares and 10-hectares, and two smaller fields of between two-hectares and four-hectares. The fields have been numbered on the proposed Layout Plan as fields one to eight. The fields are bound by a combination of hedgerows, trees and drainage ditches, with a small area of woodland adjacent to the southern boundary.

The current land use of the application site is currently used for agricultural purposes, with the main use comprising improved pasture for livestock grazing.

The surrounding area is characterised by a combination of agricultural, residential and industrial uses, including the following:  Agricultural land surrounding the application site.  Residential areas within close proximity include: o Saltney Ferry: 0.3km north; o Saltney: 0.6km to the northeast; o Bretton: 1.1km west, and o Broughton: 2.0km west.  Industrial units located on Broughton Mills Road 0.9km to the west-northwest and Airbus and Hawarden Airport located 1.7km to the west.  Transport links including the North Wales Express Road (A55) approximately 0.1km to the south and Chester Road to the north.  Recreational assets including a Public Right of Way (PRoW) which follows the boundary of field seven and the Wales Coast Path located 0.3km to the north.  The River Dee SAC and SPA lies over 1km to the north

Key Issues

The summary of key issues associated with the proposal include the effect of the proposal on the openness of the green barrier and compliance with the Local Plan Policies, the contribution the proposal would have in relation to delivering renewable /low carbon energy projects, landscape and visual impact and the impact on cultural heritage and any archaeology and ecology that would be effected by the proposal.

Planning Policy The site is located in open countryside in the adopted Flintshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP) where Policy GEN3 applies. The site is also within a designated Green Barrier GEN4(15). Policy EWP1 and EWP5 provides guidance in respect of this proposed solar renewable energy development.

Policy GEN3 has a presumption against development within the open countryside to ensure that the countryside is protected from unsuitable development. The policy however contains exceptions including other development which is appropriate to the open countryside, and where it is essential to have an open countryside location rather than being sited elsewhere.

In accordance with Policy GEN4, development within the Green Barrier will only be permitted where it comprises:- a) Justified development in association with agriculture; Provided that it would not: ii. unacceptably harm the open character and appearance of the Green Barrier.

With regards to Policy EWP1, there is a presumption in favour of renewable energy schemes subject to them meeting the other relevant requirements of the Plan. Policy EWP5 provides criteria for the project to comply to.

The Flintshire Deposit Local Development Plan (LDP) has retained the green barrier within this location. Emerging Policy EN11 provides a number of types of development which may be permitted within designated green barriers. It goes on to state that certain other forms of development may be appropriate in the green barrier, provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These include renewable and low carbon energy generation.

It is noted that In para 4.2.2 of the Screening Report previously submitted that the applicant states ‘From a landscape and visual perspective, the type of development proposed would not harm the openness or overall function of the green belt / green barrier to an unacceptable degree’. Particular attention should be given to assessing the impact on openness as this is a different concept from visual / landscape impact. The context for this is that PPW 10 states in para 3.73 that certain other forms of development may be appropriate in green wedges provided that they preserve its openness. The list which accompanies this statement includes renewable energy development.

The Deposit LDP has also been accompanied by a Renewable Energy Assessment which has identified a series of Solar Indicative Local Search Areas (SILSA) in policy EN13, and shown on the proposals maps. This was on the basis of a mapping exercise encompassing various constraints. The application site does not fall within one of these SILSA and this is likely to have been on the basis of flood risk and loss of agricultural land. Both of these issues will need to be addressed in documents submitted with the application.

I understand that the part of the site that lies within Cheshire is within the Green Belt, where I understand that the applicant will have to demonstrate very special circumstances for the development to be acceptable in the green belt.

Energy Policy

In principle, the project is in line with current national energy policy as it would promote resilience in the supply of energy, and is in line with the policy aims of PPW10 regarding low carbon technology and moving away for the reliance of fossil fuel technology.

The relevant energy policy documents include:- - Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy EN-1 (2011) - The Energy Act 2013 - UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009) - Climate Change Act (2008) (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 - Energy Wales: A Low Carbon Transition (2012)

PPW10 identifies the renewable energy generation targets set by the Welsh Government, including: - “for Wales to generate 70% of its electricity consumption from renewable energy by 2030; - for one Gigawatt of renewable electricity capacity in Wales to be locally owned by 2030; and - for new renewable energy projects to have at least an element of local ownership by 2020.”

Landscape and Visual Impact

The Flintshire County Council Tree Officer who also assists planning officers to appraise landscape and visual impacts of proposed development within Flintshire has offered comments on the submitted Scoping Report reflecting on local knowledge of the area rather than a qualified appraisal.

It is noted that the Landscape and Visual Impact assessment (LVIA) forming Chapter 6 has made use of LANDMAP, the Landscape Strategy for Flintshire is an old document now and dates back to 1996. The Landscape Strategy for Flintshire has been updated by LANDMAP which is now available to provide a database of landscape character areas and give more detailed evaluation of landscape quality. It is considered that the key elements have been included in the proposed assessments contained within the Scoping Report.

The Flintshire Tree/Landscape Officer agrees with the proposed methodologies of the LVIA. In relation to the proposed 5km LVIA and cumulative study area, the Tree/Landscape Officer would agree with this 5km zone provided NRW are also in agreement with this. In relation to the list of landscape receptors proposed to be assessed, this is considered appropriate as far as is applicable to Wales and it is agreed that the AONB can be excluded as it is sufficiently distanced from the application site. The Tree/Landscape Officer agrees with the questions raised in Q6.4 – Q6.8 relating to the area of the site that is located within Wales.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

Information on the Historic Environments Record indicates a number of undesignated recorded sites within the development area which may be impacted by this proposal. There is also a potential for visual impacts on the Bretton Hall moated site immediately to the west (SM FL 185) and more distant listed buildings to the north and south. Cadw would therefore need to be consulted on this Scoping Opinion. However, it is understood that PINS have undertaken consultation with Cadw and therefore the Local Authority have not consulted with Cadw to avoid any duplication.

Clwyd and Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) has commented on the Scoping Report and the suggested Cultural Heritage and Archaeology scope and methodology in Section 7 of the submitted Scoping Report.

CPAT agree with the proposed methodologies with the exception of one omission. A pre-determination geophysical survey of the whole development boundary using an appropriate magnetometry technique specified by a specialist geophysical contractor would be required as part of the ES. CPAT have advised a technique involving caesium-vapour magnetometry on a 1 metre spaced transect grid with readings every 0.25 metres using a towed array with survey level GPS accuracy. However, the specialist appointed to undertake the Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Assessment will advise if another technique is appropriate. This would need to be completed to provide information regarding the sub-surface potential of the development area, as this potential cannot be identified by a walkover and DBA alone, which will usually only identify features dating back to the 18th century.

The rest of the scope methodology set out in the Scoping Report is considered acceptable.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

The submission includes an ecological report (reference Gritten, R. (2019) Bretton Hall Farm – Ecological Surveys. Gritten Ecology. Unpublished). The Ecological report covers the key ecological issues for the site but it should be noted that NRW only comment on specific issues in relation to Protected Sites and Protected Species, they do not comment on ecological issues such those other habitats and species listed as of principal importance for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity in relation to Wales under section 7 of the Environment (Wales) Act. Consideration needs to be given to the “section 7 list” within the Ecological report where relevant.

Habitat Regulation (Regulation 61) Assessment – Test of Likely Significance With regards to European designated sites, the LPA can only grant planning permission if it can be demonstrated that there are no likely significant effects on the designated features.

River Dee and Bala Lake Special Area of Conservation (SAC) The majority of the development is over 1km from the River Dee SAC but is linked to the river via ditches and the proposed access road is within 200m. There are no direct impacts but there is potential for indirect effects e.g. surface water and other pollution risks during construction if not managed appropriately.

Otter are a feature of the River Dee SAC with the conservation objectives need to be considered namely: - The potential range of otters in the within the SAC or its catchment is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future; and - All known or potential access or dispersal routes within the catchment for otters that might be considered part of the SAC population should be maintained such that their function is not impaired including the incorporation of measures or features required to avoid disturbance

Dee Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) /Ramsar site The Waterbird Assemblage of 20,000 individuals is easily met on the Dee Estuary which regularly supports over 130,000 water fowl. There is some evidence that the site is used by wintering birds associated with the Dee Estuary assemblage. Cofnod records include wintering lapwing on fields south of the A5104.

The Ecological report references ad hoc records of Greylag, and Pink-footed geese, mallard and teal which are species associated with the Dee Estuary. An additional survey for over-wintering birds is recommended in line with NRW’s comments. As long as an Ecological Report is submitted as part of a planning application which covers all the relevant issues (NB also wintering birds) that can demonstrate there would be no indirect impacts on the River Dee and Dee Estuary designated features, it is considered that nature conservation/biodiversity can be scoped out of the ES.

Habitat Summary The site is, as described in the Ecological Report, largely agriculturally improved grassland of minimal ecological interest or arable fields, bordered by hedges and ditches of varying quality. It is noted that the Ecological Report does not include the access arrangements into the Business Park which should be considered as part of the application.

A Phase I Habitat Plan, or equivalent of the whole application would be useful in any future submission primarily to identify all the connecting habitats namely hedgerows and ditches which ultimately have enhancement opportunities through appropriate buffers and management.

Protected Species Badgers – no setts located on site.

Otter/Water vole – no ditches or associated banks would be affected. Although no signs of otter or water vole were recorded, the habitat will remain available to them.

While the Ecological Report identifies the ditches as of low value – water vole have been recorded within Saltney and Broughton often in poor quality ditches. There is potential to enhance the ditches for water vole as part of the development.

Bats – the boundary trees were assessed as not having bat roosting potential and the boundary features would be retained as possible commuting/foraging habitats. These habitats also have the potential to be enhanced through appropriate buffers (not just a track). There is some evidence that bats try to feed off flat solar panel surfaces which mimic a water body but the angled panels aim to avoid this risk.

Amphibians – the nearest known records which includes great crested newt (GCN) are over 1km to the North West; the ponds within the vicinity of Bretton hall offer potential for GCN although they do not tend to favour flood plain ponds which often have natural fish populations. NRW have raised GCN as a consideration.

Reptiles – the area is considered to be sub-optimal as far as reptiles are concerned and therefore there is no requirement for reptile surveys.

Breeding Birds – the Ecological Assessment was undertaken in winter (28.10.19) and considered the habitat unsuitable for ground nesting species e.g. lapwing but recognized the value of the hedgerows for small birds. Cofnod records include spring sightings of lapwing in fields adjacent to the A5104 plus numerous Kestrel sightings which could make use of the erected barn owl box. (The nearest barn owl records are at Broughton associated with the airfield and rough grasslands around the Shopping Park). There are also Cofnod records for house sparrows and starling in the locality while the ditches with reeds have potential for nesting reed bunting; a section 7 species.

Other potential impacts The Ecological Report takes into account access tracks within the farmland and potential for widening without removal of existing hedgerows. The report needs to consider the impacts from the installation of security fencing, CCTV, and lighting and any ecological impacts associated with the proposed access into the Business Park.

Biodiversity enhancements in line with PPW10 are a requirement of any application There are good opportunities to enhance a number of habitats on site as part of the development and to maintain enhancement for the lifetime of a solar development.

Possible biodiversity enhancements include: - Providing adequate buffers adjacent to hedgerows to allow rough edges/ existing hedgerows to expand to enhance for nesting bird habitat/bat commuting corridors and feeding habitat for species such as kestrel (and barn owl). - Appropriate management of ditches to enhance for water vole and otter. - Another option includes creation of (e.g. 9m) buffer strips between rows of panels seeded with farmland bird seed mixes to encourage insects, seed and grassland nesting habitats particularly for section 7 farmland bird species.

Scoping Questions

2. EIA Process and Methodology

With regards to the questions posed within section 2.7 of the Scoping Report regarding the assessment of the cumulative effects. It is considered that the 5km study area is acceptable for the proposal. Having considered other consented solar farms within the County of Flintshire, these are located 9 km to the west and 8 km to the north, and therefore, a sufficient distance away from the application site that they can be excluded from the assessment of the cumulative effects of the proposal.

The site is to the south/east of Broughton Shopping Park and the large complex of buildings that form the Airbus site, whilst to the north east Chester Business Park and Chester beyond are located. The proposed development could potentially be viewed in conjunction with these developments as it involves the use of a considerable area of land which would no longer be visually read as open countryside. Therefore, it is considered that the cumulation with other existing/and or approved development in the area should go beyond just considering other solar farm projects in the area.

6. Landscape and Visual Impact

As stated above, the Flintshire Tree/Landscape Officer agrees with the proposed methodologies of the LVIA. In relation to the proposed 5km LVIA and cumulative study area, the Tree/Landscape Officer would agree with this 5km zone provided NRW are also in agreement with this. In relation to the list of landscape receptors proposed to be assessed, this is considered appropriate as far as is applicable to Wales and it is agreed that the AONB can be excluded as it is sufficiently distanced from the application site. The Tree/Landscape Officer agrees with the questions raised in Q6.4 – Q6.8 relating to the area of the site that is located within Wales.

7. Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

CPAT agree with the proposed methodologies with the exception of one omission as detailed above in relation to the pre-determination geophysical survey of the whole development boundary using an appropriate magnetometry technique specified by a specialist geophysical contractor would be required as part of the Environmental Statement.

8. Assessments to be scoped out of the ES The Council would concur with those areas scoped out of the Environmental Statement which include:- - Biodiversity;

o Ecological Survey Report, Great Crested Newt survey report, and biodiversity management plan to be provided - see comments above o As long as an Ecological Report is submitted as part of a planning application which covers all the relevant issues (NB also wintering birds) that can demonstrate that there would be no indirect impacts on the River Dee and Dee Estuary designated features, this can be scoped out of the Environmental Statement. - Noise; o The information provided seems to be very thorough and the necessary mitigation measures provided are considered acceptable. The Environmental Protection Officer does not have any additional comments. o It is considered that Noise can be scoped out of the ES - Transportation & Access; o Transport Statement to be provided with the application o Comments to follow, at the time of writing, no response received - Hydrology; o FCA to be provided with the application - Land & Soil; o Agricultural Land Classification report to be included win the application o Restoration and Aftercare scheme should also be provided - Pollution & Nuisances; - Waste; - Major Accidents & Disasters; - Human Health Risks; and - Socio-Economics.

Whilst the above subjects are proposed to be scoped out of the Environmental Statement, they will still need to be considered and assessed as part of the planning application process. Therefore, the submission and the planning applications should be accompanied by the documents detailed in section 9.6 of the Scoping Report. It is considered however that there are a number of reports/assessments that have been excluded from this list provided in section 9.6 which include:- - Biodiversity – see comments above - Bird Hazard Management Plan (as requested by Airbus in attached consultation response) - Lighting assessment (if lighting is required during the operational phase) - Arboricultural Assessment for those trees that would be affected by the proposal or required to removed/protected - Restoration and Aftercare scheme (included in the land and soil chapter)

Consideration should be taken of the proposed decommissioning and subsequent site restoration once the Solar Farm is no longer required. This should also include proposed hours of operation of decommissioning and inclusion of a restoration scheme to ensure that the site does not become derelict once the solar farm is no longer required. A restoration and aftercare scheme should be provided with the application to demonstrate that the land can be restored back to agricultural land.

Conclusion

The Council broadly agrees with the scope as set out in the submitted Scoping Report and accompanying documentation. The above outlines the matters which require modification, augmentation or clarification as part of any subsequent planning application and Environmental Statement. The format of the Environmental Statement should be presented using the same headings as presented within section 9 of the submitted Scoping Report with the inclusion of subject areas of the cumulative effect from the development within the chapters as this appears to be omitted within section 9.2.

Consultees For your information, I attach the list of those consulted in regards to the Scoping Report.

Flintshire County Council Internal Consultees:- Ecologist; Amanda Davies: - Flintshire Development Control Highways Team: - (no response received) Flintshire Environmental Protection Team; email: - Tree/landscape Officer: - Spatial Planning Policy Team: -

External Consultees Aerodrome Safeguarding; Airbus - (response enclosed) Clwyd and Powys Archeological Trust (CPAT); Mark Walters

Broughton and Bretton Community Council – no objections

Yours faithfully

Chief Officer (Planning, Environment & Economy)

Planning, Environment & Economy Directorate

Cyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio, Amgylchedd ac Economi

Planning  Cynllunio Local Authority Consultation of the Scoping Opinion - Proposed Solar Farm at Land at Bretton Hall Farm, Chester Road, Bretton, Chester, CH4 0DF

Section Yes No Information describing the project Comments 1  The environmental statement should include a Purpose and physical characteristics of 1.1 description of the development, the site, in the project, including details of proposed terms of location, physical features, landuse and access and transport arrangements, and should identify sensitive receptors within the of numbers to be employed and where locality. It should also include a description of they will come from. surroundings and proposed development.  Details required regarding the continuation of 1.2 grazing land once the arrays are installed.

Consideration should be taken of the proposed Land use requirement and other physical decommissioning and subsequent site features of the project: restoration once the Solar Farm is no longer a) during construction; required. This should also include proposed b) when operational; hours of operation of decommissioning and c) after use has ceased (Where inclusion of a restoration scheme to ensure that appropriate) the site does not become derelict once the solar farm is no longer required. A restoration and aftercare scheme should be provided with the application to demonstrate that the land can be restored back to agricultural land.  Noise assessment to be included in the planning 1.3 application Production processes and operational features of the project: a) type and quantities of raw materials, Information on lighting that may be required energy and other resources consumed; should be included to minimise light pollution b) residues and emissions by type, quality, composition and strength Restoration and aftercare scheme to be provided including: Discharges of water Emissions of air; Noise; Vibration; light; heat; radiation; deposits/residues to land and soil;

 The environmental statement must consider the 1.4 Main alternative sites and processes possible alternatives in terms of sites and also considered, where appropriate, and technology and a rational as to what has led to reasons for final choice the final choice of site and technology presented in the application

Planning, Environment & Economy Directorate

Cyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio, Amgylchedd ac Economi Section 2 Yes No Information describing the site and Comments its environment; Physical Features

2.1  How many people/properties & businesses are in the vicinity of the development? Population – proximity and numbers Consideration of the proximity to the site in relation to Airbus and Broughton Shopping Park and new residential properties in Broughton 2.2  Impacts in association with the project Flora and fauna (including both habitats would be limited to the potential impacts on and species) – in particular, protected habitat for protected species in the general species and their habitat locality, 2.3  Describe the site’s physical characteristics. Impacts in association with the project would be limited to the temporary loss of agricultural land although it has been Soil: agricultural quality, geology and indicated that the land would be retained geomorphology for grazing once the arrays are installed and operational. Consideration of the decommissioning and restoration/after care needs to be provided within a scheme with the submission. 2.4  Describe the site’s hydrological features and Water: aquifers, water courses, connectivity to designated sites and flood shoreline risk

2.5 Air: climate factors, air quality, etc. 

2.6  Describe the known cultural heritage and archaeology associated with the application site. Information on the Historic Environments Record indicates a number of Architectural and historic heritage, undesignated recorded sites within the archaeological sites and features, and development area which may be impacted other material assets. by this proposal. There is also a potential for visual impacts on the Bretton Hall moated site immediately to the west (SM FL 185) 2.7  Describe the site and how the proposal would impact on landscape and Landscape and topography topography. Landscape and visual impact assessment as set out in scoping report

2.8 Recreational uses 

2.9 Any other relevant environmental 

features

Planning, Environment & Economy Directorate

Cyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio, Amgylchedd ac Economi Assessment of effects Section 3 Including direct and indirect, secondary, cumulative, short medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project 3.1 Effects of human beings, buildings and man-made features

3.1.1 Change in population arising from the  No significant population development, and consequential environment movements are expected as a effects result of the development. 3.1.2  Visual/landscape impact and visual Visual effects of the development on the representations/photo montage surrounding area and landscape from 5 km radius of the site as stated within the scoping report 3.1.3 Levels and effects of emissions from the 

development during normal operation 3.1.4  Operational noise scoped out of the EIA but a noise assessment of Levels and affects of noise from the the potential for noise from fixed development plant sources would be undertaken as part of the application. 3.1.5 Effects of the development on local roads 

and transport 3.1.6  A pre-determination geophysical survey of the whole development boundary using an appropriate magnetometry technique specified by a specialist geophysical contractor would be required as part of the ES. CPAT have advised a technique involving caesium- vapour magnetometry on a 1 metre spaced transect grid with readings every 0.25 metres using Effects of the development on buildings, the a towed array with survey level architectural and historic heritage, GPS accuracy. However, the archaeological features, and other human specialist appointed to undertake artifacts, e.g. through pollutants, visual the Cultural Heritage and intrusion, vibration Archaeological Assessment will advise if another technique is appropriate. This would need to be completed to provide information regarding the sub- surface potential of the development area, as this potential cannot be identified by a walkover and DBA alone, which will usually only identify features dating back to the 18th century.

Planning, Environment & Economy Directorate

Cyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio, Amgylchedd ac Economi 3.2 Effects of flora fauna and geology

3.2.1  The site is, as described in the Ecological report, largely agriculturally improved grassland of minimal ecological interest or arable fields bordered by hedges and ditches of varying quality. The Ecological report does not include the access arrangements into the Business Park which should be considered Loss of, and damage to, habitats and plant as part of the application. and animal species A Phase I habitat plan or equivalent of the whole application would be useful in any future submission primarily to identify all the connecting habitats namely hedgerows and ditches which ultimately have enhancement opportunities through appropriate buffers and management.

3.2.2 Loss of, and damage to, geological, 

palaeontological and physiographic features

3.2.3 Other ecological consequences 

3.3 Effects on land

3.3.1  Any physical change would be temporary and restored once Physical effects of the development, e.g. decommissioned with an change in local topography, effect of earth- appropriate restoration/aftercare moving on stability, soil erosion, etc scheme provided with the application. 3.3.2 Effects of chemical emissions and deposits on 

soil both within and around the site 3.3.3 Land use/resource affects  a) quality and quantity of agricultural land to Loss of agricultural land would be be taken; temporary and restored once b) sterilization of mineral resources; decommissioned with an appropriate restoration/aftercare c) other alternative uses of the site, including scheme provided with the the ‘do nothing’ option; application. The application would d) effects on surrounding land uses of the also be accompanied by an site, including agriculture agricultural land classification e) waste disposal report.

Planning, Environment & Economy Directorate

Cyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio, Amgylchedd ac Economi 3.4 Effects on water

3.4.1 Effects of development on drainage patterns 

3.4.2  FCA to be submitted as part of the Changes to other hydrographic application but scoped out of the characteristics, e.g. groundwater level, water ES as it is considered that there courses, flow of underground water are unlikely to be significant effects

3.4.3 Effects on coastal or estuarine hydrology 

3.4.4 Effects of pollutants, waste etc. on water 

quality 3.5 Effects on air and climate

3.5.1 Level and concentration of chemical 

emissions and their environmental effects

3.5.2 Particulate matter 

3.5.3 Offensive odours 

3.5.4 Any other climatic effects 

3.6 Other indicative and secondary effects associated with the project

3.6.1 Effects from traffic (road, rail, air, water) 

related to the development 3.6.2 Effects arising from the extraction and  consumption of materials, water, energy or other resources by the development 3.6.3 Effects of other development associated with  the project, e.g. new roads, sewers, housing,

power lines, pipe-lines, telecommunications, etc 3.6.4  5km study area is acceptable for the proposal. The development could potentially be viewed in conjunction with Broughton Shopping Park and the Airbus site as it involves the use of a considerable area of land which Effects of association of the development would no longer be visually read with other existing or proposed development as open countryside. The cumulation with other existing/and or approved development in the area should go beyond just considering other solar farm projects in the area.

Planning, Environment & Economy Directorate

Cyfarwyddiaeth Cynllunio, Amgylchedd ac Economi 3.6.5 Secondary effects resulting from the  interaction of separate direct effects listed above

Section 4 Mitigating measures

4.1 Where significant adverse effects are identified, a description of the measures to be taken to avoid, reduce or remedy those

effects, e.g. LVIA to be provided as per a) Site planning; Scoping Report.

b) Technical measures, e.g:

i. Process selection; Re Cultural heritage and

ii. Recycling archaeological

iii. Pollution control and treatment; The pre-determination geophysical iv. Containment (e.g. bunding of survey of the whole development

storage vessels) boundary using an appropriate c) Aesthetic and ecological measures  magnetometry technique specified e.g: by a specialist geophysical contractor would be required as i. Mounding; part of the Environmental

ii. Design, colour, etc; Statement.  iii. Landscaping  iv. Tree plantings Possible biodiversity

v. Measures to preserve particular enhancements detailed within habitats or create alternative  enclosed letter. habitats; vi. Recording or archaeological sites;  vii. Measures to safeguard historic  buildings or sites

Section 5 Risk of accidents and hazardous

development Risk of accidents as such is not covered in  the EIA Directive or consequently, in the implementing Regulations.

From:

Subject: RE: 061299 Bretton Hall Solar Farm Scoping Opinion Request, Bretton Date: 17 December 2020 09:03:28

Morning Hannah My only question regarding this project would be potential implication for any Chester Western Bypass scheme or future junction scheme onto the A55. Although this has been discussed for some time, I have no details of any proposal. There are no other highway concerns related to the proposal and I agree with their suggested methodologies. Regards, Colin From: Sue E Thomas Sent: 08 December 2020 12:54 To: Colin Simpson Subject: FW: 061299 Bretton Hall Solar Farm Scoping Opinion Request, Bretton Importance: High Afternoon Colin Can you have a look through the attached and provide comment back to Hannah? Thanks Sue Susan Thomas ______Interim Highways Development Control Manager | Rheolwr dros dro yr adran Rheoli Datblygu Priffyrdd Highways Development Control | Rheoli Datblygu Priffyrdd Environment | Amgylchedd Flintshire County Council | Cyngor Sir y Fflint ______Tel | Ffôn |

______

From: Hannah Parish Sent: 08 December 2020 12:21 To: Highways Development Control Cc: Sue E Thomas Subject: FW: 061299 Bretton Hall Solar Farm Scoping Opinion Request, Bretton Importance: High Afternoon all, RE: 061299 Bretton Hall Solar Farm Scoping Opinion Request, Bretton Flintshire County Council has been consulted by the Planning Inspectorate Wales on the above Solar Farm project in Bretton. The applicant has requested a Scoping Direction from the Welsh Ministers as the project exceeds the thresholds for Development of National Significance. PINS will therefore be the authority providing the Scoping Direction on behalf of the Welsh Ministers and they have consulted FCC for comments. Unfortunately this consultation has slipped through the net within FCC and I have only just been asked to respond to this today, with the deadline from PINS being 18 December!!!! I was wondering if you wanted to comment on the attached Scoping Report from a highways perspective which can be found on this link. The Scoping Report suggests to scope out highways. (see para 8.4 and summary 8.4.5) would you agree with their methodologies? https://dns.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/DNS/3251545/DNS-3251545-000015- 2020-11-10%20- %20P305757%20Bretton%20Hall%20EIA%20Scoping%20Report%201.0%20Final%20SB%20(1)_Redacted.pdf I would be extremely grateful if you could have a look at the attached Scoping Report (Para 8.3 is the key para)for the project and let me have your comments by Monday 14th December. I know this is a really short timeframe so if you cannot make this deadline I will speak to PINS for an extension. I will look forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks Regards/Cofion Hannah Parish ______Senior Minerals and Waste Planning Officer | Uwch Swyddog Cynllunio Mwynau a Gwastraff North Wales Minerals and Waste Planning Service | Gwasanaeth Cynllunio Mwynau a Gwastraff Gogledd Cymru Planning, Environment & Economy | Cynllunio, Amgylchedd ac Economi Flintshire County Council | Cyngor Sir y Fflint ______Tel | Ffôn | Mobile| Ffôn symudol |

______

Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this email. Cyn argraffu yr e bôst hon, ystyriwch eich cyfrifoldeb amgylcheddol os gwelwch yn dda. Please note: I work 3 days per week, generally Monday to Wednesday | Noder: Rwy'n gweithio 3 diwrnod yr wythnos, yn gyffredinol dydd Llun i ddydd Mercher

Mrs Hannah Parish Warren Brown Flintshire County Council Airbus Operations Ltd. Transport and Planning Building 53 County Hall Chester Road Mold Broughton CH7 6NF Flintshire, CH4 0DR

T 0 F E

Our Reference: HAW110(F)-20 Your Reference: 061299

8th December 2020 SCREENING OPINION CONSULTATION

Ref: 061299 (Planning Inspectorate letter Ref: 3251545 12th November 2020)

Proposal: Screening opinion request for a proposed solar farm development

Location: Land at Bretton Hall Farm Chester Road Flintshire CH4 0DF

Grid Ref: E 337077 N 363806

Dear Mrs Parish,

I refer to your e-mail dated 8th December 2020

Hawarden Aerodrome Safeguarding has assessed against the safeguarding criteria and revised amendments as required by DfT/ODPM Circular 1 / 2003: Safeguarding of Aerodromes and the Commission Regulation (EU) No 139/2014 and has identified that the proposed development has a potential impact on operations and safeguarding criteria, and the following condition is required for mitigation.

 Submission of a Glint and Glare assessment & Bird Hazard Management Plan Development shall not commence until a glint and glare assessment and a bird hazard management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority covering the application site and any adjoining land which will be used during the construction period. Such a strategy shall include the following matters:

 A bird hazard management plan is required because this type of development has the potential to attract birds which needs to be consider during the construction and completion of the development. Birds have been found nesting, roosting or loafing on the solar panel structures.

© Airbus Operations Limited, 2019. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of Airbus Operations Limited. No intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of its content. This document shall not be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the express written consent of Airbus Operations Limited. This document and its content shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied.

Airbus Operations Limited Registered in England & Wales Chester Road Company No. 3468788 Broughton, Flintshire, CH4 0DR Registered Office United Kingdom Pegasus House Aerospace Avenue, Filton Bristol, BS34 7PA

If this solar farm development is proposed or granted in close proximity to an aerodrome, they can become a significant hazard for that reason.

 A glint and glare assessment will be required because solar photovoltaic panels has the potential to produce reflectivity (Glint and Glare). A glint and glare assessment will be needed to measure the potential of glare and/or flash blindness to pilots during the stages of flight, departure and landing traffic.

Reason: To ensure that safety surrounding Hawarden Airport and/or doesn’t endanger aircraft movements and the safe operation of the aerodrome through the attraction of birds and glint and glare

It is important that any conditions requested in this response are applied to a planning approval. Where a Local Planning Authority proposes to grant permission against the advice of Hawarden Aerodrome, or not to attach conditions which Hawarden Aerodrome has advised, it shall notify Airbus Group, and the Civil Aviation Authority as specified in the Town & Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosive Storage Areas) Direction 2002. Unless these conditions are met Airbus is left with no other option than to object to this current application.

Should you need or seek any further clarification and or support then please do not hesitate to contact me further.

Yours sincerely,

Warren Brown Safeguarding & Compliance Manager For and on behalf of Airbus Operations Ltd.

© Airbus Operations Limited, 2019. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document. This document and all information contained herein is the sole property of Airbus Operations Limited. No intellectual property rights are granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of its content. This document shall not be reproduced or disclosed to a third party without the express written consent of Airbus Operations Limited. This document and its content shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied.

From Ian Crawford Date 07 January 2019 Reference Page 2 Ein cyf/Our ref: CAS-130535-S7V2 Eich cyf/Your ref: 3251545 Maes Y Ffynnon, Penrhosgarnedd, Bangor, Gwynedd LL572DW

ebost/email: Yr Arolygiaeth Gylllunio/ The Planning Inspectorate Adeilad y Goron Parc Cathays Caerdydd CF10 3NQ

18/12/2020

Dear Sir/Madam,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (EIA) (WALES) REGULATIONS 2017 (AS AMENDED)

BWRIAD / PROPOSAL: EIA SCOPING – CIRCA 16 MW SOLAR FARM WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE (PART OF LARGER SCHEME WHICH INCLUDES AN ELEMENT IN ENGLAND, TOTAL CAPACITY CIRCA 30 MW)

LLEOLIAD / LOCATION: LAND AT BRETTON HALL FARM, CHESTER ROAD, FLINTSHIRE

Thank you for consulting Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru / Natural Resources Wales requesting EIA Scoping advice regarding the above, which we received on 12/11/2020. NRW has reviewed the information provided in the EIA Scoping Report (Mabbett, November 2020).

Please note that our comments are without prejudice to any comments we may wish to make when consulted on any subsequent planning applications or on the submission of a more detailed scoping report or the full Environmental Statement (ES). At the time of any planning application there may be new information available which we will need to take into account in making a formal response.

These comments include those matters NRW consider will need to be taken into consideration and applied to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and the resulting ES.

We note that the EIA Scoping report proposes to scope out a number of topics from the EIA process. For some of the topics scoped out, we note that standalone documents will be prepared to assess impacts on those receptors (e.g. Ecology Survey Report, Flood Consequence Assessment, and the production of a Construction Environmental Management Plan). On this basis, we therefore provide detailed comments below on matters that should be included as part of any planning permission. If you require any further advice or clarification then please do not hesitate to reconsult us.

Croesewir gohebiaeth yn y Gymraeg a’r Saesneg Correspondence welcomed in Welsh and English

Flood Risk

With regard to flood risk, we are satisfied with the scoping out of the Hydrology topic from the Environmental Statement, on the basis that the applicant has outlined that a Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) report will be prepared, which assesses the potential risk of flooding to the site, and the potential impacts of the proposals on flood risk elsewhere. This response is provided on the understanding that significant land raising would not be required in order to deliver the proposals. The FCA will need to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Technical Advice Note (TAN) 15: Development and Flood Risk (2004).

We would reiterate (as previously provided in our EIA Screening advice) the following requirements in terms of what we would expect a FCA to consider for the proposal. The FCA will need to assess the flood risk from all sources, including the Balderton Brook system, and the tidal River Dee. Based on our knowledge of the area, we are aware that the Balderton Brook system floods frequently, and floodwaters are typically present for a prolonged duration of time. This is supported by the model outputs, which suggest the site would flood in low return period events. The applicant will need to consider whether this could cause any operational difficulties. We have a hydraulic model available for both the tidal River Dee and Balderton Brook, which can be requested from [email protected].

In order to comply with the requirements TAN15, we would expect the FCA to demonstrate the following: • All solar panel bottom edges should be raised a minimum of 300 mm above the 0.5% AEP breach event with an allowance for climate change for tidal flood risk, and the 1% AEP event with an allowance for climate change for fluvial flood risk. If there are any structures (culverts) that could influence flood risk at the site, blockage of such structures should also be considered for the design event. • All water sensitive infrastructure should be raised at least 300 mm above the 0.5% AEP breach event with an allowance for climate change for tidal flood risk, and the 1% AEP event with an allowance for climate change for fluvial flood risk (including culvert blockage if appropriate). • The FCA will need to assess the flood risk posed to the site and access in relation to the tolerable thresholds outlined in A1.15 of TAN15. The events that should be considered are the 0.1% AEP breach event with an allowance for climate change for tidal flood risk, and the 0.1% AEP event for fluvial flood risk • It would need to be demonstrated that the proposal does not have an adverse impact on flood risk elsewhere. If no ground raising/reprofiling is proposed then this will need to be outlined clearly in the FCA.

We also note that the development proposal is located directly adjacent to several Main Rivers; one of which lies in Wales (Smallholdings), and one of which forms the border between Wales and England (Boundary Drain Lache). It will need to be ensured that the proposals do not adversely impact on our ability to access and maintain the Main Rivers, which we may undertake using our permissive powers. Further discussions will be needed once a more detailed layout is available. A bespoke Flood Risk Activity Permit

www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk www.cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk Page 2 of 4

(Environmental Permitting Regulations England & Wales, 2016) may be required for any works in, over, under or near a main river or within a flood plain. Further advice and guidance is available on our website at: http://www.naturalresources.wales/permits-and- permissions/flood-risk-activities/

Protected Species

Section 8.27 of the Scoping report states that an Ecology Survey Report, Great Crested Newt (GCN) survey report, and a Biodiversity Management Plan will be produced. We advise that any planning application should assess direct and indirect impacts on protected species during both the construction, operation (including maintenance works) and decommissioning phases. Protected species in this case should include GCNs, bats, otters and water voles. The reports should also identify any necessary mitigation measures.

As EPS, GCNs, bats and otters are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The submitted information will need to demonstrate that the development would not be likely to be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the protected species concerned at a favourable conservation status in its natural range. We also advise in relation to EPS that, in addition to consideration of significance, the assessments also considers: • current conservation status of all local populations; and • favourable conservation status of all local populations

The submitted information should also detail biosecurity measures, which should include measures to control, remove or for the long-term management of invasive species both during construction and operation.

Protected Sites

At its closest point, works would be undertaken within 200m of the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC. The Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will need to identify all the potential pollution risks from the proposal and ensure that there are adequate mitigation measures put in place to prevent pollution from occurring for each risk identified. The applicant should refer to PPG6 – pollution prevention guidelines for construction and demolition sites.

We advise that any planning application should assess whether the proposed site is used (e.g. for roosting or feeding) by birds that form part of the Dee Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site i.e. assess whether the site is functionally linked to an SPA/Ramsar. The applicant should check whether there is sufficient existing information (e.g. WeBs data) or undertake wintering birds surveys at the site.

Groundwater Protection

The proposal is located within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ), however the principal aquifer is at depth and is (normally) covered by a significant thickness of low permeability superficial deposits, till and tidal flat deposits (Secondary aquifer).

www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk www.cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk Page 3 of 4

We advise that appropriate conditions may need to be secured as part of any planning permission to ensure that piling work does not have adverse effects on the environment. In practice, through undertaking piling in an appropriate manner the piles will ‘self-seal’ as they penetrate the low permeability deposits.

In relation to the fluid filled cables, we refer the applicant to Environment Agency groundwater protection statement C5. The applicant will need to address these issues as part of any planning application. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/692989/Envirnment-Agency-approach-to-groundwater-protection.pdf

Other Matters

Our comments above only relate specifically to matters included on our checklist, Development Planning Advisory Service: Consultation Topics (September 2018), which is published on our website. We have not considered potential effects on other matters and do not rule out the potential for the proposed development to affect other interests.

We advise the applicant that, in addition to planning permission, it is their responsibility to ensure they secure all other permits/consents/licences relevant to their development. Please refer to our website for further details.

If you have any queries on the above, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yn gywir / Yours faithfully

Bryn Griffiths Uwch-gynghorydd - Cynllunio Datblygu / Senior Advisor - Development Planning Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru / Natural Resources Wales

www.naturalresourceswales.gov.uk www.cyfoethnaturiolcymru.gov.uk Page 4 of 4 Plas Carew, Unit 5/7 Cefn Coed Parc Nantgarw, Cardiff CF15 7QQ 0300 025 6000 email

Eich cyfeirnod DNS/3251545 Your reference Christopher Sweet Ein cyfeirnod

Our reference The Planning Inspectorate Dyddiad 17 December 2020 Date [email protected] Llinell uniongyrchol Direct line Ebost

Email:

Dear Chris,

EIA Scoping - 16 MW solar farm with associated infrastructure LOCATION: Bretton Hall Farm, Chester Road, Flintshire, CH4 0DF Thank you for your letter of 12 November asking for Cadw’s view on the scope of the EIA and the proposed methodologies outlined in the Scoping Report.

Cadw, as the Welsh Government’s historic environment service, has assessed the characteristics of this proposed development and its location within the historic environment. In particular, the likely impact on designated or registered historic assets of national importance. In assessing if the likely impact of the development is significant Cadw has considered the extent to which the proposals affect those nationally important historic assets that form the historic environment, including scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings, registered historic parks, gardens and landscapes.

These views are provided without prejudice to the Welsh Government’s consideration of the matter, should it come before it formally for determination. This advice is given in response to scoping opinion as to the contents of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that will be submitted in support of an application for a Solar Farm at Bretton Hall Farm. Our records show that the following historic assets are potentially affected by the proposal. Scheduled Monuments FL185 Bretton Hall Moated Site

Listed Buildings 85415 Well House Farm II

A scoping report has been prepared by Mabbet and Associates which includes Section 7 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology and this has identified the potential adverse

Mae’r Gwasanaeth Amgylchedd Hanesyddol Llywodraeth Cymru (Cadw) yn hyrwyddo gwaith cadwraeth ar gyfer amgylchedd hanesyddol Cymru a gwerthfawrogiad ohono.

The Welsh Government Historic Environment Service (Cadw) promotes the conservation and appreciation of Wales’s historic environment.

Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg ac yn Saesneg. We welcome correspondence in both English and Welsh. impact of the proposed development on the settings of the two designated historic assets identified above. It has also identified the appropriate Welsh documents containing the methodologies for assessing the impact and provides an appropriate methodology to determine the effect of the proposed development on the historic environment. In our opinion the use of these methodologies will identify the value of heritage assets, the contribution that setting makes to that value and the predicted magnitude of impact that will allow the significance of effect of the proposed development on them during the construction, operation and decommissioning phases.

There is one concern that the EIA will be considering the impact of the proposed development on designated historic assets in two countries which have slightly different planning policies and guidance. It will be necessary to ensure that the correct guidance is used for assets in Wales and in particular the correct weight is given to measures being introduced to off-set impacts.

Yours sincerely

Jenna Arnold Diogelu a Pholisi/ Protection and Policy

Developer Services Gwasanaethau Datblygu PO Box 3146 Blwch Post 3146 Cardiff Caerdydd CF30 0EH CF30 0EH

Tel: Ffôn:

Flintshire County Council County Hall MOLD CH7 6NF Date: 01/12/2020 Our Ref: PLA0053082 Your Ref: 3251545

Dear Sir

Grid Ref: SJ366639 337017 363609 Site: Land at Bretton Hall Farm, Chester Road, Flintshire Development: DNS – Scoping direction consultation for circa 16 MW solar farm with associated infrastructure (part of larger scheme which includes an element in England, total capacity circa 30 MW).

We refer to your planning consultation relating to the above site, and we can provide the following comments in respect to the proposed development.

I refer to your consultation letter received in accordance with the above regulations. We have reviewed the documents available at this stage in the process and specifically the Scoping Request received.

We recommend the Environmental Impact Assessment provides comprehensive information on the drainage strategy for the development site.

We respectfully reserve the right to comment further on any matters and issues arising from ongoing and future consultation. However, we trust the above information is helpful at this stage and we look forward to continuing our engagement on the project prior and during the submission of an application to the Planning Inspectorate.

Finally, I would be grateful if all future correspondence relating to the project is directed to me at the above address. For any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Our response is based on the information provided by your application. Should the proposal alter during the course of the application process we kindly request that we are re-consulted and reserve the right to make new representation.

If you have any queries please contact the undersigned on or via email at

We welcome correspondence in Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn y Welsh and English Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg

Dŵr Cymru Cyf, a limited company registered in Dŵr Cymru Cyf, cwmni cyfyngedig wedi’i gofrestru yng

Wales no 2366777. Registered office: Pentwyn Road, Nghymru rhif 2366777. Swyddfa gofrestredig: Heol Pentwyn Welsh Water is owned by Glas Cymru – a ‘not-for-profit’ company. Nelson, Treharris, Mid Glamorgan CF46 6LY Nelson, Treharris, Morgannwg Ganol CF46 6LY. Mae Dŵr Cymru yn eiddo i Glas Cymru – cwmni ‘nid-er-elw’.

Please quote our reference number in all communications and correspondence.

Yours faithfully,

Alaw Jones Development Control Officer Developer Services

We welcome correspondence in Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn y Welsh and English Gymraeg neu yn Saesneg

Dŵr Cymru Cyf, a limited company registered in Dŵr Cymru Cyf, cwmni cyfyngedig wedi’i gofrestru yng

Wales no 2366777. Registered office: Pentwyn Road, Nghymru rhif 2366777. Swyddfa gofrestredig: Heol Pentwyn Welsh Water is owned by Glas Cymru – a ‘not-for-profit’ company. Nelson, Treharris, Mid Glamorgan CF46 6LY Nelson, Treharris, Morgannwg Ganol CF46 6LY. Mae Dŵr Cymru yn eiddo i Glas Cymru – cwmni ‘nid-er-elw’.

ADM002

Development Management Welsh Planning Inspectorate Planning Service Crown Buildings Cheshire West And Chester Council Cathays Park Cardiff 4 Civic Way Ellesmere Port CH65 0BE CF10 3NQ Tel:

our reference: your reference: please ask for: date: 20/04306/AAC Mrs Hazel Honeysett 17 December 2020

Dear Mr Sweet

Application Number: 20/04306/AAC EIA scoping opinion for a 16 MW solar farm with associated infrastructure (part of larger scheme which includes an element in England, total capacity circa 30 MW at Land at Bretton Hall Farm, Chester Road, Flintshire, CH4 0DF

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Wales) Regulations 2017 (as amended) Regulation 30(7).

I refer to your request of 12th November for Cheshire West and Chester Authority’s consultation response upon an EIA Scoping Opinion and submitted Scoping Report for the above described development. In accordance with the above Regulations I can provide you with the following.

This consultation response is based on the Scoping Report document entitled ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report for Bretton Hall Solar Farm, dated November 2020 (reference: P305757.001) submitted by Mabbett. The details of the proposal, site description and surrounds are set out within the Scoping Report Document.

It is noted that the total development is a cross border proposal that encompasses (circa 16 MW) that lies within Flintshire County Council Local Planning Authority and the remainder within Cheshire West and Chester LPA. The applicant should therefore give due consideration to cross border procedures regarding the proposal and the submission of two applications. This is particularly relevant with respect to the application site within each authority’s jurisdiction and the total proposed development.

ADM002 It is noted that in preparing your Scoping Direction, matters specified in Regulation 13 (6) and Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (Wales) Regulations 2017, and Welsh Office Circular 11/99 will be taken into account.

The Authority has taken into account its consultation responses and considered the specific characteristics of the proposal, the type of development and the environmental features likely to be affected by the development. Although this advice seeks to ensure that any future environmental statement includes such information that is considered reasonably required to determine any future application based on the proposal, it is noted that further information may still be required once the environmental statement and application has been submitted.

The Authority is in general agreement with the scope subject to the following specific points, including responses from our consultees on the scope of the EIA and proposed methodologies.

Consultee responses:

Lead Local Flood Authority: Esther Goodship

The proposal is that the flood risk and surface water impacts of the proposed development during both the construction and operational phase have been scoped out of the EIA as there are unlikely to be significant effects. A standalone Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Consequences Assessment along with a Surface Water Drainage Strategy will be provided to support the development proposals. We are in agreement with the proposed scoping out of water from the Environmental Statement.

Notes:

The proposed development is largely situated within Flood Zone 3 with Balderton Brook and a number of ordinary watercourses and drainage systems within the development area. Where development is proposed within Flood Zone 3 mitigation measures should be provided in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Environment Agency standing advice. No ground raising should be provided within the proposed development site.

The proposed development is generally within an area at low to medium risk of surface water flooding, but the site layout needs to ensure any overland flow routes are retained.

A Flood Risk Assessment and a Drainage Strategy in accordance with NPPF should be provided to support a planning application.

As rainfall falling onto the solar panels is likely to lead to runoff into the ground into a concentrated area this can lead to compaction of the soils leading to higher runoff and overland flows. The drainage of the site needs to carefully consider the proposed

ADM002 footprint of the solar panel bases as well as the change in runoff characteristics with the panels in place.

The Government has strengthened planning policy on the provision of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) for ‘major’ planning applications which was introduced on 6 April 2015 (Paragraph 103 of NPPF and Ministerial Statement on SuDS). As per the guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), all ‘major’ planning applications being determined from 6 April 2015, must consider sustainable drainage systems.

Surface water management for the site needs to follow the drainage hierarchy: - Infiltration into ground - Connection to the watercourse - Connection to discharge water sewer and as a last resort; - Connection to the combined sewer.

SuDS should be designed to control surface water as close to its source as possible. The use of SuDS should also help achieve the sustainability objectives of the NPPF.

The suitability of sustainable drainage systems should be assessed in accordance with paragraphs 051, 079 and 080 of the revised NPPF Planning Practice Guidance for Flood Risk and Coastal Change (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change).

Sustainable drainage systems should be designed in line with national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sustainable- drainage-systems-non-statutory-technical-standards) and local policies ENV1, DM40, DM41, DM42 and DM43 of the Core Strategy.

Surface water attenuation requirements should be assessed that offer a reduction in surface water runoff rate in line with the Policy DM 41 (i.e. at least 30% betterment on brownfield flows and greenfield runoff for existing greenfield sites). Please note that all new connections to the watercourses shall comply with reduction of flows to greenfield runoff rates.

Surface water should be managed to ensure there is no increased surface water from the proposed development and runoff from extreme events should be retained within the site such that the adjacent third party land is not affected.

Conservation and Design: Lauren Butterworth

Paragraph 2.6 of the Scoping Report confirms that the EIA will contain a chapter that considers Cultural Heritage and Archaeology. The scope and structure of this chapter are outlined in Sections 7 of the Scoping Report stating that the significance of each asset will be considered, and an impact assessment undertaken.

ADM002 Paragraph 6.4.3 of the Scoping report confirms that visual representations of the proposal will be provided from various points around the site to support the LVIA findings. These will also be key in assessing the impact on the setting of the various heritage assets that have the potential to be affected by the proposals.

The methodologies set out in the Scoping Report is appropriate and the team will be able to advise further and recommend any appropriate mitigation and conditions relevant to the part of the scheme that falls within Cheshire West on submission of the full application and EIA.

Archaeology: Mark Leah

Paragraph 2.6 of the Scoping Report confirms that the EIA will contain a chapter that considers Cultural Heritage and Archaeology, following receipt of comments from relevant third parties in response to an earlier Screening Opinion consultation. The scope and structure of this chapter are outlined in Sections 7 and 9 of the Scoping Report.

This represents an appropriate approach and I will be able to advise on the need, if any, for further mitigation with regard to those aspects of the scheme which are in Cheshire and are relevant to archaeology on submission of the planning application and the accompanying EIA.

Biodiversity: Laura Hughes

In summary, due to the issues outlined below, and new information that has come to light, in particular regarding breeding birds, the sub-optimal ecological survey and land conditions, I would suggest that it should be considered whether Biodiversity should be scoped back into the EIA.

Protected sites:

Dee Estuary: It is noted that the advice from NRW and NE differs in terms of the Dee Estuary RAMSAR, SPA, SCA and SSSI, which is 10km from the main body of the development. NRW advise that although the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the site, “We advise that any planning application should assess whether the proposed site is used (e.g. for roosting or feeding) by birds that form part of the Dee Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) i.e. assess whether the site is functionally linked to an SPA.” NE do not advise this.

Although it could be considered that due to the distance of the site from the Estuary, that the land is unlikely to be functionally linked and there are no likely impacts, it is noted in the ecological survey report that Teal, a qualifier species for the Dee Estuary SPA and an assemblage species for the RAMSAR, has been noted on site by forestry workers. A Habitat Regulations Assessment is required for the proposal.

ADM002

River Dee: The River Dee SAC and SSSI is approx. 1km from the main body of the development, designated for its river habitats and species. There are drainage systems linking the site to the River. Cabling infrastructure is proposed approx. 200m from the River. It should be ascertained if there is any potential pathway that would result in potential harmful impacts on the River.

Lache Eyes Local Wildlife Site: Lache Eyes LWS: The Lache Eyes Local Wildlife Site is adjacent to the eastern boundary or the site and is designated for its fens, swamps, bogs reedbeds and vascular plants. There are water courses within and adjacent to the site, so there is a potential for direct impacts. An assessment of this should be carried out.

Protected species:

An Ecological survey was carried out in November 2019, a sub-optimal time of year for surveys, especially problematic for this site, which floods in the Winter. A repeat survey should be carried out in Spring/Summer.

The survey highlighted improved fields, ditches, hedgerow and woodland as the main habitats on site that were not flooded.

Data search: It seems as though COFNOD have been asked for data for Flintshire, but not rECOrd for Cheshire. A record search with rECOrd should be carried out to inform assessment.

Bats: If any trees are to be removed, Bat tree roost surveys are required to be carried out and any subsequent aerial inspections or dawn/dusk surveys required. If any lighting is required, Bat transect surveys may be required.

Great Crested Newts: There is no assessment or survey of GCN presence within the ecological report, but a subsequent HSI report was carried out in September 2020 and rated the three ponds as having Excellent and Good suitability for GCN. A Great Crested Newt report is listed as being submitted with the full application, and this should include full GCN surveys.

Badgers: A Badger survey was completed, however an assessment of the fields for foraging was not undertaken. The fields in the Winter are flooded, as shown by this survey and therefore full assessment could not be made. A survey should be repeated in Spring/Summer, in terms of sett presence for direct impact and foraging evidence for indirect impact.

ADM002 Breeding birds: The site has not been surveyed for ground-nesting birds in the summer nor wader/overwintering birds in the winter. The report mentions Lapwings frequent the area, and Curlew and Lapwing have been recorded by an RSPB survey in 2010, and the site is suitable for Lapwing, but gives no recommendation for further surveys. The bird species mentioned from anecdotal evidence include Greylag geese, Pink-footed geese and Teal. Teal is a qualifier species for the Dee Estuary SPA and an assemblage species for the RAMSAR. A suite of breeding, passage and Overwintering bird surveys are required.

All surveys are required to be carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist, prior to determination of the application. Mitigation and compensation measures are required if evidence of species is found.

Net Gain: In line with Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (part 2) policy DM 44, a biodiversity metric calculation should be carried out to demonstrate a net gain from the proposals. To ensure a standardised approach across Cheshire West and Chester, the Defra Biodiversity Metric 2.0, published by Natural England, must be used to calculate biodiversity net gain. A Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment document which details an assessment of the quality of habitats on site as well as outlining measures to ensure proposed habitats reach target condition must be provided alongside the Defra Biodiversity Metric 2.0 document containing the Biodiversity Net Gain calculation.

Environmental Protection: Martin Doyle – Awaited: will be forwarded once received

Landscape: John Seiler

I have read the Scoping Report and Section 6 in regard to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and in principle do not have any objections to the descriptions and proposed methodology.

However, please ask the applicant to address the following comments below when preparing the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

• Viewpoints - Please ask the landscape consultant to contact me directly to agree the viewpoints in advance of developing the LVIA. The viewpoints should include views from public Rights of Way

• Design and Mitigation - The LVIA should not be a paper exercise. It should clearly demonstrate an interactive design process whereby potential impacts are considered at an early stage so as to avoid any adverse negative impacts. Please include details within the LVIA.

ADM002 • Design and Specification. There is reference to 4.6m high panels which seems extremely high. Please confirm if this is correct and if so, please provide a justification. Please also provide information with regards to the duration of the development - 40 years would not be considered a temporary duration. Please provide a supporting landscape strategy; to include planting plans, specifications, boundary treatment and future management. Please also include section drawings.

• Glint and Glare / reflection -Please provide details to study. This should be incorporated into the LVIA.

• Landscape Character Study and Planning reference - CWAC Landscape Strategy 2016 and Landscape Sensitivity Study & Guidance on Wind and Solar Voltaic Developments 2016 (attached)

https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/residents/planning-and-building- control/total-environment/landscape-character-assessment.aspx

• Previous Landscape Comments - Please also refer to the Screening report Landscape comments which are relevant to the LVIA Scoping report (attached).

Public Rights of Way: Adele Mayer

The likely impacts on the PROW leading to Bretton Hall Farm has been assessed, however it is unclear if the footpath is shown in the list of representative viewpoints for the purposes of visualisations. It’s within a tolerable distance to where the solar array is planned. It would be beneficial to see a visualisation given the height of the panels and security fencing.

Not aware that the track leading to Bretton Hall has public rights so would not expect there to be an issue with the cabling and construction traffic.

Highways: Paul Parry

The scoping document sets out that a Transport Statement will be produced as part of any application that will look at construction traffic impacts as d well as the ongoing, daily, operational traffic.

It is considered at this stage that the likely highway impacts will be mainly during the construction and decommissioning phases and that the typical day to day operational traffic will be modest. However, this would need to be fully assessed once the applications and any associated Transport Statement was submitted.

ADM002 Planning Policy: Hazel Honeysett

Within the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan there is general support for renewable energy projects under CWCLP1 Policy ENV7 and CWCLP2 Policy DM52 which provides detailed criteria for ground mounted installations. The explanation to Policy DM52 highlights the importance of the landscape character considerations and that generally schemes of a small-scale area (less than six hectares) have the greatest potential in the borough, in areas of lesser landscape sensitivity. To be supported, such proposals would need to be in scale with the landscape, in particular field patterns of hedgerows, trees and other human-scale landscape features. Policy DM52 has been informed by the Cheshire West and Chester Landscape Sensitivity Study (2016) which provides an assessment of the sensitivity of the borough’s landscape to accommodate solar energy development. It has identified area, based on Landscape Character Areas, which would be sensitive to this type of development to varying degrees.

The development site within Cheshire West and Chester Authority is within the North Cheshire Green Belt. In terms of Development Plan policy STRAT9 of the Local Plan (Part One) follows guidance in the NPPF in terms of Green Belt.

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and their permanence. The National Planning Policy Framework advises that inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The Framework (para 147) recognises renewable energy projects and states;

“When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources”.

Whilst the Framework provides exceptions for types of development that have the potential to be appropriate within the Green Belt, the provision of renewable energy is not once of these and therefore the proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 144 of the Framework makes clear that ‘substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very Special Circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

ADM002 As such, the proposal within Cheshire West and Chester is inappropriate development within the Green Belt and Very Special Circumstances would need to be set out, enough to outweigh the harm by inappropriateness of development in the Green Belt.

Regarding the cumulative effects of the proposal as set out in Section 2.7 of the Scoping Report document, it is considered that in conjunction with Green Belt policy and urban sprawl (as stated above) consideration should be given to other existing/and or approved development in the area.

Consideration should be given to the decommissioning and restoration of the application site. Details should include hours of operation of decommissioning and inclusion of a restoration scheme.

The Authority generally agrees with the proposed scope, subject to a late consultee response which will follow. The above sets out the matters to be addressed should a planning application and Environmental Statement be submitted.

Should you require any further information please contact me at the above number.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Hazel Honeysett Planning Officer

APPLICATION REF : 20/01492/SCR

PROPOSAL: SCREENING OPINION REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED SOLAR FARM DEVELOPMENT

LOCATION : Land At Bretton Hall Farm, Chester Road, Flintshire, CH4 0DF

PLANNING OFFICER: Hazel Honeysett

Landscape Comments Date: 17th June 2020

1.0 First of all I note that I am in acceptance of a LVA as opposed to LVIA.

2.0 Next I will respond to the queries documented within Appendix B of the Screening Report, LVA Letter, as follows;

Q1: Generally in agreement, though Planning Reference Documents need to be stated (see below); this can come through in the LVA Methodology and Document; Q2: Yes the 5km study area is acceptable; Q3-7: Re: Receptors, Settlements, Transport etc.: In general agreement, agree with Landscape Character Types/ reference to Landscape Strategy; however might suggest that western edge of Lache is included and specific to FP’s Dodleston FP10, Marleston-cum-Lache FP3 and Dodleston FP6; It is wondered why there is no reference to the railway line (unless redundant?? Havn’t as yet viewed…) ? Q8: Viewpoint 4, which at circa 2km from the site and from a Highway will (on account of general methodologies involved) likely result in a non significant assessment. It is requested that other Viewpoints are added, namely; i) West of Lache- residential properties; ii) Pedestrian footbridge over A55 from FP3; iii) From Marleston-cum-Lache FP3 passing through Lache Eyes; and iv) From Dodleston FP10 looking east towards the Proposed Development; (to illustrate context of moat/ adjacent landscape and views from footpath;

3.0 I note that there is no presumption to raise ground levels; should this change CW&C to be notified;

4.0 Significance;

4.1 I note Significant Landscape effects will affect the existing landform for the duration of the development (40 years); 4.2 The setting of the moated area (SAM) will likely be Significantly affected by the proposed development; the setting would likely include CW&C ; 4.3 Significant Visual Effects would be likely from the two footpaths FP3 and FP10;

5.0 Planning References:

5.1 LVA to document/ cross reference to NE Landscape Character Types relevant to the area; 5.2 LVA to document/ refer to CW&C Landscape Sensitivity Study & Guidance on Wind and Solar Voltaic Developments (March 2016);

6.0 Other: 6.1 The Glint & Glare study will be important to inform visual analysis;

Recommendation:

LVA is acceptable, as referenced and in accordance with as stated in Screening Report and to include as noted above.

Louise Eccles Tel: Chartered Landscape Architect, CMLI Built Environment Officer (Landscape and Design) Total Environment Places Strategy Cheshire West and Chester Council

Email:

Cheshire West and Chester Council Landscape Sensitivity Study and Guidance on Wind and Solar Photovoltaic Developments

Final Report March 2016

Final Report by

and

for

BBe/AB/2015/40: Final Report: March 2016

Contents

Section Page

1. Introduction 1 Background and the need for the study 1 Study limitations 5 Format of the report 5

2. Planning Context 7 National Planning Policy Framework 7 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy and the National Policy 8 Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure, July 2011 Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy 9 National planning policy on wind energy development 9 National planning policy on ground mounted solar photovoltaic development 11 Local planning policy 12 Environmental Impact Assessment 14

3. Methodology 15 Introduction to landscape sensitivity 15 Assessing landscape sensitivity 16 Design Guidance 18

4. Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development 19 Wind energy typologies 19 Assessment criteria 20 LCT 1: Woodland, Heaths, Meres and Mosses 31 LCT 2: Sandstone Ridge 33 LCT 3: Sandstone Fringe 35 LCT 4: Drained Marsh 37 LCT 5: Undulating Enclosed Farmland 39 LCT 6: Enclosed Farmland 41 LCT 7: Rolling Farmland 43 LCT 8: Heathy Farmland and Woodland 45 LCT 9: Cheshire Plain West 47 LCT 10: Cheshire Plain East 49 LCT 11: Estate Farmland 51 LCT 12: Mere Basin 53 LCT 13: Lowland Farmland and Mosses 55 LCT 14: Salt Heritage Landscape 57 LCT 15: River Valleys 59 LCT 16: Mudflats & Saltmarsh 61

5. Sensitivity to Solar Photovoltaic Development 63 Types of solar photovoltaic development 63 Assessment criteria 63 LCT 1: Woodland, Heaths, Meres and Mosses 73 LCT 2: Sandstone Ridge 75 LCT 3: Sandstone Fringe 77 LCT 4: Drained Marsh 79 LCT 5: Undulating Enclosed Farmland 81 LCT 6: Enclosed Farmland 83 LCT 7: Rolling Farmland 85 LCT 8: Heathy Farmland and Woodland 87 LCT 9: Cheshire Plain West 89 LCT 10: Cheshire Plain East 91 LCT 11: Estate Farmland 93 LCT 12: Mere Basin 95 LCT 13: Lowland Farmland and Mosses 97 LCT 14: Salt Heritage Landscape 99 LCT 15: River Valleys 101 LCT 16: Mudflats & Saltmarsh 104

6. Summary 106 Summary of sensitivity to wind energy development 106 Discussion on sensitivity of LCTs to wind energy development 107 Summary of sensitivity to ground mounted solar PV development 109 Discussion on sensitivity of LCTs to ground mounted solar PV development 109

Appendices Appendix A: Key Landscape Characteristics and General Influence on Wind Energy 112

Appendix B: General Design Guidance Principles for Wind Energy and Ground 114 Mounted Solar PV Development

Appendix C: Checklist for Applicants 120

Tables Table 1: Sensitivity Definitions 16

Table 2: Definition of Criteria for Assessing Sensitivity to Wind 21 Energy Development

Table 3: Summary of Sensitivity of Landscape Character Areas to 26 Wind Energy Development

Table 4: Definition of Criteria for Assessing Sensitivity to 65 Solar PV Development

Table 5: Summary of Sensitivity of Landscape Character Areas to 67 Solar PV Development

Table 6: Summary of Overall Sensitivity of Landscape Character Types to 106 Wind Energy Development

Table 7: Summary of Overall Sensitivity of Landscape Character Types to 109 Solar PV Development

Figures Figure 1: Commercial Scale Wind Energy “Areas of Least Constraint” (from 123 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012)

Figure 2: Landscape Character Types and Areas within CWaC (from 124 2016 Landscape Strategy)

Figure 3: Landscape Sensitivity to Smaller Turbines 125

Figure 4: Landscape Sensitivity to Medium Turbines 126

Figure 5: Landscape Sensitivity to Larger Turbines 127

Figure 6: Landscape Sensitivity to Very Small Solar Farms 128

Figure 7: Landscape Sensitivity to Small Solar Farms 129

Figure 8: Landscape Sensitivity to Medium Solar Farms 130

Figure 9: Landscape Sensitivity to Large Solar Farms 131

Figure 10: Landscape Sensitivity to Very Large Solar Farms 132

Supporting Technical Appendix on Sensitivity to Wind Energy (separately bound)

Supporting Technical Appendix on Sensitivity to Solar PV Development (separately bound)

1. Introduction

Background and the need for the study 1.1 Cheshire West and Chester (CWaC) Borough Council has commissioned this study to help guide wind and solar photovoltaic energy proposals in the borough to those landscapes which are the least sensitive, and to avoid unacceptable impacts to landscape character.

1.2 Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council has a positive approach to renewable and low carbon energy development. The Council already has a planning document providing guidance on landscape sensitivity to wind turbine development (SPD4)1 but this covers only the former Vale Royal Borough Council area (approximately 1/3 of the area of CWaC). This study extends SPD4 to cover the whole borough (including the former Chester District, Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough and Vale Royal Borough) in assessing landscape sensitivity to wind and ground mounted solar photovoltaic energy developments.

1.3 SPD4 was prepared and adopted in 2007 against the background of national, regional and local planning policy at that time but which has now changed. This study updates SPD4 in providing an evidence base to support detailed policies and land allocations in the emerging Local Plan (Part Two) (which in turn will support the strategic objectives and policies set out in the Local Plan (Part One) adopted by the council in January 2015). The current planning context for the study is outlined further in Section 2.

1.4 A low carbon and renewable energy study was completed for Cheshire West and Chester Council in 20122. It provides a desk based technical assessment of the baseline energy demand and potential renewable energy resource for CWaC, including commercial-scale wind and microgeneration solar PV technologies (the latter refers to systems integrated into buildings and is not covered in this study as described in Section 5). That study concludes that commercial-scale wind (defined as ‘medium’ scale wind turbines typically 40m – 70m height to blade tip generating approximately 0.25 megawatts (MW) and ‘large’ scale wind turbines typically 80 – 150m height to blade tip generating between 2.5-3.0MW) has significant overall potential to generate energy in the borough. Broad “areas of least constraint” were identified for medium and large scale wind development using assessment parameters based on Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) methodology3 but with some deviations. The process was essentially that of mapping areas of potential where wind turbines could be located by applying a series of constraints that limit the geographical scope for installing turbines. The broad areas of least constraint do not represent sites which are suitable, but general areas with few major constraints. In order for a developer to bring a site forward, detailed site specific assessment and a full planning application would be required accounting for a wide range of issues. Areas filtered out include

1 Landscape Sensitivity and Wind Turbine Development, Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)4, Vale Royal Borough Council, September 2007 2 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, Verco, 2012 3 Renewable and Low-carbon Energy Capacity Methodology for the English Regions, DECC, January 2010

1

areas with wind speed <5m/s, buffers around main roads, railways, residential properties, commercial properties, airports, airfields and MOD airbases, an exclusion zone around Jodrell Bank Observatory, MOD low fly zone, ancient woodland, sites of historic interest, international and national nature conservation and landscape designations. The resulting broad areas of least constraint are reproduced in Figure 1, illustrating the maximum possible technical potential for medium and large scale commercial wind development within the borough.

1.5 The 2012 low carbon and renewable energy study does not address landscape character sensitivity, local landscape and nature conservation designations, or cumulative landscape impact. It recommends that the Council prepares a planning policy that seeks to positively plan for the deployment of wind energy taking into account a number of further considerations and recommendations, including:

 While there is some potential for larger, commercial scale wind turbines the pattern of development is likely to be one of single turbines and small clusters, scattered rather than being grouped in a particular part of the borough.  There are few opportunities for the development of large scale commercial wind farms in the borough due to the dispersed nature of the settlements and the need for a buffer between turbines and settlements.  Those small pockets that have been identified as areas of least constraint for large scale wind development would need to be subject to further landscape analysis prior to identification as areas of search in a plan policy.  There are only likely to be opportunities for small clusters of large scale wind turbines for much of the borough.  The potential for medium scale wind turbines which do not require as large a buffer is greater in the borough and the evidence suggests that there are many opportunities for such schemes typically serving industrial, commercial or agricultural users or schools.  Further landscape work would be needed to identify specific areas of search.  Further assessment is needed to examine the extent of landscape constraints and to relate the identified opportunity areas with landscape character areas in order to provide more guidance on the scale of wind farms that may be appropriate in these general locations.  Given that there are only a few limited areas where large commercial scale wind turbines may be located in the borough any future landscape analysis could focus on the sensitivity of these areas to large and medium scale wind development and assess the sensitivity of the remainder of the borough’s landscapes to medium scale turbines only.

1.6 This sensitivity study addresses these issues by considering the sensitivity of landscape character areas within the borough to wind energy development.

1.7 Landscape character assessment and guidance within CWaC is provided by three separate documents that cover parts of the borough at different scales and at

2

different levels of detail4. A new Landscape Strategy provides an updated classification of the landscapes of the whole of CWaC5 combining these documents and identifying the unique character of a range of contrasting landscapes across the borough (which often extend into adjoining areas as part of a wider regional landscape): from the prominent sandstone ridge running north-south down the spine of the borough; the flat lowland plain and extensive areas of farmland to the east and west; the heaths, meres, mosses and river valleys adding interest and diversity across the borough; and the marshland, mudflats and saltmarsh of the Mersey and Dee Estuaries to the north and west.

1.8 The new 2016 Landscape Strategy is used as the basis for this study in assessing the sensitivity of the sixteen landscape character types (which are generic and share common combinations of geology, topography, vegetation and human influences, e.g. River Valleys) and the 53 landscape character areas (which are single, discrete geographical areas of the landscape type with a unique ‘sense of place’, e.g. Lower Weaver Valley) to wind and solar photovoltaic energy proposals in the borough. Figure 2 shows the updated landscape character types in the new 2016 Landscape Strategy.

1.9 Since the adoption of SPD4 almost ten years ago there have been significant technological advances in the wind energy industry. Throughout the UK the number of onshore wind farms and the size of individual wind turbines have increased substantially. The availability of larger turbines combined with an increase in their efficiency has meant that areas which were previously precluded from wind energy development are now seen as more attractive by the industry. Planning authorities more frequently have to consider applications for turbines within lower-lying more populated areas, with a trend for single or small groups of turbines, where design elements and cumulative landscape and visual impacts need to be carefully considered.

1.10 To date the main level of interest within CWaC for wind energy development has been focussed on small and medium sized developments comprising single or small groups of three or four turbines between approximately 10m-20m or 35m-55m height to blade tip. At the time of writing this report there were no large commercial-scale wind farms operational in the borough. A scheme comprising 4 x 125m ht. turbines had been dismissed at appeal, whilst a wind farm at Frodsham comprising 19 x 125m tall turbines had been allowed at appeal and construction had commenced. A negligible capacity of small scale wind energy exists, coming from three small turbines 9m, 15m and 18m tall, with another 15m tall turbine consented.

1.11 A number of small scale microgeneration solar PV systems integrated into buildings had been installed in the borough, under the Feed-in-Tariff scheme, but there were no ground mounted solar PV arrays. However, the previous two years had seen considerable interest in larger solar PV development with a number of screening and

4 Chester District Landscape Assessment and Guidelines, 1998, Chester City Council; Landscape Character Supplementary Planning Document 5, 2007, Vale Royal Borough Council; Cheshire Landscape Character Assessment, 2008, Cheshire County Council 5 A Landscape Strategy for Cheshire West and Chester Borough, February 2016

3

scoping opinion requests and applications for a wide range of solar arrays covering typically between <1ha to 35ha. A screening request had been made for an 86ha solar farm in 2013.

1.12 Given this level of interest and pressure for wind turbine and ground mounted solar PV development in the borough, there is a need for an appropriate, transparent, robust evaluation framework that can provide the necessary landscape baseline for policy and decision making. The study will also help in the formulation of criteria against which specific proposals may be assessed in relation to landscape impact.

1.13 Since the adoption of SPD4 in 2007 a wide body of generic guidance has been produced on the landscape effects of on-shore wind farms, in particular from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)6. Useful overviews of wind farm characteristics and typical effects of wind turbines on the landscape are found in numerous documents including landscape and visual impact assessments submitted in connection with wind farm proposals and wind energy sensitivity and/or capacity studies throughout the UK. There is now a wide consensus as to the ways in which wind turbines affect the landscape. Appendix A provides an overview of key landscape characteristics and their general influence on wind energy development based on a review of available guidance and other sources7 and the consultants own experience of undertaking on- shore wind energy landscape sensitivity and capacity studies. This has helped inform a methodology for this study as described in Section 3.

1.14 Ground mounted solar PV development comprises relatively new technology yet to be the subject of written guidance on how it may affect the landscape. A review of existing assessments on the landscape sensitivity to solar PV development8 has informed the methodology for this study.

1.15 The study considers a range of wind turbine typologies (heights and groupings of turbines) and sizes of solar PV arrays considered most likely to come forward in CWaC, as discussed in more detail in Sections 4 and 5 respectively. It provides a strategic borough-wide assessment of the sensitivity of landscape character types throughout CWaC to wind and solar energy developments. The study also provides positive guidance to those seeking to install such developments by assisting in the identification of potentially suitable locations and the factors to be taken into consideration in siting and designing wind and solar development in the landscape.

6 For example: Strategic Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms, 2009; Guidance on Spatial Planning for Onshore Wind Turbines – natural heritage considerations, 2015; Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape, Version 1, 2009 & Version 2, 2014; Siting and Design of Small Scale Wind Turbines of between 15 and 50m in Height, 2012; Assessing the Cumulative Impact of On Shore Wind Energy Developments, 2012.

7 Including SNH guidance, SPD4, and Cheshire East Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Developments, May 2013 8 For example: Technical Paper E4(a) An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to Onshore Wind and large Scale Solar Photovoltaic Development in Cornwall, Cornwall Council, January 2012

4

Study limitations 1.16 It is important to note that this sensitivity study does not define the precise limit of wind energy or ground mounted solar PV development that can be accommodated within CWaC, but gives an indication of the relative sensitivity of the different landscape types to these types of development, as defined in the study. It should not be interpreted as a definitive statement that a particular landscape is suitable or not suitable for a particular type of development – this report is not a substitute for detailed landscape and visual impact assessment of local development proposals or as part of wider environmental impact assessment.

1.17 As discussed further in section 3, although the study helps direct development to less sensitive locations it does not imply that development will be acceptable. Even an area rated as low-moderate sensitivity will comprise some key characteristics that are sensitive to development. If a development would adversely affect key characteristics, or the scale of development would create a high magnitude of change, effects on the character and appearance of an area could potentially be significant even if that area is rated as low-moderate sensitivity.

1.18 The study uses carefully defined criteria to assess sensitivity that inevitably involves a degree of professional judgement in evaluating sometimes competing and unequally weighted characteristics, or attributes. Rigid interpretation of the findings should be avoided, paying particular attention to the descriptions of potential sensitivity to different scales of development and the associated broad generic guidance on the type of development that may or may not be acceptable in different locations.

1.19 It is also important to recognise that this study only considers landscape character. Biodiversity and cultural heritage are taken into consideration only where they have an influence on landscape character. The Council will consider all other environmental factors, such as impact on the Green Belt and the agricultural quality of the land, for example, and all other relevant issues during land use planning deliberations.

1.20 Furthermore, assessment of the sensitivity to specific development types is made to compare landscapes within CWaC; it should not be read alongside or compared with other sensitivity and capacity studies. Nor does the study compare the advantages or disadvantages of wind energy in relation to solar energy or other renewable or low carbon energy sources.

1.21 It is acknowledged that individual perceptions and attitudes towards renewable energy developments, and in particular wind turbines, vary greatly. Contrasting positive and negative attitudes are common but the study takes an unbiased approach. Personal preferences of the consultants undertaking the study has had no bearing on its findings.

Format of the report 1.22 Section 2 outlines the planning context for the study, with reference to national planning policy, local policy and plans and environmental impact assessment. Section

5

3 describes the general methodology used in the study for assessing sensitivity to both wind energy and solar PV developments. The assessment of sensitivity of landscape character types (LCT) and landscape character areas (LCA) to wind energy development is described in Section 4, and the assessment to solar PV development is described in Section 5. Section 6 provides a summary of the sensitivity assessment of both wind energy and solar PV developments in the borough.

1.23 Appendix A provides a checklist of key landscape characteristics and general influence on wind energy. Appendix B provides general design guidance principles for new wind energy and ground mounted solar PV development to minimise impacts on the landscape. The guidance is aimed at council officers and councillors, developers, applicants, landowners and others with an interest in wind energy development within the borough. Appendix C provides a checklist for applicants to show how landscape character has been taken into account in the development process and that potential landscape and visual impacts of a proposed development have been fully addressed. Prospective applicants should work through Appendix C prior to submitting a planning application.

1.24 This report is accompanied by two separately bound technical appendices containing the completed assessment matrices of sensitivity of each of the 53 LCAs to, firstly, wind energy development, and secondly to solar PV development:

 Supporting Technical Appendix on Sensitivity to Wind Energy  Supporting Technical Appendix on Sensitivity to Solar PV Development.

6

2. Planning Context

2.1 Planning policy for onshore wind and solar PV developments is contained in a number of documents. UK Government national policy is principally set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)9, the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure,10 and online National Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.

2.2 Local policy is provided by the statutory development plan for the borough, principally the emerging local plan which is being developed in two parts; Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Polices (which was adopted by the borough council in January 2015) and the Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies.

2.3 The existing supplementary planning document providing guidance on landscape sensitivity to wind turbine development (SPD4) covers the former Vale Royal Borough Council area, as referred to above, and is a material consideration in local planning decision making.

National Planning Policy Framework 2.4 Two of the core land-use planning principles set out in the NPPF that should underpin plan-making and decision-taking are that planning should:

 support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy); and also  take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;

2.5 The NPPF makes it clear that renewable energy development is not normally considered appropriate development for Green Belt land. Developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed within the Green Belt, which may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources (NPPF para. 91).

2.6 The NPPF encourages local planning authorities to develop a strategy to promote renewable energy developments and identify suitable sites for them (NPPF para. 97).

9 Department for Communities and Local Government (March 2012), National Planning Policy Framework. 10 Department for Communities and Local Government (July 2011), Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

7

2.7 At para. 98 the NPPF directs that when determining planning applications for renewable energy development, local planning authorities should:

 not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and  approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas.

2.8 The NPPF makes it clear that in assessing the likely impacts of potential wind energy development when identifying suitable areas, and in determining planning applications for such development, planning authorities should follow the approach set out in the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure, July 2011.

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure, July 2011. 2.9 The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) sets out the Government’s policy for delivery of major energy infrastructure. It recognises that onshore wind is the most well-established and currently the most economically viable source of renewable electricity available for future large-scale deployment in the UK. Potential benefits of energy infrastructure proposals are to be weighed against potential adverse impacts, including any long-term and cumulative adverse impacts, as well as any measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any adverse impacts. Environmental, social and economic benefits and adverse impacts at national, regional and local levels need to be taken into account. Landscape and visual impacts are recognised as “generic impacts” that arise from the development of all types of energy infrastructure, but such effects will vary on a case by case basis according to the type of development, its location and the landscape setting of the proposed development.

2.10 The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) sets out the general principles that should be applied in the assessment of development consent applications for onshore wind (as well as other renewable energy technologies). Section 2.7 of EN-3 covers onshore wind. Key considerations for site selection are explained in detail and include: predicted wind speed, proximity of site to dwellings, capacity of a site, access, grid connection issues, biodiversity and geological conservation, historic environment impacts, landscape and visual impact, noise and vibration, shadow flicker and traffic and transport issues.

2.11 With regard to landscape and visual impact, the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure emphasises that modern onshore wind turbines that are used in commercial wind farms are large structures and there will always be significant landscape and visual effects from their construction and operation for a

8

number of kilometres around a site. It recommends that the arrangement of wind turbines should be carefully designed within a site to minimise effects on the landscape and visual amenity while meeting technical and operational siting requirements and other constraints.

Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy 2.12 In July 2013 the Government published ‘Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy’11. This was replaced in March 2014 by online planning practice guidance on renewable and low carbon energy. The aim of this guidance was to make clear that the need for renewable energy did not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. It provides guidance on how local planning authorities can identify suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy, acknowledging that assessment of the impact of some types of technologies may change, for example as the size of wind turbines increases.

2.13 In considering impacts, the guidance suggests that assessments can use tools to identify where impacts are likely to be acceptable. For example, landscape character areas could form the basis for considering which technologies at which scale may be appropriate in different types of location.

2.14 Paragraph 10 states: “Identifying areas suitable for renewable energy in plans gives greater certainty as to where such development will be permitted. For example, where councils have identified suitable areas for onshore wind or large scale solar farms, they should not have to give permission outside those areas for speculative applications involving the same type of development when they judge the impact to be unacceptable”.

2.15 The justification for imposing separation distances between turbines and residential property has been the subject of many discussions, for example at public inquiries. The guidance advises that local planning authorities should not rule out otherwise acceptable renewable energy developments through inflexible rules on buffer zones or separation distances. Other than when dealing with set-back distances for safety, distance of itself does not necessarily determine whether the impact of a proposal is unacceptable. Distance plays a part, but so does the local context including factors such as topography, the local environment and near-by land uses.

2.16 The guidance sets out particular planning considerations that relate to large scale ground mounted solar photovoltaic farms and wind turbines, as discussed further below.

National Planning Policy on Wind Energy Development 2.17 The planning process used to determine a wind turbine development depends on the size of the proposed development. Planning applications for renewable energy projects, including onshore wind, above 50 megawatts (MW) are treated as Nationally

11 Department for Communities and Local Government (July 2013), Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy

9

Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), requiring “development consent” (rather than planning permission) under the rules provided for in the Planning Act 2008. The Planning Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (in England and Wales) who makes a final determination in accordance with the NPPF, National Policy Statements on Energy and relevant local considerations including local plans. To date, there have been no approvals of onshore wind farms through the NSIP system in England. The new Conservative Government has indicated that onshore wind may be removed from the NSIP system, with the decision making power returned to local authorities12.

2.18 Wind energy applications with a proposed electricity generating output of below 50MW are decided at the local authority level in England in accordance with the polices set out in the NPPF and following the procedure set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

2.19 From 17 December 2013, pre-application consultation with local communities has become compulsory for the “more significant onshore wind applications” by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure and Section 62A Applications (England) (Amendment) Order 2013 (SI 2932). This is for onshore wind development involving more than 2 turbines or any turbine with a hub height exceeding 15 metres height.

2.20 In a written ministerial statement on 18 June 2015 the Government announced new considerations to be applied to proposed wind energy development so that “local people have the final say on wind farm applications” in line with the Conservative Party 2015 Manifesto pledge. When determining planning applications for wind energy development involving one or more wind turbines, local planning authorities should only grant planning permission if:

 the development site is in an area identified as suitable for wind energy development in a local or neighbourhood plan; and  following consultation, it can be demonstrated that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed and therefore the proposal has their backing (whether a proposal has the backing of the affected local community is, according to the written statement, “a planning judgement for the local planning authority”).

This is now enshrined in national planning practice guidance (see paragraph 2.24 below).

2.21 Building mounted small domestic wind turbines that do not exceed an overall height (including building, hub and blade) of 15 metres, and stand-alone small domestic wind turbines that do not exceed 11.1 metres in height, may not need planning permission

12 In the Queen’s speech, on 27 May 2015, an Energy Bill was announced, which (among other things) would remove onshore wind farms of over 50 megawatts in size from the nationally significant infrastructure project development consent regime.

10

under permitted development rights contained within the Town and Country Planning (General permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

2.22 As mentioned above, online planning practice guidance on renewable and low carbon energy (March 2014) describes the particular planning considerations that relate to wind turbines, including guidance on how local planning authorities should assess impacts including cumulative landscape and visual impacts. Factors to consider in assessing impact on visual amenity include: establishing the area in which a proposed development may be visible, identifying key viewpoints, the people who experience the views and the nature of the views. In identifying impacts on landscape, considerations include: direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts and temporary and permanent impacts. When assessing the significance of impacts a number of criteria should be considered including the sensitivity of the landscape and visual resource and the magnitude or size of the predicted change. Some landscapes may be more sensitive to certain types of change than others and it should not be assumed that a landscape character area deemed sensitive to one type of change cannot accommodate another type of change.

2.23 The guidance sets out the type of information to inform landscape and visual impact assessments of wind farm developments. This provides useful information for the local planning authority and prospective developers. The key considerations are included within the Checklist for Applicants in Appendix C.

2.24 The online planning practice guidance on renewable and low carbon energy has been updated to take account of the new planning considerations announced in the 18 June 2015 written ministerial statement (see paragraph 2.20 above).

2.25 In England there are no nationally-set minimum separation distances between wind turbines and housing and there are no proposals from Government to introduce them. The last Government’s view was that distance alone did not necessarily determine whether the impact of a proposal is acceptable or not. It believed that distance played a part, but only alongside other factors specific to the local context, such as topography, the local environment and nearby land uses. [While there are no nationally-set minimum separation distances between wind turbines and housing in England, one council has successfully set guidelines for a minimum distance for its area in the Allerdale Borough Council Local Plan (adopted July 2014)].

2.26 The former Coalition Government temporarily expanded the planning appeals recovery criteria to allow the Secretary of State to take the final decision on onshore wind appeals. This expired in April 2015. The new Conservative Government (2015) has not yet said whether it plans to renew this power.

National Planning Policy on Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Development 2.27 As mentioned above, online planning practice guidance on renewable and low carbon energy (March 2014) describes the particular planning considerations that relate to ground mounted solar photovoltaic development. The guidance acknowledges that the deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural

11

environment, particularly in very undulating landscapes. However, the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively.

2.28 Particular factors that should be considered include:

 encouraging the effective use of previously developed land, and if a proposal does involve greenfield land, that it allows for continued agricultural use and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays;  that solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in use and the land is restored to its previous use;  the effect on landscape of glint and glare and on neighbouring uses and aircraft safety;  the extent to which there may be additional impacts if solar arrays follow the daily movement of the sun;  the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing;  great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of large scale solar farms on such assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset;  the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges;  the energy generating potential, which can vary for a number of reasons including, latitude and aspect.

2.29 The approach to assessing cumulative landscape and visual impact of large scale solar farms is likely to be the same as assessing the impact of wind turbines (see paragraph 2.22 above). However, in the case of ground-mounted solar panels it should be noted that with effective screening and appropriate land topography the area of a zone of visual influence could be zero.

Local Planning Policy 2.30 The Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Polices was adopted in January 2015. It provides the overall vision, strategic objectives, spatial strategy and strategic planning policies for the borough to 2030, informed by up-to-date background evidence documents on key aspects. The strategic objectives and policies will be supported by detailed policies within the emerging Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies Plan and further supporting documents, including this study, in due course.

2.31 Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Objective SO15 states the council will:

12

“Take action on climate change by promoting energy efficiency and energy generation from low carbon and renewable resources”.

2.32 The vision and strategic objectives of the Local Plan have been set out in a spatial strategy that aims to ensure sustainable development of the borough, in accordance with the NPPF. STRAT 1 policy on Sustainable Development includes the following principle for approving proposals that are in accordance with relevant policies in the Local Plan (unless material considerations indicate otherwise):

“Mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, ensuring development makes the best use of opportunities for renewable energy use and generation”.

2.33 STRAT 11 policy on Infrastructure states that to ensure the delivery of infrastructure improvements, to secure the future of sustainable communities throughout Cheshire West and Chester, and meet the wider sustainability objectives of the borough, the Council will (amongst other things):

“Support the provision of appropriate new infrastructure, including schemes intended to mitigate and adapt to climate change and any cross boundary schemes necessary to deliver the priorities of the Local Plan where this will have no significant adverse impact upon recognised environmental assets”.

The explanation of the policy gives an indication of the types of infrastructure, facilities and services covered by the policy, including renewable energy sources such as decentralised renewable or low carbon energy installations.

2.34 Local Plan strategic policy ENV 7 Alternative Energy Supplies states that:

“The Local Plan will support renewable and low carbon energy proposals where there are no unacceptable impacts on:

 Landscape, visual or residential amenity  Noise, air, water, highways or health  Biodiversity, the natural and historic environment  Radar, telecommunications or the safety of aircraft operations”

The explanation of the policy refers to the 2012 Cheshire West and Chester Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Study (see paragraph 1.4 above) which highlights the majority of the borough’s renewable and low carbon energy resources are likely to be used across the authority area in small, scattered developments, with few strategic large scale opportunities to require specific local targets or formal area designations. A criteria-based policy approach is considered to be an appropriate mechanism to manage these and other suitable large, small and community scale opportunities and supporting infrastructure that may come forward. Applicants are encouraged to refer to the study which identifies where some of Cheshire West and Chester’s renewable and low carbon energy resources could be harnessed, noting that additional site

13

specific work may be required to fully understand the feasibility and policy acceptability of a proposal.

Environmental Impact Assessment 2.35 The process of environmental impact assessment is governed by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 as amended. These regulations apply EU Directive 2011/92/EU on “the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment” (usually referred to as the EIA Directive) to the planning system in England.

2.36 The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is to protect the environment by ensuring that a local planning authority when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project, which is likely to have significant effects on the environment, does so in the full knowledge of the likely significant effects, and takes this into account in the decision making process. The regulations set out a procedure for identifying those projects which should be subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment, and for assessing, consulting and coming to a decision on those projects which are likely to have significant environmental effects.

2.37 The local planning authority (or the Secretary of State in the case of an appeal) should determine whether the project is of a type listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Regulations. An assessment is required for all Schedule 1 projects. If the project is listed in Schedule 2, the local planning authority should consider whether it is likely to have significant effects on the environment. When screening Schedule 2 projects, the local planning authority must take account of the selection criteria in Schedule 3 of the Regulations. Not all of the criteria will be relevant in every case. Each case should be considered on its own merits in a balanced way and authorities should retain the evidence to justify their decision.

2.38 Wind energy development is considered under Schedule 2, para 3(i) Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production (wind farms). In accordance with the thresholds and criteria relevant to para 3(i) development, if the development involves the installation of 2 turbines or the hub height of any turbine or height of any other structure exceeds 15 metres, the proposal needs to be screened by the local planning authority to determine whether significant effects are likely and hence whether an assessment is required.

2.39 Solar power development is considered under Schedule 2, para 3(a) Industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water. In accordance with the thresholds and criteria relevant to para 3(a) development, if the area of the development exceeds 0.5 hectare the proposal needs to be screened by the local planning authority to determine whether significant effects are likely and hence whether an assessment is required.

14

3. Methodology

Introduction to landscape sensitivity 3.1 The assessment follows current best practice methodology for judging sensitivity in accordance with the techniques and criteria described in The Countryside Agency’s and Scottish Natural Heritage’s joint Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland, 2002, and the associated Topic Paper 613.

3.2 The method developed for this study builds on current guidance and uses the consultant’s considerable experience in undertaking landscape sensitivity and capacity assessments throughout England and Scotland. This follows a process of desk study review of published material, field work, evaluation of landscape character types and landscape character areas, generation and application of appropriate criteria to assess sensitivity, and the presentation of results by way of summary tables and mapping using a geographic information system (GIS).

3.3 The current national LCA guidance does not provide a definition of ‘landscape sensitivity’ although this is likely to be included in the emerging updated version. ‘Landscape sensitivity’ and ‘landscape capacity’ are terms that are often used to mean the same thing in landscape sensitivity and capacity studies. Care is needed in the way that ‘landscape capacity’ is used since it can imply the existence of an objectively defined threshold below which development is acceptable, and beyond which it is unacceptable. Rarely can such a threshold be defined with any accuracy, and thresholds will be dependent upon various considerations affecting sensitivity, policy and the need for renewable energy. Consequently this study assesses the overall sensitivity of landscape character types within CWaC to wind energy and ground mounted solar PV developments and provides strategic guidance on siting and design without attempting to identify landscapes where thresholds of development may or may not be acceptable.

3.4 Landscape sensitivity in this study refers to the extent to which a particular landscape character type or area is vulnerable to change due to potentially significant effects on its character, or overall change of landscape character type. Landscape sensitivity is a professional judgement reflecting the particular landscape characteristics and features of a given area, for example landscapes which are rare or unusual landscape types are likely to be more sensitive to change. Sensitivity is likely to vary according to the type and nature of change being proposed as discussed below in respect of wind energy and ground mounted solar PV developments.

3.5 Landscape sensitivity includes visual sensitivity which refers to the extent to which views within, into and out of CWaC are vulnerable to changes in the appearance of the landscape as a result of wind energy and ground mounted solar PV development. It should be noted that the visibility of a wind energy and solar PV development may

13 The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002); Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland. Topic Paper 6 (2004): Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity

15

extend over some considerable distance, covering many different landscape character areas and types. A development may therefore influence the character of adjacent areas, as well as the area in which the proposal lies.

3.6 Landscape sensitivity is an overall professional judgement that recognises that certain characteristics, or attributes, may have a stronger influence on landscape character than others and may be more sensitive to the type of development being considered. Furthermore, there may be apparent contradictions within a landscape character type or area, for example a landscape close to settlement and already influenced by built development (indicating lower sensitivity to new development) may also include smaller human-scale features such as historic field patterns, hedgerows and trees (indicating higher sensitivity to large wind turbines out of scale with the landscape, and large-scale solar farms that may necessitate the removal of such sensitive landscape features). However, smaller human-scale landscape features may help to screen small solar arrays, reducing sensitivity to this scale of development. These issues are brought out in the discussions on landscape sensitivity.

3.7 Judgements (rather than numerical scoring or weighting) on landscape sensitivity are made using the five-point scale shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Sensitivity Definitions High sensitivity (H) The key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are highly sensitive and are highly likely to be adversely affected by this type of development.

Moderate-High sensitivity The key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are (M-H) sensitive and are likely to be adversely affected by this type of development. Moderate sensitivity Some of the key characteristics and qualities of the landscape (M) are sensitive to change brought about by this type of development. Low-Moderate sensitivity The key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are less (L-M) sensitive to change brought about by this type of development. Low sensitivity The key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are (L) robust and are less likely to be adversely affected by change brought about by this type of development.

Assessing landscape sensitivity 3.8 Criteria for assessing landscape sensitivity have been developed following a review of relevant landscape sensitivity studies14 and the characteristics of the CWaC landscape from the new 2016 Landscape Strategy described in paragraphs 1.7 and 1.8.15 The study assesses the relative sensitivity of each of the sixteen landscape character types identified in the new Landscape Strategy, by evaluating sensitivity of each of the 53

14 Vale Royal Borough Council SPD 4, 2007; Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012; Cheshire East: Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Developments, 2013 15 A Landscape Strategy for Cheshire West and Chester Borough, February 2016

16

landscape character areas within the Strategy to the principal of wind energy and ground mounted solar PV development (of any size) against each of the criteria. In this way the study picks up subtle differences in sensitivity between character areas in order to inform guidance where certain landscape character attributes may be more or less influenced by the type of developments being studied.

3.9 A matrix is used to record a standardised set of criteria to represent the key characteristic features of each landscape character area, which facilitates direct comparison with other character areas. For each criterion a five-point scale, or continuum, is used against which each landscape character area is assessed in terms of general sensitivity to wind energy development and ground mounted solar PV development. This is described further in Sections 4 and 5 respectively.

3.10 Numerical scoring of criteria is avoided (as recommended in current guidance16) since mathematically combining scores can suggest a spurious level of precision in the judgement. Rather than a simple sum of all the attributes within the matrix, professional judgement is used to decide the overall sensitivity of each landscape character area using the five-point scale defined in Table 1.This enables greater emphasis to be given to certain attributes where these have a particularly strong influence on landscape character, for example a prominent skyline.

3.11 The assessments of each landscape character area are brought together in summary tables. Overall sensitivity (using the same five-point scale) of each landscape character type to the different heights of turbine and size of solar arrays considered in the assessment is decided upon using professional judgement, the assessment discussed and summarised in tables to enable direct comparison between them. Colour coding within the summary tables reflects the different sensitivity levels within Table 1 and is repeated on GIS maps (at the back of this report) enabling easy cross-referencing.

3.12 It is important to note that the sensitivity assessment is made on the basis of a complex interplay of different criteria, recognising that within a landscape character area (LCA) some criteria may have a greater influence on landscape character than other criteria. Although the study helps direct development to less sensitive locations, it does not imply that development will be acceptable. Even an area rated as low-moderate sensitivity will comprise some key characteristics that are sensitive to the type of development proposed and that might cause significant adverse effect. It is for each development proposal to show how the characteristics of a LCA, and the wider area where visual sensitivity extends beyond the LCA, have been taken into account in the siting, layout and design of a proposal, to help the council reach a decision on the scale of development, its magnitude of change and likely impact on the character and appearance of the area.

3.13 In areas of high sensitivity, key characteristics are highly sensitive and the type of development assessed is highly likely to cause significant adverse effects. In these areas development restraint and landscape protection are recommended.

16 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, 2013; The Landscape Institute and the Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment

17

Design guidance 3.14 General discussion and guidance on siting, layout and design of different scales of wind turbine development and ground mounted solar PV developments is provided for each landscape character type, referring to the sensitivity of key characteristics, qualities and features highlighted in the individual LCA assessment matrices. Guidance on wind development is provided in section 4 and guidance on solar PV development in section 5.

3.15 Appendix B provides general design guidance principles for new wind energy and ground mounted solar PV development to minimise impacts on the landscape. The guidance is aimed at council officers and councillors, developers, applicants, landowners and others with an interest in wind energy development within the borough.

3.16 With regard to wind energy development, particular emphasis is given to locations identified as broad “areas of least constraint” for medium and large scale wind development within the 2012 ‘Low carbon and renewable energy study’ (see paragraph 1.4).

3.17 Guidance is not considered relevant in those landscape character types assessed as being of high sensitivity as these are considered to have very low ability to absorb this particular development type without significant detriment to its key characteristics, likely to result in a significant change in character (and therefore recommended for restraint on such proposals).

18

4. Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development

Wind energy typologies 4.1 Wind turbine typologies (heights and groupings of turbines) included in this study are those considered most likely to come forward in CWaC. A review of planning applications and permissions over the past five years or so gives an indication of likely turbine heights and groupings as summarised in paragraph 1.10.

4.2 Consideration has also been given to wind energy typologies considered in other studies17. Various combinations of turbine heights and groups have been assessed in previous studies; however, these suggest that the landscape is highly sensitive to any grouping of 13 or more turbines and so larger groupings than this have been scoped out of this study.

4.3 The following wind energy typologies are considered in the study:

Turbine Groups: Single turbine Smaller group of up to 6 turbines Larger group of 7 to 13 turbines

Turbine Heights (to blade tip): Smaller turbine: approximately 10m-30m Medium turbine: approximately 30m-80m Larger turbine: approximately 80m-130m+

4.4 Smaller turbines are most commonly deployed as single free standing units supplying specific buildings or developments (e.g. farms, schools, small businesses, etc.) although they can also be connected to the national grid. Towards the upper end of this scale, the taller turbines can comprise a horizontal axis three blade rotor system, mounted on a steel mast. However, two blade horizontal turbines and vertical axis structures are more commonly used on smaller scale turbines towards the lower end of the scale. Building mounted small domestic wind turbines and other small stand- alone turbines with permitted development rights are not included in this study.

4.5 Medium and larger commercial-scale turbines use a horizontal axis three blade rotor system, mounted on a solid steel tower usually finished in a pale grey colour. The relative proportion of tower height and blade diameter can affect how a turbine is perceived in the landscape; typical proportions of a 125m tall turbine (maximum height to blade tip) are around 80m to the top of the tower with a blade diameter of 90m. Larger turbines and wind farms comprising several large turbines are significant developments. As well as the substantial vertical tower structure, nacelle and rotor

17 Vale Royal Borough Council SPD 4, 2007; Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012; Cheshire East: Landscape Sensitivity to Wind Energy Developments, 2013

19

blades, associated development often includes improvement works to access roads and on-site tracks, construction compounds and lay-down areas, borrow pits, concrete foundations and hard standings, cable trenches, substation and a control building, anemometer mast(s), fencing and gates.

4.6 It is helpful to compare the approximate heights of other features in the CWaC landscape to gain an impression of the scale of wind turbine developments and their potential impact in the landscape:

Two storey dwelling: 10m; Barnston Memorial Obelisk, Farndon: 17m; Large mature tree: 20m-30m; Electricity pylon: 25m-50m; St. John the Evangelist Church spire, Over, Winsford: 43m; St. Wilfrid’s Church spire, Davenham: 55m; Jodrell Bank telescope: 90m; Typical industrial chimney: 175m.

Appendix B provides general guidance on designing wind turbines in the landscape.

Assessment criteria 4.7 In accordance with current best practice guidance described above, criteria have been carefully defined to ensure an appropriate assessment of the sensitivity of the landscape character types and landscape character areas in CWaC to wind turbine development. As described in Section 3, the 2016 Landscape Strategy is used as the basis for the assessment; the criteria closely reflect the key characteristics, sensitivities, qualities and value of each LCT and LCA as described in the Strategy.

4.8 A general understanding of how wind turbines can affect the landscape has also helped define the criteria. There is now a wide consensus as to the ways in which wind turbines affect the landscape, as discussed in paragraph 1.13. Appendix A provides an overview of key landscape characteristics and their general influence on wind energy development. Some of the key landscape effects of wind turbines are:

 The movement of rotor blades on top of tall vertical structures is quite unique, drawing attention to them and bringing additional impacts particularly in tranquil landscapes that other tall structures such as pylons do not;  Uncoordinated blade movement of wind turbines in a group can create an un- cohesive, unbalanced appearance especially where blades appear to overlap;  Turbine height should seek to compliment the landscape and be appropriate in scale. Even smaller turbines can appear large and dominate a landscape characterised by small-scale topography or a low density scattered settlement pattern or human-scale features such as traditional farm buildings, trees and hedgerows;

20

 Associated development such as road improvements and new access tracks can necessitate the removal of landscape features such as trees, hedgerows and ponds;  Turbines and associated infrastructure can bring a perception of human influence in landscapes currently devoid of built development;  Turbines can be overbearing on complex or intricate landforms, resulting in a confusing image;  Simple, distinctive ridges and skylines can also be affected if turbines are too dominant, interrupt valued views and compete with other features in the landscape;  It is important to note that the landscape and visual impacts of turbines are not directly proportional to their height;  Mitigation is limited to siting and design considerations rather than other measures to reduce negative effects, especially of medium and large-scale turbines;  The combined effects of a number of wind turbines, or turbines in conjunction with other developments, can create cumulative effects i.e. additional changes to the landscape and people’s perceptions of it that could eventually change the character of the landscape. As yet there are few turbines in CWaC but the potentially high level of visibility and other potential impacts as the number of turbines increases means that cumulative effects may be more likely. This is an evolving area of practice and considerable effort has recently been devoted to addressing cumulative landscape and visual effects in guidance specifically on wind farms18.

4.9 As described in Section 3, a matrix was developed with a standardised set of criteria to represent the key characteristic features of each LCA as recorded in the 2016 Landscape Strategy. The key characteristics most likely to be affected by wind energy development are recorded under five headings, as follows:

 Natural & physical attributes  Cultural, heritage & historic attributes  Built development & settlement pattern  Perceptual & visual attributes  Qualitative attributes

4.10 The characteristics recorded are defined in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Definition of Criteria for Assessing Sensitivity to Wind Energy Development NATURAL & PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE CRITERIA Landform The shape, elevation and change in relief of the physical landscape, ranging from simple and consistent, such as the flat pastoral plain, to more rugged and dramatic such as rocky sandstone cliffs and outcrops, or steep valley sides.

Land cover The pattern of land uses within a landscape, from the continuous monoculture of pattern large parts of the plain or plantation forests, to mosaic assemblages of small fields, hedgerows, ponds and woodlands. Landscape pattern is closely related to scale.

18 Assessing the Cumulative Impact of On Shore Wind Energy Developments (2012), Scottish Natural Heritage

21

Scale The relative size of landforms, ranging from the most intimate river valleys to extensive open plain, and, to a lesser extent, the relative scale of land cover patterns of fields, hedgerows and trees. Landscape scale is closely related to visibility and the extent of views, and how the landscape is experienced. Enclosure The way in which landforms enclose the landscape, or open out into other landscapes, is closely related to scale. Woodlands and forestry may also create enclosure. CULTURAL, HERITAGE & HISTORIC CRITERIA Historic assets Historic landscape character including the presence and influence of nationally designated or locally significant heritage assets on the landscape, for example Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, historic field systems and features such as ridge and furrow, field ponds and unimproved land (but not buried archaeology). Recreation Evidence of recreational uses where landscape is important to its enjoyment, such as public rights of way (including long-distance routes), outdoor visitor facilities, and landscape-based tourist attractions. BUILT DEVELOPMENT & SETTLEMENT PATTERN CRITERIA Built The relative presence or absence of built development in the landscape, or in development adjacent landscapes where they affect character, including industrial or commercial buildings and infrastructure, transport routes and power lines, brownfield land, and vertical structures such as communications masts, pylons and chimneys. Settlement The pattern, scale and relative density of settlement, from unsettled or small scale, low density, strongly rural dispersed pattern of scattered villages, farms and cottages, to large scale, high density urban areas on the edge of an LCA where 20th century residential development has a significant effect on its character. Human scale The scale of field pattern influenced by the relative presence or absence of features traditional elements in the landscape such as sandstone walls, hedges, hedgerow trees and landscape-scale buildings that give a ‘human scale’ to the landscape. PERCEPTUAL & VISUAL CRITERIA Skylines Visual horizons can be simple i.e. relatively flat and featureless and not prominent, or more prominent and distinctive and/or complex with woodland, trees and other features. Undeveloped skylines are more sensitive than skylines where development is prominent, even if located in adjacent character areas. Views and Can include views from popular viewpoints, or views to landmark cultural buildings landmarks such as churches, and natural features such as ridges and hills, either within the same character area or beyond. Intervisibility Depending largely on enclosure, landscapes may be visible across a wide area, or may be secluded and difficult to see from beyond the area. Visual The presence of visual receptors is indicated by settlement and by the popularity of receptors areas used for recreational purposes, including public rights of way and the network of roads, canals and other transport corridors with large numbers of potential receptors. Movement Visible movement in the landscape may include vehicle traffic, aircraft, shipping, the movement of water, and moving structures such as existing wind turbines. Tranquillity & Tranquillity, an indication of the general level of human influence depending on remoteness factors such as noise and views to man-made features, with a perceived naturalness and rurality. Remote landscapes in the CWaC context are considered to be tranquil. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA Scenic quality The natural beauty and scenic quality of the landscape, which may or not be recognised by landscape designation, for example Area of Special County Value (ASCV). Distinctiveness The extent to which a landscape is representative of the Cheshire West and Chester landscape, or contributes to a local sense of place. Rarity The relative frequency of a landscape’s general type, within Cheshire West and Chester.

22

4.11 As described in Section 3, for each criterion a five-point scale is used against which each landscape character area is assessed in terms of sensitivity to wind energy development. The five-point scale represents a gradual continuum (rather than a rigid scale with fixed points) from low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-high and high, using the 2016 Landscape Strategy, fieldwork and professional judgement to decide the placement on the scale, and overall sensitivity to the general principle of wind energy development.

4.12 Examples of the matrices completed to assess sensitivity of LCA 1a: Delamere and LCA 1b: Allostock are given below. In these examples, LCA 1a: Delamere is assessed as having overall moderate-high sensitivity to the principle of wind energy development (of any size). LCA 1b: Allostock is assessed as having overall moderate sensitivity to the principle of wind energy development.

4.13 Completed matrices for all 53 LCAs are provided within a separate Supporting Technical Appendix to this main report.

4.14 Table 3 following the example matrices below summarises the sensitivity of each LCA. This is also reproduced in the Supporting Technical Appendix on Sensitivity to Wind Energy.

4.15 As described in paragraph 3.11, overall sensitivity (using the same five-point scale) of each landscape character type to the different heights of turbine considered in the assessment is decided upon, using professional judgement. The assessment made is summarised in tables and discussed in terms of overall landscape character type sensitivity, referring to specific character area sensitivity where applicable and sensitivity to the different turbine groups considered in the assessment.

4.16 The landscape sensitivity assessments for each of the sixteen landscape character types (LCT) are given after Table 3. The assessments for each LCT follow the following format:

 A map illustrates the general location of the landscape character type and each landscape character area within the type;  A summary table indicates key sensitivities of the LCT to key characteristics, recorded under the five headings from the 2016 Landscape Strategy;  A table provides the sensitivity assessment for each landscape character area within the LCT together with the overall LCT assessment rating for each of the different turbine heights considered in the study;  A table provides analysis of the LCT sensitivity with reference to landscape character areas and the different turbine heights and turbine groups considered in the study.

23

Landscape Character Area 1a: Delamere Human scale features: Low Sensitivity Low-Moderate Moderate Moderate-High High Sensitivity Lacks human scale Occasional human Some human Frequent human Numerous human Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity features scale features scale features scale features scale features NATURAL & PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE CRITERIA PERCEPTUAL & VISUAL CRITERIA Landform: Skylines: Simple, Simple, gently Undulating with Rolling, varied, Complex, strong Not prominent, Not prominent, Some prominence Prominent &/or Prominent, consistent, flat or undulating with some variety but lacking strong topographical undistinctive, undistinctive, not distinctive & some complexity distinctive &/or elevated plateau occasional variety complexity variety, steep simple &/or &/or some /or varied, some &/or little complex &/or Land cover: developed development development development undeveloped Simple, Simple, with Some variety Varied, but Much variety in Views and landmarks: predictable occasional variety lacking land cover No views from Views to limited Views to locally Views from Key views from limited variety in complexity resulting in a viewpoints or to or occasional significant viewpoints or to popular land cover mosaic effect landmark landmark landmark features important viewpoints to Scale: features features landmark features important Large Medium/large Medium Medium/small Small landmark features Enclosure: Intervisibility: Open, exposed Generally open, Some enclosure Mostly enclosed, Enclosed Self-contained, Occasional views Intervisibility with Intervisibility and Extensively enclosed in places some open areas restricted to / from some strong links to intervisible, part CULTURAL, HERITAGE & HISTORIC CRITERIA intervisibility adjacent neighbouring neighbouring of wider Historic assets: landscapes landscapes landscapes landscape None or few Some significant Some historic More significant Significant historic Receptors: significant historic historic assets but assets of higher historic assets assets throughout Low number of Local transport Some visibility Higher visibility Frequent assets more assets of and lower with some assets the landscape viewers from routes, limited from main from main properties and lower significance significance of lower properties and numbers of transport routes, transport routes views from main significance transport routes residents more residents &/or properties transport routes Recreation: Movement: Little or no Low level informal Locally significant Well used for Important for Busy, frequent to Frequent Occasional to Quiet, limited Still, very recreational use or local recreational use recreation, recreation for continuous movement on frequent movement occasional recreational use or attraction greater than local locals and visitors, movement roads and movement movement attraction national railways designation or Remoteness: attraction Not tranquil, Limited Some human Relatively Tranquil, little BUILT DEVELOPMENT & SETTLEMENT PATTERN CRITERIA much human tranquillity activity reducing tranquil human activity or Built development: activity and noise sense of noise Frequent built Some built Some built Limited built Very limited or no remoteness development & development & development & development built QUALITATIVE CRITERIA /or infrastructure /or infrastructure /or infrastructure &/or development, Scenic quality: &/or prominent and/or prominent and/or vertical infrastructure infrastructure, Low Low/medium Medium Medium/high High vertical structures vertical structures structures but and/or vertical vertical structures Distinctiveness: &/or brownfield and/or some lacking structures and/or or brownfield Not Unrepresentative Some distinctive Representative Distinctive to land brownfield land prominence brownfield land land representative but with some features landscape of Cheshire West Settlement: sense of place CWaC and Chester Large scale, high Medium to large Medium scale and Low to medium Mostly unsettled Rarity: density, scale and density, density, some scale and density, or small scale, low A common A more common A more common A rarely occurring A unique predominantly some modern modern little modern density, rural landscape across landscape, with landscape, with landscape landscape within modern settlement settlement settlement dispersed pattern, the area features of some some unique the area settlement pattern pattern pattern little or no rarity features pattern modern settl’nt Overall sensitivity assessment: Moderate-High 24

Landscape Character Area 1b: Allostock Human scale features: Low Sensitivity Low-Moderate Moderate Moderate-High High Sensitivity Lacks human scale Occasional human Some human Frequent human Numerous human Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity features scale features scale features scale features scale features NATURAL & PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE CRITERIA PERCEPTUAL & VISUAL CRITERIA Landform: Skylines: Simple, Simple, gently Undulating with Rolling, varied, Complex, strong Not prominent, Not prominent, Some prominence Prominent &/or Prominent, consistent, flat or undulating with some variety but lacking strong topographical undistinctive, undistinctive, not distinctive & some complexity distinctive &/or elevated plateau occasional variety complexity variety, steep simple &/or &/or some /or varied, some &/or little complex &/or Land cover: developed development development development undeveloped Simple, Simple, with Some variety Varied, but Much variety in Views and landmarks: predictable occasional variety lacking land cover No views from Views to limited Views to locally Views from Key views from limited variety in complexity resulting in a viewpoints or to or occasional significant viewpoints or to popular land cover mosaic effect landmark landmark landmark features important viewpoints to Scale: features features landmark features important Large Medium/large Medium Medium/small Small landmark features Enclosure: Intervisibility: Open, exposed Generally open, Some enclosure Mostly enclosed, Enclosed Self-contained, Occasional views Intervisibility with Intervisibility and Extensively enclosed in places some open areas restricted to / from some strong links to intervisible, part CULTURAL, HERITAGE & HISTORIC CRITERIA intervisibility adjacent neighbouring neighbouring of wider Historic assets: landscapes landscapes landscapes landscape None or few Some significant Some historic More significant Significant historic Receptors: significant historic assets but assets of higher historic assets assets throughout Low number of Local transport Some visibility Higher visibility Frequent historic assets more assets of and lower with some assets the landscape viewers from routes, limited from main from main properties and lower significance significance of lower signif’ce properties and numbers of transport routes, transport routes views from main Recreation: transport routes residents more residents &/or properties transport routes Little or no Low level informal Locally significant Well used for Important for Movement: recreational use or local recreational use recreation, recreation for Busy, frequent to Frequent Occasional to Quiet, limited Still, very recreational use or attraction greater than local locals and visitors, continuous movement on frequent movement occasional attraction national movement roads and movement movement designation or railways attraction Remoteness: BUILT DEVELOPMENT & SETTLEMENT PATTERN CRITERIA Not tranquil, Limited Some human Relatively Tranquil, little Built development: much human tranquillity activity reducing tranquil human activity or Frequent built Some built Some built Limited built Very limited or no activity and noise sense of noise development & development & development & development built remoteness /or infrastructure /or infrastructure /or infrastructure &/or development, QUALITATIVE CRITERIA &/or prominent and/or prominent and/or vertical infrastructure infrastructure, Scenic quality: vertical structures vertical structures structures but and/or vertical vertical structures Low Low/medium Medium Medium/high High &/or brownfield and/or some lacking structures and/or or brownfield Distinctiveness: land brownfield land prominence brownfield land land Not Unrepresentative Some distinctive Representative Distinctive to Settlement: representative but with some features landscape of Cheshire West Large scale, high Medium to large Medium scale and Low to medium Mostly unsettled sense of place CWaC and Chester density, scale and density, density, some scale and density, or small scale, low Rarity: predominantly some modern modern little modern density, rural A common A more common A more common A rarely occurring A unique modern settlement settlement settlement dispersed pattern, landscape across landscape, with landscape, with landscape landscape within settlement pattern pattern pattern little or no the area features of some some unique the area pattern modern rarity features settlement Overall sensitivity assessment: Moderate 25

Table 3: Summary of Sensitivity of Landscape Character Areas to Wind Energy Development

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Development Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & & Settlement Historic Pattern Landscape Character

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Types and Landscape Human scale features

Views & landmarks

Land cover pattern Character Areas within Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets the Landscape Strategy

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Remoteness

2016

Settlement

Movement

Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

Scale

LCT 1: Woodland, Heaths, Meres and Mosses LCA 1a: Delamere M H L-M M-H M M-H M-H M-H M-H L-M L-M L-M M M M M-H M-H M-H M-H LCA 1b: Allostock L H L-M M L M L-M H M L-M L-M L-M M L-M M M M M-H M LCA 1c: Bickley L-M M M-H M-H L M M-H H M-H M L-M M M M-H M M M-H M-H M-H LCT 2: Sandstone Ridge LCA 2a: Frodsham H M-H L L-M M-H M-H L-M H M H H H M-H M-H M H H M-H H LCA 2b: Helsby Hill H M-H L-M L-M H M-H H H M H H H H M-H M-H H H M-H H LCA 2c: Eddisbury H M-H L-M L-M H M-H L-M H M-H H H H H L-M M H H M-H H LCA 2d: Beeston Crag H M H L-M H H H H M H H H M-H M-H M H H H H LCA 2e: Higher H M-H M L-M M M-H M-H H M H H H L-M M-H M H H M-H H Burwardsley LCA 2f: Larkton H M M-H M M-H M-H H H M H H H M-H M-H M-H H H M-H H Hill/Hether Wood LCT 3: Sandstone Fringe LCA 3a: Helsby to M M M M M M L-M M-H M-H M M-H M-H M M M M-H M-H M M Tarporley LCA 3b: Beeston to M-H M-H M L-M M-H M M-H M-H M-H M M-H M-H M M M M-H M-H M M-H Duckington 26

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Development Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & & Settlement Historic Pattern Landscape Character

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Types and Landscape Human scale features

Views & landmarks

Land cover pattern Character Areas within Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets the Landscape Strategy

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Remoteness

2016

Settlement

Movement

Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

Scale

LCT 4: Drained Marsh LCA 4a: Frodsham, Helsby L L-M L L L-M M L-M H L-M L-M M-H M M-H L L-M L M-H M-H L-M and Lordship Marshes LCA 4b: The Lache Eyes L L L L L L-M L-M H L-M L-M M M L L-M L-M L-M M M-H L-M LCA 4c: Dodleston L L L L L L H H L-M L-M M M L M-H M-H L-M M M-H L-M Drained Marsh LCA 4d: Burton & L M L L L M-H L-M H L-M L-M M L-M L-M M M L-M M M-H L-M Shotwick Drained Marsh LCT 5: Undulating Enclosed Farmland LCA 5a: Norley M-H M-H M-H M-H L-M M M-H M-H M-H L-M M M L-M M-H M M-H M M M-H LCA 5b: Frodsham to L-M L-M L-M M L-M M L-M M-H M-H L-M M-H M M M M M M M M Northwich LCA 5c: Eaton, Marton & M L-M L-M M M-H M M M-H M-H L-M M M M L-M M M M M M Over LCA 5d: Whitley and L-M L-M L-M M M M L-M M-H M-H L-M L-M L-M M M M M M M M Comberbach LCA 5e: East Winsford L-M L-M M M M-H L-M L-M M M-H L-M L-M L-M M M M L-M M M M LCA 5f: Helsby to M M M-H M L M L-M M-H M-H M-H H M-H M-H L-M M M-H M M M-H Frodsham LCA 5g: Malpas M M-H M L-M H M-H M-H M M-H M M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M M M-H

27

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Development Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & & Settlement Historic Pattern Landscape Character

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Types and Landscape Human scale features

Views & landmarks

Land cover pattern Character Areas within Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets the Landscape Strategy

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Remoteness

2016

Settlement

Movement

Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

Scale

LCT 6: Enclosed Farmland LCA 6a: Willaston L-M L-M M M L-M M L M M-H L-M M-H L-M M-H L-M L-M M-H M M L-M LCA 6b: Neston L L-M M-H M-H L M M-H H M-H M M-H M M-H H M-H M L-M M M-H LCA 6c: Neston to L-M L-M M-H M L-M L-M L-M M-H M-H L-M M-H M M M M M-H M M M Saughall LCA 6d: Ness, Burton, L-M L-M L-M L-M M M L-M H M M M-H M L-M M-H M-H M-H L-M M M Puddington & Shotwick Slopes LCA 6e: Capenhurst L L-M M-H M-H L-M L-M L M M L-M L L M-H L-M L-M L-M L-M L-M L-M Plateau LCT 7: Rolling Farmland LCA 7a: Tiverton & Tilston H L-M M-H M M-H M M M-H M M-H M-H M M M L-M M-H M H M-H LCT 8: Heathy Farmland and Woodland LCA 8a: Aston L-M L-M L L-M M L-M L-M H M M M-H M-H M M M M-H M H M-H LCT 9: Cheshire Plain West LCA 9a: Dunham to Tarvin L-M L-M L L-M L-M M L-M M M-H M M-H M-H M-H M M M M-H L M Plain LCA 9b: Hargrave, L-M L L L-M M M M-H H M-H M-H H M-H L-M M-H M-H M M-H L M-H Hoofield & Beeston Plain LCA 9c: Tattenhall to L-M L L-M L-M M-H M M-H H M-H M-H H M-H M M-H M-H M M-H L M-H Shocklach Plain

28

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Development Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & & Settlement Historic Pattern Landscape Character

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Types and Landscape Human scale features

Views & landmarks

Land cover pattern Character Areas within Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets the Landscape Strategy

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Remoteness

2016

Settlement

Movement

Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

Scale

LCA 9d: Saughall to M M-H M L-M M-H M L-M M M L-M M M H L-M L-M L-M M L-M M Waverton Plain LCT 10: Cheshire Plain East LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain L L L-M L-M L-M L H H M-H L M-H M-H L H H M M-H L M LCA 10b: Stublach Plain L M L L-M L-M L-M L-M H M-H L-M M L-M M M-H M M H M-H L-M LCA 10c: Lostock Plain L M L L L-M L-M L-M M-H M-H L-M M L-M M M M M H M-H L-M LCA 10d: Wimboldsley L L L L L-M L-M L-M M-H M-H L-M L-M L-M M M M M M-H L L-M and Sproston Plain LCT 11: Estate Farmland LCA 11a: Grosvenor Estate L-M M M M-H H L-M M M-H M-H M M-H M M M M H H H M-H LCT 12: Mere Basin LCA 12a: Budworth Mere H H M-H H L L-M H H M M M M M M-H M-H M H M-H H LCT 13: Lowland Farmland and Mosses LCA 13a: Peover L-M L-M M-H M-H L L M M-H M-H L-M M L-M M M-H M M M L-M M LCA 13b: Arley West L-M L-M M M L L-M H H M-H L-M M L-M L M-H H M M L-M M-H LCT 14: Salt Heritage Landscape LCA 14a: Northwich H H L M L-M M-H L L-M L-M L-M M-H L-M M-H M L-M L-M H H L-M LCT 15: River Valleys LCA 15a: Upper Weaver H H H H L-M M H H M M-H L L L-M M-H M-H H M-H M H Valley

29

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Development Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & & Settlement Historic Pattern Landscape Character

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Types and Landscape Human scale features

Views & landmarks

Land cover pattern Character Areas within Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets the Landscape Strategy

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Remoteness

2016

Settlement

Movement

Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

Scale

LCA 15b: Mid Weaver H H H H M M-H L-M M-H M M-H M L L-M M-H M-H H M-H M H Valley LCA 15c: Lower Weaver H H M-H M-H M M-H L-M H M M-H M L M M-H M-H H M-H M M-H Valley LCA 15d: Ash Brook Valley H H H H L-M L H H M M-H L-M L L H H M-H M-H M H LCA 15e: Dane Valley H H M-H M-H M M M-H M-H M M M L-M M M-H H M-H M-H M M-H LCA 15f: Dee Valley M H M-H H M-H M M-H M-H M M-H M L-M M M-H M-H M-H M-H M M-H LCA 15g: Wych Valley H H H H L-M L-M H H M M-H L L L H H H M-H M H LCA 15h: Grindley Valley L-M M M M L-M M H H M-H M L-M L-M M M-H M-H M-H M-H M M-H LCA 15i: Gowy Valley L-M M L-M L-M M L-M L-M H L-M M L L-M M M M-H M M M M LCT 16: Mudflats & Saltmarsh LCA 16a: Stanlow & Ince L L L L L L L H L L M-H H L H H M-H M-H M-H H Banks LCA 16b: Dee Estuary L L L L L-M L-M L-M H L L H H M-H H H M-H M-H M-H H

30

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 1: WOODLANDS, HEATHS, MERES & MOSSES

There are 3 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 1: LCA 1a: Delamere; LCA 1b: Allostock; LCA 1c: Bickley

LCT 1 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The medium to large scale, gently undulating, uniform landscape could potentially support wind energy development in principle;  The variety in land cover, enclosure and mosaic of landscape features are sensitive characteristics. Cultural, Heritage  Historic assets are generally of local significance although impact on & Historic setting should be carefully considered;  LCA 1a: Delamere is highly sensitive being particularly important for recreation. Built Development &  Limited built development and man-made structures, the frequent Settlement Pattern human-scale features, and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern are highly sensitive to wind energy that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are not prominent, with limited views and intervisibility, although views from the sandstone ridge are sensitive and visual receptors have moderate sensitivity;

31

LCT 1 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity  Some activity reduces the sense of remoteness and thus sensitivity, although movement is less in LCA 1c: Bickley which is more sensitive. Qualitative  Relatively high scenic quality, rarity and distinctiveness of the landscape increases sensitivity to the principle of wind energy development. The LCT is sensitive to cumulative effects of a number of turbines that could alter landscape character.

LCT 1 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 1 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 1a M-H 1b M M M-H H 1c M-H

LCT 1 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The variety of land cover, presence of human-scale features in the landscape, limited built development and man-made structures, and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern means LCT 1 is particularly sensitive to medium and larger turbines;  Large and medium scale wind development in identified “areas of least constraint”  in LCA 1a: Delamere could mean the loss of woodland and forestry, which could adversely affect its importance for recreation;  Although there are “areas of least constraint”  for medium and large scale wind development in LCA 1c: Bickley, turbines of this scale are unlikely to be acceptable in a quiet landscape with limited movement and built development. They would be out of scale with the small to medium scale, mostly enclosed landscape, the small scale, low density rural dispersed settlement pattern, and the frequent human scale landscape features;  There may be some potential for medium scale wind development with turbines at the lower end of the height scale if located in identified “areas of least constraint”  away from the more tranquil and naturalistic locations;  There are no pockets of identified “areas of least constraint” for large and medium scale wind development in LCA 1b: Allostock;  Medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated within parts of LCA 1b: Allostock since it lies within the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  The combination of key characteristics of this LCT means it is likely to be particularly sensitive to larger groups of 7-13 turbines that would be over dominant;  The greatest potential for wind energy development within LCT 1 is for smaller single turbines or small groups of up to 6 smaller turbines, if carefully located to avoid significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012  Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

32

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 2: SANDSTONE RIDGE

There are 6 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 2: LCA 2a: Frodsham; LCA 2b: Helsby Hill; LCA 2c: Eddisbury; LCA 2d: Beeston Crag; LCA 2e: Higher Burwardsley; LCA 2f: Larkton Hill/Hether Wood

LCT 2 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The strong topographical landform and varied land cover of the sandstone ridge make it particularly sensitive to wind energy development in principle. Cultural, Heritage  The presence of significant historic assets throughout the landscape, & Historic including iconic hill forts and castles, make this LCT particularly sensitive to wind energy development in principle;  The ridge provides an important recreational resource with rights of way including long distance footpaths. Built Development &  Limited built development and modern man-made structures, and Settlement Pattern the mostly unsettled, small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to wind energy development. Perceptual & Visual  The distinctive sandstone ridge is visually prominent, with key views from sensitive visual receptors, and extensive intervisibility;  Some human activity reduces the sense of remoteness and thus sensitivity, although there are more sensitive tranquil areas where movement is limited.

33

LCT 2 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Qualitative  High scenic quality, rarity and distinctiveness of the landscape create high sensitivity to the principle of wind energy development.

LCT 2 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 2 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 2a H 2b H 2c H M-H H H 2d H 2e H 2f H

LCT 2 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The prominent sandstone ridge is probably the most distinctive feature of the CWaC landscape, valued for its scenic quality and its historic, archaeological and ecological importance as an Area of Special County Value (ASCV), and thus highly sensitive to the principle of wind energy development;  The wide extent of visibility of the ridge makes it particularly sensitive to all heights and groupings of turbines including smaller turbines, although there may be some limited potential for turbines at the lower end of the height scale where associated with similar scale features in the landscape;  Although there are vertical structures on parts of the ridge, including communication masts in LCA 2a: Frodsham and LCA 2c: Eddisbury, prominent wind turbines on the skyline would add to the perception of clutter from man-made structures and cumulative impact would need to be carefully considered;  Technically identified “areas of least constraint” for large and medium scale wind development  in LCA 2a: Frodsham and LCA 2c: Eddisbury are also highly sensitive in landscape character terms to turbines of this scale that would be visually prominent over an extensive area;  Medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated within LCA 2d: Beeston Crag, LCA 2e: Higher Burwardsley and LCA 2f: Larkton Hill/Hether Wood for the above reasons and because they are located within the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  The wide extent of visibility of the ridge makes it particularly sensitive to all groupings of turbines.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

34

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 3: SANDSTONE FRINGE

There are 2 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 3: LCA 3a: Helsby to Tarporley; LCA 3b: Beeston to Duckington

LCT 3 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The undulating, transitional medium scale landscape is of moderate to high sensitivity overall that could potentially support wind energy development in principle;  Areas of more varied topography and land cover are more sensitive. Cultural, Heritage  Some historic assets are of significance where impact on setting & Historic should be carefully considered;  Rights of way including long distance footpaths provide a recreational resource. Built Development &  Limited built development and man-made structures, the frequent Settlement Pattern human-scale features, and the mostly small to medium scale and density settlement pattern are sensitive to wind energy that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are of some prominence though not as distinctive as the neighbouring ridge, with key views and strong links to neighbouring landscapes, and visual receptors have moderate sensitivity;  Some human activity and occasional to frequent movement reduces the sense of remoteness and thus sensitivity.

35

LCT 3 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Qualitative  Relatively high scenic quality and distinctiveness of the landscape increases sensitivity to the principle of wind energy development. The LCT is sensitive to cumulative effects of a number of turbines that could alter landscape character.

LCT 3 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 3 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 3a M M M-H H 3b M-H

LCT 3 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The presence of human-scale features in the landscape, limited built development and man- made structures, the mostly small to medium scale and density settlement pattern and the importance of views means LCT 3 is particularly sensitive to medium and larger turbines;  There are very limited pockets of technically identified “areas of least constraint”  in LCA 3a: Helsby to Tarporley where there may be some potential for medium scale wind development with turbines at the lower end of the height scale if located away from the more tranquil and naturalistic locations, avoid key views, and where the sandstone ridge acts as a backdrop;  There are no pockets of identified “areas of least constraint” for large and medium scale wind development in LCT 3;  Medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated within LCA 3b: Beeston to Duckington which lies within the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  The medium scale and enclosure of this LCT means it is likely to be particularly sensitive to larger groups of 7-13 turbines;  The greatest potential for wind energy development within LCT 3 is for smaller single turbines or small groups of up to 6 smaller turbines, if carefully located to avoid significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

36

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 4: DRAINED MARSH

There are 4 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 4: LCA 4a: Frodsham, Helsby and Lordship Marshes; LCA 4b: The Lache Eyes; LCA 4c: Dodleston Drained Marsh; LCA 4d: Burton & Shotwick Drained Marsh

LCT 4 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The large scale, open, uniform landscape with limited variety of land cover could potentially support wind energy development in principle. Cultural, Heritage  There are few significant historic assets with generally low & Historic sensitivity;  Generally a low level of recreational use although LCA 4d: Burton & Shotwick Drained Marsh is more sensitive with recreational fishing ponds and visitors to the RSPB Burton Mere wetlands reserve. Built Development &  The influence of built development and vertical man-made Settlement Pattern structures, and the lack of human-scale features reduces sensitivity;  The mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to wind energy that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence.

37

LCT 4 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are not prominent, with locally significant views, limited intervisibility and visual receptors reducing sensitivity;  Various degrees of remoteness throughout the LCT, with frequent movement reducing tranquillity and thus sensitivity in some areas, and greater tranquillity in quieter areas which are more sensitive. Qualitative  Low to medium scenic quality with some distinctiveness reduces sensitivity, but the drained marsh is a less common landscape in CWaC the character of which could be adversely affected by wind energy development. The LCT is sensitive to cumulative effects of a number of turbines that could alter landscape character and ‘sense of place’.

LCT 4 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 4 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 4a L-M 4b L-M L-M M M-H 4c L-M 4d L-M

LCT 4 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The landscape character areas within this LCT are located alongside and are heavily influenced by the character of adjacent areas beyond the CWaC boundary including the Dee and Mersey estuaries. This includes tall industrial structures and other infrastructure where larger turbines would be in character and scale in the more open, exposed locations where sensitivity is reduced;  This includes LCA 4a: Frodsham, Helsby and Lordship Marshes where 19 turbines 125m tall are under construction. Even so, intervisibility with the sandstone ridge makes this a sensitive area where further large scale wind energy development could create cumulative effects;  Large and medium scale wind development in small pockets identified as “areas of least constraint”  in LCA 4d: Burton & Shotwick Drained Marsh could affect the sense of remoteness and perception of naturalness, and would be visually prominent on the skyline if they breached the ridge of the Enclosed Farmland LCT to the east. Turbine Groups  The greatest potential for wind energy development within LCT 1 is for smaller single turbines or small groups of up to 6 smaller turbines, if carefully located to avoid significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects;  The limited extent of LCAs in this LCT within CWaC means larger groups of 7-13 turbines may dominate the landscape and reduce the sense of openness.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

38

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 5: UNDULATING ENCLOSED FARMLAND

There are 7 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 5: LCA 5a: Norley; LCA 5b: Frodsham to Northwich; LCA 5c: Eaton, Marton & Over; LCA 5d: Whitley and Comberbach; LCA 5e: East Winsford; LCA 5f: Helsby to Frodsham; LCA 5g: Malpas

LCT 5 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The medium scale largely enclosed, undulating nature of the landscape make it more sensitive to larger wind energy development. Cultural, Heritage  There are locally significant historic assets where impact on setting & Historic should be carefully considered; historic character of LCA 5g: Malpas makes it of high sensitivity to modern influences;  Generally a low level of recreational use although parts of LCA 5g: Malpas are more sensitive around the Carden Park Estate. Built Development &  The influence of built development and vertical man-made Settlement Pattern structures makes some parts less sensitive but frequent human-scale features increases sensitivity to medium and large scale wind energy;  The mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to wind energy that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are generally not prominent, with locally significant views,

39

LCT 5 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity limited intervisibility and visual receptors reducing sensitivity; however LCA 5f: Helsby to Frodsham is the exception due to its importance to the setting of the sandstone ridge increasing sensitivity to medium and large scale wind energy;  In general human activity reduces the sense of remoteness with occasional to frequent movement, although parts of the LCT are relatively tranquil with higher sensitivity. Qualitative  Pleasant scenic quality and some distinctiveness with overall moderate sensitivity;  The LCT is a more common landscape in CWaC with some distinctive features. The LCT is sensitive to cumulative effects of a number of turbines that could alter landscape character and ‘sense of place’.

LCT 5 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 5 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 5a M-H 5b M 5c M 5d M L-M M M-H 5e M 5f M-H 5g M-H

LCT 5 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The undulating, enclosed nature of the landscape, the frequent human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern makes this LCT particularly sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development;  Areas of smaller scale enclosure, more remote and tranquil areas away from built influences where there is a perceived naturalness, are even more highly sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development. There is more potential for single smaller turbines within these locations;  More open areas larger in scale and where there is more man-made influence from built development or transport infrastructure are less sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development;  Medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated within parts of LCA 5c: Eaton, Marton & Over where it lies within the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  There may be some potential for single and small groups of up to 6 medium or larger turbines in identified “areas of least constraint”  in LCA 5d: Whitley and Comberbach and LCA 5e: East Winsford that are more open areas larger in scale and where there is more man-made influence from built development or transport infrastructure.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

40

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 6: ENCLOSED FARMLAND

There are 5 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 6: LCA 6a: Willaston; LCA 6b: Neston; LCA 6c: Neston to Saughall; LCA 6d: Ness, Burton, Puddington & Shotwick Slopes; LCA 6e: Capenhurst Plateau

LCT 6 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The relatively flat uniform landform and simple land cover with occasional variety reduces sensitivity of the LCT to the principle of wind energy development;  The generally small-medium scale landscape increases sensitivity. Cultural, Heritage  There are locally significant historic assets where impact on setting & Historic should be carefully considered;  Generally recreational use is locally significant with medium sensitivity. Built Development &  The influence of built development and vertical man-made Settlement Pattern structures makes some parts less sensitive but frequent human-scale features increases sensitivity to medium and large scale wind energy;  The mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to wind energy that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are generally not prominent and intervisibility limited, but there are highly sensitive views and visual receptors increasing sensitivity;

41

LCT 6 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity  In general human activity reduces the sense of remoteness with occasional to frequent movement, although parts of the LCT are relatively tranquil with higher sensitivity. Qualitative  Generally pleasant scenic quality and some distinctiveness, with some areas designated as Areas of Special County Value (ASCV), of high sensitivity;  The LCT is a more common landscape in CWaC with some distinctive features. The LCT is sensitive to cumulative effects of a number of turbines that could alter landscape character and ‘sense of place’.

LCT 6 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 6 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 6a L-M 6b M-H 6c M L-M M M-H 6d M 6e L-M

LCT 6 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The generally small-medium scale landscape, frequent human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern makes this LCT particularly sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development;  More remote and tranquil areas away from built influences where there is a perceived naturalness are even more highly sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development;  Although skylines are not prominent or distinctive, this LCT is visually sensitive to turbines that interrupt key views from viewpoints or to important landmark features in adjacent landscapes, e.g. views across the Dee estuary into Wales;  Areas where there is more man-made influence from built development including prominent structures and transport infrastructure are less sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development. Turbine Groups  The generally small-medium scale landscape, frequent human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern makes this LCT particularly sensitive to larger groups of 7-13 turbines;  There is more potential for single or small groups of up to 6 smaller turbines in more remote and tranquil areas away from built influences where there is a perceived naturalness;  There may be some potential for single and small groups of up to 6 medium turbines in identified “areas of least constraint”  in LCA 6a: Willaston and LCA 6c: Neston to Saughall where there is man-made influence from built development including prominent structures and transport infrastructure.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

42

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 7: ROLLING FARMLAND

There is 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 7: LCA 7a: Tiverton & Tilston

LCT 7 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The complex rolling topography and small to medium scale landscape make this LCT sensitive to wind energy development in principle. Cultural, Heritage  There are significant historic assets where impact on setting should & Historic be carefully considered;  The area is locally significant for recreational uses associated with the canal corridor. Built Development &  Some built development and man-made structures reduce Settlement Pattern sensitivity, but the presence of human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern increase sensitive to wind energy. Perceptual & Visual  The LCT is visually sensitive with prominent rolling skylines and views from high ground to important landmark features including Beeston Castle;  Activity within the road, canal and railway corridor reduces tranquillity and sensitivity, with frequent movement.

43

LCT 7 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Qualitative  Relatively high scenic quality of this distinctive landscape that is unique with CWaC.

LCT 7 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 7 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 7a M-H M M-H H

LCT 7 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The complex rolling topography and small to medium scale landscape, presence of human-scale features, the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern, prominent rolling skylines and sensitive views means LCT 7 is particularly sensitive to the principle of wind energy development, and to medium and larger turbines in particular;  There are no pockets of identified “areas of least constraint” for large and medium scale wind development within the LCT;  Medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated within the LCT since it lies within the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  The combination of key characteristics of this LCT means it is likely to be particularly sensitive to larger groups of 7-13 turbines;  There may be some potential for single or small groups of up to 6 smaller turbines on the lower lying land if associated with human-scale features in the landscape such as road, railway and canal infrastructure and associated buildings, located away from sensitive skylines.

44

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 8: HEATHY FARMLAND & WOODLAND

There is only 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 8: LCA 8a: Aston

LCT 8 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The large scale, generally open, gently undulating topography and simple land cover make this LCT of low to moderate sensitivity to the principle of wind energy development. Cultural, Heritage  There are some historic assets where impact on setting should be & Historic carefully considered;  The area is not particularly sensitive in recreational land use terms. Built Development &  Built development and prominent man-made structures reduce Settlement Pattern sensitivity, but the presence of human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern increase sensitive to wind energy. Perceptual & Visual  The rising ground presents a prominent skyline and strong intervisibility and views to neighbouring landscapes;  Activity within the road, canal and railway corridor reduces tranquillity and sensitivity, with frequent movement. Qualitative  Relatively high scenic quality of this distinctive landscape that is unique with CWaC.

45

LCT 8 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 8 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 8a M-H L-M M M-H

LCT 8 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The large scale landscape, sense of exposure, presence of built development and prominent man-made structures, increasing activity and reducing tranquillity, means this LCT could in principle accommodate medium and larger scale wind energy development;  However, the presence of human-scale features, the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern, prominent skyline and intervisibility means that some parts of LCT 8 are sensitive to larger turbines that could dominate the landscape. Turbine Groups  The presence of human-scale features, the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern, prominent skyline and intervisibility means that some parts of LCT 8 are sensitive to larger groups of 7-13 turbines that could dominate the landscape;  There may be some potential for single and small groups of up to 6 medium or larger turbines in identified “areas of least constraint”  where located close to the road, canal and railway corridor, although cumulative effects with other prominent vertical structures such as pylons would need to be carefully assessed;  There may be some potential for single or small groups of up to 6 smaller turbines on the lower lying land if associated with human-scale features in the landscape.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

46

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 9: CHESHIRE PLAIN WEST

There are 4 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 9: LCA 9a: Dunham to Tarvin Plain; LCA 9b: Hargrave, Hoofield & Beeston Plain; LCA 9c: Tattenhall to Shocklach Plain; LCA 9d: Saughall to Waverton Plain

LCT 9 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The large scale, generally open, flat uniform landscape reduces sensitivity of the LCT to the principle of wind energy development. Cultural, Heritage  There are some significant historic assets where impact on setting & Historic and historic landscape character should be carefully considered;  Recreational use is locally significant with medium sensitivity. Built Development &  The influence of built development and vertical man-made Settlement Pattern structures makes some parts less sensitive but frequent human-scale features increases sensitivity to medium and large scale wind energy;  The mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to wind energy that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  The sandstone ridge provides a prominent and distinctive skyline with highly sensitive intervisibility and important views;  Generally a tranquil landscape with limited movement and thus high sensitivity, although the west of the LCT is less remote with frequent movement around Chester and the motorway corridor.

47

LCT 9 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Qualitative  A common landscape but the pastoral plain is representative of CWaC with pleasant scenic quality and thus sensitive to development that affects the characteristic sense of place.

LCT 9 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 9 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 9a M 9b M-H M M-H H 9c M-H 9d M

LCT 9 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The large scale, generally open, flat uniform landscape, the influence of built development and vertical man-made structures, reduces sensitivity of the LCT to the principle of wind energy development;  However, the frequent human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern makes this LCT particularly sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development;  More remote and tranquil areas away from built influences where there is a perceived naturalness are even more highly sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development;  This LCT is visually sensitive to turbines that interrupt key views to important landmark features in adjacent landscapes, e.g. views across the plain to the iconic hillforts and castles on the sandstone ridge;  Areas where there is more man-made influence from built development including prominent structures and transport infrastructure are less sensitive to medium wind energy development;  Medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated within the southern part of the LCT that lies within the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  The frequent human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern makes this LCT particularly sensitive to larger groups of 7-13 turbines;  There is more potential for single smaller turbines within more remote and tranquil areas away from built influences where there is a perceived naturalness;  There may be some potential for single and small groups of up to 6 medium turbines in identified “areas of least constraint”  in LCA 9a: Dunham to Tarvin Plain and LCA 9d: Saughall to Waverton Plain.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

48

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 10: CHESHIRE PLAIN EAST

There are 4 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 10: LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain; LCA 10b: Stublach Plain; LCA 10c: Lostock Plain; LCA 10d: Wimboldsley and Sproston Plain

LCT 10 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The large scale, generally open, flat uniform landscape reduces sensitivity of the LCT to the principle of wind energy development. Cultural, Heritage  There are some significant historic assets where impact on setting & Historic and historic landscape character should be carefully considered;  Low level of recreational use is of low to medium sensitivity. Built Development &  The influence of built development and vertical man-made Settlement Pattern structures makes the LCT less sensitive but frequent human-scale features increases sensitivity to medium and large scale wind energy;  The mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to wind energy that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are generally not prominent, with locally significant views, limited intervisibility and visual receptors reducing sensitivity; however LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain is the exception where there is strong intervisibility and wider ranging views increasing sensitivity to medium and large scale wind energy;

49

LCT 10 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity  In general human activity reduces the sense of remoteness with occasional to frequent movement, although LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain is tranquil with little human activity or movement. Qualitative  In general the pastoral plain is a common landscape representative of CWaC with pleasant scenic quality and thus sensitive to development that affects the characteristic sense of place;  However parts of the landscape is more distinctive being influenced by features associated with the brine/salt extraction and gas storage industries with a historical land use legacy increasing sensitivity.

LCT 10 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 10 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 10a M 10b L-M L-M M M-H 10c L-M 10d L-M

LCT 10 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The large scale, generally open, flat uniform landscape, the influence of built development and vertical man-made structures, reduces sensitivity of the LCT to the principle of wind energy development;  However, the frequent human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern makes this LCT particularly sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development;  More remote and tranquil areas away from built influences where there is a perceived naturalness are even more highly sensitive to medium and large scale wind energy development;  LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain is visually sensitive to turbines that interrupt key views to important landmark features in adjacent landscapes, e.g. views to church spires;  Areas where there is more man-made influence from built development especially features associated with the brine/salt extraction and gas storage industries are less sensitive to medium scale wind energy development;  Medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated within parts of LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain and LCA 10d: Wimboldsley and Sproston Plain that lie within the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  The frequent human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern makes this LCT particularly sensitive to larger groups of 7-13 turbines;  There is more potential for single smaller turbines within more remote and tranquil areas away from built influences where there is a perceived naturalness;  There may be some potential for single and small groups of up to 6 medium or larger turbines in identified “areas of least constraint”  in LCA 10b: Stublach Plain.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

50

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 11: ESTATE FARMLAND

There is 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 11: LCA 11a: Grosvenor Estate

LCT 11 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The simple, uniform gently undulating landform of medium scale make this LCT of moderate overall sensitivity to the principle of wind energy development, although sensitivity is increased in enclosed locations where turbines could be out of scale. Cultural, Heritage  The LCT is of high historic value and contains significant historic & Historic assets where wind energy could impact on setting and on historic landscape character;  The area is not particularly sensitive in recreational land use terms. Built Development &  Some modern built development lacks prominence with reduced Settlement Pattern sensitivity, but the presence of frequent human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern increase sensitive to wind energy that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  A moderately sensitive landscape in visual terms where the skyline has some prominence but is undistinctive, with some intervisibility but important views to landmark features increases sensitivity;  Some human activity and movement in the landscape reduces the sense of remoteness.

51

LCT 11 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Qualitative  This is a unique, distinctive landscape of high scenic quality mostly designated as an Area of Special County Value (ASCV), and thus highly sensitive to wind energy development.

LCT 11 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 11 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 11a M-H M M-H H

LCT 11 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The high scenic quality and unique distinctive landscape of high historic value is highly sensitive to the principle of wind energy development. Larger turbines would dominate and adversely affect these key characteristics;  The presence of human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern also means that the LCT is sensitive to larger turbines that could dominate the landscape;  Medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated within the LCT which lies within the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  Larger groups of 7-13 turbines would dominate and adversely affect the key characteristics of this LCT;  The presence of human-scale features and the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern also means that the LCT is sensitive to larger groups of turbines that could dominate the landscape;  There may be some potential for single and small groups of up to 6 medium turbines in identified “areas of least constraint”  to the north of the busy A55 road corridor where associated with the Chester Business Park or Water Works;  There may be some potential for single or small groups of up to 6 smaller turbines where associated with human-scale features in the landscape and which do not interrupt important views.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

52

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 12: MERE BASIN

There is 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 12: LCA 12a: Budworth Mere

LCT 12 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The steep basin-like landform is small scale and enclosed by the rising topography on all sides, and with a mosaic of semi-natural habitats making it highly sensitive to the principle of wind energy development. Cultural, Heritage  There are few historic assets and only locally significant recreational & Historic use, reducing sensitivity; Built Development &  Built development and prominent man-made structures are very Settlement Pattern limited, increasing sensitivity, and the presence of human-scale features and the unsettled nature give a perceived naturalness and increased sensitive to wind energy. Perceptual & Visual  The skyline is not prominent but the simple ridgeline defining the top of the basin-like landscape forms a strong skyline from where views are locally significant with some intervisibility ;  Human activity and traffic movement within the road corridor reduces tranquillity and sensitivity, but generally there is a strong sense of tranquillity. Qualitative  A rarely occurring, distinctive landscape with some scenic quality.

53

LCT 12 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 12 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 12a H M-H H H

LCT 12 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The steep basin-like landform, small scale enclosure and a mosaic of semi-natural habitats make this LCT highly sensitive to all scales of wind energy development.  The presence of human-scale features, the unsettled nature, strong skyline and strong sense of tranquillity away from the road corridor add to the highly sensitive nature of the landscape;  There are no identified “areas of least constraint”  for medium or large scale wind development in this LCT. Turbine Groups  There may be some potential for a single small turbine on the lower lying land if associated with human-scale features in the landscape.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

54

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 13: LOWLAND FARMLAND & MOSSES

There are 2 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 13: LCA 13a: Peover; LCA 13b: Arley West

LCT 13 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The gently undulating, uniform landscape with simple land cover could potentially support wind energy development in principle;  The small scale and mostly enclosed landscape are features sensitive to wind energy. Cultural, Heritage  Historic assets are generally of local significance although impact on & Historic setting should be carefully considered;  Low level, informal local recreational use reduces sensitivity. Built Development &  Some built development but mostly limited, with frequent human- Settlement Pattern scale features, and a small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern which are highly sensitive to wind energy that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are not prominent, with limited views and intervisibility and generally moderate sensitivity to a limited range of visual receptors;  This is a tranquil landscape in places remote where movement is limited, making the LCT highly sensitive. Qualitative  A more common landscape with some distinctive features and overall medium scenic quality.

55

LCT 13 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 13 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 13a M M M-H H 13b M-H

LCT 13 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The general intimacy of the small scale enclosed landscape, with frequent human-scale features, and tranquil and in places remote character make this LCT sensitive to medium and larger turbines;  There may be some potential for medium scale wind development if located in identified “areas of least constraint”  in LCA 13b: Arley West close to the M56 and M6 and away from the more tranquil and naturalistic locations;  Similarly there may be some potential for medium scale wind development if located in a small pocket of identified “area of least constraint” for large and medium scale wind development in LCA 13a: Peover close to the motorway as long as any turbines do not over-dominate the nearby settlement of Swan Green;  In the majority of LCA 13a: Peover beyond this small pocket of potential wind energy development, medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated because of the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  The combination of key characteristics of this LCT means it is likely to be particularly sensitive to larger groups of 7-13 turbines;  The greatest potential for wind energy development within LCT 13 is for smaller single turbines or small groups of up to 6 smaller turbines, if carefully located to avoid significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

56

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 14: SALT HERITAGE LANDSCAPE

There is 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 14: LCA 14a: Northwich

LCT 14 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  A post-industrial landscape of subsidence flashes surrounded by a mosaic of land uses, within an otherwise flat landscape with potentially some sensitivity to wind energy development. Cultural, Heritage  Historic assets are generally of local significance although impact on & Historic setting should be carefully considered;  Well used for recreation which increases sensitivity. Built Development &  Frequent built development, infrastructure and industrial structures Settlement Pattern and brownfield land reduce sensitivity;  The lack of human-scale features and medium to large scale modern settlement pattern further reduce sensitivity. Perceptual & Visual  Generally not visually sensitive as the skyline is not prominent, with limited views and intervisibility although there is a high number of visual receptors;  Frequent movement reduces tranquillity and remoteness, and reduces sensitivity. Qualitative  A unique distinctive landscape in CWaC but with overall low scenic quality.

57

LCT 14 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 14 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 14a L-M L-M M M-H

LCT 14 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The presence of industry and derelict land, and the lack of human-scale features means there is some potential to locate smaller, medium and larger wind turbines that may not be out of scale or dominate the landscape;  Turbines would potentially be in keeping with the large scale structures and modern settlement pattern, but larger turbines could be over-bearing if insensitively sited close to residential property;  There are no identified “areas of least constraint”  for large and medium scale wind development in the LCT. Turbine Groups  Larger groups of turbines could create a confusing appearance with the varied heights of existing industrial uses;  The greatest potential for wind energy development within LCT 14 is for single turbines or small groups of up to 6 turbines.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

58

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 15: RIVER VALLEYS

There are 9 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 15: LCA 15a: Upper Weaver Valley; LCA 15b: Mid Weaver Valley; LCA 15c: Lower Weaver Valley; LCA 15d: Ash Brook Valley; LCA 15e: Dane Valley; LCA 15f: Dee Valley; LCA 15g: Wych Valley; LCA 15h: Grindley Valley; LCA 15i: Gowy Valley

LCT 15 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  Generally steep valley sides, often wooded with small scale enclosure make this LCT particularly sensitive to wind energy development in principle. However, there are areas of lower sensitivity where valleys are wider, less steep and scale is larger. Cultural, Heritage  The presence of historic assets varies greatly throughout the & Historic landscape making this LCT more or less sensitive to wind energy development in principle;  Recreational use also varies throughout the landscape. Built Development &  Existing built development and prominent structures give some Settlement Pattern areas lower sensitivity, but other areas are highly sensitive where built development is limited or absent;  The river valleys are mostly unsettled or with a small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern which is highly sensitive to wind energy development that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence.

59

LCT 15 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are prominent and distinctive with little or no development and thus highly sensitive to tall wind turbines, although intervisibility, views and visual receptors are generally limited, with reduced sensitivity;  Strong sense of tranquillity and remoteness in places where activity and movement is limited. Qualitative  Distinctive valleys mostly of high scenic quality, especially the Upper, Mid and Lower Weaver Valley and the Wych Valley designated as Areas of Special County Value (ASCV), with high sensitivity to the principle of wind energy development.

LCT 15 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 15 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 15a H 15b H 15c M-H 15d H 15e M-H M M-H H 15f M-H 15g H 15h M-H 15i M

LCT 15 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  The steep wooded valley sides, small scale enclosure, lack of built development and settlement, prominent distinctive skylines, strong sense of tranquillity and scenic quality make some river valleys highly sensitive to all sizes and numbers of wind turbines;  Other locations where valleys are flatter and wider, less steep and where landscape scale is larger, and where they are influenced by built development, infrastructure and prominent structures which reduces tranquillity, are less sensitive to wind energy although medium and larger turbines are likely to be over dominant;  Technically identified “areas of least constraint” for large and medium scale wind development  in LCA 15i Gowy Valley could potentially accommodate turbines at its northern end close to the motorway corridor and industrial structures in Ellesmere Port;  Medium and larger turbines are unlikely to be accommodated within southern reaches of LCA 15i: Gowy Valley and 15f: Dee Valley which lie within the MOD low fly zone (see Figure 1). Turbine Groups  There may be some potential for single or small groups of up to 6 smaller turbines within low lying flatter locations that avoid the skyline and sensitive views.

 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012

60

SENSITIVITY TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LCT 16: MUDFLATS & SALTMARSH

There are 2 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 16: LCA 16a: Stanlow and Ince Banks; LCA 16b: Dee Estuary

LCT 16 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The large scale, open exposed flat uniform, low lying landscape with simple limited land cover means that in general there may be some potential for wind energy development in principle. Cultural, Heritage  Historic assets are few or of little significance; & Historic  Little or no recreational use, limiting sensitivity. Built Development &  Lack of any built development on the mudflats and saltmarsh but Settlement Pattern their character is heavily influenced by frequent development and large industrial structures in adjacent landscapes;  Devoid of any settlement, with high sensitivity. Perceptual & Visual  Flat low lying area with no prominent skyline, although there is extensive visibility and important views across the flats and estuary; LCA 16a: Stanlow and Ince Banks is seen in panoramic views from the sandstone ridge at Frodsham and Helsby;  The mudflats and saltmarsh are still and tranquil and thus highly sensitive. Qualitative  High scenic quality, rarity and distinctiveness make this LCT highly sensitive to the principle of wind energy development.

61

LCT 16 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA SENSITIVITY LCT 16 SENSITIVITY LCA Sensitivity Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] 16a H H H H 16b H

LCT 16 WIND ENERGY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Sensitivity Analysis  Probably the rarest, most distinctive, naturalistic, tranquil and remote landscape in CWaC, considered to be highly sensitive to any size and number of wind energy development;  Turbines and associated infrastructure would bring a perception of human influence in landscapes currently devoid of built development and man-made structures where there is a perception of naturalness;  The large scale, open exposed flat uniform, low lying landscape with simple limited land cover may be of low sensitivity in principle to wind energy development, but the extensive intervisibility would make even the smallest turbine prominent in the landscape for some distance. Intervisibility with the sandstone ridge increases sensitivity of LCA 16a: Stanlow and Ince Banks where it would be seen in panoramic views from the ridge. Turbine Groups  The combination of key characteristics of this LCT means it is highly sensitive to single and all groupings of turbines.

62

5. Sensitivity to Solar Photovoltaic Development

Types of solar photovoltaic development 5.1 The study considers ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) energy developments comprising a number of solar panels arranged in lines and secured on frames attached to the ground. These are known as solar arrays or solar farms. The study does not consider small scale microgeneration solar systems that are usually integrated into buildings.

5.2 Solar PV developments included in this study are those considered most likely to come forward in CWaC. A review of planning applications and permissions over the past five years or so gives an indication of likely size of solar PV arrays as summarised in paragraph 1.11.

5.3 The following solar PV arrays are considered in this study:

Very small solar farm: <1ha (<2.5acres) Small solar farm: 1ha-6ha (2.5acres-15acres) Medium solar farm: 6ha-15ha (15acres-37acres) Large solar farm: 15ha-25ha (37acres- 63acres) Very large solar farm: >25ha (>63acres)

5.4 Solar panels are typically in the order of 1m x 1.6m, inclined to between 200-300 with the lower part approximately 60-80cm from ground level and the higher part up to 3m from the ground. Distance between the rows of panels is between 4-6m to avoid overshadowing. Associated development includes several inverter stations and switchgear structures approximately 4.5m long x 2.5m wide x 2.5m high. Frames and panels are usually brought to site ready-made.

Assessment criteria 5.5 Similar criteria as those defined to assess sensitivity to wind energy (in Section 4) have been defined to assess sensitivity to solar PV development, using the 2016 Landscape Strategy as the basis for the assessment. Again, the criteria closely reflect the key characteristics, sensitivities, qualities and value of each LCT and LCA as described in the Strategy.

5.6 The criteria for assessing sensitivity to solar PV developments differ slightly to those defined to assess sensitivity to wind energy, to reflect differences in the particular way that ground-mounted solar PV developments can affect the landscape. For example, perceptions of remoteness and movement in the landscape are not a consideration with solar farms where there are no moving parts. Furthermore, it may be possible to screen solar arrays whereas even the smallest wind turbines are likely to be noticeable or prominent in some views. Some of the key landscape effects of solar PV developments are:

63

 Undulating, rolling or steeply sloping landforms, and prominent skylines and ridges are likely to be more visually sensitive, especially where there are receptors looking up from lower ground;  Being angled towards the sun, solar arrays have a front and a back view where there could be visual impacts from glint and glare within an arc of view greater than that simply experienced by north-facing receptors;  Flat landscapes will be sensitive where they are open and exposed, with extensive visibility, especially where there are receptors looking down from higher ground;  Smaller solar arrays could be acceptable in a small scale, intricate landscape where there are human-scale landscape features such as hedgerows and trees which can form strong boundary features reducing a zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) to zero;  Mitigation could include the planting of new hedgerows and trees that could provide a screen to reduce adverse effects of solar arrays;  Large solar farms are unlikely to be appropriate in a small scale intricate landscape where they may appear out of scale and where traditional landscape features may have to be removed;  Associated development such as new access tracks, inverter stations and switchgear structures can necessitate the removal of landscape features such as trees, hedgerows, orchards and ponds;  Solar arrays and associated infrastructure can bring a perception of human influence in landscapes currently devoid of built development;  Associated security measures such as fencing and lighting can result in additional effects.

5.7 A matrix was developed with a standardised set of criteria to represent the key characteristic features of each LCA as recorded in the 2016 Landscape Strategy. The key characteristics most likely to be affected by wind energy development are recorded under the same five headings as used in the wind energy assessment described in Section 4, as follows:

 Natural & physical attributes  Cultural, heritage & historic attributes  Built development & settlement pattern  Perceptual & visual attributes  Qualitative attributes

5.8 The characteristics recorded are defined in Table 4 below:

64

Table 4: Definition of Criteria for Assessing Sensitivity to Solar PV Development NATURAL & PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE CRITERIA Landform The shape, elevation and change in relief of the physical landscape, ranging from simple and consistent, such as the flat pastoral plain, to more rugged and dramatic such as rocky sandstone cliffs and outcrops, or steep valley sides.

Land cover The pattern of land uses within a landscape, from the continuous monoculture of pattern large parts of the plain or plantation forests, to mosaic assemblages of small fields, hedgerows, ponds and woodlands. Landscape pattern is closely related to scale. Scale of field The relative scale of land cover patterns of fields, hedgerows and trees, and other pattern & human-scale features in the landscape such as traditional agricultural buildings and landscape sandstone walls. Landscape scale is closely related to visibility and the extent of features views, and how the landscape is experienced. Enclosure The way in which landforms enclose the landscape, or open out into other landscapes. CULTURAL, HERITAGE & HISTORIC CRITERIA Historic assets Historic landscape character including the presence and influence of nationally designated or locally significant heritage assets on the landscape, for example Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, historic field systems and features such as ridge and furrow, field ponds and unimproved land (but not buried archaeology). Recreation Evidence of recreational uses where landscape is important to its enjoyment, such as public rights of way (including long-distance routes), outdoor visitor facilities, and landscape-based tourist attractions. BUILT DEVELOPMENT & SETTLEMENT PATTERN CRITERIA Built The relative presence or absence of built development in the landscape, or in development adjacent landscapes where they affect character, including industrial or commercial buildings and infrastructure, transport routes and power lines, brownfield land, and vertical structures such as communications masts, pylons and chimneys. Settlement The pattern, scale and relative density of settlement, from unsettled or small scale, low density, strongly rural dispersed pattern of scattered villages, farms and cottages, to large scale, high density urban areas on the edge of an LCA where 20th century residential development has a significant effect on its character. PERCEPTUAL & VISUAL CRITERIA Skylines Visual horizons can be simple i.e. relatively flat and featureless and not prominent, or more prominent and distinctive and/or complex with woodland, trees and other features. Undeveloped skylines are more sensitive than skylines where development is prominent, even if located in adjacent character areas. Views and Can include views from popular viewpoints, or views to landmark cultural buildings landmarks such as churches, and natural features such as ridges and hills, either within the same character area or beyond. Intervisibility Depending largely on enclosure, landscapes may be visible across a wide area, or may be secluded and difficult to see from beyond the area. Visual The presence of visual receptors is indicated by settlement and by the popularity of receptors areas used for recreational purposes, including public rights of way and the network of roads, canals and other transport corridors with large numbers of potential receptors. QUALITATIVE CRITERIA Scenic quality The natural beauty and scenic quality of the landscape, which may or not be recognised by landscape designation, for example Area of Special County Value (ASCV). Distinctiveness The extent to which a landscape is representative of the Cheshire West and Chester landscape, or contributes to a local sense of place. Rarity The relative frequency of a landscape’s general type, within Cheshire West and Chester.

65

5.9 The same five-point scale is used against which each landscape character area is assessed in terms of sensitivity to solar PV energy as used to assess wind energy development. The five-point scale represents a gradual continuum (rather than a rigid scale with fixed points) from low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-high and high, using the 2016 Landscape Strategy, fieldwork and professional judgement to decide the placement on the scale, and overall sensitivity.

5.10 Completed matrices for all 53 LCAs are provided within a separate Supporting Technical Appendix to this main report.

5.11 Table 5 summarises the sensitivity of each LCA. This is also reproduced in the Supporting Technical Appendix on Sensitivity to Solar PV Development.

5.12 As described in paragraph 3.11, overall sensitivity (using the same five-point scale) of each landscape character type to the different sizes of solar arrays considered in the assessment is decided upon, using professional judgement. The assessment made is summarised in tables and discussed in terms of overall landscape character type sensitivity, referring to specific character area sensitivity where applicable and sensitivity to the different solar arrays considered in the assessment.

5.13 The landscape sensitivity assessments for each of the sixteen landscape character types (LCT) are given after Table 5. The assessments for each LCT follow the following format:

 A map illustrates the general location of the landscape character type and each landscape character area within the type;  A summary table indicates key sensitivities of the LCT to key characteristics, recorded under the five headings from the 2016 Landscape Strategy;  A table provides the sensitivity assessment for each landscape character area within the LCT together with the overall LCT assessment rating for each of the different sizes of solar farm considered in the study;  A table provides analysis of the LCT sensitivity with reference to landscape character areas and the different sizes of solar farms considered in the study.

66

Table 5: Summary of Sensitivity of Landscape Character Areas to Solar Photovoltaic Development

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & Development Historic & Settlement Landscape Character Pattern

Types and Landscape OVERALLASSESSMENT

Field pattern scale &

Character Areas within

Views & landmarks

landscape features the Landscape Strategy Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets 2016

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Settlement

Land cover Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

LCT 1: Woodland, Heaths, Meres and Mosses LCA 1a: Delamere M H M-H L-M M M-H M-H M-H L-M L-M L-M M M-H M-H M-H M-H LCA 1b: Allostock L H M M L M L-M H L-M L-M L-M M M M M-H M LCA 1c: Bickley L-M M M-H L-M L M M-H H M L-M M M M M-H M-H M-H LCT 2: Sandstone Ridge LCA 2a: Frodsham H M-H M M-H M-H M-H L-M H H H H M-H H H M-H H LCA 2b: Helsby Hill H M-H M M-H H M-H H H H H H H H H M-H H LCA 2c: Eddisbury H M-H M-H M-H H M-H L-M H H H H H H H M-H H LCA 2d: Beeston Crag H M M M-H H H H H H H H M-H H H H H LCA 2e: Higher H M-H M M-H M M-H M-H H H H H M-L H H M-H H Burwardsley LCA 2f: Larkton H M M M M-H M-H H H H H H M-H H H M-H H Hill/Hether Wood LCT 3: Sandstone Fringe LCA 3a: Helsby to M M M-H M M M L-M M-H M M-H M-H M M-H M-H M M-H Tarporley

67

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & Development Historic & Settlement Landscape Character Pattern

Types and Landscape OVERALLASSESSMENT

Field pattern scale &

Character Areas within

Views & landmarks

landscape features the Landscape Strategy Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets 2016

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Settlement

Land cover Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

LCA 3b: Beeston to M-H M-H M-H M-H M-H M M-H M-H M M-H M-H M M-H M-H M M-H Duckington LCT 4: Drained Marsh LCA 4a: Frodsham, L L-M L-M H L-M M L-M H L-M M-H M M-H L M-H M-H M-H Helsby and Lordship Marshes LCA 4b: The Lache Eyes L L L-M H L L-M L-M H L-M M M L L-M M M-H M LCA 4c: Dodleston L L L-M H L L H H L-M M M L L-M M M-H M Drained Marsh LCA 4d: Burton & L M L-M H L M-H L-M H L-M M L-M L-M L-M M M-H L-M Shotwick Drained Marsh LCT 5: Undulating Enclosed Farmland LCA 5a: Norley M-H M-H M-H L-M L-M M M-H M-H L-M M M L-M M-H M M M-H LCA 5b: Frodsham to L-M L-M M-H M L-M M L-M M-H L-M M-H M M M M M M Northwich LCA 5c: Eaton, Marton M L-M M-H M M-H M M M-H L-M M M M M M M M & Over

68

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & Development Historic & Settlement Landscape Character Pattern

Types and Landscape OVERALLASSESSMENT

Field pattern scale &

Character Areas within

Views & landmarks

landscape features the Landscape Strategy Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets 2016

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Settlement

Land cover Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

LCA 5d: Whitley and L-M L-M M-H M M M L-M M-H L-M L-M L-M M M M M M Comberbach LCA 5e: East Winsford L-M L-M M-H M M-H L-M L-M M L-M L-M L-M M L-M M M M LCA 5f: Helsby to M M M-H M L M L-M M-H M-H H M-H M-H M-H M M M-H Frodsham LCA 5g: Malpas M M-H M-H M-H H M-H M-H M M M-H M-H M-H M-H M M M-H LCT 6: Enclosed Farmland LCA 6a: Willaston L-M L-M M-H M L-M M L M L-M M-H L-M M-H M-H M M M LCA 6b: Neston L L-M M-H L-M L M M-H H M M-H M M-H M L-M M M-H LCA 6c: Neston to L-M L-M M-H M L-M L-M L-M M-H L-M M-H M M M-H M M M Saughall LCA 6d: Ness, Burton, L-M L-M M M-H M M L-M H M M-H M L-M M-H L-M M M Puddington & Shotwick Slopes LCA 6e: Capenhurst L L-M M L-M L-M L-M L M L-M L L M-H L-M L-M L-M L-M Plateau LCT 7: Rolling Farmland LCA 7a: Tiverton & H L-M M M M-H M M M-H M-H M-H M M M-H M H M-H

69

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & Development Historic & Settlement Landscape Character Pattern

Types and Landscape OVERALLASSESSMENT

Field pattern scale &

Character Areas within

Views & landmarks

landscape features the Landscape Strategy Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets 2016

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Settlement

Land cover Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

Tilston LCT 8: Heathy Farmland and Woodland LCA 8a: Aston L-M L-M M M-H M L-M L-M H M-H M-H M-H M M-H M H M-H LCT 9: Cheshire Plain West LCA 9a: Dunham to L-M L-M M-H M-H L-M M L-M M M M-H M-H M-H M M-H L M-H Tarvin Plain LCA 9b: Hargrave, L-M L M-H M-H M M M-H H M-H H M L-M M M-H L M-H Hoofield & Beeston Plain LCA 9c: Tattenhall to L-M L M-H M-H M-H M M-H H M-H H M-H M M M-H L M-H Shocklach Plain LCA 9d: Saughall to M M-H M M-H M-H M L-M M L-M M M H L-M M L-M M Waverton Plain LCT 10: Cheshire Plain East LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain L L M-H M-H L-M L H H L M-H M-H L M M-H L M LCA 10b: Stublach Plain L M M-H M-H L-M L-M L-M H L-M M L-M M M H M-H L-M LCA 10c: Lostock Plain L M M-H H L-M L-M L-M M-H L-M M L-M M M H M-H M

70

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & Development Historic & Settlement Landscape Character Pattern

Types and Landscape OVERALLASSESSMENT

Field pattern scale &

Character Areas within

Views & landmarks

landscape features the Landscape Strategy Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets 2016

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Settlement

Land cover Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

LCA 10d: Wimboldsley L L M-H H L-M L-M L-M M-H L-M L-M L-M M M M-H L L-M and Sproston Plain LCT 11: Estate Farmland LCA 11a: Grosvenor L-M M M-H L-M H L-M M M-H M M-H M M H H H M-H Estate LCT 12: Mere Basin LCA 12a: Budworth H H M L L M-H H H M M M M M H M-H M-H Mere LCT 13: Lowland Farmland and Mosses LCA 13a: Peover L-M L-M M-H L-M L L M M-H L-M M L-M M M M L-M L-M LCA 13b: Arley West L-M L-M M-H M L L-M H H L-M M L-M L M M M-H L-M LCT 14: Salt Heritage Landscape LCA 14a: Northwich H H L-M M L-M M-H L L-M L-M M-H L-M M-H L-M H H L-M LCT 15: River Valleys LCA 15a: Upper Weaver H H M L L-M M H H M-H L L L-M H M-H M H Valley LCA 15b: Mid Weaver H H M L M M-H L-M M-H M-H M L L-M H M-H M H Valley

71

Landscape Sensitivity Criteria Natural & Physical Cultural, Built Perceptual & Visual Qualitative Heritage & Development Historic & Settlement Landscape Character Pattern

Types and Landscape OVERALLASSESSMENT

Field pattern scale &

Character Areas within

Views & landmarks

landscape features the Landscape Strategy Builtdevelopment

Visual receptors

Distinctiveness

Historic assets 2016

Scenic quality

Intervisibility

Settlement

Land cover Recreation

Landform Enclosure

Skylines

Rarity

LCA 15c: Lower Weaver H H M L-M M M-H L-M H M-H M L M H M-H M H Valley LCA 15d: Ash Brook H H M L L-M L H H M-H L-M L L M-H M-H M H Valley LCA 15e: Dane Valley H H M L-M M M M-H M-H M M L-M M M-H M-H M M-H LCA 15f: Dee Valley M H M L M-H M M-H M-H M-H M L-M M M-H M-H M M-H LCA 15g: Wych Valley H H M L L-M L-M H H M-H L L L H M-H M H LCA 15h: Grindley L-M M M-H M L-M M H H M L-M L-M M M-H M-H M M Valley LCA 15i: Gowy Valley L-M M L-M M-H M L-M L-M H M L L-M M M M M M LCT 16: Mudflats & Saltmarsh LCA 16a: Stanlow & L L L H L L L H L M-H H L M-H M-H M-H H Ince Banks LCA 16b: Dee Estuary L L L H L-M L-M L-M H L H H M-H M-H M-H M-H H

72

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 1: WOODLANDS, HEATHS, MERES & MOSSES

There are 3 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 1: LCA 1a: Delamere; LCA 1b: Allostock; LCA 1c: Bickley

LCT 1 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The enclosed, gently undulating, uniform landscape could potentially support solar PV development in principle;  The medium to small scale field pattern, frequent landscape features, variety in land cover, and mosaic of landscape features are sensitive characteristics. Cultural, Heritage  Historic assets are generally of local significance although impact on & Historic setting should be carefully considered;  LCA 1a: Delamere is highly sensitive being particularly important for recreation. Built Development &  Limited built development and man-made structures, and the mostly Settlement Pattern small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern are highly sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are not prominent, with limited views and intervisibility, although views from the sandstone ridge are sensitive and visual receptors have moderate sensitivity;

73

LCT 1 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Qualitative  Relatively high scenic quality, rarity and distinctiveness of the landscape increases sensitivity to the principle of solar PV development.

LCT 1 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 1 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 1a M-H 1b M M M-H H H H 1c M-H

LCT 1 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 1 is particularly sensitive to a medium, large or very large solar farm that would be out of scale with the medium to small scale field pattern, that may involve the removal of traditional landscape features and that may bring a perception of human influence in a landscape with limited built development and man-made structures and perceived naturalness;  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 1 is for a very small solar farm, and potentially a solar array at the smaller end of the ‘small solar farm’ category, where existing boundary features are retained to help screen the development;  Any small scale solar PV development should conserve the mosaic of habitats in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy;  Any small scale solar PV development should consider mitigation opportunities to increase woodland cover and the replanting of hedgerows and trees in areas of enclosed farmland to maintain a continuous hedgerow network in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, and to help screen the development;  Any small scale solar PV development should avoid creating adverse visual impact to sensitive views, in particular views from higher ground on the sandstone ridge and open views across the meres.

74

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 2: SANDSTONE RIDGE

There are 6 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 2: LCA 2a: Frodsham; LCA 2b: Helsby Hill; LCA 2c: Eddisbury; LCA 2d: Beeston Crag; LCA 2e: Higher Burwardsley; LCA 2f: Larkton Hill/Hether Wood

LCT 2 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The strong topographical landform, varied land cover, and generally open character of the sandstone ridge make it particularly sensitive to solar PV development in principle. Cultural, Heritage  The presence of significant historic assets throughout the landscape, & Historic including iconic hill forts and castles, make this LCT particularly sensitive to solar PV development in principle that may adversely affect setting;  The ridge provides an important recreational resource with rights of way including long distance footpaths. Built Development &  Limited built development and modern man-made structures, and Settlement Pattern the mostly unsettled, small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to solar development. Perceptual & Visual  The distinctive sandstone ridge is visually prominent, with key views from sensitive visual receptors, and extensive intervisibility. Qualitative  High scenic quality, rarity and distinctiveness of the landscape create high sensitivity to the principle of solar PV development.

75

LCT 2 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 2 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 2a H 2b H 2c H M-H H H H H 2d H 2e H 2f H

LCT 2 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 2 is sensitive to any form of solar farm development. Even a very small solar farm is likely to adversely affect key views from highly sensitive visual receptors on the prominent ridge with extensive visibility;  Furthermore, the sandstone ridge is of high scenic quality, rarity and distinctiveness and thus highly sensitivity to the principle of solar PV development.

76

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 3: SANDSTONE FRINGE

There are 2 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 3: LCA 3a: Helsby to Tarporley; LCA 3b: Beeston to Duckington

LCT 3 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The open sloping or undulating landform and transitional landscape with a medium to small scale field pattern and frequent landscape features is of moderate to high sensitivity to solar PV development in principle. Cultural, Heritage  Some historic assets are of significance where impact on setting & Historic should be carefully considered;  Rights of way including long distance footpaths provide a recreational resource. Built Development &  Limited built development and man-made structures and the mostly Settlement Pattern small to medium scale and density settlement pattern are sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are of some prominence though not as distinctive as the neighbouring ridge, with key views and strong links to neighbouring landscapes, and visual receptors have moderate sensitivity. Qualitative  Relatively high scenic quality and distinctiveness of the landscape, with some parts designated ASCV, increases sensitivity to the principle of solar PV development.

77

LCT 3 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 3 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 3a M-H M-H M-H H H H 3b M-H

LCT 3 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 3 is particularly sensitive to a medium, large or very large solar farm that would be out of scale with the medium to small scale field pattern, that may involve the removal of traditional landscape features and that may bring a perception of human influence in a landscape with limited built development and man-made structures and perceived naturalness;  Even a very small or small solar farm is likely to create significant adverse impact on the open undulating transitional sandstone fringe;  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 3 is for a very small solar farm where existing landform undulations and boundary features are retained to help screen the development;  However, even a small scale solar PV development is likely to be contrary to the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy which is to conserve and enhance the pastoral character of the sandstone fringe, its strong ancient field pattern and views to and from the Sandstone Ridge and the Cheshire Plain West. ;  Any small scale solar PV development should consider mitigation opportunities to increase woodland cover in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, and to help screen the development;  Any small scale solar PV development should avoid creating adverse visual impact to sensitive views, in particular views from higher ground on the sandstone ridge;  Any solar farm should avoid the highest quality land within the ASCV.

78

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 4: DRAINED MARSH

There are 4 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 4: LCA 4a: Frodsham, Helsby and Lordship Marshes; LCA 4b: The Lache Eyes; LCA 4c: Dodleston Drained Marsh; LCA 4d: Burton & Shotwick Drained Marsh

LCT 4 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The open, exposed landscape of the drained marsh is highly sensitive to solar PV development in principle;  However, the simple uniformity of landform and land cover, and its medium to large scale pattern with only occasional landscape features means there is some potential for solar PV development. Cultural, Heritage  There are few significant historic assets with generally low & Historic sensitivity;  Generally a low level of recreational use although LCA 4d: Burton & Shotwick Drained Marsh is more sensitive with recreational fishing ponds and visitors to the RSPB Burton Mere wetlands reserve. Built Development &  The influence of built development within adjacent landscapes Settlement Pattern reduces the perception of naturalness and reduces sensitivity;  The mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale and further increase the perception of human influence.

79

LCT 4 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are not prominent, with generally only locally significant views, limited intervisibility and visual receptors reducing sensitivity. However there are sensitive views down to LCA 4a: Frodsham, Helsby and Lordship Marshes from important viewpoints on the sandstone ridge. Qualitative  Low to medium scenic quality with some distinctiveness reduces sensitivity, but the drained marsh is a less common landscape in CWaC the character of which could be adversely affected by solar PV development.

LCT 4 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 4 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 4a M-H 4b M L-M L-M M M-H H 4c M 4d L-M

LCT 4 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 4 is particularly sensitive to a medium, large or very large solar farm that would be overly dominant within the relatively small LCAs within this LCT;  A medium, large or very large solar farm could potentially fit into the largest LCA 4a: Frodsham, Helsby and Lordship Marshes but being south-facing it would impact on important viewpoints from Frodsham Sandstone Ridge and Helsby Hill northwards over the Mersey estuary.  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 4 is for a very small solar farm, and potentially a solar array at the smaller end of the ‘small solar farm’ category, where sensitive views are limited and where there is some existing field pattern that could be retained, such as in LCA 4d: Burton & Shotwick Drained Marsh;  Any small scale solar PV development in LCA 4d should consider mitigation opportunities to restore hedgerows in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, and to help screen the development if its essentially open character is also conserved;  Even a small scale solar PV development would be contrary to the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy which is to conserve the open, undeveloped character of the drained marshland within LCAs 4a, 4b & 4c.

80

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 5: UNDULATING ENCLOSED FARMLAND

There are 7 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 5: LCA 5a: Norley; LCA 5b: Frodsham to Northwich; LCA 5c: Eaton, Marton & Over; LCA 5d: Whitley and Comberbach; LCA 5e: East Winsford; LCA 5f: Helsby to Frodsham; LCA 5g: Malpas

LCT 5 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The medium to small scale field pattern, presence of human scale features in the landscape, and undulating nature of the landscape make it sensitive to solar PV development in principle;  Where landform is more uniform, with simple land cover and some enclosure, sensitivity is reduced. Cultural, Heritage  There are locally significant historic assets where impact on setting & Historic should be carefully considered; historic character of LCA 5g: Malpas makes it of high sensitivity to modern influences;  Generally a low level of recreational use although parts of LCA 5g: Malpas are more sensitive around the Carden Park Estate. Built Development &  The influence of built development and modern man-made Settlement Pattern structures, and the mostly unsettled, small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is sensitive to solar PV development that would increase the perception of human influence.

81

LCT 5 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are generally not prominent, with locally significant views, limited intervisibility and visual receptors reducing sensitivity; however LCA 5f: Helsby to Frodsham is the exception due to its importance to the setting of the sandstone ridge increasing sensitivity to small, medium and large scale solar PV development; Qualitative  Pleasant scenic quality and some distinctiveness with overall moderate sensitivity;  The LCT is a more common landscape in CWaC with some distinctive features.

LCT 5 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 5 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 5a M-H 5b M 5c M 5d M M M-H M-H H H 5e M 5f M-H 5g M-H

LCT 5 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  The undulating topography, small scale field pattern and frequency of human-scale landscape features makes LCT 5 particularly sensitive to a medium, large or very large solar farm that would be out of scale and may involve the removal of traditional landscape features, and may bring a perception of human influence in a landscape with limited built development and man- made structures and perceived naturalness;  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 5 is for a very small solar farm or potentially a solar array at the smaller end of the ‘small solar farm’ category, where landform is more uniform, with simple land cover and some enclosure, where there is a greater influence from built development, and where the field pattern is larger, for example parts of LCA 5b, LCA 5d and LCA 5e;  However, even a small scale solar PV development is likely to be contrary to the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy which is to conserve the rural pastoral character of the farmland, the small scale ancient field pattern and views;  Any small scale solar PV development should consider mitigation opportunities to enhance the hedgerow and woodland network in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, and to help screen the development;  Any small scale solar development should respect the setting of picturesque villages;  Any small scale solar PV development should avoid creating adverse visual impact to sensitive views, in particular panoramic views across the Weaver Valley and views to the sandstone ridge and other sensitive skyline ridges which act as a backdrop.

82

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 6: ENCLOSED FARMLAND

There are 5 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 6: LCA 6a: Willaston; LCA 6b: Neston; LCA 6c: Neston to Saughall; LCA 6d: Ness, Burton, Puddington & Shotwick Slopes; LCA 6e: Capenhurst Plateau

LCT 6 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The relatively flat uniform landform and simple land cover with occasional variety reduces sensitivity of the LCT to the principle of solar PV development;  The generally small-medium scale field pattern and frequent human- scale landscape features increases sensitivity to medium and larger scale development. Cultural, Heritage  There are locally significant historic assets where impact on setting & Historic should be carefully considered;  Generally recreational use is locally significant with medium sensitivity. Built Development &  The influence of built development makes some parts less sensitive, Settlement Pattern but in other areas there is a perceived naturalness, increasing sensitivity to solar PV development;  The mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale

83

LCT 6 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are generally not prominent and intervisibility is limited, but there are highly sensitive views and visual receptors increasing sensitivity in some character areas. Qualitative  Generally pleasant scenic quality and some distinctiveness, with some areas designated as Areas of Special County Value (ASCV), of high sensitivity.

LCT 6 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 6 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 6a M 6b M-H 6c M L-M L-M M M-H H 6d M 6e L-M

LCT 6 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 6 is particularly sensitive to a large or very large solar farm that would be overly dominant within the generally small-medium scale field pattern that may involve the removal of traditional landscape features, and that may bring a perception of human influence in a landscape with limited built development and man-made structures and perceived naturalness;  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 6 is for a very small solar farm or a small solar farm where existing boundary features are retained to help screen the development;  Intervisibility is generally low but a very small or small solar farm should avoid sensitive views such as views from neighbouring landscapes in the west and westwards across the Dee estuary from the sloping farmland in parts of LCA 6a, 6b, 6c and 6d;  Any small or medium scale solar PV development in LCT 6 should conserve the traditional rural historic field pattern in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy;  Any small or medium scale solar PV development in LCT 6 should consider mitigation opportunities to enhance woodland cover and replace hedgerows in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, and to help screen the development;  Any solar farm should avoid the highest quality land within the ASCV.

84

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 7: ROLLING FARMLAND

There is 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 7: LCA 7a: Tiverton & Tilston

LCT 7 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The complex rolling topography makes this LCT sensitive to solar PV development in principle, although the medium scale field pattern with some human scale landscape features and enclosure reduces sensitivity. Cultural, Heritage  There are significant historic assets where impact on setting should & Historic be carefully considered;  The area is locally significant for recreational uses associated with the canal corridor. Built Development &  Some built development and man-made structures within the road, Settlement Pattern canal and railway corridor reduce sensitivity, but the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern increase sensitive to solar PV development. Perceptual & Visual  The LCT is visually sensitive with prominent rolling skylines and views from high ground to important landmark features including Beeston Castle. Qualitative  Relatively high scenic quality of this distinctive landscape that is unique with CWaC.

85

LCT 7 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 7 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 7a M-H M-H H H H H

LCT 7 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 7 is particularly sensitive to any form of solar PV development due to the complex, rolling topography, small scale, low density dispersed settlement pattern, high scenic quality, prominent rolling skylines and important views;  Even a very small solar farm could affect these key characteristics, and could be contrary to the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy which is to conserve the pastoral character of the landscape;  Any very small scale solar farm should conserve ancient field patterns, maintain an intact hedgerow network including gapping-up incomplete hedges in accordance with guidelines in the 2016 Landscape Strategy – however, strengthening of hedgerow boundaries is unlikely to provide a sufficient screen to development due to the rolling landform.

86

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 8: HEATHY FARMLAND & WOODLAND

There is only 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 8: LCA 8a: Aston

LCT 8 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The generally open character of this LCT makes it sensitive to the principle of solar PV development, although deciduous woodland provides some cover;  The uniform, gently undulating landform with simple land cover and medium to large scale field pattern lacking frequent human scale landscape features reduces sensitivity to medium and larger scale development in some parts. Cultural, Heritage  There are some historic assets including designed parkland where & Historic impact on setting should be carefully considered;  The area is not particularly sensitive in recreational land use terms. Built Development &  The influence of built development and activity within the road, Settlement Pattern canal and railway corridor reduce sensitivity, but the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern increase sensitive to solar PV development. Perceptual & Visual  The rising ground presents a prominent skyline with strong intervisibility and views to neighbouring landscapes, making this LCT visually highly sensitive. Qualitative  Relatively high scenic quality of this distinctive landscape that is

87

LCT 8 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity unique with CWaC.

LCT 8 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 8 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 8a M-H M-H H H H H

LCT 8 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 8 is particularly sensitive to any form of solar PV development due to the prominent skyline, strong intervisibility and views to/from neighbouring landscapes, in particular the sandstone ridge and Weaver Valley, making this LCT visually highly sensitive;  The sense of openness emphasised by the medium to large scale field pattern, low hedges and lack of hedgerow trees, also increases sensitivity making it difficult to screen any solar PV development;  Even a very small solar farm could affect the perceived naturalness of a landscape with a mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern;  Any very small scale solar farm should seek to enhance the hedgerow, tree and woodland network in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, which could provide some screening to development – however, enhancing the vegetation network is unlikely to provide a sufficient screen to development due to the visual sensitivities.

88

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 9: CHESHIRE PLAIN WEST

There are 4 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 9: LCA 9a: Dunham to Tarvin Plain; LCA 9b: Hargrave, Hoofield & Beeston Plain; LCA 9c: Tattenhall to Shocklach Plain; LCA 9d: Saughall to Waverton Plain

LCT 9 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The wide open landscape is characterised by a medium to small scale field pattern with frequent human scale landscape features that increases sensitivity of the LCT to the principle of solar PV development;  The flat, uniform topography with simple land cover reduces sensitivity. Cultural, Heritage  There are some significant historic assets where impact on setting & Historic and regionally significant historic landscape character makes some parts sensitive;  Recreational use is locally significant with medium sensitivity. Built Development &  The influence of built development makes some parts less sensitive, Settlement Pattern for example in the west around Chester, but in other areas there is a perceived naturalness making them more sensitive to modern development;  The mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence.

89

LCT 9 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Perceptual & Visual  The sandstone ridge provides a prominent and distinctive skyline with highly sensitive intervisibility and important views. Qualitative  A common landscape but the pastoral plain is representative of CWaC with pleasant scenic quality and thus sensitive to development that affects the characteristic sense of place.

LCT 9 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 9 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 9a M-H 9b M-H M M-H H H H 9c M-H 9d M

LCT 9 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  The Cheshire Plain West is particularly sensitive to a medium, large or very large solar farm that would be out of scale with the medium to small scale field pattern, that may involve the removal of traditional agricultural landscape features and that may bring a perception of human influence in a landscape with limited built development and man-made structures and a perceived naturalness;  A small solar farm may also adversely affect landscape scale by dominating the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern and reducing perceived naturalness;  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 9 is for a very small solar farm or potentially a solar array at the smaller end of the ‘small solar farm’ category, where existing boundary features are retained to help screen the development;  Even a small scale solar PV development could be visually prominent in important, panoramic and long distance views across the plain from neighbouring landscapes, especially when looking down across the plain from the sandstone ridge;  Any small scale solar PV development should conserve the historic field pattern of hawthorn hedgerows and hedgerow trees, and the regionally important historic landscape comprising medieval field systems and ridge & furrow, in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy;  Any small scale solar PV development should consider mitigation opportunities to restore the historic field pattern of hawthorn hedgerows and hedgerow trees in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, and to help screen the development;  Any small scale solar PV development should avoid creating adverse visual impact to sensitive views, in particular views from higher ground on the sandstone ridge and open views across the plain.

90

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 10: CHESHIRE PLAIN EAST

There are 4 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 10: LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain; LCA 10b: Stublach Plain; LCA 10c: Lostock Plain; LCA 10d: Wimboldsley and Sproston Plain

LCT 10 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The flat, uniform landscape with simple variety in land cover reduces sensitivity of the LCT to the principle of solar energy development;  However, the topographically open landform with medium to small scale field pattern and frequent human scale landscape features increases sensitivity to solar PV development. Cultural, Heritage  There are some significant historic assets where impact on setting & Historic and historic landscape character should be carefully considered;  Low level of recreational use is of low to medium sensitivity. Built Development &  The influence of built development makes some parts of the LCT less Settlement Pattern sensitive, but the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern is highly sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are generally not prominent, with locally significant views, limited intervisibility and visual receptors reducing sensitivity; however LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain is the exception where there is strong intervisibility and wider ranging views increasing sensitivity.

91

LCT 10 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Qualitative  In general the pastoral plain is a common landscape representative of CWaC with pleasant scenic quality and thus sensitive to development that affects the characteristic sense of place;  However parts of the landscape is more distinctive being influenced by features associated with the brine/salt extraction and gas storage industries with a historical land use legacy.

LCT 10 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 10 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 10a M 10b L-M L-M M M-H H H 10c M 10d L-M

LCT 10 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  The Cheshire Plain East is particularly sensitive to a medium, large or very large solar farm that would be out of scale with the medium to small scale field pattern, that may involve the removal of traditional agricultural landscape features and that may bring a perception of human influence in landscape character areas with limited built development and man-made structures and a perceived naturalness;  LCA 10a: Darnhall Plain is particularly sensitive where there is a strong field pattern and traditional rural character with limited development, important views across the plain and strong intervisibility with neighbouring landscapes;  A small solar farm may adversely affect landscape scale by dominating the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern, reducing perceived naturalness;  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 10 is for a very small solar farm or potentially a solar array at the smaller end of the ‘small solar farm’ category, where existing boundary features are retained to help screen the development;  There is also potential for a very small solar farm or a small solar farm where there is existing prominent infrastructure associated with the brine/salt extraction and gas storage industries in LCA 10b: Stublach Plain and LCA 10c: Lostock Plain;  Any small scale solar PV development should conserve the rural pastoral character of the plain by conserving the small scale field pattern, in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy;  Any small scale solar PV development should consider mitigation opportunities to restore hedgerows and plant new hedgerow trees in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, and to help screen the development.

92

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 11: ESTATE FARMLAND

There is 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 11: LCA 11a: Grosvenor Estate

LCT 11 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The medium to small scale field pattern with frequent human scale landscape features increases the sensitivity of this LCT to solar PV development;  The mostly enclosed, uniform gently undulating landform is of less sensitivity. Cultural, Heritage  The LCT is of high historic value and contains significant historic & Historic assets where solar PV development could impact on setting and on historic landscape character;  The area is not particularly sensitive in recreational land use terms. Built Development &  Some modern built development lacks prominence with reduced Settlement Pattern sensitivity, but the mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern increases sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  A moderately sensitive landscape in visual terms where the skyline has some prominence but is undistinctive, with some intervisibility, but important views to landmark features increases sensitivity;

93

LCT 11 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Qualitative  This is a unique, distinctive landscape of high scenic quality mostly designated as an Area of Special County Value (ASCV), and thus highly sensitive to solar PV development.

LCT 11 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 11 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 11a M-H M-H M-H H H H

LCT 11 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 11 is particularly sensitive to any form of solar PV development due to its high scenic quality, rarity and distinctiveness within CWaC, and its significant historic value making it highly sensitive;  Even a very small solar farm could affect the perceived naturalness of a small scale landscape with frequent landscape-scale features and a mostly small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern;  Even a very small solar farm could affect the setting and views within the designated historic park and garden at Eaton and the architectural integrity of the estate villages  There may be some potential for a very small solar farm or a solar array at the smaller end of the ‘small solar farm’ category in an area already influenced by built development in the northern parts of the LCT within the A55 road corridor;  Any very small scale solar farm should seek to enhance the hedgerow, tree and woodland network in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, which could provide some screening to development – however, new development should have a strong reference to estate village scale, layout, architecture and planting;  Any solar farm should avoid the highest quality land within the ASCV.

94

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 12: MERE BASIN

There is 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 12: LCA 12a: Budworth Mere

LCT 12 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The steep basin-like landform, mosaic of semi-natural habitats and presence of human-scale features means the LCT is highly sensitive to the principle of solar PV development;  The medium scale field pattern and enclosure reduces sensitivity in general. Cultural, Heritage  There are few historic assets but some significant local recreational & Historic use. Built Development &  The influence of built development and prominent man-made Settlement Pattern structures is limited to within the road corridor, which together with the mostly small scale, low density and dispersed settlement pattern gives a perceived naturalness and thus high sensitivity to solar PV development. Perceptual & Visual  The skyline is not prominent but the simple ridgeline defining the top of the basin-like landscape forms a strong skyline from where views are locally significant with some intervisibility. Qualitative  A rarely occurring, distinctive landscape with some scenic quality.

95

LCT 12 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 12 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 12a M-H M M-H H H H

LCT 12 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 12 is particularly sensitive to a medium, large or very large solar farm that would be out of scale with field patterns, that may involve the removal of traditional landscape features and semi-natural habitats and that may bring a perception of human influence in a landscape with limited built development and man-made structures and a perceived naturalness;  The steep basin-like landform, strong skyline and views across the mere are visually sensitive to even very small scale solar PV development;  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 12 is for a very small solar farm located on flatter ground and where existing boundary features are retained to help screen the development – however, visual impact in views from higher ground on the LCT boundary would be difficult to mitigate;  Any solar PV development should comply with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy which is to conserve the inherent sense of tranquillity of the landscape;  Any small scale solar PV development should also conserve the diversity of natural habitats in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy;  Any small scale solar PV development should avoid creating adverse visual impact to sensitive views, including views to Budworth Church and open views across the mere.

96

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 13: LOWLAND FARMLAND & MOSSES

There are 2 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 13: LCA 13a: Peover; LCA 13b: Arley West

LCT 13 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  The gently undulating, uniform landscape with simple land cover could potentially support solar PV development in principle;  However, the medium to small scale field pattern with frequent human-scale features are sensitive to solar PV development. Cultural, Heritage  Historic assets are generally of local significance although impact on & Historic setting should be carefully considered;  Low level, informal local recreational use reduces sensitivity. Built Development &  Some built development but mostly limited, and a small scale, low Settlement Pattern density, dispersed settlement pattern which makes the LCT highly sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence. Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are not prominent, with limited views and intervisibility and generally moderate sensitivity to a limited range of visual receptors. Qualitative  A more common landscape with some distinctive features and overall medium scenic quality.

97

LCT 13 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 13 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 13a L-M 13b L-M L-M L-M M M-H H

LCT 13 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 13 is particularly sensitive to a large or very large solar farm that would be overly dominant within the generally small-medium scale field pattern that may involve the removal of traditional landscape features, and that may bring a perception of human influence in locations with limited built development and man-made structures and perceived naturalness;  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 13 is for a very small solar farm or a small solar farm where existing boundary features are retained to help screen the development and where the intimate character is retained;  Intervisibility is generally low but a very small or small solar farm should avoid sensitive views such as views to landmark features on the skyline;  Any small or medium scale solar PV development in LCT 13 should conserve the remote, rural and intimate character of the landscape in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy.

98

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 14: SALT HERITAGE LANDSCAPE

There is 1 Landscape Character Area within LCT 14: LCA 14a: Northwich

LCT 14 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  A complex post-industrial landscape of subsidence flashes surrounded by a mosaic of land uses with potentially some sensitivity to solar PV development;  The medium to large scale field pattern reduces sensitivity to medium or larger scale solar development where there are few landscape-scale features. Cultural, Heritage  Historic assets are generally of local significance although impact on & Historic setting should be carefully considered;  Well used for recreation which increases sensitivity. Built Development &  Frequent built development, infrastructure, industrial structures and Settlement Pattern brownfield land reduce sensitivity;  The medium to large scale modern settlement pattern further reduces sensitivity. Perceptual & Visual  Generally this LCT is not visually sensitive as the skyline is not prominent, with limited views and intervisibility although there are high numbers of visual receptors. Qualitative  A unique distinctive landscape in CWaC but with overall low scenic quality.

99

LCT 14 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 14 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 14a L-M L-M L-M M M-H H

LCT 14 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 14 has the potential to accommodate solar PV development without affecting key landscape characteristics, although a large or very large solar farm is likely to be overly dominant within the landscape;  Any solar PV development should be in keeping with this LCT that is undergoing restoration of derelict industrial land and enhancement that presents opportunities for new landscape creation, in accordance with the landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy;  Any solar PV development should conserve the open undeveloped area between Wincham (South) and Northwich that has been identified as a Candidate Key Settlement Gap where development would lead to coalescence and the loss of identity of the two communities.

100

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 15: RIVER VALLEYS

There are 9 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 15: LCA 15a: Upper Weaver Valley; LCA 15b: Mid Weaver Valley; LCA 15c: Lower Weaver Valley; LCA 15d: Ash Brook Valley; LCA 15e: Dane Valley; LCA 15f: Dee Valley; LCA 15g: Wych Valley; LCA 15h: Grindley Valley; LCA 15i: Gowy Valley

LCT 15 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  Generally steep valley sides with much variety in land cover including human scale landscape features, making this LCT particularly sensitive to solar PV development in principle;  However, there are areas of lower sensitivity where valleys are wider, flatter and scale is larger with fewer landscape features. Cultural, Heritage  The presence of historic assets varies greatly throughout the & Historic landscape making this LCT more or less sensitive to solar PV development in principle;  Recreational use also varies throughout the landscape. Built Development &  Existing built development and prominent structures give some Settlement Pattern areas lower sensitivity, but other areas are highly sensitive where built development is limited or absent;  The river valleys are mostly unsettled or with a small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern which is highly sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence.

101

LCT 15 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Perceptual & Visual  Skylines are prominent and distinctive with little or no development and thus highly sensitive to visible structures including solar PV development, although intervisibility, views and visual receptors are generally limited, with reduced sensitivity. Qualitative  Distinctive valleys mostly of high scenic quality, especially the Upper, Mid and Lower Weaver Valley and the Wych Valley designated as Areas of Special County Value (ASCV), with high sensitivity to the principle of solar PV development.

LCT 15 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 15 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 15a H 15b H 15c H 15d H 15e M-H M M-H H H H 15f M-H 15g H 15h M 15i M

LCT 15 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  The steep sided river valleys are highly sensitive to solar PV development that would potentially be conspicuous from within the valleys, detracting from their intimate hidden character. There is more potential in LCAs 15h: Grindley Valley and LCA 15i: Gowy Valley which are wider and flatter;  The river valleys are predominantly unsettled or with a small scale, low density, dispersed settlement pattern which is highly sensitive to solar PV development that would be out of scale and increase the perception of human influence within the undeveloped floodplains;  Some of the river valleys are distinctive and of high scenic quality, especially the Upper, Mid and Lower Weaver Valley and the Wych Valley designated as Areas of Special County Value (ASCV), with high sensitivity;  LCT 15 is particularly sensitive to a medium, large or very large solar farm that would be out of scale with the medium to small scale field pattern, that may involve the removal of traditional landscape features and that may bring a perception of human influence in a landscape with limited built development and man-made structures and perceived naturalness;  The greatest potential for solar PV development within LCT 15 is for a very small solar farm, and potentially a solar array at the smaller end of the ‘small solar farm’ category, where the valley is flatter and wider and where existing boundary features and woodland are retained to help screen the development;

102

 Even a very small or small solar farm could be contrary to landscape management strategies in the 2016 Landscape Strategy to conserve the pastoral character of the landscape and to conserve and enhance the riverside environs, particularly the tree and riparian vegetation cover, and the special ecological community;  Any small scale solar PV development should conserve the ancient clough woodlands, unimproved grassland and wetland habitats, in accordance with another landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy;  Any small scale solar PV development should consider mitigation opportunities to increase woodland cover and restore traditional field systems in accordance with a landscape management strategy in the 2016 Landscape Strategy, and to help screen the development;  Any small scale solar PV development should avoid creating adverse visual impact to sensitive views, in particular views from higher ground on the sandstone ridge and open views across the valleys;  Any solar farm should avoid the highest quality land within the ASCV.

103

SENSITIVITY TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT LCT 16: MUDFLATS & SALTMARSH

There are 2 Landscape Character Areas within LCT 16: LCA 16a: Stanlow and Ince Banks; LCA 16b: Dee Estuary

LCT 16 SENSITIVITY OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS TO SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT Sensitivity Attributes Summary of Sensitivity Natural & Physical  These flat, uniform, simple, large scale landscapes are in general of low sensitivity to solar PV development in principle, but their open, exposed character makes them highly sensitive. Cultural, Heritage  Historic assets are few or of little significance; & Historic  Little or no recreational use, limiting sensitivity. Built Development &  Lack of any built development on the mudflats and saltmarsh but Settlement Pattern their character is heavily influenced by frequent development and large industrial structures in adjacent landscapes;  Devoid of any settlement, with high sensitivity. Perceptual & Visual  Flat low lying areas with no prominent skyline, although there is extensive visibility and important views across the flats and estuary; LCA 16a: Stanlow and Ince Banks is seen in panoramic views from the sandstone ridge at Frodsham and Helsby. Qualitative  High scenic quality, rarity and distinctiveness make this LCT highly sensitive to the principle of solar PV development.

104

LCT 16 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT LCA LCT 16 SENSITIVITY SENSITIVITY

LCA Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm <1ha 1-6ha 6-15ha 15-25ha >25ha [<2.5acres] [2.5-15 acres] [15-37 [37-63 [>63acres] Sensitivity acres] acres] 16a H H H H H H 16b H

LCT 16 SOLAR PV SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS  LCT 16 is sensitive to any form of solar farm development. These are rare, distinctive landscapes within CWaC with high scenic quality;  Even a very small solar farm on the open exposed mudflats and marsh would be conspicuous and is likely to adversely affect key views from highly sensitive visual receptors due to the extensive visibility;  Furthermore, the mudflats and marsh are unsettled and thus highly sensitivity to the principle of solar PV development that would reduce the perception of naturalness.

105

6. Summary

Summary of sensitivity to wind energy development 6.1 Table 6 summarises overall sensitivity of each of the sixteen landscape character types to wind energy development.

Table 6: Summary of overall sensitivity of landscape character types to wind energy development

Landscape Character Smaller Turbines Medium Turbines Larger Turbines Type [height 10m-30m] [height 30m-80m] [height 80m-130m+] LCT 1: Woodland, Heaths, Meres & M M-H H Mosses LCT 2: Sandstone M-H H H Ridge LCT 3: Sandstone M M-H H Fringe LCT 4: Drained L-M M M-H Marsh LCT 5: Undulating L-M M M-H Enclosed Farmland LCT 6: Enclosed L-M M M-H Farmland LCT 7: Rolling M M-H H Farmland LCT 8: Heathy Farmland L-M M M-H and Woodland LCT 9: Cheshire Plain M M-H H West LCT 10: Cheshire Plain L-M M M-H East LCT 11: Estate Farmland M M-H H

LCT 12: Mere Basin M-H H H

LCT 13: Lowland M M-H H Farmland and Mosses LCT 14: Salt Heritage L-M M M-H Landscape LCT 15: River Valleys M M-H H

LCT 16: Mudflats & H H H Saltmarsh [height refers to total height to blade tip]

106

Discussion on sensitivity of LCTs in CWaC to wind energy development 6.2 The assessment has shown that there is limited potential for medium scale turbines (30m-80m height to blade tip) or larger turbines (80m-130m+ height to blade tip) within the borough. Although previous study has identified pockets of “areas of least constraint” to medium and large scale wind development19 using assessment parameters based on Department of Energy and Climate Change methodology20 (with some deviations) thus reflecting areas more likely to be considered by the wind energy industry, landscape character sensitivity significantly limits the potential for this scale of wind energy.

6.3 The key characteristics of the CWaC landscape that are sensitive to this scale of wind energy development have been identified as the following:

 Visual prominence and extent of visibility of the sandstone ridge and plain;  Steep topography and densely wooded sandstone ridge and river valleys;  Undulating and enclosed farmland and valleys;  Small scale land cover patterns of small fields, hedgerows, trees and small woods, and other human-scale features in the landscape;  Limited built development and small scale, low density rural dispersed settlement pattern;  Panoramic and long distance views from viewpoints or to important landmark features such as the hillforts;  Relative tranquillity, quietness and perceived naturalness;  Recognised scenic quality, including extensive Areas of Special County Value (ASCV);  Historic landscape character including the presence and influence of nationally designated or locally significant heritage assets;  Landscapes that are distinctive and representative of CWaC with a particular ‘sense of place’ such as the sandstone ridge and pastoral plain.

6.4 The assessment has identified that there may be some potential for medium or larger turbines in locations that are:

 Large scale, flat, open and exposed;  Heavily influenced by built development and prominent vertical structures, and infrastructure including busy transport corridors;  Not prominent with undistinctive skylines;  Self-contained with limited intervisibility with adjacent landscapes;  More common landscapes within CWaC, with low scenic quality;  Less tranquil and less naturalistic.

6.5 Where there is some potential for medium or larger turbines, the pattern of development is likely to be one of single turbines or small groups of turbines within a particular part of the borough rather than being scattered throughout the borough.

19 Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, Verco, 2012 20 Renewable and Low-carbon Energy Capacity Methodology for the English Regions, DECC, January 2010

107

There is very little potential for larger groups (wind farms) of 7-13 turbines that would be out of scale and over-dominant in the CWaC landscape.

6.6 There is most potential in the borough for single small turbines or turbines at the lower end of the medium height category (approximately in the 30m-50m height range) or small groups of turbines with this height range within a particular part of the borough rather than being scattered throughout it that could lead to cumulative effects. Turbines of this height are more likely to be in scale with landscape patterns and features in the landscape such as buildings, mature trees, electricity pylons and tall church spires. However, there is still the potential for turbines of this scale to cause significant adverse effects to key landscape characteristics within a LCA or a wider area where visual sensitivity extends beyond the LCA.

6.7 There are no areas within Cheshire West and Chester rated as ‘low sensitivity’, where key landscape characteristics and qualities would be considered sufficiently robust to be able to accommodate even small scale wind energy development without adverse effects on any key characteristics.

6.8 Where a range of sensitivity is given within a landscape character type, for example L-M (low-moderate) within the smaller turbines category, there is likely to be lower sensitivity to the smaller height of turbine within the category i.e. 10m, and moderate sensitivity to the larger size of turbine within the category i.e. 30m.

6.9 Similarly, where a range of M-H (moderate-high) sensitivity is given within a landscape character type, for example within the medium turbines category, there is likely to be moderate sensitivity to the smaller height of turbine within the category, i.e. 30m, and higher sensitivity to the larger size of turbine within the category i.e. 80m.

6.10 Even an area rated as low-moderate sensitivity will comprise some key characteristics that are sensitive to development that might cause significant adverse effect. For example, although LCA 4a: Frodsham, Helsby and Lordship Marshes has an overall sensitivity rating of ‘low-moderate’, it is clear from the relevant matrix in the supporting technical appendix, as summarised in Table 3, that the LCA is visually sensitive due to its intervisibility with neighbouring landscapes and views from viewpoints and to important landmark features (in particular the Frodsham Sandstone Ridge including views from the War Memorial, and Helsby Hill). Any proposal for wind development within LCA 4a should show how these sensitive characteristics have been taken into account in its siting, layout and design.

6.11 In this particular example, cumulative landscape and visual effects with the Frodsham Wind Farm currently under construction would also need to be assessed. This LCT 4: Drained Marsh has moderate-high sensitivity to larger wind turbines of the height being constructed at Frodsham Wind Farm, where further development of this scale is likely to affect the key visibility characteristics.

108

Summary of sensitivity to ground mounted solar PV development 6.12 Table 7 summarises overall sensitivity of each of the sixteen landscape character types to ground mounted solar PV development:

Table 7: Summary of overall sensitivity of landscape character types to solar photovoltaic development

Landscape Very Small Small Solar Medium Solar Large Solar Very Large Character Solar Farm Farm Farm Farm Solar Farm Type [<1ha or [1-6ha or 2.5- [6-15ha or 15- [15-25ha or 37- [>25ha or <2.5acres] 15acres] 37acres] 63acres] >63acres] LCT 1: Woodland, Heaths, Meres & M M-H H H H Mosses LCT 2: Sandstone M-H H H H H Ridge LCT 3: Sandstone M-H M-H H H H Fringe LCT 4: Drained L-M L-M M M-H H Marsh LCT 5: Undulating M M-H M-H H H Enclosed Farmland LCT 6: Enclosed L-M L-M M M-H H Farmland LCT 7: Rolling M-H H H H H Farmland LCT 8: Heathy Farmland and M-H H H H H Woodland LCT 9: Cheshire M M-H H H H Plain West LCT 10: Cheshire L-M M M-H H H Plain East LCT 11: Estate M-H M-H H H H Farmland LCT 12: Mere Basin M M-H H H H

LCT 13: Lowland Farmland and L-M L-M M M-H H Mosses LCT 14: Salt Heritage L-M L-M M M-H H Landscape LCT 15: River M M-H H H H Valleys LCT 16: Mudflats & H H H H H Saltmarsh

Discussion on sensitivity of LCTs in CWaC to ground mounted solar PV development 6.13 The assessment has shown that landscape character sensitivity significantly limits the potential for a medium solar farm (6ha-15ha), a large solar farm (15ha-25ha) or a very large solar farm (>25ha) within the borough. The key characteristics of the CWaC landscape that are sensitive to this scale of solar PV development have been identified as the following:

109

 Undulating, rolling or steeply sloping landforms, and prominent skylines such as the sandstone ridge, that are more visually sensitive;  Open, exposed landscapes such as the Cheshire Plain, even flat or gently undulating landscapes where there are views from nearby high ground such as the sandstone ridge, including panoramic and long distance views from important viewpoints and landmark features such as the hillforts;  The small scale field pattern of hedgerows, trees and other human-scale landscape features such as traditional agricultural buildings, where large solar farms would be out of scale and over-dominant or could necessitate the removal of sensitive features;  Limited built development and small scale, low density rural dispersed settlement pattern with a perceived naturalness;  Recognised scenic quality, including extensive Areas of Special County Value (ASCV);  Historic landscape character including the presence and influence of nationally designated or locally significant heritage assets;  Landscapes that are distinctive and representative of CWaC with a particular ‘sense of place’ such as the sandstone ridge and pastoral plain.

6.14 The assessment has identified that there may be some potential for a medium or a large solar farm in locations that are:

 Flat or gently undulating;  With a large scale field pattern with few landscape features;  Already influenced by built development and prominent infrastructure;  Not prominent with undistinctive skylines;  Topographically enclosed and self-contained with limited intervisibility with adjacent landscapes;  More common landscapes within CWaC, with low scenic quality;  Less naturalistic.

6.15 There is most potential in the borough for a very small solar farm (less than 1 hectare or less than 2.5 acres) or a small solar farm (1-6 hectares or 2.5-15 acres) that would potentially be in scale with the landscape, in particular the small scale field patterns of hedgerows, trees and other human-scale landscape features. Strong boundary features can also mitigate the visual impact of smaller solar arrays by helping to screen them. However, there is still the potential for solar farms of this scale to cause significant adverse effects to key landscape characteristics within a LCA, particularly those that are visually sensitive or where visual sensitivity extends beyond the LCA over a wider area.

6.16 There are no areas within Cheshire West and Chester rated as ‘low sensitivity’, where key landscape characteristics and qualities would be considered sufficiently robust to be able to accommodate even a very small solar farm development without adverse effects on any key characteristics.

110

6.17 Where a range of sensitivity is given within a landscape character type, for example L-M (low-moderate) within the small solar farm category, there is likely to be lower sensitivity to the smaller size of solar farm within the category i.e. 1 hectare (2.5 acres), and moderate sensitivity to the larger size of solar farm within the category i.e. 6 hectares (15 acres).

6.18 Similarly, where a range of M-H (moderate-high) sensitivity is given within a landscape character type, for example within the medium solar farm category, there is likely to be moderate sensitivity to the smaller size of solar farm within the category i.e. 6 hectares (15 acres), and higher sensitivity to the larger size of solar farm within the category i.e. 15 hectares (37 acres).

6.19 Even an area rated as ‘low-moderate’ sensitivity will comprise some key characteristics that are sensitive to development that might cause significant adverse effect. For example, although LCA 13a: Peover Lowland Farmland and Mosses has an overall sensitivity rating of ‘low-moderate’, it is clear from the relevant matrix in the supporting technical appendix, as summarised in Table 5, that the medium to small scale field pattern with frequent landscape-scale features, and the low to medium scale settlement density with little modern development are of higher sensitivity. Any proposal for ground mounted solar PV development within LCA 13a should show how these sensitive characteristics have been taken into account in its siting, layout and design.

6.20 In this particular example, the wider LCT 13: Lowland Farmland and Mosses is particularly sensitive to a large solar farm (moderate-high sensitivity) and a very large solar farm (high sensitivity) where these key characteristics and qualities of the landscape are likely to be adversely affected by this type of development.

111

Appendix A: Key Landscape Characteristics and General Influence on Wind Energy

Landscape Key Landscape General Influence on Wind Energy Development Attributes Considerations Landform Topography, shape,  Simple, smooth, flat or gently undulating landforms generally complexity; have greater capacity than complex, rugged or steep landforms distinctive features;  Larger turbine groups may sometimes be accommodated on influence on views simple, flat or gently sloping hill fringe or lowland landscapes  Smaller turbine groups are likely to fit better in a rolling or undulating hill fringe or lowland landscape  Generally turbine height should be proportionate to landform height, with taller turbines on higher hills and smaller turbines on lower ground, to help retain topographic distinctions and contrasts between upland and lowland landscapes  Where sited on ridges or hills, turbine height should be typically less than one-third the perceived height of the ridge or hill to be proportionate to the landform  Development could intrude or be visually confusing if close to distinctive topographical features  Development within lowland landscapes could affect sense of contrast where there is existing wind development on adjoining upland areas  Floodplain landscapes have little capacity due to their essentially open character  Simple flat coastal landscapes probably have greater capacity than complex coastal landscape with combinations of cliffs, headlands or rocky shorelines  Extensive flat lowland plateau or lowland plain landscapes may have capacity to accommodate wind energy development  Development could affect sense of distance Land use Land use change,  Development could affect perceptions of ‘naturalness’ in historical continuity landscapes largely unaffected by modern influences Land cover Pattern, variety and  Extensive areas of homogenous character and similar ground complexity due to cover generally have greater capacity than landscapes with a the number and smaller pattern and variety of land cover diversity of  Large turbine groups may have an adverse ‘flattening’ effect on landscape features; landscapes with a complex character and varied land cover infrastructure, where smaller groupings are likely to fit better settlement & other  Relationship of turbines with the pattern, scale, location, development character and setting of other built development, in particular the height of existing tall structures, will influence capacity  May be the need for visual separation to avoid visual conflicts due to contrasts in scale where existing structures are seen in close proximity to turbines  May be the need for visual separation to avoid cumulative effects where existing structures are seen in close proximity to turbines Rarity Rare / unusual  Development could affect perceptions of distinctiveness and landscapes with a could physically affect landscapes with a rare or unusual distinctive ‘sense of character place’ Scale Horizontal and  Development must be in scale with the landscape, including any vertical ‘size’ of the features in it, otherwise it will either dominate or appear too landscape and small and trivial extent of land

112

Landscape Key Landscape General Influence on Wind Energy Development Attributes Considerations visible (scale  Intimate and small scale landscapes generally have less capacity generally increases than large scale landscapes with elevation and  Large turbine groups may have an adverse ‘flattening’ effect on distance); size of small scale, more intricate landscapes where smaller groupings features in the are likely to fit better landscape  Large turbine groups may be appropriate in simple, flat coastal landscapes, and smaller turbines and groups may be more appropriate in more complex, varied coastlines  Development could affect perception of vertical scale if turbines are too tall in comparison with landscape features or smaller turbines Openness Extent of enclosure  Enclosed or confined landscapes generally have less capacity / containment due than more open landscapes to the arrangement  Sensitivity is likely to be increased where views are focussed of landscape along coastlines or across open water to other land masses elements and the interaction of their height and distance between them Experience For example  Development could affect perceptions of remoteness, calmness wildness, solitude, etc. tranquillity, sense of movement, etc. Landscape Consideration of  Existing development in adjacent areas is taken into account in Context how adjacent areas assessing existing ‘baseline’ character and features alter  Existing development in adjacent areas is taken into account in key sensitivities i.e. assessing whether an area has reached or is approaching importance to landscape capacity for wind energy development setting or providing  Development in one area can affect key sensitivities in adjacent a backdrop areas and increase cumulative landscape effects  The setting of distinctive landmark coastal features can be especially sensitive

113

Appendix B: General Design Guidance Principles for Wind Energy and Ground Mounted Solar PV Development

Proposals for wind energy and ground mounted solar PV development in the borough should reflect differences between the landscape character areas (LCA) described in the 2016 Landscape Strategy by adhering to the design guidance provided for each LCA. Proposals for these types of development within Cheshire West and Chester borough should also follow a number of general design principles in order to minimise landscape impacts, as set out below:

Location New wind energy and ground mounted solar PV development should:  Relate to the scale of existing elements within the landscape;  Be sensitively located and detailed to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of an area, such that landscape character and local distinctiveness is conserved, restored or enhanced;  Respond to the location and characteristics of the site by including details that incorporate, as far as possible, existing site levels, local topography, landscape features such as watercourses, hedgerows, trees, orchards and woodland, field patterns, buildings and landmarks. Alterations to these features should be minimised;  Respond to the location by respecting, complimenting and retaining continuity with existing built form, pattern, scale, massing, height, density and materials. New development should not overshadow or otherwise threaten the setting of existing traditional buildings such as dairy barns;  Respond to the location by respecting the setting of nationally designated heritage assets (buildings and features on Heritage England’s National Heritage List for England) and other heritage assets of local significance;  Be of high quality in terms of siting, layout and design to conserve, restore or enhance local distinctiveness and sense of place;  Respond to the location by respecting and reflecting existing landscape setting. New development should be integrated into the landscape by careful siting, for example avoiding brows of hills and skylines;  Maintain the distinction between rural and urban areas by incorporating sensitive location and design that does not lead to urbanising the countryside, for example by avoiding the insensitive design and accumulation of suburban style detailing such as fences, lighting etc.;  Refer to Conservation Area appraisals, Village Design Statements, Neighbourhood Plans and other relevant local documents;  Avoid (directly or adversely affecting the setting of) Areas of Special County Value (ASCV);  Avoid areas identified as Key Settlement Gaps i.e. sensitive open areas between settlements where development could affect the sense of openness and lead to coalescence of settlement.

114

As well as considering the above factors, proposals for medium scale and larger scale wind energy development should only be located within an “area of least constraint” as identified in the Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012.

Boundary Treatment  New development proposals should include a clear description of how existing boundaries would be protected and retained, for example hedgerows and hedgerow trees;  New development should take full account of its relationship with its surroundings and ensure that it is well integrated into the landscape. This may include strong woodland buffers, hedgerows and tree planting on the development boundary as appropriate to ensure development provides a green interface with the countryside;  New buffer planting should complement the Mersey Forest and provide opportunities for recreation;  Appropriate boundary treatments should be used around new development, for example native hedgerows or sandstone walls, to conserve, restore or enhance the local vernacular built style (close board fencing or other solid fencing is unlikely to be an appropriate boundary treatment along boundaries facing open countryside, public rights of way or public open spaces).

Views  New development should respond to the location by taking full account of views into, out of and across the site. The siting and treatment of new development is particularly important where visible from important features and viewpoints such as hillforts, neighbouring properties, public areas such as roads and rights of way, and where visible from a wide area;  Careful siting, layout and design could help reduce the visual impact of new development;  New development should avoid prominent skyline locations such as ridgelines or brows of hills, or prominent slopes;  Visual impact of intrusive or prominent built features can be reduced by appropriate native broadleaf planting to filter views or for screening solar farms, but inappropriate planting (for example conifers) can itself be prominent and uncharacteristic leading to adverse visual impact;  New development should not block or obstruct views out, in particular sensitive views of landmark features (such as church spires and hillforts) or to distant hills (including the Clwydian Hills in north Wales , the Shropshire Hills or the Pennines) or the local sandstone ridge, as seen from highways, footpaths, bridleways, public open spaces or other public areas within the settlement;  Lighting should be carefully selected to minimise glare and light pollution.

Landscape Conservation / Enhancement / Management  Key landscape characteristics and features of a landscape character area should be retained and new development should contribute to the appropriate conservation and enhancement of these features and the public’s enjoyment of them;  Existing land use and management should continue beneath and around turbines and solar panels;

115

 New planting appropriate to a landscape character area should be considered to help screening and to sensitively incorporate new development into the landscape;  Design layout should incorporate a high quality landscape framework that includes the establishment of green infrastructure such as linear buffer strips, creating a diverse network of informal open spaces and continuous wildlife corridors within and around the site;  Existing hedgerows should be retained and restored, for example by gapping-up. Where opportunities exist, new hedgerows and hedgerow trees should be planted to restore former field patterns;  Traditional agricultural field patterns and boundaries should be retained and managed where these are characteristic of the landscape;  Areas and features of nature conservation value and interest should be retained and incorporated into new development, for example field ponds (a particular feature of the CWaC landscape) or areas of unimproved grassland/pasture. Where opportunities exist new areas and features should be created, for example by extending areas of semi- natural rough grassland, indigenous woodland or heathland habitat in areas where this would have no detriment to anything else (e.g. archaeological sites);  Features of archaeological or historical significance, for example ridge and furrow, should be retained;  New development should not affect the sense of tranquillity of an area where this is identified as a key characteristic.

Accessibility  New development should reinforce or create a network of routes and allow for further connections. The connections may be selective, for example to allow for pedestrians, cyclists or equestrians but not vehicular movement;  New development proposals should clearly show connections to or extending an existing movement network, vehicular or non-vehicular, in particular public rights of way.

Wind Turbine / Wind Farm Design Guidance on the design of wind turbines and windfarms can be found in a number of documents21 and from within the wind industry itself. Guidance varies depending on the size of turbines, their design and siting, and potential landscape and visual impacts. Micro wind turbines which are attached to buildings and vertical axis turbines (more often specially tailored to create a design statement for individual sites) are not considered in this study.

Smaller scale free-standing horizontal axis turbines between approximately 10m-30m in height (to blade tip) are commonly available in a variety of styles, designs and colours. Choice of turbine is a key factor in the potential landscape and visual suitability of small turbines at any site, especially where cumulative effects may occur (see below). Careful

21 For example: ‘Micro renewables and the natural heritage. Revised guidance’ (2016), Scottish Natural Heritage ‘Siting and Design of Small Scale Wind Turbines of between 15 and 50 metres in height’ (2012), Scottish Natural Heritage; ‘Siting and Designing Windfarms in the Landscape’ (2009), Scottish Natural Heritage.

116

choice of turbine at an early stage in the design process will help to ensure an improved landscape fit and avoid complex visual mixes of turbine types in any location. Applicants are encouraged to consider and discuss a number of different turbine options at the pre- planning stage.

This scale of wind turbine can either be three bladed mounted on tubular masts/towers, or two bladed machines on lattice towers; their rotational movement is commonly perceived as being less smooth than 3 bladed models from some aspects, despite their movement being regular. This can be a particular consideration when 2 bladed turbines are viewed in combination with 3 bladed models.

Medium scale turbines between approximately 30m-80m in height have the same form as large commercial turbines, with three blades mounted on a solid tapering tower. They are most commonly a pale grey colour. Their blade movement, as with the smaller turbines, will be faster than larger models and therefore less ‘restful’ on the eye. They may be most appropriate in industrial settings or in rural locations where there are large scale modern agricultural buildings.

Some key considerations to development of single and smaller groups of up to 6 smaller and medium scale turbines are as follows (this list is not exhaustive and reference should be made to up to date guidance):

 The choice of turbine form and appearance should be most appropriate for the site, in terms of turbine number, blade number and movement, tower, colour and size/scale, in order to ensure a good landscape ‘fit’ taking into account key landscape and visual characteristics;  A group of turbines should be arranged to relate well to, respect and compliment their setting, taking into account the most sensitive or significant views from where the turbines will be seen;  Ancillary infrastructure such as tracks, buildings, walls and fences should be appropriate in their scale, materials and the character of the landscape. Existing infrastructure should be used where possible to minimise landscape and visual impact;  Local landform and landscape features should be utilised to limit visibility of the proposal;  Layout of turbines within a cluster/group should reflect and complement existing landform patterns and scale (refer to guidance on cumulative effects below).

Larger turbines between 80m-130m in height to blade tip (though larger turbines are available) generally appear out of scale and visually dominant in lowland, settled, or smaller- scale landscapes, which are often characterised by the relatively ‘human scale’ of buildings and features. They are best suited to more extensive, open areas, and set well back from more sensitive ridges and fringes. This can reduce effects on settled and smaller-scale valleys and lowland landscapes.

Key considerations specific to development of single larger turbines and groups of larger commercial scale turbines are as follows (this list is not exhaustive and reference should be made to up to date guidance):

117

 The proportion of blade length to tower height, and overall height to blade tip can significantly affect the appearance of a turbine in the landscape;  A single colour of turbine is generally preferable, avoiding graded colours at the base; a light grey colour generally achieves the best balance between reducing visibility and visual impacts when seen against the sky (although this works less well when viewed against a darker background);  Paint reflection should be minimised by using matt or light-absorbent finishes;  Features in the landscape act as scale indicators that can accentuate the scale of larger turbines;  The presence of other large structures in the landscape can reduce sensitivity to large turbines, however wind turbines and associated infrastructure can create an over- complex visual image in association with other large infrastructure such as electricity pylons and transmission lines;  In general, the fewer turbines and the simpler the layout on an even landform, the easier it is to create a positive feature - visually balanced, simple and consistent in image as it is viewed from various directions. This is most easily achieved by a simple line upon level ground;  A regular shape, such as a double line, a triangle, or a grid can appear appropriate within a wide open and level space where there is a regular landscape pattern, such as within large scale agricultural fields. However, as you move through the landscape and see it from different directions and elevations, views of the grid change and reveal a variable effect;  Irregular layouts can be more appropriate in landscapes of variable elevation and pattern. However, irregular forms pose a greater challenge in terms of achieving a simple image, as the turbines will interact in varying ways with each other as well as with the underlying landscape;  The siting and design of large turbines should take into consideration existing focal features in the landscape, such as ridges and hillforts, in order to minimise visual conflicts and avoid compromising the value of existing foci;  In some urban fringe landscapes, larger turbines with slower rotation of blades may be preferable to smaller turbines with faster speeds. However, there will always be a need to relate the size of the turbines to the local context, taking account of the existing buildings and foci.

Cumulative Effects The combined effects of a number of wind turbines or solar arrays can create cumulative effects i.e. additional changes to the landscape and people’s perceptions of it that could eventually change the character of the landscape. Currently there are few wind turbines or solar farms in CWaC but the potentially high level of visibility and other potential impacts as the numbers increase means that cumulative effects are more likely. This is an evolving area of practice and considerable effort has recently been devoted to addressing cumulative landscape and visual effects in guidance, specifically on wind farms22. More general

22 Assessing the Cumulative Impact of On Shore Wind Energy Developments (2012), Scottish Natural Heritage

118

guidance is provided in the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’, 201323.

New development proposals should take into account the additional changes to landscape and visual amenity caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other similar existing developments (either built or under construction) and those approved (but not built) and those at application stage, and the combined effect.

Landscape and visual impact assessment of new development proposals should include assessment of cumulative landscape and visual effects that can have an impact particularly on the following:

 The physical fabric of the landscape, such as hedgerows and woodland;  Landscape character, where effects may combine to such an extent that they create a different landscape character type dominated by the developments. Such change need not be adverse; some degraded or derelict landscapes could be enhanced as a result of such change in landscape character;  Landscapes recognised as having a particular value or function, such as Areas of Special County Value (ASCV)and Key Settlement Gaps, for example;  Views, including combined visibility of two or more developments from a viewpoint, either “in-combination” (where the developments are seen within the same arc of vision at the same time) or “in-succession” (where the observer has to turn to see the various developments). The assessment should define the area within which the cumulative effects will be visible;  Views, including sequential visibility where different developments are seen by moving from one viewpoint to another, for example when traveling along a road, railway, river/canal or footpath, etc. The assessment should define the length of each route along which there will be cumulative sequential effects.

Cumulative Effects Specific to Wind Energy Development Key considerations when proposing wind energy development in addition to existing turbines are as follows (this list is not exhaustive and reference should be made to up to date guidance):

 Differing blade movement speeds should be minimised;  Turbine form, colour and scale in terms of ratio of tower height to rotor blade diameter, and overall height and appearance should be similar to avoid local landscape ‘clutter’;  Development pattern should result in a similarity of design and visually balanced and coherent image within an area that limits visual confusion;  To achieve simple visual relationship with the skyline, avoiding variable height, spacing and overlapping (‘stacking’) of turbines.

23 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition, 2013; Landscape Institute and Institute for Environmental Management and Assessment.

119

Appendix C: Checklist for Applicants

The borough council promotes an iterative ‘landscape-led’ approach to development proposals and planning applications within Cheshire West and Chester. The following points should be addressed to show how landscape character has been taken into account during the development of proposals for renewable wind and solar PV energy generation, and that potential landscape and visual impacts of a proposed development have been fully addressed:

Landscape Sensitivity

 Which landscape character type and landscape character area is the proposed development in (refer to the 2016 Landscape Strategy and Figure 2 below)?

 How have the key characteristics, criteria and sensitivity attributes been taken into account in the siting, layout and design of proposed wind energy development (refer to the relevant assessment of LCT sensitivity to wind in section 4 and the LCA matrix in Supporting Technical Appendix on Sensitivity to Wind Energy development)?

 How have the key characteristics, criteria and sensitivity attributes been taken into account in the siting, layout and design of proposed solar energy development (refer to the relevant assessment of LCT sensitivity to solar development in section 5 and the relevant LCA matrix in Supporting Technical Appendix on Sensitivity to Solar PV Development)?

 For medium scale (30m-80m height to blade tip) and large scale (80m-130m+ height to blade tip) wind energy development, does the proposal lie within an “area of least constraint” (refer to the 2012 ‘Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study’ and Figure 1)? If not, what considerations have been addressed in deciding that a location beyond an area of least constraint is suitable for medium or large scale wind energy development?

 Does the proposal lie within an Area of Special County Value (ASCV)? If so, what considerations have been addressed in deciding that a location within an ASCV is suitable for wind energy or solar PV development?

 Does the proposal lie within an area identified as a Key Settlement Gap? If so, what considerations have been addressed in deciding that a location within an open gap between settlements is suitable for wind energy or solar PV development?

 Does the proposal lie within the Green Belt? National planning policy makes it clear that renewable energy development is not normally considered appropriate development for Green Belt land. Developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed within the Green Belt (see paragraph 2.5);

 How does the proposed development support the overall landscape management strategy for the landscape character area (refer to the 2016 Landscape Strategy)?

120

 How have the landscape management guidelines and built development guidelines been taken into account in the siting, layout and design of the proposed development (refer to the 2016 Landscape Strategy)?

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

 Is the application supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (where part of a formal Environmental Statement in accordance with UK Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) or a landscape appraisal (where statutory EIA is not required)? LVIA or appraisal (for example as part of the Design and Access Statement) is always required when adverse effects are likely on landscape features, landscape character, townscape character and views.

 Has the LVIA / appraisal been completed in accordance with up to date good practice guidance such as the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) 3rd Edition, 2013 (prepared by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment)?

 Has the LVIA / appraisal been completed in accordance with specific guidance on a particular type of development, such as the following wind farm guidance produced by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH):  Siting and Design of Small Scale Wind Turbines of between 15 and 50m in Height, 2012;  Assessing the Cumulative Impact of On Shore Wind Energy Developments, 2012;  Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape, Version 2, 2014;  Visual Representation of Wind Farms Good Practice Guidance, version 2, 2014.

 The scope and methodology of the LVIA / appraisal should be agreed with the council at the outset of the assessment, including relevant baseline studies, the study area and visual envelope / Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV).

 Does the LVIA / appraisal clearly identify the landscape receptors (landscape elements / features / character) and visual receptors (groups of people, key views and viewpoints) likely to be affected by the proposed development? These should be agreed with the council at the outset of the assessment.

 Does the LVIA / appraisal clearly identify the separate landscape effects and visual effects of the proposed development, including cumulative landscape and visual effects, and any mitigation measures?

Landscape Maintenance and Management

 Is the application supported by details of the objective(s) of new planting proposals (for example screening, landscape integration, nature conservation) and how such planting will be maintained in the future to meet the objective(s) e.g. how woodland planting would be maintained to create a screen or to ensure a diverse species and canopy structure?

121

 Is the application supported by a landscape management plan detailing the management proposals for planting and other features of the landscape such as field ponds where these are included within new development?

Other Supporting Documentation

As well as the above, all landscape related applications should include the following:

 Illustrative material including photographs of existing views taken from agreed viewpoints, photomontages to give an accurate impression of the development in the landscape from each viewpoint (in accordance with the Landscape Institute’s Advice Note on Photography and Photomontage, and SNHs Visual Representation of Wind Farms Good Practice Guidance, Version 2, 2014), and cross sections;  Development Parameters Plan;  Supporting landscape strategy;  Landscape Layout Plan at 1:200 scale;  Proposed Mitigation and Management Plan;  Hard and soft landscape specifications;  Levels – existing and proposed;  Boundary treatments;  Information on access;  Built form – in keeping with local character and distinctiveness.

122

Figure 1: Commercial scale wind energy “areas of least constraint” (from Cheshire West & Chester Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Study, 2012)

123

Figure 2: Landscape Character Types and Areas within CWaC (from 2016 Landscape Strategy, Figure 1)

124

Figure 3: Landscape Sensitivity to Smaller Turbines

125

Figure 4: Landscape Sensitivity to Medium Turbines

126

Figure 5: Landscape Sensitivity to Larger Turbines

127

Figure 6: Landscape Sensitivity to Very Small Solar Farms

128

Figure 7: Landscape Sensitivity to Small Solar Farms

129

Figure 8: Landscape Sensitivity to Medium Solar Farms

130

Figure 9: Landscape Sensitivity to Large Solar Farms

131

Figure 10: Landscape Sensitivity to Very Large Solar Farms

132