Galloper Wind Farm Substation

Viewpoint Information

E SE S Grid Reference: 645683, 263208 Elevation (AOD): 14.56m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 15 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 14.15 11m high 13m high 8m high *17m high 14m high *11m high Distance to substation: 933m (20m AOD) (22m AOD) (17m AOD) (26m AOD) (23m AOD) (20m AOD)

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence number 0100031673 [2011]

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 1: Residential Properties and Public Right of Way north-west of site Development Envelope

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE/01 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

SE S SW Grid Reference: 646630, 262990 Elevation (AOD): 6.89m Viewer Height: 1.6m Gantry (shown as actual 11m high 14m high 8m high *17m high *11m high Viewing Distance: 300mm potential structure) (20m AOD) (23m AOD) (17m AOD) (26m AOD) (20m AOD) Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 87 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 27/01/2010 13.45 Distance to substation: 130m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 2: Public Right of Way north of the site Development Envelope

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE/02 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

SW W NW Grid Reference: 647483, 262977 Elevation (AOD): 8.65m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 22 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 27/01/2010 09.50 Distance to substation: 511m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe view: Labels identifying maximum potential heights have not been added to the wireframe as different substation components would not be visible or discernible due to screening or distance.

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 3: Sizewell Beach car park Development Envelope

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE/03 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

SW W NW Grid Reference: 647304, 262662 Elevation (AOD): 3.69m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 21 ˚

*11m high *17m high 14m high 8m high 5m high 13m high Gantry (shown as actual 11m high Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm (20m AOD) (26m AOD) (23m AOD) (17m AOD) (14m AOD) (22m AOD) potential structure) (20m AOD) Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 12.40 Distance to substation: 289m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 4: Sizewell Gap Road Development Envelope

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE/04 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

NW N NE Grid Reference: 646767, 262507

*11m high *17m high 14m high 13m high Gantry (shown as actual Elevation (AOD): 6.27m (20m AOD) (26m AOD) (23m AOD) (22m AOD) potential structure) Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 106 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 13.50 Distance to substation: 206m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 5: Sizewell Gap Road Development Envelope

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE/05 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

NW N NE Grid Reference: 646780, 262003 Elevation (AOD): 9.50m Viewer Height: 1.6m

*11m high 8m high 14m high *17m high 13m high Gantry (shown as actual Viewing Distance: 300mm (20m AOD) (17m AOD) (23m AOD) (26m AOD) (22m AOD) potential structure) Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 38 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 03/05/2011 10.10 Distance to substation: 694m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 6: Public Right of Way south of site Development Envelope

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE/06 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

NE E SE Grid Reference: 645873, 262507 Elevation (AOD): 14.54m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 14 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 27/01/2010 13.10 Distance to substation: 688m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe view: Labels identifying maximum potential heights have not been added to the wireframe as different substation components would not be visible or discernible due to screening or distance.

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 7: Road junction between King George’s Way and Lover’s Lane Development Envelope

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE/07 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

NE E SE Grid Reference: 643418, 263817 Elevation (AOD): 26.35m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 4 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 03/05/2011 12.50 Distance to substation: 3.26km

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe view: Labels identifying maximum potential heights have not been added to the wireframe as different substation components would not be visible or discernible due to screening or distance.

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 8: Abbey Lane Development Envelope

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE/08 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe View

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 1: Residential Properties and Public Right of Way north-west of site Illustrative Layout

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL/01 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

SE S SW Grid Reference: 646630, 262990 Elevation (AOD): 6.89m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 87 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 27/01/2010 13.45 Distance to substation: 130m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe View

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 2: Public Right of Way north of the site Illustrative Layout

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL/02 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe View

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 3: Sizewell Beach car park Illustrative Layout

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL/03 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

SW W NW Grid Reference: 647304, 262662 Elevation (AOD): 3.69m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 21 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 12.40 Distance to substation: 289m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe View

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 4: Sizewell Gap Road Illustrative Layout

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL/04 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

NW N NE Grid Reference: 646767, 262507 Elevation (AOD): 6.27m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 106 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 13.50 Distance to substation: 206m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe View

Project TitlE Galloper Wind Farm Substation

DrawiNG title -Detailed_Sept11.indd F Viewpoint 5: Sizewell Gap Road Illustrative Layout

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED sd STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W J

X/ figure 2890/WF_IL/05 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

NW N NE Grid Reference: 646780, 262003 Elevation (AOD): 9.50m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 38 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 03/05/2011 10.10 Distance to substation: 694m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe View

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 6: Public Right of Way south of site Illustrative Layout

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL/06 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe View

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 7: Road junction between King George’s Way and Lover’s Lane Illustrative Layout

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL/07 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe View

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 8: Abbey Lane Illustrative Layout

DATE 19/09/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL/08 RevA Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Grid Reference: 645683, 263208 Elevation (AOD): 14.56m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 435mm Angle (width): 90 ˚, Substation occupies - 15 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 14.15 Distance to substation: 933m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

DATE 10/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM/01B/YR1

Grid Reference: 646630, 262990 Elevation (AOD): 6.89m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 435mm Angle (width): 90 ˚, Substation occupies - 87 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 27/01/2010 13.45 Distance to substation: 130m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

DATE 10/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM/02B/YR1

Grid Reference: 647304, 262662 Elevation (AOD): 3.69m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 435mm

Angle (width): 90 ˚, Substation occupies - 21 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm

Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 12.40 Distance to substation: 289m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

DATE 10/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM/04B/YR1

Grid Reference: 646767, 262507 Elevation (AOD): 6.27m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 435mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 106 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 13.50 Distance to substation: 206m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

DATE 10/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 1189mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM/05B/YR1

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

DATE 10/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM/01B/YR15

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

DATE 10/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM/02B/YR15

Grid Reference: 647304, 262662 Elevation (AOD): 3.69m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 435mm

Angle (width): 90 ˚, Substation occupies - 21 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm

Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 12.40 Distance to substation: 289m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

DATE 10/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM/04B/YR15

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

DATE 10/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 1189mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM/05B/YR15

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe view: The blue lines show maximum equipment heights within different areas of the substation. Buildings and equipment will not be a uniform height throughout each area but pieces of equipment/buildings may be up to the heights shown. * = potential lightning rods 3m above substation components. Illustrating the proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area’. The ‘additional mitigation area’ comprises the southern face of the proposed landform which has been extended with a shallower slope to utilise spare material that might be available.

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 1: Residential Properties & PROW north-west of site Development Envelope with Additional Mitigation Area

DATE 06/10/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Oct11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE_AM/01 Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

SW W NW Grid Reference: 647304, 262662 Elevation (AOD): 3.69m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 300mm Angle (width): 135 ˚, Substation occupies - 21 ˚

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 4: Sizewell Gap Road Development Envelope with Additional Mitigation Area

DATE 06/10/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Oct11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE_AM/04 Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

NW N NE Grid Reference: 646767, 262507

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 5: Sizewell Gap Road Development Envelope with Additional Mitigation Area

DATE 06/10/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Oct11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE_AM/05 Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

NW N NE Grid Reference: 646780, 262003 Elevation (AOD): 9.50m Viewer Height: 1.6m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 6: Public Right of Way south of site Development Envelope with Additional Mitigation Area

DATE 06/10/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Rochdale_Oct11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_DE_AM/06 Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Wireframe view: Illustrating the proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area’. The ‘additional mitigation area’ comprises the southern face of the proposed landform which has been extended with a shallower slope to utilise spare material that might be available.

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 1: Residential Properties & PROW north-west of site Illustrative Layout with Additional Mitigation Area

DATE 06/10/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL_AM/01 Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 4: Sizewell Gap Road Illustrative Layout with Additional Mitigation Area

DATE 06/10/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL_AM/04 Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION

DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 5: Sizewell Gap Road Illustrative Layout with Additional Mitigation Area.

DATE 06/10/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL_AM/05 Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

PROJECT TITLE GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 6: Public Right of Way south of site Illustrative Layout with Additional Mitigation Area.

DATE 06/10/2011 DRAWN SD PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

F -Detailed_Sept11.indd X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_W FIGURE 2890/WF_IL_AM/06 Existing view This wireframe is based upon Ordnance Survey data with spot heights at 50m intervals and does not precisely model small scale changes in landform or sharp breaks in slope. The wireframe model does not allow for the screening effects of vegetation or buildings. The three dimensional model of the substation is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. © LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000 Viewpoint Information

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Photomontage view: PROJECT TITLE Illustrating the potential 14m high building in the north-west corner of the area of the substation within which it can be located, which is considered to be the potential ‘worst case’ location in this particular view. GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION This may be different to the locations shown on other photomontage Figures 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR1 and 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR1. Illustrating the proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area’. The ‘additional mitigation area’ comprises the southern face of the proposed landform which has been extended with a shallower slope to utilise spare material that might be available. DRAWING TITLE The three dimensional model of the substation and gantries is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. Viewpoint 1: Residential Properties and Public Right of Way north-west of site Photomontage with Additional Mitigation Area – Year 1

DATE 12/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-AM_Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR1

Grid Reference: 647304, 262662 Elevation (AOD): 3.69m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 435mm

Angle (width): 90 ˚, Substation occupies - 21 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm

Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 12.40 Distance to substation: 289m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Photomontage view: PROJECT TITLE Illustrating the potential 14m high building in the south-east corner of the area of the substation within which it can be located, which is considered to be the potential ‘worst case’ location in this particular view. GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION This may be different to the locations shown on other photomontage Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR1 and 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR1. Illustrating the proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area’. The ‘additional mitigation area’ comprises the southern face of the proposed landform which has been extended with a shallower slope to utilise spare material that might be available. The three dimensional model of the substation and gantries is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 4: Sizewell Gap Road Photomontage with Additional Mitigation Area – Year 1

DATE 12/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-AM_Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR1

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Photomontage view: PROJECT TITLE Illustrating the potential 14m high building in the south-east corner of the area of the substation within which it can be located, which is considered to be the potential ‘worst case’ location in this particular view. GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION This may be different to the locations shown on other photomontage Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR1 and 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR1. Illustrating the proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area’. The ‘additional mitigation area’ comprises the southern face of the proposed landform which has been extended with a shallower slope to utilise spare material that might be available. The three dimensional model of the substation and gantries is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 5: Sizewell Gap Road Photomontage with Additional Mitigation Area – Year 1

DATE 12/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 1189mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-AM_Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR1

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Photomontage view: PROJECT TITLE Illustrating the potential 14m high building in the north-west corner of the area of the substation within which it can be located, which is considered to be the potential ‘worst case’ location in this particular view. GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION This may be different to the locations shown on other photomontage Figures 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR15 and 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR15. Illustrating the proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area’. The ‘additional mitigation area’ comprises the southern face of the proposed landform which has been extended with a shallower slope to utilise spare material that might be available. DRAWING TITLE The three dimensional model of the substation and gantries is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. Viewpoint 1: Residential Properties and Public Right of Way north-west of site Photomontage with Additional Mitigation Area – Year 15

DATE 12/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-AM_Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR15

Grid Reference: 647304, 262662 Elevation (AOD): 3.69m Viewer Height: 1.6m Viewing Distance: 435mm

Angle (width): 90 ˚, Substation occupies - 21 ˚ Camera & Lens: Digital SLR, 50mm

Photo date / time: 26/01/2010 12.40 Distance to substation: 289m

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Photomontage view: PROJECT TITLE Illustrating the potential 14m high building in the south-east corner of the area of the substation within which it can be located, which is considered to be the potential ‘worst case’ location in this particular view. GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION This may be different to the locations shown on other photomontage Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR15 and 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR15. Illustrating the proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area’. The ‘additional mitigation area’ comprises the southern face of the proposed landform which has been extended with a shallower slope to utilise spare material that might be available. The three dimensional model of the substation and gantries is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 4: Sizewell Gap Road Photomontage with Additional Mitigation Area – Year 15

DATE 12/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 841mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-AM_Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR15

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale

Photomontage view: PROJECT TITLE Illustrating the potential 14m high building in the south-east corner of the area of the substation within which it can be located, which is considered to be the potential ‘worst case’ location in this particular view. GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION This may be different to the locations shown on other photomontage Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR15 and 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR15. Illustrating the proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area’. The ‘additional mitigation area’ comprises the southern face of the proposed landform which has been extended with a shallower slope to utilise spare material that might be available. The three dimensional model of the substation and gantries is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. DRAWING TITLE Viewpoint 5: Sizewell Gap Road Photomontage with Additional Mitigation Area – Year 15

DATE 12/10/2011 DRAWN SG PAPER 1189mm x 297mm CHECKED SD STATUS FINAL APPROVED PB

X/ J OBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-AM_Worst_Case_Oct11.indd FIGURE 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR15

GALLOPER WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

TECHNICAL APPENDIX 20.B

SEASCAPE, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL CHARACTER – SEASCAPE VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Galloper Wind Farm

Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment August 2011

2842_SLVIA

Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.2. The Proposed Development ...... 1 1.3. The Study Area ...... 4 2.0 Assessment Methodology ...... 5 2.1. Seascape and Visual Assessment Methodology ...... 5 2.2. Cumulative Assessment Methodology ...... 5 2.3. Scope of Study ...... 7 2.4. Consultation ...... 8 2.5. Field Study ...... 11 3.0 Landscape and Seascape Policy Context ...... 13 3.1. Introduction ...... 13 3.2. Landscape Designations ...... 15 3.3. Historic Environment ...... 18 3.4. Public Rights of Way ...... 19 4.0 Landscape and Seascape Character ...... 20 4.1. Introduction ...... 20 4.2. Landscape Character ...... 20 4.3. Seascape Characterisation ...... 30 5.0 The Existing Visual Environment ...... 42 5.1. Introduction ...... 42 5.2. Initial ZTV ...... 42 5.3. Existing Cumulative Context ...... 43 5.4. Meteorological Context ...... 45 5.5. Visual Receptors ...... 47 5.6. Offshore Receptors ...... 47 5.7. Onshore Receptors ...... 48 5.8. Representative Viewpoints ...... 48 6.0 Landscape and Seascape Effects ...... 62 6.1. Introduction ...... 62 6.2. Nature and Duration of Landscape and Seascape Effects ...... 62 6.3. Operational Effects on Designated Landscapes, the Historic Environment and Local Footpaths ...... 63 6.4. Operational Effects on Landscape Character Types ...... 69

2842_SLVIA

6.5. Operational Effects on Regional Seascape Units ...... 72 7.0 Visual Effects ...... 76 7.1. Nature and Duration of Visual Effects ...... 76 7.2. Operational Effects on General Visual Amenity ...... 76 7.3. Representative Viewpoint Appraisal ...... 77 7.4. Operational Effects on Visual Receptor Groups in the Wider Study Area85 8.0 Cumulative Effects ...... 91 8.1. Introduction ...... 91 8.2. Assessment Scenarios and Methodology ...... 91 8.3. Cumulative Landscape Effects ...... 92 8.4. Cumulative Seascape Effects ...... 93 8.5. Cumulative Visual Effects – Onshore Receptors ...... 94 8.6. Cumulative Viewpoint Appraisal ...... 99 8.7. Potential Cumulative Effects of GWF with East Anglia Round 3zone .. 100 9.0 Mitigation ...... 102 10.0 Summary and Conclusion ...... 103 10.1. Introduction ...... 103 10.2. Summary of Landscape and Seascape Effects ...... 103 10.3. Summary of Visual Effects ...... 104 10.4. Summary of Cumulative Effects ...... 107

Version: 1.6 Version date: 25 October 2011 Comment Final This document has been prepared and checked in accordance with ISO 9001:2000.

2842_SLVIA

Appendix Appendix 1: Seascape, Landscape and Visual Assessment (SLVIA) Appendix 2: Regional Landscape Character Descriptions Appendix 3: Methodology for the preparation of Visuals Appendix 4: Source Documents Appendix 5: Glossary

Figures Figure 01: Site Location & Policy Context Figure 02: Landscape Character Figure 03: Regional Seascape Units Figure 04: Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Bare Ground Figure 05: Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Obstructions Figure 06: Topography and Viewpoints Figure 07: Cumulative Site Locations Figure 08: Cumulative Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Gunfleet Sands (I) & (II), Gunfleet Sands Extension & Greater Gabbard Figure 09: Cumulative Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Thanet & London Array Figure 10: Cumulative Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) Summary – All Existing and Consented Wind Farms

Wireframe Figures Figure 2842/WF/01: Viewpoint 1 Orford Castle Figure 2842/WF/02: Old Felixstowe Seafront Figure 2842/WF/03: Aldeburgh Seafront Figure 2842/WF/04: North of Alderton Figure 2842/WF/05: Orford Ness near Lighthouse Figure 2842/WF/06: Shingle Street near Martello Tower Figure 2842/WF/07: View from the cliff top, The Naze Figure 2842/WF/08: The Promenade, Southwold

2842_SLVIA

Photomontage Figures Figure 2842/PM/01: Viewpoint 1 Orford Castle Figure 2842/ PM/02: Old Felixstowe Seafront Figure 2842/ PM/03: Aldeburgh Seafront Figure 2842/ PM/04: North of Alderton Figure 2842/ PM/05: Orford Ness near Lighthouse Figure 2842/ PM/06: Shingle Street near Martello Tower Figure 2842/ PM/07: View from the cliff top, The Naze Figure 2842/ PM/08: The Promenade, Southwold

Cumulative Wireframe Figures Figure 2842/WF-C/03: Aldeburgh Seafront Figure 2842/WF-C/07: View from the cliff top, The Naze

Cumulative Photomontage Figures Figure 2842/PM-C/03: Aldeburgh Seafront Figure 2842/PM -C/07: View from the cliff top, The Naze

2842_SLVIA

1.0 Introduction

1.1.1. This Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (SLVIA) Technical Report has been produced in support of the Galloper Wind Farm (GWF) project’s Environmental Statement (ES).

1.1.2. The report provides the assessment methodology, sets out the seascape and landscape policy context under which the assessments have been made and a characterisation of the existing environment. It then provides an assessment of effects that the offshore components of the GWF will have on the existing landscape and seascape environments, their characteristic features and on the people who view it. The purpose of the assessment is to determine the magnitude and significance of any change to the character of the seascape as well as the potential impact upon views, visual amenity and receptor groups within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV). The assessment has defined the existing landscape/seascape and visual baseline environment within the 45km radius study area, and assessed its sensitivity to change. It will describe the nature of the anticipated change upon each and assess the magnitude and significance of the changes during the construction, operational and decommissioning stages of the proposed offshore wind farm. The assessment will also identify any integral mitigation measures to assist with reducing effects upon particularly sensitive receptor groups and landscape environments.

1.1.3. The assessment draws upon the SLVIA for the consented Greater Gabbard offshore wind farm (GGOWF) site, which is immediately adjacent to the GWF. The baseline assessment for the SLVIA has been reviewed and updated wherever possible. Due to an expanded study area, the SLVIA for the GWF includes two additional viewpoints and additional regional seascape units.

1.2. The Proposed Development

Refer to Figure 01.

1.2.1. The GGOWF site is located within the Thames Estuary, approximately 27km off the Suffolk coast at Hollesley Bay (measured to the site boundary). The final design of the proposed GWF has not been fixed at this stage. The project is being taken forward on the basis of envelope parameters including a defined site area and a maximum capacity of up to 504MW. A number of layouts and wind turbine generator (WTG) types are being considered, with the range detailed in Table 1 below.

2842_SLVIA 1

Table 1: WTG range considered for GWF

WTG detail 107m rotor 120m rotor 164m rotor

Typical MW 3 - 3.6MW 3.6 - 4MW 6 - 7MW rating

Minimum 22m 22m 22m clearance above MHWS

Maximum No. 140 140 72 WTG in array

Hub height 79.5m 86m 120m

Maximum tip 135m 146m 195m height

1.2.2. To identify the potential 'worst case' scenario two options were tested by preparing draft wireframes from two viewpoints on the coast (Viewpoints 5 and 7 shown on Figure 06):

 the largest WTGs currently being considered (195m to blade tip) (which give the most widely spaced and lowest number of WTGs (72)); and  the smallest WTGs with highest tip height currently being considered (146m to blade tip) (which give the most closely spaced and largest number of WTGs (140)).

1.2.3. It was concluded that there was little perceptible difference in the appearance of the two schemes from the viewpoints and that it would be logical to use the tallest WTGs for the SLVIA, given that a greater height of WTG would be visible above the horizon from the land based viewpoints. This SLVIA, therefore, assesses the effects of 72 number 7MW WTGs with nominal hub and blade tip heights of 120 and 195m above sea level respectively, laid out in a regular grid. It is considered that an irregular layout or smaller turbines would not result in increased effects.

1.2.4. The proposed GWF consists of two principal array areas (Area A centred around the Outer Gabbard Bank, and Area B and C, to the east and west of the Galloper Bank respectively). The WTGs will be arranged in rows in a north- easterly to south-westerly direction forming an extension to the GGOWF.

2842_SLVIA 2

The majority of the WTGs will be located to the east (seaward) side of the GGOWF with a small number to the north, south and south-west.

1.2.5. The offshore development envelope will include up to four ancillary structures (comprising offshore substation platforms (OSPs), collection platform and or accommodation platform). There will also be up to three meteorological masts. This infrastructure will be significantly lower than the WTGs and thus have more limited distant visibility, and will be significantly fewer in number. The platforms will, however, have a greater visual mass. Given the distance offshore and the difference in scale between the WTGs and platforms, and much greater number and spread of WTGs, the WTGs are the main element that will cause seascape, landscape and visual effects. The effects of the WTGs are, therefore, the main focus of this assessment.

1.2.6. The offshore development will include navigation and aviation lighting. Chapter 5 of the ES (Project Description) states that navigation lighting will be implemented in accordance with the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) recommendations as follows:

 Corner or significant boundary point WTGs would be designated a Significant Peripheral Structure (SPS), with a minimum separation distance of 3nm between SPS’s. Each SPS would be fitted with lights that are visible from all directions in the horizontal plane, and the lights on a structure should be synchronised to show a yellow ‘special mark’ light characteristic with a range of not less than 5 nautical miles.  Intermediate Peripheral Structures (IPS) may be used between SPS. These would be within 2nm of SPS, and fitted with lights as per SPS, but with a distinct flash characteristic. They would be visible from a minimum range of 2nm.

1.2.7. Chapter 17 (Military and Civil Aviation) states that aviation warning lighting will be provided and that its precise nature will be the subject of further consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority and other relevant stakeholders once the final design is established post-consent.

1.2.8. Lighting will be most visible at night. At 30km distance (the approximate minimum distance between GWF and the Suffolk coastline), the lighting will not cause greater than Negligible effects on coastal or onshore receptors. Effects of lighting on these receptors are not, therefore, assessed.

1.2.9. Whilst the entire wind farm is located offshore, the completed scheme will also require connection to an onshore substation. The assessment of the associated onshore substation is addressed within a separate assessment (Galloper Wind Farm Substation Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment).

2842_SLVIA 3

1.3. The Study Area

1.3.1. It is accepted practice within landscape assessment work that the extent of the study area is broadly defined by the visual envelope or the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) arising from the development site (the area within which it may be possible to see any part of the proposed development).

1.3.2. Within the ZTV, the extent of visibility of a proposed development depends upon a variety of factors including the scale of development, the nature of the receiving environment, the range and distribution of visual receptor groups and the relationship between the viewpoint and the development itself including orientation, distance, local screening and curvature of the earth. It should also take account of the prevailing meteorological and weather conditions / atmospheric refraction available at any one time and the duration (permanency) of the development.

1.3.3. Following initial ZTV studies, a 45km radius study area around the proposed offshore wind farm was identified to cover all the potentially significant seascape and visual impacts. The study area was agreed with Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council and Natural England, as detailed in Section 2.4.

1.3.4. The identified 45km radius study area (shown on Figure 01) embraces a long and varied stretch of coastline, extending from Southwold and the Blythe Estuary to the north, to Felixstowe and the Deben Estuary to the south. Between these points the coastline encompasses Hollesley Bay, Orford Ness and Aldeburgh Bay.

2842_SLVIA 4

2.0 Assessment Methodology

2.1. Seascape and Visual Assessment Methodology

2.1.1. The methodology applied to this assessment follows relevant standards and guidance principally set out in the Maritime Ireland/Wales Interreg 1994 – 1999 Guidance ‘Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment’ (GSA), published in March 2001, as agreed with Natural England (see Section 2.4). This document sets out a clear methodology for undertaking seascape characterisation and for the subsequent evaluation of effects. In addition, the assessment also draws from the more Scotland specific ‘An assessment of the sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish Seascape in relation to wind farms’, (SNH commissioned Report 103, 2005). Other recognised guidance has been used within this assessment, in particular the established Countryside Agency (now Natural England) methodology (Landscape Character Assessment Guidance, 2002), the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) and the Landscape Institute’s (LI) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Effect Assessment, (second edition, 2002); Visual Representation of Wind Farms Best Practice Guidance (SNH 2006, albeit published in 2007), the Guidance on the Assessment of the Effect of Offshore Wind Farms (DTI 2005), and the Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms, (SNH, 2005).

2.1.2. These methodologies aim to systematically appraise the existing landscape/seascape areas in order to identify the significant physical and visual characteristics and to assess their sensitivity to the type of change proposed. This information then provides a baseline against which the key seascape and visual effects can be evaluated and their magnitude and significance assessed in a systematic and consistent fashion. Refer to Appendix 1 for a full summary of the assessment methodology for this report which is derived from the above guidance documents, and also includes the significance matrix.

2.1.3. A nationally applicable Historic Seascape Characterisation (HSC) method was finalised in March 2008 from the England’s Historic Seascapes Programme. The GSA seascape character methodology followed by this assessment is principally based on views and visual aspects which is different to the HSC method. HSC is addressed in the Archaeology Chapter of the GWF ES.

2.2. Cumulative Assessment Methodology

2.2.1. The Landscape Institute’s Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Effect Assessment (2nd edition, 2002) define cumulative landscape (seascape) and visual effects as effects that ‘result from additional changes to the landscape or

2842_SLVIA 5

visual amenity caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other developments (associated with or separate to it), or actions that occurred in the past, present or are likely to occur in the foreseeable future.’

2.2.2. In the specific case of offshore WTGs, cumulative effects are defined as effects ‘which occur, or may occur, as a result of more than one wind farm project being constructed’ (DTI (2005)). This can include existing and consented offshore and onshore wind farm development, and those projects registered within the planning system.

2.2.3. As such, this assessment considers the anticipated cumulative effects of the proposed GWF in conjunction with those wind farm projects consented, built or registered in the planning system within the agreed 45km radius study area.

2.2.4. All operational and consented wind farms within the study area have also been considered as part of the existing landscape resource and visual environment within this assessment.

2.2.5. There are currently three operational offshore wind farms and three consented offshore wind farms located within the study area. These comprise the operational Gunfleet Sands I & II offshore wind farms; the operational offshore wind farm at Thanet; the consented GGOWF; and the consented offshore wind farms at London Array (I and II). In addition, an extension to Gunfleet Sands is in planning and, although it lies outside the study area, it is considered in the cumulative assessment because it forms part of a wind farm that extends into the study area.

2.2.6. The East Anglia Round 3 zone and East Anglia ONE development site also lie within the study area (see Figure 07). These are not yet at the planning application stage but a scoping opinion has been given by the Infrastructure Planning Commission for the East Anglia ONE site. The East Anglia ONE site lies approximately 45km from the coastline and, in accordance with the method in Appendix 1, only those wind farm projects which are within 30 - 35km of a coastal receptor are considered as part of the cumulative assessment on land based or coastal receptors. This is because, beyond these distances, cumulative effects will be Negligible. At this stage there is no detail available regarding turbine numbers, layout or size fro the East Anglia ONE site and it is not possible to include it in a meaningful cumulative assessment. The East Anglia ONE site is, however, discussed in the cumulative SLVIA, based on the assumption that the whole site could potentially be filled with WTGs.

2.2.7. There will be future development within the remainder of the East Anglia Round 3 zone, although no information on future project location or detail is

2842_SLVIA 6

currently available and therefore, whilst there could be cumulative effects, it is not possible to carry out meaningful assessment at this stage. The general potential cumulative effects are, however, discussed in section 8.7.

2.3. Scope of Study

2.3.1. In order to undertake the assessment a number of clear stages were identified and addressed in accordance with the assessment methodology outlined above, including:

 a desktop review of current statutory and non-statutory documents;  a desktop review of existing landscape and seascape characterisation material;  a desktop résumé of the existing meteorological context;  a desktop review of operational, consented and registered wind farm developments in the study area;  a seascape assessment of all areas falling within a 45km radius from the outer extents of the proposed wind farm, including the identification and characterisation of regional seascape units;  the identification of a ZTV for the proposed development at nacelle and blade tip height;  the identification of the range of visual receptor groups within the study area;  the identification and agreement, through consultation, upon the number and location of representative viewpoints within the study area;  the review of the existing representative viewpoints;  the production of computer-generated wireframes and photomontages from the agreed representative viewpoints showing the anticipated view following construction of the proposed wind farm development;  an assessment of the magnitude and significance of effects upon seascape character, areas of designated landscapes and the visual environment arising from the proposed development;  a cumulative assessment setting out separate seascape and visual effects resulting from changes to the seascape and visual amenity caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other existing and consented wind farm developments, and proposed wind farm developments in planning; and

2842_SLVIA 7

 the consideration of any mitigation measures that may be incorporated within the proposals to help reduce identified potential seascape and visual effects.

2.4. Consultation

Consultation with Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council and Natural England regarding scope of SLVIA

2.4.1. Following responses to the initial scoping consultation, undertaken by the client, the following authorities and government bodies were consulted with respect to seascape, landscape and visual issues, including the agreement of a 45km radius around the proposed offshore wind farm, the assessment methodology, the selection of eight representative viewpoints, agreement of two representative viewpoints for the purposes of the cumulative assessment, and the agreement on the identification of the worst-case scenario on which the assessment is based.

2.4.2. In 2009 Suffolk Coastal District Council and Natural England were consulted with regards to an initial proposal for the offshore wind farm. Suffolk Coastal District Council consulted with Suffolk County Council before providing their response. Agreement was reached as follows:

2842_SLVIA 8

Table 2: Consultation with Suffolk Coastal District Council and Natural England in 2009

Consultees Date of Type of Purpose of Consultation Consultation Consultation

Suffolk Coastal 4th November Letter enclosing Seeking agreement District Council 2009 methodology, on study area, (SCDC) viewpoints and ZTV methodology, viewpoints and cumulative sites

21st December Email from SCDC Agreement to the 2009 consultation

Natural England 4th November Letter enclosing Seeking agreement (NE) 2009 methodology, on study area, viewpoints and ZTV methodology, viewpoints and cumulative sites

17th Email from NE Questions November concerning the 2009 above

7th December Email to NE Response to 2009 questions concerning the above

15th December Email from NE Further questions 2009

21st Email to NE Response to December questions 2009 concerning the above

21st Email from NE Agreement to the December consultation 2009

2.4.3. In 2011 the proposals for the wind farm were revised with the potential maximum height of the WTGs to blade tip having increased from 170 to

2842_SLVIA 9

195m. Cumulative developments had also changed since 2009. A new ZTV study was run based on the potential ‘worst case’ development scenario and the following bodies were re-consulted regarding the location and number of representative viewpoints and the cumulative sites to be included within the SLVIA, and the methodology to be followed. Further consultation on these aspects of the LVIA was carried out as follows:

Table 3: Consultation with Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council and Natural England in 2011

Consultees Date of Type of Purpose of Consultation Consultation Consultation

Suffolk Coastal 6th May 2011 Letter sent by email Agreement of District Council enclosing viewpoints and viewpoints, ZTV and cumulative sites cumulative sites

10th May 2011 Letter sent by email Agreement to from SCDC consultation

12th May 2011 Emails from SCDC Clarification of date referred to in letter sent on 10th May 2011. Confirmation of cumulative sites.

Suffolk County 6th May 2011 Letter sent by email Agreement of Council (SCC) enclosing viewpoints and viewpoints, ZTV and cumulative sites cumulative sites

10th May 2011 Letter sent by email Agreement to consultation

12th May 2011 Emails from SCC Clarification of date referred to in letter sent on 10th May 2011. Confirmation of cumulative sites.

2842_SLVIA 10

Consultees Date of Type of Purpose of Consultation Consultation Consultation

Natural England 6th and 9th Letter sent by email Agreement of May 2011 enclosing viewpoints and viewpoints, ZTV and cumulative sites cumulative sites

12th May 2011 Email to NE To agree seascape character assessment method

12th May 2011 Email from NE Agreement on seascape character assessment method

16th May 2011 Email from NE Agreement to consultation

Consultation on Preliminary Environmental Report

2.4.4. A Preliminary Environmental Report (PER) on the offshore and onshore aspects of the project and its likely environmental impacts was published in June 2011, to inform the statutory pre-application consultation under Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008. The aim of the statutory consultation was to inform relevant stakeholders and those with an interest in the application about the project and its impacts, and to receive their comments. The results of the consultation were used to inform the design of the proposals, the Environmental Statement (ES) and those aspects of the project which had yet to be finalised.

2.4.5. No issues were raised by consultees which affect this SLVIA of the offshore components of GWF.

2.5. Field Study

2.5.1. The field survey was originally carried out in January and March 2010 and again in May 2011. The field work involved the verification and identification of landscape character areas and regional seascape units and their sensitivity to the type of change proposed. A visit was also made to each of the eight identified viewpoint locations to:

 record the features and the sensitivity of the receptor at that view; and

2842_SLVIA 11

 establish the potential extent of visibility of the proposed development and verify the extent of the computer generated ZTV to provide a more accurate interpretation of the potential visibility of the development, taking account of factors such as local screening and seasonality.

2.5.2. Field work also included a review of the computer generated wireframes and photomontages on site to assess the baseline conditions in relation to consented wind farms that were currently being constructed and those wind farms which had consent but were not currently under construction.

2842_SLVIA 12

3.0 Landscape and Seascape Policy Context

3.1. Introduction 3.1.1. National and Development Plan policy framework recognises the importance of renewable energy through Planning Policy Statement 22 (August 2004). It encourages the development of renewable energy sources but also states that they need to be without significant adverse or detrimental impact upon the existing landscape resource and visual environment.

3.1.2. The UK Marine Policy Statement (March 2011) states: ‘In considering the impact of an activity or development on seascape, the marine plan authority should take into account existing character and quality, how highly it is valued and its capacity to accommodate change specific to any development. Landscape Character Assessment methodology may be an aid to this process.’ (Paragraph 2.6.5.3.)

3.1.3. In relation to designated landscapes it says: ‘For any development proposed within or relatively close to nationally designated areas (For example Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), National Parks or Heritage coasts) the marine plan authority should have regard to the specific statutory purposes of the designated areas. The design of a development should be taken into account as an aid to mitigation.’ (Paragraph 2.6.5.4.)

3.1.4. In March 2010 the Department for Communities and Local Government published a draft consultation on a new Planning Policy Statement: Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment. Policy NE8: Policy principles guiding the determination of applications in relation to the natural environment states in that ‘Nationally designated areas, comprising National Parks, the Broads and AONBs, have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of these designated areas should be given great weight in planning policies and decisions.’ (paragraph NE8.5)

3.1.5. In July 2011 six National Policy Statements (NPS) for Energy were designated under the Planning Act 2008. The energy NPSs set out national policy against which proposals for major energy projects will be assessed and decided on by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Two are relevant to this Section of the LVIA (EN-1 and EN-3).

3.1.6. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) sets out national policy for the energy infrastructure covered by the NPS in combination with the relevant technology-specific NPS. For this project the relevant technology-specific NPS is National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3).

2842_SLVIA 13

3.1.7. Section 5.9 of EN-1 provides guidance on how landscape and visual effects should be assessed. It refers to relevant guides, policies and procedures that should be followed in an assessment and in the IPC’s decision making.

3.1.8. EN-1 gives guidance on mitigation of landscape and visual effects including reducing the scale of a project:

‘Reducing the scale of a project can help to mitigate the visual and landscape effects of a proposed project. However, reducing the scale or otherwise amending the design of a proposed energy infrastructure project may result in a significant operational constraint and reduction in function – for example, the electricity generation output. There may, however, be exceptional circumstances, where mitigation could have a very significant benefit and warrant a small reduction in function. In these circumstances, the IPC may decide that the benefits of the mitigation to reduce the landscape and/or visual effects outweigh the marginal loss of function.’ (paragraph 5.9.21)

3.1.9. National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) covers the following types of nationally significant renewable energy infrastructure:

 Energy from biomass and/or waste (>50 megawatts (MW))  Offshore wind (>100MW)  Onshore wind (>50MW)

3.1.10. GWF falls into the category of an offshore wind farm >100MW. Section 2.5 of EN-3 gives further guidance on how seascape and visual effects should be assessed for an offshore wind farm >100MW in addition to the generic landscape and visual impacts covered in Section 5.9 of EN-1.

3.1.11. As part of establishing the existing baseline environment the assessment reviewed a range of relevant landscape and seascape policy designations at a national, regional and local level.

3.1.12. The 45km study area includes the following local planning authorities: Suffolk Coastal District Council; Waveney District Council, Barbergh District Council and Tendring District Council. Given that all local planning authorities beyond Suffolk Coastal District Council are located at a considerable distance (30km or greater) from the proposed GWF, there will be no effects upon designations within these local planning authorities. Any landscape and seascape policies relating to these local planning authorities have not, therefore, been included within the assessment.

2842_SLVIA 14

3.2. Landscape Designations

Refer to Figure 01.

3.2.1. In March 2010 Suffolk Coastal District Council adopted its Core Strategy as interim planning policy for determining planning applications. The interim policies do not replace the saved policies from the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan but sit alongside them. There is no specific AONB policy in the adopted Core Strategy.

3.2.2. Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan Policy AP98 Renewable Energy is concerned with renewable energy development and states that particular care will be taken in assessing proposals for developing renewable energy projects within areas of special designations, referring specifically to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Special Landscape Areas (SLA). Whilst the proposed GWF is not located within any special landscape designations, the potential impact on views from landscape designations found within the Suffolk Coastal District is considered as part of this assessment.

3.2.3. The national, regional and locally important landscape/seascape designations falling within the jurisdiction of Suffolk Coastal District Council comprise the following:

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB

3.2.4. The Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB extends from the northern side of the Stour estuary to the south of Ipswich, to Kessingland in the north and covers much of the land between the A12 trunk road and the coast. The landscape is a patchwork of shingle beaches, crumbling cliffs, marshes, estuaries, heathland, forests and farmland. It is deeply indented by the estuaries of the Alde and the Deben and bordered by the cliffs and tidal silts of the North Sea coastline.

3.2.5. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England and Wales are designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, solely on account of their natural beauty, with the aim of conserving and enhancing it. Together with National Parks (and National Scenic Areas in Scotland) and Heritage Coasts, AONBs make up the family of protected landscapes in the UK. The landscapes within these designations are recognised as being of the very highest quality and, as such, they are afforded the highest status of protection from damaging development at all levels of the planning system.

3.2.6. AONBs form part of a world-wide network of 40,000 protected landscapes recognised by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature

2842_SLVIA 15

(IUCN). Broadly of two kinds, there are those where the emphasis is on the protection of the natural world and those where the emphasis is on maintaining a relationship between people and nature. They vary greatly but are categorised by IUCN according to the objectives for which they are managed. The international importance of AONBs is confirmed by their recognition as Category V Protected Landscapes/Seascapes, defined by IUCN as:

‘A protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values.’

3.2.7. At a national level, in 2000, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW Act) confirmed the importance of AONBs in government policy. Part IV of the Act (Sections 84, 85 & 89) introduced important provisions to allow the better management and protection of AONBs. Amongst other things, it reaffirmed the purposes of AONB designation and its equal importance to National Park designation, and confirmed the powers of local authorities to take appropriate action to conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the AONB. It urged local authorities to 'go beyond normal level of service' in the management of the AONB, particularly in countryside management, Rights of Way, planning and other relevant services, and placed a duty on all public bodies and statutory undertakers to ‘have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty’ (S85).

3.2.8. The AONB also incorporates Orford Ness National Nature Reserve, the largest vegetated shingle spit in Europe, numerous Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Suffolk Heritage Coast.

3.2.9. The Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB is afforded protection under Policy AP12 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (Adopted 2006). This policy seeks to protect the rich mixture of unique lowland landscapes of heathland, saltmarsh and mudflats within the AONB designation, all of which are under pressure for change.

Landscape Sensitivity to Change

3.2.10. Given the recognised value, open character and the unique nature of the lowland landscapes within the AONB, and its proximity to the sea, the sensitivity of this designated landscape to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm is considered to be High, in accordance with the methodology in Appendix 1.

2842_SLVIA 16

Suffolk Heritage Coast

3.2.11. The Suffolk Heritage Coast is a designated area of coastline located within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and extending offshore by approximately 2km, covering the Suffolk Coast between Kessingland and Felixstowe. The designation of this narrow coastal strip recognises the local importance of its high scenic quality and its largely unspoilt nature and the need for these assets to be safeguarded.

3.2.12. The Suffolk Heritage Coast is made up of low marshes and reed beds interspersed with beaches of sand and shingle. Martello Towers were built along the coast for defensive purposes during the Napoleonic era and form distinct features along the coastline. Long estuaries serve to keep the major roads well inland, and there are relatively few large settlements. The main settlements found in the Suffolk Heritage Coast within the confines of the study area are Southwold, Aldeburgh and Orford.

3.2.13. There is no specific policy for the Suffolk Heritage Coast designation listed in the adopted Suffolk Coastal Local Plan.

Landscape Sensitivity to Change

3.2.14. Given the local importance of its high scenic quality and its largely unspoilt nature, and that it extends offshore, the sensitivity of the Suffolk Heritage Coast to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm is considered to be High-Medium, in accordance with the methodology in Appendix 1. Heritage coasts, although nationally designated, are protected only via local plan policy.

Special Landscape Areas

3.2.15. The Special Landscape Areas are afforded protection in the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan under Policy AP13 which states:

‘The valleys and tributaries of the Rivers Alde, Blyth, Deben, Fynn, Hundred, Mill, Minsmere, Ore and Yox, and the Parks and Gardens of Historic or Landscape Interest are designated as Special Landscape Areas and shown on the Proposals Map. The District Council will ensure that no development will take place which would be to the material detriment of, or materially detract from, the special landscape quality.’

3.2.16. There are eight Special Landscape Areas located within the study area, including areas covering the valleys and tributaries of the River Alde, River Blyth, River Deben, River Hundred and River Minsmere and also the

2842_SLVIA 17

Registered Historic Parks and Gardens of Glemham Hall and Campsey Ashe Park.

Sensitivity to Change

3.2.17. Given that the Special Landscape Areas within the study area are inland and do not have extensive seaward views, their sensitivity to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is considered to be Low, in accordance with the methodology in Appendix 1.

3.3. Historic Environment

3.3.1. This assessment only assesses the broad effects on views from Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas. The scope of this assessment does not cover the effects on the settings of the proposed development on cultural heritage elements individual Conservation Areas and other historic built features or their settings - these areas are discussed in the Archaeological Chapter 16.

Registered Historic Parks and Gardens

3.3.2. There are a total of four Registered Historic Parks & Gardens lying within the study area. The nearest of these is the Grade II Registered Park and Garden of Bawdsey Manor, lying at a minimum distance of 39.7km west of the nearest WTG location. The other Registered Historic Parks and Gardens lying within the study area comprise; Campsey Ashe Park (Grade II*), lying at a minimum distance of 42.7km to the northwest of the nearest WTG; Cliff Gardens and Town Hall Garden in Felixstowe (Grade II), lying 43.2km to the west of the nearest WTG; and Glemham Hall (Grade II), lying 43.2km to the northwest of the nearest WTG.

Scheduled Monuments

3.3.3. There are a total of 48 Scheduled Monuments located within the study area. The nearest of these Scheduled Monuments is the Slaughden Martello Tower located approximately 30.8km west of the nearest WTG location.

Listed Buildings

3.3.4. The nearest Listed Building to the proposed offshore wind farm is a lighthouse on Orford Ness located at a distance of 29.8km northwest of the nearest WTG. Other notable Listed Buildings on the coastline include the Slaughton Martello Tower, situated 30.8km to the west of the nearest WTG.

2842_SLVIA 18

Conservation Areas

3.3.5. There are a total of 19 Conservation Areas lying within the study area, sixteen of which are located within Suffolk Coastal District Council. The closest Conservation Area to the proposed development is Aldeburgh Conservation Area which lies 31.7km northwest of the nearest WTG location.

3.4. Public Rights of Way

3.4.1. There is an extensive public right of way network extending through the onshore coastal areas within the study area. Forming part of this network, and of particular note, is the Suffolk Coast Path; a long distance route extending 50 miles between Lowestoft and Felixstowe at varying distances from the coastline, between 0km-7.6km.

Sensitivity to Change

3.4.2. It is considered that the sensitivity of the users of the public rights of way network and of the users of the Suffolk Coast Path to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is High, in accordance with the methodology in Appendix 1.

Table 4: Landscape Designations and the Historic Environment taken forward for assessment

Landscape Distance from Sensitivity to type of

Designations the nearest change

WTG

Suffolk Coast AONB 29.5km High

Suffolk Heritage Coast 28.9km High-Medium

Special Landscape Areas 34.8km Low

2842_SLVIA 19

4.0 Landscape and Seascape Character

4.1. Introduction

4.1.1. The identified study area embraces a long, varied and indented stretch of coastline, extending from the Blythe Estuary to the north, southwards to the Alde and Deben Estuaries and beyond to the Naze in the south. Whilst considerable areas exhibit a natural, undeveloped character, there are areas of urban development dotted along the coast, including Southwold, Thorpeness and Aldeburgh along the northern extents of the coast and the docks at Felixstowe to the south.

4.1.2. In assessing the sensitivity of this varied coastline to the proposed changes of the offshore wind farm, due consideration has been given to the existing landscape and seascape character to be found within the study area.

4.2. Landscape Character

Refer to Figure 02.

4.2.1. In reviewing the character of the existing landscape environment due consideration has been given to landscape character assessments that have been completed at the national and local level.

4.2.2. National Character Areas, as described by the Countryside Character Initiative (CCI) and Natural England's Landscape Character Assessment, provide the broader framework to determine the character of the British countryside at a national level. Within the CCI Character Map, at a national level, the majority of the study area can be seen to lie within the bounds of Character Area 82, Suffolk Coast and Heaths.

4.2.3. At the local level, Suffolk County Council published the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment in 2008 which describes the landscape character types that can be found within the county. It was updated in 2010.

4.2.4. Landscape character types at an approximate distance of 40km or greater from the proposed development are considered to be at such a distance that the change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, will not cause any effects. Descriptions and assessment for landscape character types lying beyond 40km have not, therefore, been included within the assessment even where they lie within the 45km study area.

4.2.5. The landscape character types identified by this assessment lying within 40km of the proposed development are as follows:

 Ancient Estate Claylands;

2842_SLVIA 20

 Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges;  Coastal Levels;  Estate Sandlands;  Open Coastal Fens;  Plateau Estate Farmlands;  Rolling Estate Claylands;  Rolling Estate Sandlands;  Saltmarsh Intertidal Flats;  Valley Meadowlands; and  Valley Meadows & Fens.

4.2.6. The key characteristics of landscape character types found within a 40km radius of the proposed development are as follows:

Ancient Estate Claylands

4.2.7. Key characteristics of the Ancient Estate Claylands include a dissected Boulder Clay plateau with areas of ancient semi-natural woodland. There is an organic pattern of field enclosure with the exception of fields under the influence of estate management which often have straight boundaries. Notable landscape features include enclosed former greens and commons and a number of parklands and WWII Airfields. Settlement includes a series of villages, dispersed hamlets and farmsteads and a number of timber framed buildings and distinctive estate cottages found in clusters within the landscape.

4.2.8. This landscape character type lies at a distance of 36.3km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.9. This landscape character type has been subject to considerable change associated with the A12 trunk road and suburbanisation is evident within the rural landscape. Industrial-scale agricultural buildings have affected the landscape where their development has not been adequately screened. Elsewhere, however, the rural qualities of the landscape remain largely intact.

4.2.10. Whilst the woodland and boundary vegetation serve to moderate the potential sensitivity of this landscape character type, the historic nature of many features and characteristics of this landscape increases its sensitivity to

2842_SLVIA 21

the type of change proposed. However, views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of the Ancient Estate Claylands to the type of change proposed by the proposed offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Low.

Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges

4.2.11. This landscape character type is characterised by a flat or gently rolling landform of sand or shingle colonised by low-lying, fragile forms of vegetation. This results in an open, uncluttered and vast landscape where occasional large buildings, fishing huts and boats gain visual prominence in the landscape. There are structures and activities associated with tourism present in the landscape, such as beach huts and piers.

4.2.12. This landscape character type lies at a distance of 29.4km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.13. This is a highly dynamic and fragile landscape character type whose ongoing maintenance has been compromised by coastal development.

4.2.14. The uncluttered, low-lying nature of this landscape type increases its sensitivity to the type of change proposed by the development. The structures and activities associated with tourism, however, go some way to moderate this sensitivity. In relation to Landscape Sensitivity and Change, the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment says:

4.2.15. The views, both out to sea and often inland, are open and occasionally desolate.

‘The landscape type is by nature narrow, but it is open to views both in and out. It is therefore profoundly affected by changes in the adjacent landscapes and seascapes. The characteristic qualities of openness, wildness and isolation found in much of this landscape are dependent, to a great extent, on the condition and character of the land that frames it.’

4.2.16. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of this landscape character type to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is High-Medium.

2842_SLVIA 22

Coastal Levels

4.2.17. The key characteristics of this landscape character type include areas of low- lying, flat marshland adjacent to the coast or estuaries comprising marine alluvium soils. The landscape is incised with both sinuous and complex medieval dyke networks as well as 19th Century uniform dyke networks. There are some areas of cattle grazed wet grassland as well as widespread modifications for arable production. The rising ground on the inland side is often wooded and small plantations and woodland are common. Despite this containment, however, the views are generally open and wide, invoking a profound sense of exposure. This landscape type is largely unsettled, with views towards domestic buildings on the fringes and derelict wind pumps forming notable features. This landscape character type lies at a distance of 29.9km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.18. Many areas of marshland and wet grassland have been converted to arable production within this landscape character type. Elsewhere, smaller units of the Coastal Levels are influenced by the features of the landscape that surrounds them. There are some areas, however, that remain in excellent condition.

4.2.19. The low-lying, open character of this landscape character type increases its sensitivity to the type of change proposed. The diversity of land-uses and the complexity of the landscape structure, however, combine with the screening effects of vegetation to moderate this sensitivity. However, views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of this landscape character type to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Low.

Estate Sandlands

4.2.20. The Estate Sandlands landscape character type comprises a flat, or very gently rolling, plateaux of freely-draining sandy soils, overlying drift deposits of either glacial or fluvial origin. There are extensive areas of heathland and acid grassland and a distinct absence of watercourses. The landscape is strongly structured by geometric fields enclosed in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Large continuous blocks of commercial forestry combine with the widespread planting of tree belts and occasional isolated pockets of ancient woodland to give a wooded feel to the landscape. The wooded horizon lines, however, often give way to long and distant views. There is a high incidence

2842_SLVIA 23

of relatively late, estate type, brick buildings as well as buildings with slate roofs built with white or yellow bricks. Flint is also widely used in as a walling material. On the coast, red brick buildings with pan-tiled roofs, often black-glazed, are commonly found.

4.2.21. This landscape character type lies at a distance of 32.4km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.22. Many areas of the Estate Sandlands have lost much of their rural character due to the steady pressure of suburbanisation and tourism-related development. High-tech modern farming and forestry also tend to dominate in certain areas. Sizewell Power Station and lines of pylons and overhead wires also lie in this character type.

4.2.23. The visual enclosure afforded by the woodland vegetation and landform combine with the strong landscape structure and existing development to moderate the sensitivity of this landscape character type to the type of change proposed by the development. The frequency of long distance views, however, increases its sensitivity. However, views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. The sensitivity of this landscape character type to the type of change proposed by offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Low.

Open Coastal Fens

4.2.24. The Open Coastal Fens landscape character type comprises a flat landscape of peaty soils, fringed with wet woodland on the inland side with rising ground visible beyond this. There are areas of wet grazing marsh and reedbeds and the landscape is managed to promote wildlife conservation. Views are generally limited to within the landscape character type where wind pumps form prominent vertical features.

4.2.25. This landscape character type lies at a distance of 39.7km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.26. This is a highly dynamic landscape subject to ongoing change affected by the reclamation of salt marshes by farmers; the restoration of freshwater marsh habitats by naturalists; and unexpected incursions into the area by the sea.

2842_SLVIA 24

Beyond the ongoing tension between these conflicting forces for change, there are few significant detractors impinging on the landscape.

4.2.27. The relatively undisturbed, natural and isolated character of this landscape increases its sensitivity towards the type of change proposed by the development. The limited nature of views beyond the landscape character type, however, goes some way to moderating its sensitivity. However, views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. The sensitivity of this landscape character type to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Low.

Plateau Estate Farmlands

4.2.28. This landscape character type includes a flat topography of light loams and sandy soils with a large-scale rectilinear field pattern structuring the landscape. This structure is augmented by a network of tree belts and coverts as well as large areas of enclosed former heathland. Notable landscape features include a number of 18th, 19th and 20th century landscape parks and several former airfields. The settlement pattern is characterised by clustered villages with a scattering of farmsteads around them. The vernacular architecture is often a 19th century estate-type brick and tile.

4.2.29. This landscape character type lies at a minimum distance of 38.8km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.30. The condition and intactness of this landscape character type has been affected by development associated with the A14 and A12 trunk roads. In the wider landscape, many hedges are in poor condition and the characteristic pattern of fields, hedges and woodland coverts has been lost in parts through 20th century agricultural improvements.

4.2.31. The visual enclosure afforded by woodland and boundary vegetation combines with the strong landscape structure to moderate the sensitivity of this landscape character type. Views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. The sensitivity of this landscape character type to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Low.

2842_SLVIA 25

Rolling Estate Claylands

4.2.32. The Rolling Estate Claylands landscape character type comprises a series of gently sloping valley sides and plateau fringes. Land-use is characterised by an organic field pattern, modified by later realignment, as well as a number of coverts and plantations and some pockets of ancient woodland. There are also several landscape parks with a core of wood pasture. Minerals workings and related activity can also be found within this landscape character type, most notably in the Gipping valley.

4.2.33. This landscape character type lies at a minimum distance of 37.6km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.34. The quality of this landscape character type is very variable and is often influenced by major transport routes and the presence of large settlements.

4.2.35. The containment of woodland vegetation and the enclosure of sloping landform combine with existing areas of disturbed landscape to moderate the potential sensitivity of this landscape character type. A number of historic landscape features increase its sensitivity to the type of change proposed. However, views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. It is, therefore, considered that the sensitivity of this landscape character type to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Low.

Rolling Estate Sandlands

4.2.36. The Rolling Estate Sandlands landscape character type includes a series of sloping or rolling river terraces and coastal slopes, with areas of sandy, free draining soils and areas of heathland. The landscape structure is influenced by late enclosure, as evidenced by a pattern of tree belts and straight hedges. There are also numerous plantations scattered throughout the landscape. A number of parklands form notable features in the landscape, as do occasional and significant semi-natural woodlands and ribbons of wet woodland. There is a focus of settlement, with 19th century red brick buildings, with black glazed pan tiles, often found in the east and the buildings in the Lark valley commonly being built with brick or flint with tiled or slate roofs. The views within the landscape are short and confined. The combination of the above elements results in a complex and intimate character to the landscape, particularly on the valley sides.

2842_SLVIA 26

4.2.37. This landscape character type lies at a minimum distance of 31.6km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.38. Many of the valley-side landscapes are under considerable development pressure associated with the settlements within this landscape character type. There are, however, some excellent areas of semi-natural and intact landscapes.

4.2.39. The relative containment of views, the greater prevalence of settlement and the complexity of elements within the landscape character type combine to moderate its sensitivity to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm. Views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. The sensitivity of the Rolling Estate Sandlands landscape character type to the type of change proposed and outwith its area, is Low.

Saltmarsh & Intertidal Flats

4.2.40. The Saltmarsh and Intertidal Flats landscape character type is an unsettled landscape of wild unimproved land with a powerful sense of isolation and wilderness. Its geology comprises marine alluvium with some outcrops of clay forming mud flats, and there are also a few small areas in the form of saltmarsh. This landscape type is integral to the setting of some notable landscape features and is currently experiencing coastal squeeze and erosion.

4.2.41. This landscape character type lies at a minimum distance of 29.4km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.42. The condition of this landscape character type is currently compromised by the coastal squeeze it is experiencing and associated erosion.

4.2.43. The unsettled character of this landscape combines with its sense of wilderness and isolation to increase its sensitivity. However, views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of this landscape character type to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Low.

2842_SLVIA 27

Valley Meadowlands

4.2.44. The Valley Meadowlands landscape character type comprises a series of flat landscapes of alluvium or peat extending along valley floors. It is a generally unsettled landscape and includes a combination of cattle grazed fields and fields converted to arable production. The grassland areas are divided by a network of wet ditches. There are also occasional occurrences of small reedbeds, areas of carr woodland and plantations of poplar.

4.2.45. This landscape character type lies at a minimum distance of 35.1km from the nearest WTG.

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.46. Whilst some areas are in excellent condition, other areas are affected by arable production, horse grazing and under grazing. The rural qualities of this landscape are also impinged upon in places by the development of the adjacent rolling valley landscapes.

4.2.47. The unsettled, pastoral character of this landscape character type increases its sensitivity to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm. The containment of adjacent valley slopes, however, combines with boundary, woodland and plantation vegetation to limit views into the wider landscape beyond it. Views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of the Valley Meadowlands to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Low.

Valley Meadows and Fens

4.2.48. The key characteristics of the Valley Meadow and Fens landscape character type include flat, narrow, river valley bottoms comprised of deep peat or mixtures of peat and sandy deposits. There are ancient meres within the valley bottoms as well as important fen sites. Elsewhere, there are small grassland fields bounded by dykes, running at right angles to the main river. There are also sparse scatterings of small alder carr and plantation woodlands. Cattle-grazing is often peripheral to commercial agriculture, with drier fields turned over to the production of arable crops. This landscape character type forms part of a wider estate type landscape and is largely unsettled, except for the occasional farmstead.

4.2.49. This landscape character type lies at a minimum distance of 38.4km from the nearest WTG.

2842_SLVIA 28

Sensitivity to Change

4.2.50. Some parts of this landscape are in good condition, maintained by the ongoing traditional management of the land through cattle grazing. Elsewhere, however, there is evidence of neglect and poor management, with many peripheral fields being lost to scrub encroachment, tree planting and horse paddocks.

4.2.51. The generally unsettled character of this landscape character type combines with its ancient and estate related characteristics to increase its sensitivity to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm. The containment provided by adjacent valley slopes, however, combines with woodland and plantation vegetation to limit views into the wider landscape. Views of the sea or the role of the sea in forming part of the setting of the landscape character type are not referred to in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment description, and it is not described as being sensitive to offshore development. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of this landscape character type to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Low.

4.2.52. The proposed WTGs are not likely to be visible from LCTs Ancient Estate Claylands, Open Coastal Fens, Plateau Estate Farmlands, Rolling Estate Claylands, Saltmarsh Intertidal Flats, Valley Meadowlands, and Valley Meadows & Fens, as discussed in Section 6.4. Full descriptions of the landscape character types from which the WTGs might be visible (Coastal Dunes & Shingle Ridges, Coastal Levels, Estate Sandlands and Rolling Estate Sandlands) can be found in Appendix 2.

Table 5: Landscape Character Types Taken Forward for Assessment

Landscape Character Distance from Sensitivity to type of the nearest change WTG

Ancient Estate Claylands 36.3km Low

Coastal Dunes & Shingle 29.4km High-Medium Ridges

Coastal Levels 29.9km Low

Estate Sandlands 32.4km Low

Open Coastal Fens 39.7km Low

2842_SLVIA 29

Landscape Character Distance from Sensitivity to type of the nearest change WTG

Plateau Estate Farmlands 38.8km Low

Rolling Estate Claylands 37.6km Low

Rolling Estate Sandlands 31.6km Low

Saltmarsh Intertidal Flats 29.4km Low

Valley Meadowlands 35.1km Low

Valley Meadows & Fens 38.4km Low

4.3. Seascape Characterisation

Refer to Figure 03.

Introduction

4.3.1. Whilst the above landscape character types provide useful baseline detail, the information is insufficient to appraise the character of the seascape within the study area, as the landscape character assessment does not include coverage of the adjoining sea and/or coastal edge/coastline.

4.3.2. The Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment (GSA) proposes that the first stage in seascape assessment is the identification of a national seascape unit, this being defined as an 'extensive section of the coast with an overriding defining characteristic such as coastal orientation or landform defined by major headlands of national significance'. The national seascape units applying to the study area are outline below.

National Seascape Unit

4.3.3. The GSA proposes that eleven coastal management units (CMU) could form a basis for national seascape units. The proposed GWF is situated towards the southern extents of CMU 3 which runs from the Wash to the Thames Estuary, but the southern part of the study area extends into CMU 4.

Regional Seascape Units

4.3.4. The GSA states that seascape characterisation at the regional level is the most appropriate scale at which to provide a robust baseline from which to assess

2842_SLVIA 30

seascape and visual effects of proposed offshore wind farms. Regional seascape units are subdivisions of national seascape units as defined by regional headlands, island or coastal features where the determining factors are view sheds. ‘A view shed is simply an area of sea and land where the different parts are visible one from the other. These parts can also be described as being inter-visible.’ (GSA section 4.1)

4.3.5. As previously stated three regional seascape units were identified within the study area for the SLVIA for the GGOWF as follows:

 Aldeburgh Bay Regional Seascape Unit;  Hollesley Bay Regional Seascape Unit; and  Felixstowe/Deben Estuary Regional Seascape Unit.

4.3.6. Due to the extended study area of 45km proposed within this assessment, supplementary information on regional seascape units has been obtained through additional desktop and field study work. These additional regional seascape units are:

 Walberswick to Thorpeness Regional Seascape Unit; and  Stour and Orwell Estuaries Regional Seascape Unit.

4.3.7. Regional seascape units at an approximate distance of 40km or greater from the proposed development are considered to be at such a distance that the change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, will not cause any effects. Descriptions and assessment for regional seascape units lying beyond 40km have not, therefore, been included within the assessment even where they lie within the 45km study area.

4.3.8. In order to assess these additional regional seascape units, a number of key elements have been identified and defined in line with the guidance. These key elements include: a description of the marine, coastal and hinterland components of each seascape unit; consideration of views from land to sea and views along the coastline visible from within each unit; and an assessment of the perceptual qualities that characterise each of the seascape units.

4.3.9. The regional seascape units considered in this assessment are identified on Figure 03 and described in further detail below:

2842_SLVIA 31

Walberswick to Thorpeness Regional Seascape Unit

Seascape Unit Boundaries

4.3.10. This regional seascape unit comprises an eastward facing, concave shoreline, extending approximately 15km between Walberswick and Thorpe Ness and defined by the headland of Thorpe Ness and by the estuary mouth of the River Blythe at Walberswick.

Marine, Coastal & Hinterland Components

4.3.11. The coastal edge within the seascape unit is characterised by a gently curving continuous beach of sand and shingle. In the central portion of the seascape unit, the beach is backed by the Dunwich and Minsmere Cliffs, a series of heath-topped, shallow sandstone and mudstone cliffs extending to the north and south of Dunwich Heath. Elsewhere, the beach is commonly edged with stretches of marram-grass tufted sand dunes. The coastal zone also includes extensive areas of marshland and mudflat habitats. Built structures within the coastal zone are largely limited to a series of wooden bridges and retaining structures associated with dykes and drainage channels in marshland areas and a limited number of larger-scale concrete sea defence structures. There are also clusters of stained-timber fishing huts located along the edge of the dunes. The larger inland hinterland beyond the marshland habitats is characterised by a series of elevated eastward-facing wooded slopes. Settlement within the seascape unit is limited to the small villages of Dunwich and Walberswick and a few isolated cottages scattered intermittently along the cliff tops to the north and south of Dunwich Heath. Sizewell power station is situated immediately adjacent to the coast in the south of the seascape unit. The power station infrastructure includes a series of large-scale buildings, two offshore platforms and a series of pylons extending inland from the power station. These structures are industrial in character and scale and have a dominant presence in the wider seascape environment.

Inter-visibility

4.3.12. The visibility splays at the edge of this unit are defined and limited by the headlands forming the boundaries of the seascape unit, with Thorpe Ness containing views along the coast to the south and the estuary mouth of the River Blythe at Walberwick containing views along the coast to the north. The church tower and a number of other tall buildings associated with the settlement of Walberswick are prominent in views north along the coastline within the seascape unit. Southward views along the coast tend to be

2842_SLVIA 32

dominated by the buildings and infrastructure associated with Sizewell power station, although the Minsmere and Dunwich cliffs partially screen views towards the power station in places. Views towards inland features and promontories beyond the seascape unit are largely limited by the headlands forming the boundaries of the unit, even when visibility is good. When visibility is very good, however, there will be very distant seaward views from some areas of coastline towards the WTGs of GGOWF, lying approximately 31km out to sea in a south easterly direction.

Perceptual Qualities

4.3.13. The seascape unit is characterised by the gently curving lines and forms that structure and enclose the coastal edge. Whilst there are extensive views eastwards out to sea, there is limited visibility beyond the headlands at Walberswick and Thorpeness to the north and south. This limited distant visibility along the coast combines with the enclosure of the Minsmere and Dunwich cliffs to result in a relatively intimate and contained character along some stretches of the coastline. This sense of partial enclosure contrasts strongly with the more open, large-scale character of the inland marsh areas and the exposed character of the cliff tops around Dunwich Heath. The juxtaposition of the dunes, marshes, cliff-top heaths and the wooded hinterland results in a vibrant array of contrasting natural colours and textures. The extensive areas of marshland also combine with the areas of woodland and heath to keep major roads and settlement at a distance from the coast edge, which instils a strong sense of remoteness and wilderness in places. Sizewell power station acts as a strong focal point in many of the views available along the coastline and its dominating presence within the seascape forms a striking contrast to the adjacent tracts of naturalistic marshland and heath habitats.

Existing Sensitivity to Change

4.3.14. The seascape environment appears to be well maintained and is generally intact. The unit is characterised by an unusual and distinctive combination of habitats and features and, with the notable exception of Sizewell power station, is largely free of significant detractors.

4.3.15. The sense of remoteness and wilderness combines with the partial enclosure of sea views in lower lying areas along the beach to increase the seascape unit's sensitivity to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm. The existing contrast between the Sizewell power station and the adjacent matrix of natural habitats, however, combines with the very distant views that will be sometimes seen towards GGOWF to moderate this sensitivity. The sensitivity of the Walberswick to Thorpeness regional seascape unit to the type of change proposed is considered, therefore, to be High-Medium.

2842_SLVIA 33

Aldeburgh Bay Regional Seascape Unit

Seascape Unit Boundaries

4.3.16. Thorpe Ness provides the northern extent of the Aldeburgh Bay regional seascape unit and Orford Ness provides the southern extent. These are clearly evident as the main regional headlands which define Aldeburgh Bay.

Marine, Coastal & Hinterland Components

4.3.17. The marine component of the seascape unit is derived from the relatively narrow intertidal zone along the northern part of the shingle landform of Orford Ness, and the shingle beach between Aldeburgh and Thorpeness. Much of the coastal edge is formed by the shingle spit of Orford Ness which is one of the most dynamic landforms on the UK coastline. The small seaside town of Aldeburgh lies at the northern parts of the seascape unit. It is a popular destination for holiday-makers with tourist facilities, hotels and restaurants lining the sea front and High Street.

4.3.18. South of Aldeburgh, the inland landscape is characterised by low-lying, gently rolling coastal farmland with settlement limited to a few scattered, isolated farms. The coastline south of Aldeburgh has strong associations with the region's military and defensive history. The most significant defensive structure is the great Martello Tower located on the southern edge of Aldeburgh, which is the most northerly of the east coast towers built to guard against potential Napoleonic invasion. Another notable defensive structure is the huge, grey, steel structure north of Orford Ness which once housed a top secret Anglo-American radar project. This imposing building, and the associated radio masts sited adjacent to it across the Lantern Marshes, is now used as a BBC World Service transmitting station.

Inter-visibility

4.3.19. The visibility splays at the edge of this unit are defined and limited by the headlands forming the boundaries of the seascape unit, with Thorpe Ness containing views along the coast to the north and Orford Ness containing views south. Extensive sea views between Orford Ness and Aldeburgh can be seen from the shingle spit of Orford Ness and also from Lantern Marshes. Views toward the sea from the west of the Rivers Alde and Ore are limited by the shingle spit at Ordord Ness, which rises above sea level. Within the town of Aldeburgh, views towards the sea are largely limited to the sea front, although there are distant sea views available slightly further inland between Aldeburgh and Thorpeness and also to the south of Aldeburgh from more elevated, eastern facing areas of the coastal farmland. Notable features and structures lying beyond the Aldeburth Bay regional seascape unit that are

2842_SLVIA 34

visible from within it when visibility is good include the infrastructure and buildings associated with Sizewell power station to the north, as described in the Walberswick to Thorpeness seascape unit. When visibility is good, there will also be distant seaward views to the southeast towards the WTGs of GGOWF. There may also be very distant seaward views towards the WTGs of the London Array wind farms and the Gunfleet Sands wind farms in views along the coastline to the south on occasions when seaward visibility is excellent.

Perceptual Qualities

4.3.20. The seascape unit is defined by a series of contrasts in scale and features. The seascape is a simple composition of elements, consisting mainly of shingle, sea and sky. The coastal edge and shingle spit create a regular landscape pattern, defined by a harmonious combination of straight and gently curving lines animated with a changeable palette of colours. The seascape is predominantly horizontal in form, with vast horizons and a general lack of vertical forms, although the radio masts at Lantern Marshes and the occasional distant views towards offshore WTGs form notable exceptions. The seascape has an exposed, isolated and wild character along Orford Ness spit to the south of the unit. Elsewhere, in the north of the seascape unit around Aldeburgh and Thorpeness, however, the character of the seascape can be intimate, welcoming and busy.

Existing Seascape Sensitivity to Change

4.3.21. The components that form and characterise this seascape unit are generally intact and well-maintained. Whist there are a number of existing detractors evident within and visible from the coast line, the simple composition of the seascape and the vastness of the available horizon line combine to moderate the impact of these detractors on the seascape quality .

4.3.22. The overall simple and harmonious character of the seascape environment increases the unit's sensitivity to the proposed change of the offshore wind farm. The presence of existing vertical structures in the landscape, however, goes some way to moderating the sensitivity of the seascape unit. It is, therefore, considered that the sensitivity of this seascape unit to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is High- Medium.

2842_SLVIA 35

Hollesley Bay Regional Seascape Unit

Seascape Unit Boundaries

4.3.23. Orford Ness provides the northern extent of the Hollesley Bay regional seascape unit, and the headland at East Lane near Bawdsey provides the southern extent. These are clearly evident as the main regional headlands which define Hollesley Bay. The River Ore and Alde and Lavergate Island are included within the seascape unit given their close link with the sea.

Marine, Coastal & Hinterland Components

4.3.24. The marine character of the seascape unit is derived from the relatively narrow intertidal zone along the shingle landform of Orford Ness. Much of the coastal edge itself is formed by the low lying shingle spit at Orford Ness. The spit is actively moving, through continual erosion and deposition of shingle. The southern end of the spit varies rapidly in shape, with new shingle appearing or being washed on shore at Shingle Street, with material being retained within the banks of Orford Haven and Hollesley Bay. There are very few physical features at the coastal edge, which is generally defined by shingle and open sea. There are, however, a number of prominent, derelict military and maritime defence structures and buildings set back from the coast edge on the shingle beach south of Orford Ness lighthouse. There is also a string of residential properties at Shingle Street and a series of Martello Towers scattered along the coast further to the south. Beyond the shingle spit, the coastal zone includes a matrix of 'land' and 'sea' elements, including sandy fields, areas of woodland and heath, grazing marshes, reedbeds, shingle structures, trapped lagoons, mudflats and areas of saltmarsh associated with river estuaries. The further inland, the hinterland is formed by a flat, gently rolling landform, consisting mainly of meadow and marsh, with tracts of enclosed farmland associated with river floodplains and coastal grazing marsh. It is a generally an open and treeless landscape, usually uncultivated, with tracts of open land. In the hinterland, settlement is generally limited, with the exception of the village of Orford to the west of Orford Ness.

Inter-visibility

4.3.25. The visibility splays at the edge of this unit are defined by headlands forming the unit boundaries, with Orford Ness containing views north along the coast and the headland at East Lane containing views south. Extensive, panoramic, long distance sea views between Orford Ness and the Deben Estuary to the south are mainly offered from the Shingle spit of Orford Ness. Views from the low lying marsh areas to the west of the River Alde and River Ore are limited by the spit, which rises above sea level. Notable features and structures lying beyond the Hollesley Bay regional seascape unit that are

2842_SLVIA 36

visible from within it include the Martello Tower south of Aldeburgh and the Lantern Marshes transmitting station and radio masts, as described in the Aldeburgh Bay seascape unit. When visibility is good, distant views along the coast to the south as far as the Naze can be seen from within the unit and the WTGs of GGOWF are sometimes be visible in seaward views to the east and southeast. On the occasions when excellent seaward visibility conditions prevail, there are also very distant views southwards towards the WTGs of the London Array and Gunfleet Sands wind farms.

Perceptual Qualities

4.3.26. It is a seascape of striking character, with its sheer vastness of scale being perhaps its most notable feature. It has a simple composition of elements, consisting mainly of shingle, sea and sky and is defined by a relatively straight coastal geometry formed by the linear shingle structure of Orford Ness. The seascape unit is characterised by series of contrasts: the man-made versus the natural; hard forms versus soft forms; past activity compared to the present stillness; and, most significantly, the timeless natural processes contrasting with transitory man-made dereliction. Although Orford Ness can be divided into a number of areas with their own particular characteristics, the dominant impression of the overall area is one of great solitude. Much of the seascape unit could be described as wilderness, characterised by a feeling of isolation and loneliness, with a heightened sense of being exposed to the elements.

Existing Seascape Sensitivity to Change

4.3.27. The components of this seascape remain largely intact and are generally well- maintained. The arrangement of contrasting elements, features and processes within the vast setting of the coastal zone means that this seascape is characterised by a very distinctive and rare set of qualities.

4.3.28. The wilderness character of the seascape environment and the simple composition of its constituent elements combine to increase the unit's sensitivity to the proposed change of the offshore wind farm. Views toward a number of notable vertical structures in the landscape, however, and the existing contrast between natural and manmade features within the seascape, go some way in moderating its sensitivity. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of this seascape unit to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is High-Medium.

2842_SLVIA 37

Felixstowe/Deben Estuary Regional Seascape Unit

Seascape Unit Boundaries

4.3.29. The headland at East Lane near Bawdsey provides the northern extent of the Felixstowe regional seascape unit, and Landguard point provides the southern extent. These are clearly evident as the main regional headlands which define the Felixstowe / Deben Estuary regional seascape unit.

Marine, Coastal & Hinterland Components

4.3.30. The marine character of the seascape unit is strongly influenced by heavy commercial and ferry passenger shipping traffic bound for Felixstowe and Harwich. The coastal character of this seascape unit is derived from two main influences: the settlement of Felixstowe to the south; and the less developed area at the mouth of the Deben Estuary to the north. Felixstowe is Britain's biggest and busiest container terminal and the southern extent of the seascape unit is characterised by widespread urban and industrial development along an engineered coastal edge with large cranes and floodlights at Felixstowe docks forming prominent vertical features within the seascape. In contrast, the Deben estuary forms a natural inlet between Old Felixstowe and the headland at East Lane. Much of the land next to the estuary has been reclaimed with flood embankments and the estuary and reclaimed floodplains support numerous features of nature conservation interest as well as activities associated with tourism, recreation and agriculture. Between the Deben Estuary and Felixstowe, natural physical features tend to be limited with man-made jetties, pipes, groynes, sea defences and piers predominating. To the south of Felixstowe lies Landguard Point, a windswept, shingle spit sandwiched between the North Sea and the multitude of multi-coloured containers stacked in dockside parks. It is Suffolk's southernmost point and is a popular visitor destination. The hinterland of the seascape unit is formed mainly by the open, gently rolling land of the River Deben Marshes, containing meadow and marsh, with tracts of enclosed farmland associated with river floodplains and coastal grazing marsh. Human habitation is virtually absent in this part of the hinterland landscape, although to the south, the urban area of Felixstowe forms the hinterland to the seascape unit.

Inter-visibility

4.3.31. The visibility splays at the edge of this unit are defined by its boundaries, with the headland at East Lane providing some containment of views north along the coast and Landguard Point, providing some containment of views south. The widespread urban development along the coastal edge at Felixstowe often limits inter-visibility of the sea to the coastal edge.

2842_SLVIA 38

Extensive, long distance, panoramic sea views can be seen, however, from the coastal edges of the Deben Estuary and the sea front in Felixstowe. To the south of the seascape unit, panoramic views can be seen from Languard Fort over the mile-wide Harwich Harbour and out to sea and the Port Viewing Area at Landguard attracts thousands of people each year to watch the shipping. Notable features and structures lying beyond the Felixstowe/Deben Estuary regional seascape unit that can be seen from within it when visibility conditions are good include the Naze promontory to the south and the WTGs of the wind farms at Gunfleet Sands, visible in the distance beyond. The WTGs of GGOWF and London Array wind farm will also be seen in very distant seaward views, to the east and southeast respectively, on occasions when visibility is very good.

Perceptual Qualities

4.3.32. The seascape is characterised by a complex composition of elements, with a combination of built and natural elements forming and structuring the coastline. The seascape is medium to large in scale and the scalability and depth of the seascape is made distinguishable by features of the urban coastline and the Port of Felixstowe. These features also provide orientation in relation to the coastline, which is further reinforced by the activities of large commercial cargo and passenger ferries passing through the seascape at frequent intervals. Whilst the seascape is predominantly horizontal in form, there is a significant presence of vertical forms visible within and beyond the seascape unit, such as cranes at the Port of Felixstowe and the distant offshore WTGs in the North Sea. This results in a clear, but discordant image created by a complex arrangement of elements contained within and visible beyond the seascape.

Existing Seascape Sensitivity to Change

4.3.33. Whilst the different components of the seascape are generally intact and appear to be reasonably well maintained, there are a number of significant detractors within and visible from this unit. This, combined with the engineered character of much of the coastline and the discordant arrangement of elements within the seascape, reduces the overall quality of the seascape.

4.3.34. The coastline of this seascape unit varies considerably in character and contains a diverse range of elements. The complexity and diversity of these different elements combine with the existing vertical forms visible along the coastline to moderate the unit's sensitivity to the proposed change of the offshore wind farm. It is, therefore, considered that the sensitivity of this seascape unit to the type of change proposed, by the offshore wind farm outwith its area is Medium-Low.

2842_SLVIA 39

Stour and Orwell Estuaries Regional Seascape Unit

Seascape Unit Boundaries

4.3.35. This regional seascape unit lies to the southwest of the proposed wind farm site, extending between The Naze to the south and Languard Point to the north. It includes an eastward facing, concave coastline and is clearly defined by the promontory of Languard Point and the headland of The Naze. The seascape unit also includes the Horsey, Hedge-end, Skipper and Pewit Islands, given their close link with the sea.

Marine, Coastal & Hinterland Components

4.3.36. The coast is defined by a broadly low lying, indented coastline, with large areas of marshland and drained marshes, as well as significant areas of settlement and industrial development associated with Harwich and Felixstowe. This development is most evident where it extends along the major promontories forming the mouth of Harwich Harbour. The landward extent of this regional seascape unit is also indented as it includes the gentle, southeast facing Oakley Ridge which overlooks Hamford Water and extends inland, flanking the tributaries for a distance of approximately 4km-5km.

Inter-visibility

4.3.37. The major indentations along the coastline contribute to a variety of seaward panoramic views, which are typically available from eastward facing slopes. Views around Hamford Water are shaped by the open undeveloped, exposed character of the mud flats and marshland, whilst, from the more elevated viewpoints along the Oakley ridgeline to the west, panoramic views are available across the landscape to the developed coastline and the sea beyond, with the elevated landform of the Naze providing some containment from the sea horizon. Closer to Harwich seaward views are characteristically dominated by the variety and scale of activity connected with the port areas. Notable features and structures lying beyond the Stour and Orwell Estuaries regional seascape unit that are visible from within it include distant views northwards, to the cranes at the Port of Felixstowe. To the south, there are views towards the seaside pier at Walton-on-the Naze and also towards the WTGs of the offshore wind farms at Gunfleet Sands. When visibility conditions are good, there will also be distant views to the southeast towards the WTGs of the London Array offshore wind farms and when visibility is very good, there will be very distant views out over the North Sea toward the WTGs of the GGOWF.

2842_SLVIA 40

Perceptual Qualities

4.3.38. The seascape unit is characterised by a series of contrasts, with the large undeveloped intertidal areas and the relatively isolated hinterland around Hamford Water contrasting strongly with the industrial features and developed character around the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe. The exposed large scale character of the seascape, however, is generally harmonious. The typical shallowness of the indented coastline also means that the seascape unit, and the views across it, have an inherent dynamic quality arising from the constantly changing high water mark, which repeatedly changes the character and level of perceived connectivity with the seascape.

Existing Seascape Sensitivity to Change

4.3.39. The key components within the seascape unit remain largely intact and are reasonably well maintained. There are, however, a number of prominent detractors visible beyond the seascape unit.

4.3.40. The large areas of undeveloped intertidal areas and relatively isolated character of the area around Hamford Water increase this unit's sensitivity to the proposed change of the offshore wind farm. The existing contrast between these undeveloped areas and the developed character around Harwich and Felixstowe, however, combines with the large scale port structures and activities visible in seaward views to moderate the unit's sensitivity. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of this seascape unit to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind farm, outwith its area, is Medium.

Table 6: Regional Seascape Unit Existing Quality & Sensitivity

Regional Seascape Unit Sensitivity to type of change

Walberswick to Thorpeness High-Medium

Aldeburgh Bay High-Medium

Hollesley Bay High-Medium

Felixstowe/Deben Estuary Medium-Low

Stour and Orwell Estuaries Medium

2842_SLVIA 41

5.0 The Existing Visual Environment

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. The purpose of the visual assessment is to first determine the extent of the ZTV of the development (the area of land and sea from within which it may be possible to see any part of the proposed development) and to determine how visible the proposed development would be from a range of agreed representative viewpoints and from this, the likely effects on various visual receptor groups.

5.1.2. Refer to Figure 06 (Topography and Viewpoints) and Figures 04 and 05 (ZTV Bare Ground and ZTV Obstructions).

5.2. Initial ZTV

5.2.1. At the outset of the assessment, an initial computer generated ZTV study was used to help identify areas from within which the site could potentially be visible. The 72 number 7MW WTGs presented a worst-case scenario, with a hub height of 120m and a blade tip of 195m. The computer generated bare ground ZTV, to nacelle and blade tip (see Figure 04), identifies key stretches of the landscape from which the proposed offshore wind farm may be theoretically visible within the agreed 45km radius study area.

5.2.2. The bare ground ZTV makes no allowance for any screening effects that may arise due to existing vegetation or built development. As a result it gives an exaggerated impression of the potential degree of visual exposure of a proposed development and therefore presents an unrealistic worst-case scenario. To limit this exaggerated impression, significant existing settlements and woodland have been incorporated into the terrain model to provide a more realistic impression of anticipated visibility, as illustrated on Figure 05. It should be noted, however, that the predicted extent of the proposed development’s visibility shown on the ZTVs is never more than theoretical in its extent. For example, if an area is not shaded it indicates that the target point is not likely to be visible from a 1.6m high eye level view; whereas if an area is shaded it indicates that the target may (but may not) be visible. It may also be possible that local features not included within the model, for example hedgerows, embankments and buildings, will locally screen views towards the target point. Given that GWF is relatively far offshore the smallest of variations in localised landform and screening elements onshore will curtail many seaward views of GWF

5.2.3. Appendix 3 details the methodology used for creating the ZTVs and visuals.

2842_SLVIA 42

5.2.4. As can be seen from Figure 04, the proposed WTG hubs and blade tips are theoretically visible from along much of the coastline within the study area, with visibility towards the development extending inland to include low lying areas in the near hinterland and some of the more elevated areas further inland. Visibility is theoretically limited to blade tips only from more sheltered areas of the coastline and inland lower valley slopes. The ZTV indicates that the proposed offshore wind farm will not be visible at all from a number of low lying areas along the coast including large parts of the River Deben valley; the marshes and lower valley landscapes associated with the Butley; River areas around Long Reach west of Aldeburgh; and the marsh areas to the west and southwest of Southwold, for example.

5.2.5. As can be seen from Figure 05, when obstructions are included in the ZTV the theoretical visibility towards the proposed offshore wind farm remains largely unchanged along the coastline. Visibility within the hinterland, however, is considerably reduced by the screening effects of settlement and woodland, with the principal areas of theoretical visibility confined to the more elevated, seaward-facing inland slopes, and some of the more isolated, lower-lying areas near the coast such as the mud flats around Hamford Water; the coastal levels and sandlands around Aldterton; the marshland areas near Orford; the marshes southwest of Aldeburgh; and areas of marsh south of Walberswick, for example.

5.2.6. It should be noted that visibility will be further reduced by localised existing vegetation, hedgerows and subtleties of landform not modelled into the ZTV.

5.3. Existing Cumulative Context

5.3.1. Refer to Figure 07 for the location of operational and consented wind farms within the study area, and for the location of the East Anglia ONE site and Round 3 zone.

5.3.2. In accordance with best practice guidance, the existing visual effects of operational wind farms and the anticipated visual effects arising from wind farms currently under construction and wind farms with consent that are not yet under construction have all been considered as part of the baseline assessment of the existing visual environment. These are summarised in Table 4 below.

5.3.3. The East Anglia Round 3 wind farm zone has been identified but no scheme details are available and it is, therefore, not possible to make a meaningful cumulative assessment. Potential cumulative effects of GWF and the East Anglia Round 3 zone are discussed but not included in the detailed assessment.

2842_SLVIA 43

5.3.4. At the time of undertaking this assessment, there were no other wind farm projects registered in the planning system. Table 7: Operational and Consented Wind Farms in the Study Area

Wind Farm Status WTG Blade tip Approximate Nos. height distance from nearest GWF turbine

GGOWF In 140 131.5m 0.72km construction

London Array I In 175 175m Offshore construction 17.9km southwest (I and II treated as London Array II Consented 166 175m one site) Offshore

Thanet Offshore Operational 100 115m 37.5km southwest

Gunfleet Sands I Operational 48 129m 41.5km southwest and II Offshore

Gunfleet Sands In planning 2 180m 48.8km Extension

Cumulative ZTV studies

5.3.5. As illustrated on Figure 08, the areas where the GWF and the GGOWF will, theoretically, both be visible generally follows a similar pattern and extent of theoretical visibility as that of the GWF itself, due to the proximity and similarity in height of the two wind farms. These areas include the majority of the seaward-facing coastline; some of the more elevated, seaward-facing inland slopes; and some isolated, lower-lying areas near the coast, such as the mud flats around Hamford Water; the coastal levels and sandlands around Aldterton; the marshland areas near Orford; the marshes southwest of Aldeburgh; and areas of marsh south of Walberswick.

5.3.6. The cumulative ZTV indicates that areas where there may be simultaneous views towards the proposed GWF and the operational and in planning Gunfleet Sands offshore wind farms include some low lying areas in the north of the Naze; the mudflats surrounding Hamford Water; some areas along the spit at Orford Ness; and some of the low lying areas to north of the

2842_SLVIA 44

River Ore and to east of the Butley River. The ZTV indicates that areas where there may, theoretically, be simultaneous views towards the Gunfleet Sands offshore wind farms, the GGOWF and the proposed GWF include extensive areas along the shingle spit and coastline south of Orford Ness; small areas on the lower valley slopes overlooking the floodplains on the eastern sides of the River Deben and on the east and west sides of the River Orwell; some areas on the northern tip of the Naze; and also the low-lying, outer reaches of Hamford Water.

5.3.7. As illustrated on Figure 09, the areas where simultaneous views towards the GWF and the London Array offshore wind farms may, theoretically be possible include low lying areas adjacent to Hamford Water; much of the coastline with seaward views between Frinton-on-Sea and Thorpeness; and intermittent stretches of low lying land, extending inland, between the River Deben estuary and Aldeburgh. Due to the location of Thanet offshore wind farm and its distance from the coast, opportunities for simultaneous views towards the proposed GWF and the WTGs of the Thanet scheme from land appear to be very limited within the study area.

5.3.8. The summary cumulative ZTV illustrated on Figure 10, indicates that areas where simultaneous views towards the proposed GWF and all of the operational and consented wind farms in the study area are limited to a small isolated pocket of theoretical visibility southwest of Frinton-on-Sea. If views towards the Thanet offshore wind farm are excluded from consideration, areas where there are simultaneous views towards the proposed GWF and the other remaining operational and consented wind farms in the study area are limited to land to the north-east of Clacton-on-Sea, the shingle spit along the coast south of Orford Ness; land around Hamford Water, the seafront at Felixstowe, and pockets of theoretical visibility in the Gedgrave and Boyton Marshes east of the village of Boyton.

5.3.9. The East Anglia Round 3 wind farm zone is not included in the cumulative ZTV studies because it is a zone within which individual development sites will be identified, the East Anglia ONE site being the first and currently only such site to be identified. No other sites are known at this stage, neither is any detailed information pertaining to the East Anglia ONE site available and thus no meaningful cumulative assessment that includes the individual site and the zone can be undertaken at this stage.

5.4. Meteorological Context

5.4.1. The degree, extent and likelihood of visual effects arising from the proposed offshore wind farm is an amalgam of a variety of different meteorological factors that can occur at any one time, not least the prevailing weather conditions. Changes in character and visibility can occur with varied wind

2842_SLVIA 45

patterns, light conditions and tidal movements as well as being influenced by the relative clarity of the atmosphere.

5.4.2. Collectively, both the overall climate and the day-to-day weather patterns will combine to reduce the number of days upon which views of the proposed offshore wind farm will be available from the coastline and hinterland. Moreover, even where poor visibility does not wholly obscure views of the proposed offshore wind farm, it will still inhibit views of the development, rendering it more visually recessive within the wider seascape setting.

5.4.3. Generally, visibility is greatest during cyclonic (low pressure) weather, where the 'cold air' reduces the concentration of particles in the atmosphere and allows for clearer visibility. Reduced visibility occurs typically where an anticyclone (high pressure) and an associated warm front become established which can give rise to haze or fog.

5.4.4. Generally, the weather within the study area is influenced by three major meteorological features:

 The Azores High - creating a ridge of high pressure over the southeast of England during the summer months;  The Asiatic Anticyclone - creating areas of high pressure affecting the UK; and  Atlantic Depressions - a series of low pressure weather systems affecting the UK.

5.4.5. Typically, visibility looking out to sea from onshore locations within the study area is less than 20km for 55% of the year (200 days). Visibility over distances between 20-30km is available for 23% of the year (84 days). Visibility over distances greater than 30km may be possible for 22% of the year (80 days), when viewing conditions are at an optimum.

5.4.6. For the purposes of this assessment, the following descriptions have been used to describe meteorological conditions in which views towards distant elements may be possible:

 Moderate visibility - elements at a distance up to 20km may be visible;  Good visibility - elements at a distance up to 30km may be visible;  Very good visibility - elements at a distance up to 40km may be visible; and  Excellent visibility - elements at a distance greater than 40km may be visible.

2842_SLVIA 46

5.4.7. It is assumed that elements at a distance greater than 50km in seaward views will not be visible to the human eye, even when meteorological conditions are considered to be excellent for visibility.

5.5. Visual Receptors

5.5.1. A range of visual receptors can be expected to be affected by the proposed development, including those onshore and offshore. Onshore receptors will include, but will not be limited to, local residents, those travelling through the area including pedestrians and motorists, those visiting the area for recreational and amenity purposes and those working outdoors. Offshore receptors will include passengers and workers on passenger and cruising routes, recreational fishermen and sailors, working fishermen, and workers on shipping and those involved in marine aggregate extraction. The extent of the effect upon certain groups, however, will vary according to the nature of the view, intricacies of the surrounding landscape and seascape and their level of sensitivity to the type of development. Refer to Appendix 1 for a description of receptor groups and their baseline sensitivities to the proposed type of change arising from the offshore wind farm.

5.6. Offshore Receptors

5.6.1. Vessel movement around the site of the proposed wind farm is discussed in Chapter 16 (Shipping and Navigation) and tourism and recreation in Chapter 24 (Landuse, Tourism and Recreation) of the ES. At the time of the survey reported in Chapter 16, excluding vessels associated with GGOWF (which was under construction), there were on average 12 vessels per day passing through the site of the proposed GWF. Cargo ships and oil tankers are the most common vessels in the vicinity of GWF. There are a smaller number of “other” ships, comprising of salvage, research, pilot, passenger, fishing and dredging vessels and tugs. There is a pattern of passenger vessels running west – east just to the north of GWF, and between the north and south parts of GWF, as shown on Figure 16.2a in Chapter 16 if the ES.

5.6.2. Chapter 16 states that:

 The wind farm is well outside the general racing and sailing areas off the coast.  There is one light–use cruising route shown to be heading via the Sunk Traffic Separation Scheme East (TSSE) (the gap between the northern and southern parts of the wind farm) used by traffic between the Thames / Harwich Haven and The Netherlands (Figure 16.9).  There are several marinas and clubs for recreational vessels located along the coast near Harwich and Felixstowe. The nearest club is the Bawdsey

2842_SLVIA 47

Haven Yacht Club, 20nm west of the western extremity of the northern wind farm. The closest marinas are Shotley Marina and Titchmarsh Marina (Figure 16.9).  The Inner Gabbard and The Galloper sandbanks are visited by recreational angling charter parties on a regular basis, where the main attraction is bass fishing. Diving activities in this area are infrequent due to the distance from the shore and the limited interest of the sandbank habitats.

5.7. Onshore Receptors

5.7.1. To determine the likely effects on onshore visual receptor groups, a range of viewpoints have been selected to represent the likely extent and nature of the visibility of the proposed development as seen by the visual receptor groups at these viewpoints.

5.7.2. For continuity, the six representative viewpoints proposed in the SLVIA for the GGOWF have been applied to this assessment, all as agreed with consultees. Two additional viewpoints, one further to the north and one further to the south, have also been added, to create a total of eight representative viewpoints to assist in the visual assessment.

The viewpoints representative of each visual receptor groups is as follows:

 Local Residents - represented by viewpoint numbers 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8;  The Travelling Public - represented by viewpoint number 4; and  Visitors - represented by viewpoint numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

5.8. Representative Viewpoints

5.8.1. The eight viewpoint locations and their representative visual receptor groups were identified and agreed upon through consultation with the Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council and Natural England. They are illustrated on Figure 06. The existing characteristics of these viewpoints and receptor sensitivity to the type of change proposed are described below. A synopsis of the viewpoints and receptor sensitivity can be found in the Summary Table at the end of this section.

5.8.2. The existing views from land towards the GWF site from locations are shown on Figures 2842/WF/01 to 2842/WF/08. The viewpoint descriptions below describe the views illustrated, as well as the wider views beyond the extents shown on the Figures, to give the full context.

2842_SLVIA 48

5.8.3. Distances from the GWF are measured to the nearest turbine within the layout assessed.

Viewpoint 1 - Orford Castle

Grid reference: 641930, 249864

Distance and Direction from GWF 33.0km to the northwest

Distance and Direction from the 28.3km to the northwest GGOWF

Distance and Direction from the 39.6km to the north London Array Wind Farms

Distance and Direction from the 42.2km to the northeast Gunfleet Sands Wind Farms

Main Receptor Visitors/Tourists

Designations Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB Heritage Coast Scheduled Monument Grade I Listed Building

Landscape Character Type Estate Sandlands

Regional Seascape Unit Boundary between Aldeburgh Bay and Hollesley Bay

Existing View

5.8.4. The viewpoint is located at Orford Castle, which lies on the south-western edge of Orford, and offers an elevated and panoramic experience of lower coastal areas, with partial glimpsed views beyond Orford Ness out to sea. The foreground of the view comprises low lying, gently rolling open land with stretches of coastal saltmarshes in the mid ground. Beyond this the saltmarshes give way to the shingle spit of Orford Ness and beyond that to the North Sea. Due to the openness of the view and low-lying nature of the landscape, the sky forms the dominant and major component of the view. At ground level, areas of hedgerow planting, small trees and buildings restrict views, in particular those out to sea. The view is relatively complex due to a

2842_SLVIA 49

diversity of elements and textures. There is no particular focus within the view although shipping traffic is usually visible and adds an element of interest. Former military installations, including radar towers of Orford Ness, are visible beyond the settlement of Orford in the middle distance of the view. On days of good visibility, there are glimpsed, partial, distant views towards the blade tips of some of the GGOWF WTGs in seaward views to the southeast beyond the village of Orford. Most views towards the WTGs, however, will be screened by rooftops and intervening vegetation within the settlement. On days of excellent visibility, it will also be possible for there to be very distant, partial, filtered views towards parts of the London Array wind farms in seaward views to the south and towards the Gunfleet Sands wind farms to the southwest. Orford Castle lies beyond the illustrated panoramic view immediately to the north of the viewpoint and there are also views towards woodland on rising ground to the west of Orford to the rear of the viewpoint.

Existing Sensitivity of View

5.8.5. There are a diverse range of elements in the foreground of the view contrasting with a more simplified landscape composition in the middle and far distance, with the River Ore and Orford Ness spit forming strong horizontal elements across the view. The cluttered nature of the foreground, however, reduces the quality of the existing view. It will also be possible for there to be some distant and very distant views towards a number of wind farm developments on some portions of the seaward horizon line when prevailing conditions for seaward visibility are good, very good or excellent. Vegetation and settlement in the foreground of the view, however, will largely screen and filter views towards many of the WTGs within these developments.

5.8.6. Receptors would predominantly be visitors (tourists) to the Castle. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is regarded, therefore, as High.

Viewpoint 2 - Old Felixstowe Seafront

Grid reference 632380, 236252

Distance and Direction from GWF 41.3km to the west

Distance and Direction from 33.7km to the west GGOWF

Distance and Direction from the 29.1km to the north London Array Wind Farms

2842_SLVIA 50

Distance and Direction from the 26.4km to the north Gunfleet Sands Wind Farms

Receptor Residents/Tourists

Designations Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, Heritage Coast

Landscape Character Type n/a

Regional Seascape Unit Felixstowe/Deben Estuary

Existing View

5.8.7. The viewpoint is located to the northeast of the main town adjacent to a local car park and offers an open and panoramic view out to sea. A line of small beach huts form the immediate foreground of the view and beyond these lies a narrow strip of shingle beach broken by a series of small timber groynes. At low tide the mid ground is formed by a raised shingle bar, which is covered at high tide, and beyond this is an unbroken view of the North Sea. The view is simple in composition and low in diversity, essentially dominated by the extent of sky visible. On the horizon line of the North Sea, the wind farms at Gunfleet Sands I and II can be seen in distant views to the south when visibility is good. The wooded cliffs tops above Bawdsey Manor and the communications mast beyond form a focal point in views along the coastline to the north. The Martello Tower forms a landmark feature in the middle distance of the views to the north. In views along the coast to the south at times of good visibility, the Naze promontory can be seen, with the Naze brick tower forming a prominent landmark feature. At times when visibility is very good, there will be uninterrupted distant views towards the WTGs of the London Array wind farms to the south and the GGOWF to the east. There is no particularly strong focus within the expanse of the seaward view, although a series posts form of a sequence of minor static focal points in the middle distance of seaward views and, when visible, the three wind farm developments will also tend to draw the eye towards the horizon line to the east and the south. The high level of marine traffic also provides a series of distant mobile foci which, on occasion, form a significant feature within seaward views. To the rear of the viewpoint there is a series of detached residential dwellings set back from the car park, all orientated towards the North Sea.

2842_SLVIA 51

Existing Sensitivity of View

5.8.8. The existing panorama that can be seen from this viewpoint contains distant elements and focal points on the headlands to the north and south. The density of groynes and maritime related signage in the middle distance of views to the south, however, combine with the spread of existing and consented WTGs across portions of the east and south sectors of the seaward view to reduce the existing quality of the view. The public amenities immediately to the south of the viewpoint are utilitarian in design and also compromise the existing quality of the view.

5.8.9. Receptors would predominantly be residents of Felixstowe and visitors (tourists) to the seafront area. The sensitivity of the receptor is, therefore, High.

Viewpoint 3 - Aldeburgh Seafront

Grid reference 646633, 256935

Distance and Direction from GWF 31.6km to the northwest

Distance and Direction from 29.1km to the northwest GGOWF

Distance and Direction from the 46.5km to the north London Array Wind Farms

Receptor Residents/Tourists

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, Designations Heritage Coast

Landscape Character Type n/a

Regional Seascape Unit Aldeburgh Bay

Existing View

5.8.10. The viewpoint is located on the beach adjacent to the seafront promenade in the north eastern part of Aldeburgh and offers panoramic open views out to sea across a shingle beach. The view is simple in nature, formed by a small number of elements with low visual diversity. The sea and the large extent of sky dominate and define the view. The foreground is formed by the shingle beach. In places beached fishing craft add an element of diversity and

2842_SLVIA 52

interest within the view. Beyond the seafront, the middle and far distance of the view comprise a continuous, uninterrupted expanse of the North Sea. In the southeast sector of the seaward view, when visibility is good, there are distant views of the WTGs of the GGOWF, which are seen spanning approximately 26.5° of the horizon line. These WTGs, when visibility allows, form a focal point on the seaward horizon line to the southeast. At other times, the high level of marine traffic in the area often lends an element of visual interest and provides a series of mobile foci across the seaward view. In views along the coast to the south, the southern extents of Aldeburgh seafront can be seen. When visibility is good, there are also distant views available northwards along the coast towards the headland of Thorpeness, with the water tower, church tower and Sizewell power station all forming notable features on the northern horizon line.

5.8.11. The London Array wind farms are located over 46.5km south of this viewpoint. Given their distance from the viewpoint, however, it is unlikely they will be visible in southwards views along the coast, even on the occasions when meteorological conditions for visibility are excellent. To the rear of the viewpoint, a range of hotels, tourist facilities, restaurants and residential buildings line the seafront, limiting wider views to the west.

Existing Sensitivity of View

5.8.12. Seafront properties and public amenities in the immediate vicinity of the viewpoint are well maintained and in good condition. There is also a diverse range of distant focal points on the headland in views along the coast to the north. When visible, however, the WTGs of the GGOWF can be seen in distant seaward views.

5.8.13. Receptors would predominantly be residents and tourists. The sensitivity of the receptor is High.

5.8.14. The magnitude of effect on receptors represented by this viewpoint is also to be considered as part of the cumulative assessment. See Section 8.6.

Viewpoint 4 - North of Alderton

Grid reference 634464, 242117

Distance and Direction from GWF 39.1km to the west

Distance and Direction from 32.5km to the west GGOWF

Receptor Residents/Road Users

2842_SLVIA 53

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, Designations Heritage Coast

Landscape Character Type Rolling Estate Sandlands

Regional Seascape Unit Hollesley Bay

Existing View

5.8.15. The viewpoint is located on a minor road north of the village of Alderton. Views at this location are generally open and expansive across the flat agricultural land leading to the coastline. In places, however, views of the sea are limited by areas of tree cover and hedgerows, which limit road users' views towards the sea to intermittent glimpses. There is no particular focus within the view, except for the window of sea framed by vegetation in the centre of the view. The large expanse of sky that is visible, as a result of the low-lying nature of the landscape, is dominant. The foreground and middle ground of the view comprise large rectilinear fields which extend to the coastal saltmarshes and shore in the far distance. Areas of shelterbelt planting and woodland break up and frame the seaward vistas as well as lending a degree of complexity and 'texture' to the view. Beyond this, the North Sea can be seen as a narrow band below the horizon. Marine traffic can also be seen from this location and provides a mobile focus within the available view. When visibility is very good, there are also distant views towards a number of WTGs of the GGOWF spanning a 34° portion of the seaward horizon line in the east-southeast sector of the view. Beyond the illustrated photographic panorama, views inland to the wider landscape to the west and north of the viewpoint are limited by outgrown field boundaries in the foreground and middle distance.

Existing Sensitivity of View

5.8.16. The sequential composition of elements and textures within the view combines with the framed distant views of the sea to increase the existing quality of the view. When meteorological conditions allow and visibility is good, however, the WTGs of the GGOWF scheme occupy a significant proportion of the available framed distant views of the North Sea.

5.8.17. Receptors would be users of the minor road where any potential views towards the proposed offshore wind farm would be seen perpendicular to the line of travel, and residents of Alderton. The sensitivity of the receptor is regarded, therefore, as High.

2842_SLVIA 54

Viewpoint 5 - Orford Ness near the Lighthouse

Grid reference 645003, 248868

Distance and Direction from GWF 29.8km to the northwest

Distance and Direction from 25.1km to the northwest GGOWF

Distance and Direction from the 38.5km north London Array Wind Farms

Distance and Direction from the 42.4km northeast Gunfleet Sands Wind Farms

Receptor Visitors/Tourists

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, Designations Heritage Coast

Landscape Character Type Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges

On the boundary between the Regional Seascape Unit Aldeburgh Bay and the Hollesley Bay seascape units.

Existing View

5.8.18. The viewpoint is located in close proximity to the lighthouse on Orford Ness. The views seen from this location are generally open, simplistic and expansive in nature, with long distance views available in every direction from the lighthouse. The illustrated seaward view is of low diversity and complexity, limited in essence to three elements: the shore, the sea and the sky, with the sky being the dominant element within the view. The foreground of the view is formed by a narrow strip of shingle beach, beyond which lies a continuous, uninterrupted expanse of sea. When visibility is good, the WTGs of the GGOWF form a distant focal point on the horizon of the North Sea, spanning approximately 34.5° of the southeast sector of the horizon line. When visibility is excellent, it will also be possible to see the WTGs of the wind farms at London Array and Gunfleet Sands as two very distant focal clusters on the horizon line in the south and southwest sectors of the seaward view. The high level of marine traffic crossing the North Sea provides a series of transitory foci across the seaward vista. Beyond the limits of the illustrated photographic panorama to the north, there are open distant

2842_SLVIA 55

views across the ancient shingle heaths towards the large, dense, steel building used for world broadcasting and the associated finer, ethereal- looking radio masts. When visibility is good, there are also distant northward views towards Aldeburgh, visible against an elevated wooded skyline. To the south, in the middle and far distance, there are a series of isolated military and maritime defence structures in various states of disrepair and dereliction. When visibility is good, there are also very distant southward views to the Naze promontory. To the west, there are views inland towards the village of Orford and Orford Castle, seen in the distance against an elevated and wooded hinterland backcloth.

Existing Sensitivity of View

5.8.19. The viewpoint includes far-reaching distant views to a diverse range of distinctive and unusual landward and seaward features, set within a landscape that is vast in scale and expansive, wild and isolated in character.

5.8.20. Receptors would predominantly be visitors to Orford Ness. The sensitivity of the receptor is regarded, therefore, as High.

Viewpoint 6 - Shingle Street near Martello Tower

Grid reference 636605, 242533

Distance and Direction from GWF 37.0km to the west

Distance and Direction from 30.5km to the west GGOWF

Distance and Direction from the 33.4km to the north London Array Wind Farms

Distance and Direction from the 33.5km to the northeast Gunfleet Sands Wind Farms

Receptor Visitors/Tourists/Residents

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, Designations Heritage Coast

Landscape Character Type Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges

Regional Seascape Unit Hollesley Bay

2842_SLVIA 56

Existing View

5.8.21. The viewpoint is located on the seafront, which offers a simple panoramic experience of the seascape with open, unimpeded views of the North Sea across a pebble beach. The North Sea appears as a vast, uninterrupted element within the expanse of the panoramic view. When visibility is good, distant views towards the WTGs of the GGOWF are possible, with the WTGs extending across 35° of the east-southeast sector of the horizon line. When visibility is very good, it will also be possible to see London Array and Gunfleet Sands wind farms, visible as two very distant, separate clusters in views across the North Sea to the south. Shipping traffic is almost always visible and provides a moving focus in seaward views. Beyond the limits of the illustrated panorama, inland views to the west of the viewpoint are largely limited by a local shelter belt and nearby outgrown boundary vegetation.

Existing Sensitivity of View

5.8.22. The simplicity of the existing view and the absence of significant detractors in the foreground combine to increase the quality of the view. When meteorological conditions allow seaward views over distances greater than 30km, however, the distant wind farms in the eastern and southern sectors of the horizon line will be visible.

Receptors would mainly be visitors to the beach area and the Martello Tower, as well as residents of Shingle Street. The sensitivity of the receptor is, therefore, as High.

Viewpoint 7 - View from the cliff top, The Naze

Grid reference 626532, 223456

Distance and Direction from GWF 42.8km to the west

Distance and Direction from 38.7km to the west GGOWF

Distance and Direction from the 23.2km to the northwest London Array Wind Farms

Distance and Direction from the 13.0km to the north Gunfleet Sands Wind Farms

Receptor Visitors/Tourists

2842_SLVIA 57

Landscape Character Type n/a

Regional Seascape Unit The Stour and Orwell Estuaries

Existing View

5.8.23. This viewpoint is located adjacent to the Naze Tower close to the access point to the beach from the elevated cliff top area. Wide panoramic views are available across this simple, elevated coastline, both out to sea and northwards towards the Naze itself. Elements defining the view include the vegetated and partially collapsed cliff face; one and two storey residential properties to the north side of Walton-on-the-Naze; and Walton pier and the timber groynes, which extend across the view from the cliff face to the east and to the south. The partially collapsed cliffs to the left of the view have been protected with rock projection. To the south, in the far distance, beyond the Walton pier, the majority of the Gunfleet Sands wind farm WTGs can be seen extending across a 26° stretch of the seaward horizon line. When visibility is good, the WTGs of the constructed and consented London Array wind farms are or will be visible on the horizon of the North Sea, spanning 41° of the southeast sector of the horizon line. When visibility is very good, it is also possible to see the WTGs of the GGOWF scheme, extending across 33.5° of the view within the eastern sector of the horizon line, seen as two separate WTG clusters with approximately 6° of separation between them. In wider views along the coast to the north, the Naze tower and associated brick-built public facilities are prominent. When visibility is good, there are distant views along the coast towards the cranes at the Port of Felixstowe, with very distant views beyond this towards the far reaches of the northern coastline within the study area possible on days when visibility is very good or excellent. To the north of this viewpoint, extending in front of the crumbling cliffs of the Naze promontory and lying beyond the illustrated view in the photographic panorama, further areas of open sea with shipping traffic are visible.

Existing Sensitivity of View

5.8.24. The utilitarian brick-built public facilities to the north of the viewpoint and the prominence of the groyne and revetment structures on the beach below combine to diminish the existing quality of the view. The collapsed cliffs and rock protection to the north of the viewpoint indicate that the condition of this stretch of the coastline is currently deteriorating but is being actively managed. The visibility of the Gunfleet Sands wind farm WTGs combines with the intermittent visibility of the GGOWF and London Array offshore wind farm to further reduce the quality of the existing view.

2842_SLVIA 58

5.8.25. The viewpoint illustrates those views primarily available to visitors using the elevated coastal footpath. Visual receptor groups also represented by this viewpoint include local residents, local and day visitors to the beach and tower and ornithologists. In consideration of these factors, the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be High.

5.8.26. The magnitude of effect on receptors represented by this viewpoint is also to be considered as part of the cumulative assessment. See Section 8.6.

Viewpoint 8 - View from The Promenade, Southwold

Grid reference 650978, 276154

Distance and Direction from GWF 42.4 km to the northwest

Distance and Direction from 42.6km to the northwest GGOWF

Receptor Residents/Tourists

Designations Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB

Landscape Character Type n/a

Regional Seascape Unit n/a

Existing View

5.8.27. The viewpoint is located adjacent to a small green located south of the centre of Southwold along the seafront promenade. The town centre is located behind a line of cottages and terraced houses to the rear of the viewpoint. The viewpoint is in an elevated position above the beach where there is a line of beach huts and a walkway. The promenade runs parallel to the cottages and to the edge of the green. There are open views towards the North Sea and an open skyline, with Southwold pier forming a landmark to the north. To the south of the viewpoint, the open views towards the North Sea continue, with the beach at the Denes extending below and beyond the promenade. There are usually a number of large shipping vessels visible on the seaward horizon to the east, forming a series of very slow-moving foci within the view.

5.8.28. When visibility is good, there are distant views along the coast to the south towards the headland of Thorpe Ness where the buildings, pylons and infrastructure associated with Sizewell power station forms a focal point and land mark feature. When visibility is excellent, it will also be possible for

2842_SLVIA 59

there to be very distant views towards the WTGs of the GGOWF on the horizon of the North Sea, extending across approximately 16° of the southeast-south sector of the horizon line.

Existing Sensitivity of View

5.8.29. The condition of the existing seaside amenities along the promenade is good. The dense arrangement of groyne structures and maritime signage in the foreground and middle distance of the view and the visibility of Sizewell power station in distant views southwards along the coast combine to reduce the quality of the view.

5.8.30. The viewpoint illustrates those views primarily available to local residents and tourists in the area. In consideration of these factors, the sensitivity of the receptor to change arising from the proposed development is judged to be High.

2842_SLVIA 60

Table 8: Existing Viewpoint Sensitivity Receptor Viewpoint Grid Distance and Sensitivity to groups type of reference direction from change nearest GWF turbine

Viewpoint 1 – 641930, 33.0km to the Visitors/ High Orford Castle 249864 northwest Tourists 41.3km to the west Viewpoint 2 - 632380, Residents High Old 236252 / Tourists Felixstowe Seafront

Viewpoint 3 - 646633, 31.6km to the Residents High Aldeburgh 256935 northwest / Tourists Seafront

Viewpoint 4 - 634464, 39.1km to the west Residents High North of 242117 / Road

Alderton users

Viewpoint 5 - 645003, 29.8km to the Visitors/ High Orford Ness 248868 northwest Tourists near

Lighthouse

Viewpoint 6 - 636605, 37.0km to the west Visitors/ High Shingle Street 242533 Tourists/

near Martello Residents Tower

Viewpoint 7- 626532 42.8km to the west Visitors / High View from the 223456 Tourists cliff top, The

Naze 650978, 42.3km to the Viewpoint 8 – Residents High 276154 northwest The / Tourists Promenade, Southwold

2842_SLVIA 61

6.0 Landscape and Seascape Effects

6.1. Introduction

6.1.1. The magnitude and significance of landscape or seascape effects arising from the proposed GWF are related to the capacity of the landscape resource and the seascape environment to accommodate the type of change proposed. This is assessed using the recognised evaluation process (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment/Landscape Institute, 2002), which looks at the physical form and attributes of the landscape resource and seascape environment and considers their existing sensitivity. The magnitude of effect upon the landscape resource and seascape environment then takes into account the scale, extent and duration of the effects detailed below.

6.1.2. This assessment methodology is detailed in Appendix 1.

6.2. Nature and Duration of Landscape and Seascape Effects

6.2.1. Chapter 5 of the ES (Project Details) identifies the key offshore elements associated with the proposed development. The sources of potential effects arising from these are identified as being the proposed WTGs and offshore sub-stations, collection platform and or accommodation platform, meteorological masts, and vessels which will give rise to a range of different effects upon the seascape environment and landscape resource according to the different stages of the proposed development.

6.2.2. The anticipated duration of effects associated with the construction, operational and decommissioning stages of the proposed development are identified within Chapter 5 of the ES. It is currently anticipated that construction is likely to last approximately 2.5 years. The wind farm’s operational life is defined (by The Crown Estate) as up to 25 years, an additional two years would be granted to the lease to allow decommissioning to take place. All elements of the wind farm would be designed with a minimum operational life of 25 years. Following this a decision would be made on whether the operating company wish to proceed with decommissioning or apply to the relevant Regulatory Authority at the time, to repower the wind farm. This SLVIA addresses effects of the construction phase, a 25 year operational phase and the decommissioning phase.

Construction

6.2.3. During the construction phase, the effect of increased activity of construction vessels travelling to the offshore site from local ports, the presence of jack-up barges and the progressive construction of the WTGs will constitute the

2842_SLVIA 62

main effect. There will be additional effects arising from marine activity associated with cable installation, cargo barges and transportation of materials including land based or harbour construction activity. The presence of the construction vessels and the associated marine activity is considered to be relatively insignificant, however, as there is an existing baseline of significant marine activity in the study area.

Operational

6.2.4. The operational phase will have the most significant impact due to the long duration of this stage. The main element of effect during the operational period will be the visual influence of the WTGs on the seascape and landscape receptors identified in the study area. The substations may also be visible due to their mass but, as they are smaller in height and fewer in number than the turbines, it is the turbines that will have the greatest effect.

Decommissioning

6.2.5. During the decommissioning phase, there will be visual effects associated with decommissioning activity similar to that of the construction phase. Given the existing baseline of marine activity in the study area and given that the anticipated length of decommissioning will be slightly less than that for the construction phase, these impacts arising from the decommissioning phase will be more temporary than for the construction period and are considered to be relatively insignificant.

6.3. Operational Effects on Designated Landscapes, the Historic Environment and Local Footpaths

6.3.1. The majority of the coastline within the study area is recognised for its aesthetic value, with a number of overlapping national and local designations present (refer to Figure 01). Although these designations physically incorporate various intertidal areas, all the proposed WTGs fall well beyond any of the designation boundaries. The proposed GWF will not, therefore, result in any physical effect upon designated landscapes within the study area. Any effects arising will be limited to indirect effects upon visual attributes of the designated landscapes only.

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB

6.3.2. Panoramic sea views are an important characteristic of the coastline within the AONB. There will be open distant views towards the WTGs of the proposed GWF visible along many of the beaches, shingle spit areas and the eastern extents of cliff tops within the AONB. The views towards the proposed WTGs, however, will be seen in the same sector of the seaward view

2842_SLVIA 63

as the WTGs of the GGOWF both of which will be at distances beyond 25km. The proposed WTGs will also be seen in the existing context of other structures that already feature in coastal views, namely Sizewell power station and the port infrastructure at Felixstowe. Elsewhere within the AONB, opportunities for views from inland areas towards the proposed WTGs are generally very limited, with sea views from low-lying salt marshes and mudflat areas commonly screened by coastal defence embankments and local vegetation. Sea views from inland areas of farmland within the AONB are commonly limited by the screening effects of the undulating landform and intervening vegetation in the wider landscape. There will, however, be some glimpsed distant views towards the proposed WTGs from a few intermittent areas of elevated farmland that lie immediately adjacent to areas of marshland, inland from the coast between Southwold and Felixstowe. Where distant glimpsed views of the WTGs are seen, however, they will appear as very distant elements on the far horizon, whose additional presence will be barely perceptible in the context of the existing very distant views towards the GGOWF, seen in the same sector of the seaward view. The most significant effects on views will be of Low to Negligible magnitude as assessed for two out of the six viewpoints located in the AONB (viewpoints 3 Aldeburgh seafront and 5 Orford Ness). These two viewpoints represent the ‘worst case’ situation. At most locations within the AONB from where the GWF will be visible, effects will be of Negligible magnitude and limited to effects upon the visual characteristics of the AONB which otherwise will remain wholly unaffected by the presence of GWF.

6.3.3. Views of WTGs that will be of Low to Negligible magnitude from very limited areas of the AONB, and Negligible magnitude elsewhere, lead to Negligible magnitude of effects on the landscape of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. The sensitivity of the AONB is judged to be High. The overall significance of operational effect is assessed as Negligible.

Suffolk Heritage Coast

6.3.4. The nature and extent of visibility of the proposed WTGs from the landscape of the Suffolk Heritage Coast broadly follows the same pattern as for the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB described above, namely: beaches; shingle spit areas; the eastern extents of cliff tops; and a limited number of elevated inland areas lying immediately adjacent to areas of marshland and mudflats. As these views will be very distant in nature, seen in the same, relatively narrow sector of the seaward view as the GGOWF and, more often than not, seen in the context of existing views towards Sizewell power station and/or the Port of Felixstowe, the magnitude of operational effect of the proposed GWF on the landscape of the Heritage Coast is regarded as Negligible. The sensitivity of this landscape designation is judged to be High to Medium. The overall significance of operational effect is assessed as Negligible.

2842_SLVIA 64

Special Landscape Areas

6.3.5. There will be no direct changes to the SLAs, and no effects on the defining elements, characteristics or attributes of the SLAs. Effects will be to distant views of GWF from limited parts of the SLAs.

6.3.6. There will be little inter-visibility between the proposed WTGs of the GWF and most of the Special Landscape Areas within the study area due to the screening effects of coastal embankments, intervening vegetation and local ridgelines in the wider landscape. There may, however, be some areas of very limited visibility from a few elevated valley slopes immediately adjacent to lower-lying marshland areas in the Special Landscape Areas associated with the rivers and tributaries of the Minsmere, Alde, Deben and Ore. Where this visibility occurs, the views towards the WTGs are likely be glimpsed and partial in nature due to the screening effects of vegetation in the foreground and middle distance of seaward views. Furthermore, where distant glimpsed views of the WTGs can be seen, the WTGs will appear as distant elements on the far distant horizon, whose additional presence will be barely perceptible in the context of the existing distant views towards the GGOWF, visible in the same sector of the seaward view. Given the distant nature and limited extent of potential views towards the proposed WTGs, the anticipated magnitude and overall significance of operational effect on the Special Landscape Areas in the study area is considered to be Negligible. The sensitivity of this landscape designation is judged to be Low. The overall significance of operational effect upon the intrinsic character of the SLAs is assessed as Negligible.

Historic Environment

6.3.7. This SLVIA makes reference to the historic environment in so far as it contributes to landscape character. Chapter 19 (Archaeology) addresses detailed effects on the setting of historic assets.

6.3.8. The offshore elements of GWF will not directly affect any onshore historic assets and, due to the distance of the development from these assets, there will be no prospect of effects upon intrinsic landscape character of them. This section, therefore, only considers the potential effects upon the visual attributes of character where these might potentially be affected

6.3.9. Of the Registered Historic Parks & Gardens located in the study area, Great Glemham and Campsey Ashe are both located at some distance from the coast and the proposed wind farm will not be visible from them. Of the remaining Registered Historic Parks & Gardens, both the Town Hall Gardens and the Cliff Gardens are located on the sea front of Felixstowe, with long distance sea views available from elevated parts of Cliff Gardens. The

2842_SLVIA 65

potential effects on the gardens arising from the WTGs of the proposed GWF scheme are detailed in Chapter 24 of the ES. Viewpoint 2 is located approximately 2km north-east of Cliff Gardens on a section of coastline facing more directly towards the proposed GWF. Effects on views from viewpoint 2 are assessed as Negligible magnitude (see Section 7.3). Effects on views from Cliff Gardens will be of equal or less magnitude as the coastline and gardens face in a south-south-easterly direction, not directly towards the proposed GWF, and because of the urbanised nature of the sea front, the existing views towards activities and infrastructure associated with the Port of Felixstowe and the existing distant views toward wind WTGs on the eastern, south-eastern and southern horizon. The other Registered Park & Garden in the study area is Bawdsey Manor. There are seaward views from the grounds of Bawdsey Manor and potential effects on the grounds arising from the WTGs of the proposed GWF scheme are detailed in Chapter 24 of the ES. If the proposed WTGs are visible fr0m the grounds they will be seen as very distant elements on the far horizon in the same relatively narrow sector of the seaward view as the WTGs of GGOWF. Bawsley Manor lies on the coast between viewpoints 2 and 6. Effects on views from viewpoints 2 and 6 are assessed as Negligible magnitude (see Section 7.3). Effects on locations within Bawsley Manor with open views of the proposed GWF will be similar (i.e. Negligible).

6.3.10. The potential effects on Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings arising from the WTGs of the proposed GWF scheme are detailed in Chapter 19 of the ES. Where Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings are located immediately on the coast edge, the magnitude of visual effects will be greatest in views from the coast north of the approximate location where the Butley River meets the River Ore, 5km southwest of Orford Ness, up to approximately Thorpeness, where the arrangement of the WTGs of the proposed and existing schemes relative to the angle of view from the coast will result in the a perceptible increase in the overall spread of WTGs visible on the distant horizon line, and where the coast is closest to the proposed wind farm. The lighthouse at Orford Ness and the Slaughton Martello Tower lie within this section of coast, and views will be affected to a similar degree of magnitude as assessed for viewpoints in Section 7.3. Viewpoints 3 is near Slaughton Martello Tower and viewpoint 5 is near the lighthouse at Orford Ness. These two viewpoints represent the highest magnitude of change assessed for all eight viewpoints – Low to Negligible. Effects on views from Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings from coastal areas beyond the extents defined above, or from inland where visibility is reduced by intervening landform, development and vegetation, will be of Negligible magnitude.

2842_SLVIA 66

6.3.11. Similarly, for Conservation Areas in towns and villages with coastal locations, such as Aldeburgh, Thorpeness, Walberswick and Southwold, whilst there may be distant views towards the proposed WTGs from some of the eastern extents of these Conservation Areas, the magnitude of operational effect on these views will be, at Negligible magnitude (e.g. from Aldeburgh (see Viewpoint 3 in Section 7.3) and, beyond the extent of coastline defined above, Negligible magnitude. This is due to the distance of the proposed WTGs from the coast and because of the existing influence of GGOWF, which is already visible in the same sector of the seaward view as the WTGs of the proposed GWF. There are unlikely to be any views of the proposed GWF from inland Conservation Areas.

2842_SLVIA 67

Table 9: Operational effects on Designated Landscapes, the Historic Environment & PROW

Landscape Distance Sensitivity to Magnitude Significance of Designations from the type of of Operational nearest change Operational Effect WTG Effect

Suffolk Coast 29.5km High Negligible Negligible AONB

Suffolk 28.9km High-Medium Negligible Negligible Heritage Coast

Special 34.8km Low Negligible Negligible Landscape Areas

Historic Distance Sensitivity to Magnitude Significance of from the type of of Operational Environ- nearest change Operational Effect on views ment WTG Effect on (worst case) views

Historic Env’t 29.8km High/High- Low- Minor associated Medium Negligible with Coastal Areas

Historic Env’t 31km Low Negligible Negligible associated with Inland Areas

2842_SLVIA 68

6.4. Operational Effects on Landscape Character Types

6.4.1. The proposed WTGs are located well beyond any of the landscape character types lying within the study area. The proposed GWF will not, therefore, result in any physical effect upon any of the landscape character types within the study area. Any effects arising will be limited, therefore, to indirect effects upon the visual attributes of the landscape character types.

6.4.2. Analysis of the ZTV and on site assessment confirms there is unlikely to be any visibility of the proposed WTGs from the following landscape character types due to their distance from the proposed WTGs and the screening effects of vegetation and landform in the intervening landscape:

 Ancient Estate Claylands;  Plateau Estate Farmlands;  Rolling Estate Claylands;  Valley Meadowlands; and  Valley Meadows & Fens.

6.4.3. The magnitude and overall significance of effect on these landscape character types is assessed, therefore, to be Negligible.

6.4.4. Analysis of the ZTV and on site assessment also confirms that there is no anticipated visibility between the proposed WTGs and the following landscape character types due to the low-lying nature of the landform that characterises them, the localised screening effect of vegetation and the presence of coastal embankments and sea defences limiting views towards the sea:

 Open Coastal Fens; and  Saltmarsh and Intertidal Flats.

6.4.5. The magnitude and overall significance of effect on these landscape character types is assessed, therefore, to be Negligible.

6.4.6. There will be very distant, glimpsed and partial views towards the proposed WTGs from within the Estate Sandlands landscape character type from a limited number of elevated areas that lie immediately adjacent to the lower- lying landscape character types of the Coastal Levels and the Rolling Estate Sandlands. Viewpoint 1 lies within the Estate Sandlands, albeit on a man- made elevated landform within Orford Castle.

2842_SLVIA 69

6.4.7. There will also be occasional limited views from a few of the more elevated areas within the Rolling Estate Sandlands themselves in places where intervening vegetation in the wider seaward landscape allow long distance views to the North Sea. Viewpoint 4 lies within the Rolling Estate Sandlands.

6.4.8. The Coastal Levels landscape character type is low lying, inland from slightly elevated shingle ridges and dunes, with limited opportunities for seaward views.

6.4.9. In the few places where the proposed WTGs will be seen from the Estate Sandlands, Rolling Estate Sandlands and Coastal Levels, they will appear as very distant elements, beyond the WTGs of the GGOWF, in the same relatively narrow sector of the seaward view. Given the distance of the proposed WTGs within these views, that they will not be seen beyond the sector of seaward view already occupied by the GGOWF and given the vastness of the overall panorama in which these views towards the proposed WTGs will be experienced, the magnitude and overall significance of operational effect on the landscape character types of the Estate Sandlands, Rolling Estate Sandlands and Coastal Levels is considered to be Negligible.

6.4.10. There will be open distant views towards the proposed WTGs visible from the beaches and shingle spit areas within the Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges landscape character type. Viewpoints 5 and 6 lie within this landscape character type. There will also be intermittent visibility from the dune areas of this landscape character type where seaward views open up between the mounding landform and tufts of marram grass. Where open views towards the proposed WTGs are seen, they will be appear as very distant elements on the horizon line, beyond the WTGs of the GGOWF within the same relatively narrow sector of the seaward view. Furthermore, the proposed WTGs will be seen in the existing context of distant views towards other industrial structures along the coast associated with Sizewell power station and the Port of Felixstowe. The above, combined with the vast scale of the panoramic views available along the edge of this landscape character type, means the magnitude and significance of operational effects of the proposed WTGs on the Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges landscape character type is judged to be Negligible.

2842_SLVIA 70

Table 10: Operational Effects on Landscape Character Types

Landscape Sensitivity to Magnitude of Significance of Character type of change Operational Operational Effect Effect

Ancient Low Negligible Negligible Estate Claylands

Coastal Dunes High-Medium Negligible Negligible & Shingle Ridges

Coastal Levels Low Negligible Negligible

Estate Low Negligible Negligible Sandlands

Open Coastal Low Negligible Negligible Fens

Plateau Estate Low Negligible Negligible Farmlands

Rolling Estate Low Negligible Negligible Claylands

Rolling Estate Low Negligible Negligible Sandlands

Saltmarsh Low Negligible Negligible Intertidal Flats

Valley Low Negligible Negligible Meadowlands

Valley Low Negligible Negligible Meadows & Fens

2842_SLVIA 71

6.5. Operational Effects on Regional Seascape Units

6.5.1. All of the proposed WTGs fall well beyond the boundaries of the regional seascape units lying within the study area. The proposed GWF will not, therefore, result in any physical effect upon any of the regional seascape units within the study area. Any effects arising will be limited, therefore, to indirect effects upon the visual attributes of each seascape unit. The indirect effects on the visual attributes of each regional seascape unit are considered in further detail below.

6.5.2. Distances of GWF from the seaward extents of each regional seascape unit relates to the extent defined in the GSA (‘The unit will generally extend up to 15km offshore’).

Walberswick to Thorpeness

6.5.3. The seaward extent of this regional seascape unit lies approximately 20km northwest of the nearest GWF WTG. The seascape environment within the unit is characterised by a gently curving beach of sand and shingle, edged by a series of dunes and shallow cliffs, with a matrix of marshland, mudflats, heath and woodland extending across its hinterland. Whilst the presence of built form along the coast edge is generally very limited, Sizewell power station forms a notable exception and forms a prominent landmark in southward views along the coast. There are also southward views, beyond the boundaries of the unit towards the WTGs of the GGOWF, when conditions for visibility are very good. As such, the proposed WTGs will not form a new element in wider views seen from the unit and will generally be seen in the same southward views as the WTGs of GGOWF and the same sector of the southward view along the coast as Sizewell power station. Whilst the proposed WTGs will perceptibly increase the overall spread of WTGs seen in views towards the seaward horizon, the proposed WTGs will only cause very minor changes to views due to the presence of the GGOWF and not significantly impinge on panoramic views across the North Sea to the east and north. The magnitude of operational effect on the existing character of the Walberswick to Thorpeness regional seascape unit is regarded, therefore, to be Low to Negligible. The sensitivity of the unit is considered to be High-Medium. The overall significance of effect is judged to be Minor.

Aldeburgh Bay

6.5.4. The seaward extent of this regional seascape unit lies approximately 15km northwest of the nearest GWF WTG. This unit is characterised by shingle beaches and a shingle spit along the coast edge and a hinterland of marshland and undulating coastal farmland. Built form along the coast varies in its

2842_SLVIA 72

nature and extent with the southern extents being more sparsely settled, with intermittent maritime and military defence structure predominating, whilst in the northern extents, the settlement of Aldeburgh forms a notable feature on the coast with views towards the village of Thorpeness and Sizewell power station seen in northward views along the coast. There are distant views towards WTGs of GGOWF in the southeast sector of the seaward horizon line when visibility is good. When visibility is excellent it will also be possible for there to be, on occasions, very distant views towards the London Array wind farm in southward views along the coast. As such the proposed WTGs will not form a new element in the existing seaward views. While the proposed WTGs will perceptibly increase the spread of WTGs visible on the distant horizon, the proposed WTGs will not impinge upon existing views across the North Sea to the northeast or along the coast to the north. Furthermore, when visible, the proposed WTGs will not only be seen in the existing context of the GGOWF, they will also often be seen in the existing context of prominent military structures in the southern extents of the unit or in the context of existing distant views towards Sizewell power station in the northern extents. The magnitude of operational effect on the existing character of the Aldeburgh Bay regional seascape unit is considered, therefore, to be Low to Negligible. The sensitivity of the unit is considered to be High-Medium. The overall significance of effect is judged to be Minor.

Hollesley Bay

6.5.5. The seaward extent of this regional seascape unit lies at an approximate distance of 16km west of the nearest GWF WTG. The coastal zone of this unit is characterised by the shingle spit at Orford Ness, a shingle beaches and a number of prominent military and maritime defence structures, both operational and derelict, set within seascape that is vast in scale, wild and isolated in character. Long distance panoramic views are common along the coast and the WTGs of the GGOWF are visible from the coast when visibility is good, as distant features on the eastern horizon line. When visibility is very good, there are also very long distance views towards the WTGs of the London Array and Gunfleet Sands wind farms in southward views along the coast. As such, the WTGs of the proposed GWF will not form a new element in seaward views, appearing in the same east-southeast sector of the horizon line in seaward views in which the GGOWF is seen. Due to their distance and layout relative to the WTGs of the GGOWF, the WTGs of the proposed GWF will not significantly increase the overall spread and density of WTGs seen on the horizon line. This, combined with their distance from the coast, means the sense of isolation and wildness that currently characterises this stretch of coastline will be largely unaffected by the addition of the proposed WTGs to horizon line views. The magnitude of operational effect of the proposed WTGs on the existing character of the Hollesley Bay regional

2842_SLVIA 73

seascape unit is considered, therefore, to be Low to Negligible. The sensitivity of this unit is assessed as High-Medium. The overall significance of operational effect is judged to be Minor.

Felixstowe/Deben Estuary

6.5.6. The seaward extent of this regional seascape unit lies approximately 28km west of the nearest GWF WTG. Whilst the inland extent of this unit includes numerous features associated with nature conservation, tourism, recreation and agriculture, along the coastline, beyond the Deben Estuary, there is a limited number of natural physical features, with man-made jetties, pipes, groynes and sea defences predominating south of the estuary and the area around Felixstowe characterised by widespread urban and industrial development extending along an engineered coastline. There are also a number man-made elements present in seaward views, including shipping traffic associated with the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe and, when visibility is good, the WTGs of the Gunfleet Sands wind farms are visible in southward views along the coast. When visibility is very good, the WTGs of the GGOWF and London Array schemes are also visible from the coastline of this unit as very distant elements on the horizon line of the North Sea, to the east and southeast respectively. The proposed WTGs will be visible in the same sector of the eastern horizon line as the WTGs of the GGOWF, when visibility conditions are very good. Whilst their additional presence on the horizon line will be perceptible in views, the distance and layout of the proposed WTGs in relation to the WTGs of the GGOWF means they will not significantly increase the overall spread or density of WTGs seen in views. The magnitude of operational effect of the proposed WTGs on the existing character of the Felixstowe/Deben Estuary regional seascape unit is considered, therefore, to be Negligible. The sensitivity of the unit is assessed as Medium-Low. The overall significance of operational effect is judged to be Negligible.

Stour/Orwell Estuary 6.5.7. The seaward extent of this regional seascape unit lies approximately 30km west of the nearest GWF WTG. The unit is characterised by a broadly low- lying, indented coastline with large areas of marshland and drained marshes, resulting in a seascape that is large in scale and commonly exposed in character. The coastline includes significant areas of settlement and industrial development. Built development also extends into seaward views, with the operational WTGs of the Gunfleet Sands wind farms seen in views southwards along the coast and, when visibility is good, there are also distant views towards the WTGs of the wind farm of London Array. When conditions for visibility are very good, there are also very distant views eastwards, across the North Sea, towards the WTGs of the GGOWF. As such,

2842_SLVIA 74

the proposed WTGs of the GWF will not form an unfamiliar element in the distant seaward views already seen from the coastline. Whilst the additional presence of the proposed WTGs on the horizon line will be perceptible in views from the coastline within the unit, the distance and layout of the proposed WTGs in relation to the WTGs of the GGOWF means they will not significantly increase the overall spread or density of the WTGs seen in views. The magnitude of operational effect of the proposed WTGs on the existing character of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries regional seascape unit is considered, therefore, to be Negligible. The sensitivity of the unit is assessed as Medium. The overall significance of operational effect is judged to be Negligible.

Table 11: Operational effects on Regional Seascape Units

Regional Sensitivity Magnitude Significance of Seascape Unit to type of of Operational Effect change Operational Effect

Walberswick to High to Low to Minor Thorpe Ness Medium Negligible

Aldeburgh Bay High to Low to Minor Medium Negligible

Hollesley Bay High to Low to Minor Medium Negligible

Felixstowe/Deben Medium to Negligible Negligible Estuary Low

Stour and Orwell Medium Negligible Negligible Estuaries

2842_SLVIA 75

7.0 Visual Effects

7.1. Nature and Duration of Visual Effects

7.1.1. The sources of visual effect arising from the proposed development are described in Section 6.2 of this report under the consideration of the nature and duration of Landscape Effects. Due to the limited magnitude of visual effect arising during most of the construction and decommissioning phases, the assessment of visual effects will focus on visual effects arising during the operational phase of the proposed GWF.

7.2. Operational Effects on General Visual Amenity

7.2.1. The extent of visibility of the proposed WTGs along the immediate coastal edge within the study area, along beaches, seafront promenades, along coastal embankments and sea defences and along the edge of the Minsmere and Dunwich cliff tops, will be broadly similar to that shown by the ZTV studies. Immediately adjacent to the coastal edge, however, visibility is greatly reduced by the screening effects of dune landform and also by the screening effects of coastal embankments and sea defences, none of which are mapped into the digital terrain model on which the ZTVs are based. This will combine with the screening effects of local vegetation to limit visibility of the proposed WTGs from lower-lying areas of marshland and coastal levels areas adjacent to the coast, as well as limiting visibility of the proposed WTGs from much of the mud flat areas around Hamford Waters, The Fens and The Mere areas and the mudflats of Long Reach. Further inland, whilst most potential views towards the proposed WTGs will be screened by intervening landform and vegetation, there will be intermittent areas of distant, partial or glimpsed visibility from some of the more open, eastward and southward facing slopes located immediately adjacent to these lower-lying areas, such as: elevated areas immediately north of Aldeburgh Marshes and Long Reach; intermittent elevated areas of farmland to the east of Iken, to the east of Sudbourne and north of Orford, adjacent to Short Reach and the Sudbourne Marshes; intermittent elevated areas around Oak Hill and Hollesley and to the north and west of Alderton; and elevated areas to the north of Falkenham. Where views towards the proposed WTGs can be seen from the coast and inland extents of the study area, they will generally appear as very distant minor elements within the vast scale of panoramic views available along the coast edge and these intermittent elevated inland areas. Furthermore, within these very distant, panoramic views, most of the proposed WTGs will be visible beyond the WTGs of the GGOWF.

2842_SLVIA 76

7.3. Representative Viewpoint Appraisal

7.3.1. The following analysis refers to the eight agreed representative viewpoints described in the baseline conditions. Reference should be made to the existing panoramas and wireframes (Figures 2842/WF/01 to 2842/WF/08) and to the photomontages (Figures 2842/PM/01 to 2842/PM/08) which illustrate the existing and proposed view seen from each viewpoint.

7.3.2. No requirement was made for offshore viewpoints or receptors by the consultees. There will be offshore receptors that will be affected by GWF but they will already be affected by the existing and consented wind farms. The key determinants of impact upon offshore receptors will be the distance from GWF influencing magnitude of effect and the sensitivity of the receptor, and the effects of existing wind farms which form part of the visual baseline.

Viewpoint 1 – Orford Castle

7.3.3. See wireframe and photomontage views (Figures 2842/WF/01 and 2842/PM/01).

Proposed View

7.3.4. The WTGs of the proposed GWF will, theoretically, be visible spanning the same sector of the existing view towards the North Sea as the GGOWF, extending approximately 5° to the north and 1.5° south of the 32.5° spread of the GGOWF WTGs. The WTGs of the proposed GWF will lie at a greater distance from the viewpoint and will appear more visually recessive within the view in relation to the GGOWF WTGs. The areas of overlap between the consented and proposed schemes and the additional areas of the horizon line occupied by the proposed WTGs will be largely screened from view by the settlement of Orford to the east and filtered by boundary vegetation in the foreground of the view to the southeast.

Magnitude and Significance of Operational Effect

7.3.5. The 6.5° increase in the overall spread of WTGs in the southeast sector of the view will be barely perceptible, even on days of very good visibility, due to the screening effects of settlement and vegetation in the foreground of the view. The magnitude of operational effect is considered, therefore, to be Negligible. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is regarded as High. The overall significance of operational effect is assessed as Negligible.

Viewpoint 2 – Old Felixstowe Seafront

7.3.6. See wireframe and photomontage views (Figures 2842/WF/02 and 2842/ PM/02).

2842_SLVIA 77

Proposed View

7.3.7. When visibility is excellent it will be possible for there to be views towards the WTGs of the proposed GWF within the same east-southeast sector of the seaward view as the GGOWF. The WTGs of the proposed GWF will be seen overlapping with the WTGs of the GGOWF and will approximately extend an additional 3° further north and 0.5° further south than the existing overall 35° WTGs spread of the GGOWF. As such, the proposed WTGs will not significantly encroach upon the stretch of horizon line separating the WTGs of the London Array scheme and the WTGs of the GGOWF. Most of the proposed WTGs will be seen beyond the GGOWF. The exception to this will be a small number of WTGs on the south-western edge of the proposed wind farm which will lie between the southern more distant part of GGOWF and the viewpoint. While the proposed WTGs will increase the overall number of WTGs potentially visible within the existing spread of the GGOWF on the horizon, the more distant nature of the majority of the proposed WTGs within the view means this increased density will be less perceptible, even on days of excellent visibility.

Magnitude and Significance of Operational Effect

7.3.8. The relatively minor additional spread of WTGs within the available view reduces the magnitude of effect of the proposed GWF WTGs. The more distant nature of most of the proposed WTGs in relation to the GGOWF WTGs visible from this viewpoint also reduces the magnitude of effect. The magnitude of operational effect is considered, therefore, to be Negligible. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is regarded as High. The overall significance of operational effect is assessed to be Negligible.

Viewpoint 3 Aldeburgh Seafront

7.3.9. See wireframe and photomontage views (Figures 2842/WF/03 and 2842/PM/03).

Proposed View

7.3.10. When visibility is very good, the WTGs of the GGOWF will be seen in the southeast sector of the view overlapping the WTGs of the GGOWF, extending approximately 8° to the north and 2.5° to the south of the existing 26.5° of the seaward horizon line occupied by the GGOWF. The number of proposed WTGs overlapping with the WTGs of the GGOWF is relatively small and, at this distance, will not significantly increase the perceived density of the GGOWF.

2842_SLVIA 78

Magnitude and Significance of Operational Effect

7.3.11. The proposed GWF will increase the overall spread of WTGs visible on the distant horizon line when visibility is very good. Whilst this will result in a discernible difference to the horizon line in the immediate proximity of the GGOWF, from this distance the proximity of the WTGs of the existing and proposed WTGs means they will be perceived as a single distant feature on the horizon line rather a than a series of disparate elements. As such, the additional WTGs of the proposed GWF will not alter the existing character of seaward views nor will they fundamentally change any of the key elements within the existing view. The magnitude of operational effect is considered, therefore, to be Low to Negligible. The sensitivity of this viewpoint is regarded as High. The overall significance of operational effect is judged to be Minor.

Viewpoint 4 North of Alderton

7.3.12. See wireframe and photomontage views (Figures 2842/WF/04 and 2842/PM/04).

Proposed View

7.3.13. When visibility is very good, a small number of the WTGs of the proposed GWF will be visible as a distant feature in seaward views beyond the WTGs of the GGOWF. The remaining WTGs of the proposed GWF will, theoretically be seen extending approximately 3° to the east and 1° to the southeast of the 34° portion of the seaward horizon line occupied by the GGOWF. However, the additional 4° spread of the proposed WTGs within the view will not, in reality, be visible due to the screening effects of vegetation in the middle distance. The small number of proposed WTGs that will be visible beyond the WTGs of the existing scheme will be distributed relatively evenly within the existing spread of the existing WTGs and will appear relatively recessive to them, due to their increased distance from the viewpoint. There will, as such, be very little perceptible increase in the density of WTGs visible on the horizon line, even when visibility is very good. This is an inland view with many other onshore elements to distract the eye.

Magnitude and Significance of Operational Effect

7.3.14. The lack of perceptible increase in breadth and density of WTG development visible on the horizon line, over that already generated by the GGOWF, means the magnitude of operational effect of the proposed GWF is considered to be Negligible. The sensitivity of this viewpoint is regarded as High. The overall significance of operational effect is assessed as Negligible.

2842_SLVIA 79

7.3.15. Whilst views towards the WTGs of the proposed GWF will not be possible from residential areas in the central parts of the village of Alderton, distant views may be possible from the eastern fringes of the settlement, depending upon the screening effects of boundary vegetation and woodland blocks in the wider intervening landscape. Where views towards the proposed WTGs are possible they will be seen as a minor addition to the existing spread of WTGs on the horizon line, with effects as described above Negligible magnitude and significance).

Viewpoint 5 Orford Ness near the Lighthouse

7.3.16. See wireframe and photomontage views (Figures 2842/WF/05 and 2842/PM/05).

Proposed View

7.3.17. When visibility is good, the WTGs of the proposed GWF will be seen on the horizon line overlapping with the WTGs of the GGOWF and extending approximately 5.5° further to the north and 2° further to the south than the existing 34.5° spread of the GGOWF. The majority of the proposed WTGs will be seen in the northern portion of the WTG arrangement and so the number of proposed WTGs seen to be overlapping the WTGs of the existing scheme will be relatively small. As such, the proposed WTGs will not significantly increase the density of WTGs visible within the existing spread of WTGs of the GGOWF. Furthermore, as most of the proposed WTGs are more distant from the viewpoint than the WTGs of the existing scheme, they will mostly appear relatively recessive within the view when visible. The exception to this will be the most northwesterly WTGs of the GWF which are at a similar distance from the viewpoint as the WTGs in the northern part of the GGOWF. When conditions for visibility are excellent, the London Array wind farm schemes will be visible in the southern sector of the horizon line view, with approximately 26° of visual separation from the southernmost WTG of the GGOWF. The additional WTGs of the proposed GWF will reduce the degree of visual separation between the London Array wind farm and the GGOWF to an angle of 24°, as seen from this viewpoint.

Magnitude and Significance of Operational Effect

7.3.18. Whilst the degree of visual separation between the GGOWF and the London Array wind farm will be lessened slightly by the addition of the proposed WTGs, the London Array wind farm and the GGOWF will still be seen as separate developments, visible in different sectors of the seaward view, with over 20° of visual separation remaining between them. The proposed WTGs will not perceptibly increase the density of WTGs of the GGOWF. The proposed WTGs will, however, increase the overall spread of WTGs in the

2842_SLVIA 80

east-southeast sector of the horizon line by a total of approximately 7.5°. Whilst this will result in a discernible difference to the horizon line view in the immediate proximity of the GGOWF, from this distance, the proximity of the WTGs of the existing GGOWF and the proposed GWF means they will be perceived as a single distant feature on the horizon line rather a than a series of disparate elements. As such, the additional WTGs of the proposed GWF will not alter the existing character of seaward views, nor will they fundamentally change any of the key elements within the existing view. The magnitude of operational effect on the existing seaward view illustrated in the photographic panorama is judged, therefore, to be Low to Negligible. The sensitivity of the viewpoint is judged to be High. The overall significance of operational effect is assessed as Minor.

Viewpoint 6 Shingle Street near Martello Tower

7.3.19. See wireframe and photomontage views (Figures 2842/WF/06 and 2842/PM/06).

Proposed View

7.3.20. When visibility is good, the WTGs of the proposed GWF will be seen in the east-southeast sector of the horizon line overlapping with the WTGs of the GGOWF and extending an additional 3° further to the north and an additional 1° further to the south than the existing 35° spread of the GGOWF. Many of the proposed WTGs will appear clustered in the northern portion of the WTG arrangement, to the east of the GGOWF. The remainder of the proposed WTGs will appear relatively evenly interspersed amongst the WTGs of the existing GGOWF. The proposed WTGs will appear relatively recessive in the view relative to the WTGs of the GGOWF due to their greater distance from the viewpoint and, as such, will not markedly increase the apparent density of the WTGs of the GGOWF. When visibility is very good, the London Array wind farm will be visible in the southern sector of the horizon line view with approximately a 23° of visual separation from the southernmost WTG of the proposed GWF.

Magnitude and Significance of Operational Effect

7.3.21. The proposed GWF will increase the overall spread of WTGs visible on the distant horizon line by 4° when visibility is good. Whilst this will result in a slightly discernible difference in views towards the horizon line in the immediate proximity of the GGOWF, from this distance the WTGs the existing GGOWF and proposed GWF will still read as a single distant feature on the horizon line. When visibility is very good, the proposed WTGs will reduce the existing degree of visual separation between the London Array wind farm and the GGOWF by 1°. The London Array wind farm and the

2842_SLVIA 81

combined GGOWF / GWF schemes will, however, still be seen as separate developments, visible in different sectors of the seaward view, with over 20° of visual separation remaining between them. As such, the WTGs of the proposed GWF will not alter the existing character of seaward views nor will they fundamentally change any of the key elements within the existing view. The magnitude of operational effect is considered, therefore, to be Negligible. The sensitivity of this viewpoint is regarded as High. The overall significance of operational effect is judged to be Negligible.

Viewpoint 7 - View from the cliff top, The Naze

7.3.22. See wireframe and photomontage views (Figures 2842/WF/07 and 2842/PM/07).

Proposed View

7.3.23. When visibility is excellent, the WTGs of the proposed GWF will be seen in the eastern sector of the seaward view, visible behind and extending beyond, to the north, of each of the two WTG clusters of the GGOWF. The majority of the proposed WTGs will be at a greater distance from the viewpoint relative to the GGOWF WTGs and these more distant WTGs will appear recessive within the seaward view. The exception to this is the most south-westerly of the proposed GWF WTGs (comprising five of the proposed 72 WTGs of the assessed scheme) which will be seen in front of the southern cluster of GGOWF WTGs, at a similar distance from the view point as the northern cluster of GGOWF WTGs. In relation to the southern cluster of WTGs of the GGOWF, the proposed WTGs will be intermittently visible at fairly regular intervals behind and in front of the existing WTGs. A small number of the proposed WTGs will extend approximately 1.5° north of the northern WTG cluster. The proposed WTGs will not perceptibly encroach on the existing extent of visual separation between the GGOWF and the London Array wind farm.

7.3.24. In relation to the northern cluster of the GGOWF, the proposed WTGs will be intermittently visible behind the central and northernmost WTGs, with one of the proposed WTGs extending approximately 1.5° to the north of the northern WTG cluster.

Magnitude and Significance of Operational Effect

7.3.25. Even when visibility is excellent, there will be little perceptible alteration in the overall density of WTGs seen on the horizon line due to relatively even arrangement of the proposed WTGs in relation to the existing WTGs and the relatively recessive nature of the proposed WTGs within the view. The proposed WTGs will increase the overall spread of the WTGs visible on the

2842_SLVIA 82

horizon line by approximately 1.5° and will slightly reduce the degree of visual separation between the northern and southern cluster of the GGOWF. A small group of proposed WTGs will lie in front of the southern area of the GGOWF and they will appear as larger elements in the view. The distance of the existing GGOWF and proposed GWF WTGs from the viewpoint, however, means the northern and southern WTG clusters will still appear as separate focal points on the horizon line and the overall increase in WTG spread on the far distant horizon will not be significant in the context of the overall scale and extent of the existing view visible from this viewpoint. The WTGs of the proposed GWF will not alter the existing character of the view nor will they fundamentally change any of the key elements within the existing view. The magnitude of operational effect of the proposed WTGs is judged, therefore, to be Negligible. The sensitivity of this viewpoint is assessed as High. The overall significance of operational effect is judged to be Negligible.

7.3.26. In close proximity to this viewpoint, at lower elevations along the revetment path and on the beach itself, seaward views are more intimate and enclosed in character, with the eye commonly distracted by groyne structures and coastal defence signage in the foreground. This enclosure and visual clutter will tend to compartmentalise and fragment views towards the changes on the horizon line arising from the proposed WTGs. The magnitude and significance of operational effect on users of the beach at the Naze arising from the proposed WTGs of the GWF is also considered to be Negligible.

Viewpoint 8 - View from The Promenade, Southwold

7.3.27. See wireframe and photomontage views (Figures 2842/WF/08 and 2842/PM/08).

Proposed View

7.3.28. When visibility is excellent, there will be very distant views towards the proposed WTGs in the southeast-south sector of the seaward view. The proposed WTGs will be seen to extend a further 9.5° north of the 16° span of the horizon line already occupied by the WTGs of the GGOWF. This 9.5° increase will not, however, impinge on the 90° eastward view: the direct view seen straight out to sea from the promenade and beach at Southwold. It is unlikely that the southern area of the GWF will be visible as they will be beyond the horizon line, due to the effects of the curvature of the earth. The arrangement of the proposed WTGs in relation to the arrangement of the GGOWF WTGs, and distance from the view point and the effects of the curvature of the earth means that there will be little visual overlap between the two schemes. There will be no significantly perceptible increase in WTG density on the horizon line within the existing spread of the existing WTGs.

2842_SLVIA 83

Magnitude and Significance of Operational Effect

7.3.29. At times when visibility conditions are excellent, the proposed GWF will increase the overall spread of WTGs visible on the distant horizon line in the southeast-south sector of the seaward view. Whilst this will result in a discernible difference in views towards the horizon line in the immediate proximity of the GGOWF, the distance of the WTGs from the viewpoint and the proximity of the proposed and existing WTGs to each other means they will be perceived as a single, distant, oblique, focal feature on the horizon line in southeast views. Furthermore, in southward views along the beach, the combined cluster of proposed and existing WTGs will be seen in the existing context of distant views towards Sizewell power station. As such, it is judged that the WTGs of the proposed GWF will not markedly alter the existing character of seaward views nor will they fundamentally change any of the key elements within the existing view. The magnitude of operational effect is considered, therefore, to be Negligible. The sensitivity of this viewpoint is regarded as High. The overall significance of operational effect is judged to be Negligible.

Table 12: Appraisal of Magnitude and Significance of Effect on Representative Viewpoints.

Viewpoint Sensitivity to Magnitude of Significance of rype of Operational Operational change Effect Effect

Viewpoint 1 – High Negligible Negligible Orford Castle

Viewpoint 2 -Old High Negligible Negligible Felixstowe Seafront

Viewpoint 3 - High Low to Negligible Minor Aldeburgh Seafront

Viewpoint 4 - Medium Negligible Negligible North of Alderton

2842_SLVIA 84

Viewpoint Sensitivity to Magnitude of Significance of rype of Operational Operational change Effect Effect

Viewpoint 5 - High Low to Negligible Minor Orford Ness near Lighthouse

Viewpoint 6 - High Negligible Negligible Shingle Street near Martello Tower

Viewpoint 7- High Negligible Negligible View from the cliff top, The Naze

Viewpoint 8 – High Negligible Negligible The Promenade, Southwold

7.4. Operational Effects on Visual Receptor Groups in the Wider Study Area

7.4.1. The operational effects on a range visual receptor groups has been assessed through the above analysis of the eight agreed representative viewpoints. In addition to the viewpoint assessment, an on-site check was also undertaken to consider the likely operational effects on other visual receptor groups within the study area. These are described in further detail below.

Local Residents

7.4.2. Viewpoints 2, 3 and 8 were selected as representative viewpoints for local residents living on the seafronts of Old Felixstowe, Aldeburgh and Southwold. Elsewhere in these settlements, the screening effects of intervening vegetation and buildings are likely to screen views towards the proposed WTGs. The same is likely to be the case for the coastal settlements of Felixstowe, Walton-on-the-Naze, Sizewell and Thorpeness, where views towards the proposed WTGs will be possible from residential areas along the seafront but unlikely from residential areas elsewhere in the settlements.

2842_SLVIA 85

7.4.3. Viewpoint 6 also represents local residents but, in this settlement, all houses are situated at the back of the shingle beach and have sea views towards the proposed wind farm.

7.4.4. The magnitude and significance of effect from Viewpoints 2 Old Felixstowe, 6 Shingle Street and 8 Southwold is assessed as Negligible. The magnitude and significance of effect from Viewpoint 3 Aldeburgh is assessed as Low to Negligible and Minor. These represent visual effects from locations within these settlements with open views of the proposed development.

7.4.5. Views towards the WTGs are unlikely from the main residential areas of Walberswick and Dunwich as they are not situated directly on the coast edge.

7.4.6. Whilst distant, glimpsed views are anticipated from some of the elevated areas of the surrounding, open countryside, it is unlikely there will be views from the residential areas within the settlements of Orford, Iken, Boyton and Sudbourne. Similarly, views are not anticipated from residential areas within the inland settlements of Aldringham, Snape, Snape Maltings, Leiston, Saxmundham, Sternfield, Tunstall, Butley, Chillesford, Shottisham or Ramsholt.

7.4.7. The inland settlements of Hollesley, Oak Hill, Bawdsey and Falkenham are located on elevated ground adjacent to lower-lying areas of coastal marshland. As the urban morphology of these villages is quite open and loose, there may be some distant, glimpsed or partial views towards the proposed WTGs on the seaward horizon line from residential areas in the eastern parts of these villages. If the proposed WTGs are visible from these areas, they will be seen as very distant elements in the context of the WTGs of the GGOWF in the same relatively narrow sector of the seaward view. Given the distance of the proposed WTGs and the vastness of the overall panorama in which these views towards the proposed WTGs will be experienced, the magnitude and overall significance of potential operational effect on the residential areas on the eastern fringes of these settlements is considered to be Negligible.

The Travelling Public - Onshore

7.4.8. Viewpoint 4 is representative of the type of oblique, distant, partial views towards the proposed WTGs that will be seen by the travelling public from some elevated portions of local roads to the north and west of Alderton, where gaps in the roadside vegetation allow seaward views. This type of view is also largely representative of the type of glimpsed, distant oblique views that will be occasionally seen by people travelling south of Alderton on the B1083 towards Bawdsey and the distant intermittent views toward the WTGs that will be seen from some of the local roads connecting Hollesley to

2842_SLVIA 86

Alderton and to Oak Hill. Viewpoint 4 is also representative of the type of oblique distant view that may be seen by the public when travelling between Iken and Orford on local roads to the east of Short Reach and to the east of the Sudbourne Marshes. Given the distant, oblique and partial distant nature of these views, the magnitude and significance of operational effect of the WTGs on motorists travelling along these local roads is considered to be Negligible.

7.4.9. Elsewhere, in the wider inland landscape of the study area, there will be no significant anticipated views towards the WTGs seen by travellers using the A1094, A1095, B1122, B1125, B1387, B1353 or the B1119.

Visitors - Onshore

7.4.10. Visitors to Orford Castle are represented by viewpoint 1 and visitors to the beaches at Old Felixstowe, Aldeburgh, Orford Ness, Shingle Street, the Naze and Southwold are represented by viewpoints 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. The views towards the WTGs of the proposed GWF illustrated for these viewpoints are broadly representative of how the WTGs will appear in views from beach areas further along the coast in respect of the distance, height, spread and arrangement of the proposed WTGs and how they will be seen in the context of view towards the existing GGOWF. As such, visitors to beaches from Orford Ness up to approximately Thorpeness are generally anticipated to experience a Low to Negligible magnitude of visual effect arising from the proposed WTGs with an overall significance of operational effect that is judged to be Minor. Moving northwards along the coast, the proposed GWF becomes more distant and the magnitude and significance of effect will reduce to Negligible at the beaches of Walberswick, Dunwich and Southwold.

7.4.11. Visitors to beaches to the south of Orford Ness, such as at Felixstowe and Walton-on-the-Naze, are generally anticipated to experience a Negligible magnitude and significance of visual effect.

7.4.12. At the Dunwich Heath National Trust Visitor’s Centre there are elevated panoramic seaward views from the cliff top areas and there are sea views from some of the lower dune levels too. There are also panoramic inland views over the Minsmere Levels to the south, with distant views towards Sizewell power station and a prominent series of pylons visible in the distance, beyond a wooded back drop. There are also existing views from the Visitor’s Centre towards the offshore sea platforms off the beach at Sizewell. The proposed WTGs will be visible in distant views in the southeast sector of seaward views seen from the Visitor’s Centre, to the east of Sizewell power station, beyond and to the left of the WTGs of the GGOWF. The relatively minor additional spread of WTGs within the view and the overall vastness of

2842_SLVIA 87

scale of the panoramic views seen from the Centre, means that the anticipated magnitude and significance of operational effect on visitors to the Nature Trust Centre is considered to be Negligible.

7.4.13. There are a number of caravan sites and holiday parks set back from the coast within the study area. These sites and parks, however, are commonly enclosed by mature tree vegetation which will limit seaward views towards the proposed WTGs.

7.4.14. Other inland visitor destinations beyond the immediate vicinity of the coastal edge are also not anticipated to have many views towards the proposed WTGs due to the screening effects of intervening vegetation and/or landform.

Public Rights of Way

7.4.15. Users of public rights of way passing through the inland areas of the study area are unlikely to have any prolonged views towards the WTGs of the proposed GWF. There may, however, be some intermittent stretches with very long distance views towards the proposed WTGs in a small number of inland areas where public rights of way extend across open areas of elevated farmland lying adjacent to lower-lying areas of marshland and mudflats. Intervening vegetation in the wider landscape, however, will partially or wholly screen these views in some places. Elsewhere, the proposed WTGs will be seen in very distant views towards the seaward horizon line, behind the WTGs of the GGOWF in the same relatively narrow sector of the view. Given the distance of the proposed WTGs within these views, that they will not be seen beyond the sector of seaward view already occupied by the GGOWF and given the vastness of the overall panorama in which these views towards the proposed WTGs will be experienced, the magnitude and overall significance of operational effect on inland public rights of way is considered to be Negligible.

7.4.16. The route of the Suffolk Coastal Path can be seen in Figure 01. Within the study area it follows the coast northwards from the centre of Felixstowe up until the mouth of the Butley River. Here, it diverts inland for approximately 15km before re-joining the coast between Aldeburgh and Thorpeness. It then continues to follow the coast until just north of Southwold where it diverts inland once again. The magnitude and significance of operational effect on the inland extents of the Suffolk Coastal Path are judged to be Negligible for the same reasons as other public rights of way passing through the inland extents of the study area. Along the coastline, there will be open views towards the proposed WTGs where the route of the path extends directly along the coast edge, namely, along the eastern extents of cliffs, on the seaward side of dunes, along the top or on the seaward side of coastal defence

2842_SLVIA 88

structures/embankments and along seafront promenades within settlements. Where the path extends through dune landscapes, the mounding nature of the landform will combine with the screening effects of marram grass to partially, and in places wholly, limit views towards the proposed WTGs. Elsewhere along the coastal extents of the path, where the route extends through marshland or heathland areas adjacent to the coast edge, views towards the proposed WTGs will be largely screened by coastal embankments and/or intervening local vegetation. Where the proposed WTGs can be seen from the route of the Suffolk Coastal Path, they will appear as very distant elements on the horizon line, behind the WTGs of the GGOWF within the same relatively narrow sector of the seaward view. Furthermore, the proposed WTGs will be seen in the context of existing distant views to industrial structures along the coast associated with Sizewell power station and the Port of Felixstowe. The above, combined with the vast scale of the panoramic views available along the Suffolk Coastal Path, means that the magnitude of operational effect along the majority of coastal extents of the Suffolk Coastal Path is judged to be Negligible, although there will be locations where the effects on views will be of Low to Negligible magnitude. The sensitivity of the Suffolk Coastal Path is regarded as High. The overall significance of operational effect on the coastal extents of the path is considered to be Negligible.

Offshore Receptors

7.4.17. The magnitude of visual effects on offshore receptors will be influenced by their location in relation to the existing and proposed GGOWF and GWF developments. For the northern part of GWF, receptors to the west of GGOWF will see the proposed GWF WTGs in the context of the existing WTGs in the foreground; the GGOWF WTGs will remain the most visually prominent WTGs in views. Receptors to the east of GGOWF will see the proposed GWF WTGs in the foreground and they will be more visually prominent than the GGOWF WTGs. Effects on receptors to the west of GGOWF will, therefore, be less affected by the addition of GWF than receptors to the east, as the changes in views will be less.

7.4.18. For the southern part of GWF the proposed WTGs will always be seen in the foreground to the GGOWF turbines and they will, therefore, be the most visually prominent.

7.4.19. There are many fishing, commercial, and industrial ships which frequent the waters around GWF and the turbines will potentially be a substantial change to views when in the vicinity. Views from fishing vessels may be more affected as they do not travel as fast as the larger ships and may have visibility of GWF for the duration of their fishing trips. Receptors on commercial fishing and industrial / cargo ships will be focussed on their line of work and

2842_SLVIA 89

due to their generally transient nature, effects would be reduced. It is judged that the magnitude of effect is, at greatest, Medium for vessels closest to GWF, reducing to Low and Negligible with increasing distance. As the workers on the ships would have a generally Medium to Low sensitivity to the type of change proposed, the significance of effect is assessed as Moderate to Negligible depending on the proximity of the receptor to the WTGs.

7.4.20. Recreational sailing and racing areas are shown on Figure 16.9 in Section 16. They lie close to the coast, at 30km or more from GWF. The proposed turbines will be seen in the context of existing turbines at GGOWF and the changes to the views will not be great. They would have a Medium sensitivity to the type of development proposed as, although they may have an interest in their surroundings, which already include a relatively high level of marine activity and a number of offshore wind farms, they would also be concentrating on the sailing or racing. The magnitude and significance of effect is judged as Negligible to vessels within the areas shown as ‘Sailing Areas’ and ‘Racing Areas’ on Figure 16.9. However, there may be other recreational sailing vessels that pass closer to GWF and these would experience temporarily higher magnitude of effect. For vessels that pass close to or within GWF effects will be as great as Medium magnitude and Moderate significance.

7.4.21. Figure 16.9 also shows cruising routes which run further out to sea, passing closer to GWF. However, the majority of the routes shown lie 15km or more west of GWF, beyond GGOWF and, again, the proposed turbines will be seen in the context of existing turbines at GGOWF. Two cruising routes are shown passing closer to GWF, one of them (identified as ‘Light Use’) passing between the north and south parts of the wind farm. Visual effects on this receptor, and also on other passenger vessels, as they pass close to GWF (possibly within 1km of turbines) will be substantial for some of the routes; however, views will already be affected by the existing turbines at GGOWF which lies similar distances from the routes. The overall magnitude of impact is judged as Low as it will be a temporary visual impact seen within the context of the existing GGOWF, and for a small proportion of the vessel’s overall route. In passing there is potential for greater impacts (Medium magnitude) but for a short period of time. The passengers on the cruising routes will have a Medium sensitivity to the proposed change. The overall significance of effect is considered to range from Moderate to Negligible depending on the proximity of the receptor to the WTGs.

7.4.22. At night, navigation and aviation lights will be visible in what is currently a dark seascape, except where there are existing lights, for example those associated with the adjoining existing GGOWF.

2842_SLVIA 90

8.0 Cumulative Effects

8.1. Introduction

8.1.1. As detailed in Appendix 1, the potential cumulative effects arising from the proposed GWF will be confined to an area within which one or more operational, consented or ‘in planning’ offshore or onshore wind farm is located within 30-35km of a coastal receptor and within the 45km radius study area for the proposed GWF. As such, this section does not consider the magnitude or significance of the effects arising from the individual cumulative wind farm developments, but instead looks at the additional seascape, landscape and visual effects arising from the combination of WTGs of the proposed GWF with one, or more, of the identified offshore and/or onshore wind farms.

8.2. Assessment Scenarios and Methodology

8.2.1. As detailed in Section 2.2, there are currently three operational offshore wind farms and three consented offshore wind farms located within the study area. These comprise the operational Gunfleet Sands I & II offshore wind farms; the operational offshore wind farm at Thanet; the consented GGOWF; and the consented offshore wind farms at London Array (I and II).

8.2.2. As all of the above wind farms are either operational or consented, their influences on the existing landscape resource, seascape character and visual environment of the study area has been considered as part of the baseline of this assessment. At the time of assessment (May 2011) many of the GGOWF and London Array I WTGs were in place.

8.2.3. In addition, an extension to Gunfleet Sands is in planning. It forms a two WTG extension to Gunfleet Sands I and II and the Gunfleet Sands I and II wind farms would lie between the extension and the GWF. It lies further than 45km from GWF. The cumulative effects of the Gunfleet Sands Extension windfarm and GWF will be Negligible and have not been considered as part of the cumulative assessment.

8.2.4. Due to the distance of the operational Thanet wind farm from the coastal receptors identified in the study area, the cumulative effects of the proposed GWF in combination with the Thanet offshore wind farm have not been considered as part of the cumulative assessment for onshore receptors.

8.2.5. Due to the distance of East Anglia ONE site from the coastline (approximately 45km) the cumulative effects of this development are not assessed for onshore receptors. In accordance with the method in Appendix 1, only those wind farm projects which are within 30 - 35km of a coastal

2842_SLVIA 91

receptor are considered as part of this assessment for onshore receptors. This is because, beyond these distances, cumulative effects will be Negligible. The cumulative effects of potential development within the East Anglia ONE site are only assessed for offshore receptors.

8.2.6. No location or design information is available on development within the remainder of the East Anglia Round 3 zone and thus it is not possible to undertake a meaningful cumulative assessment that considers the potential effects arising from the zone in combination with GWF. However, observations on the potential cumulative effects are discussed.

8.2.7. At the time of undertaking this assessment, there were no other known additional offshore or onshore wind farm schemes registered in the planning system, located within the 45km study area, which would otherwise need to be considered in the cumulative assessment.

8.2.8. The following scenario is therefore assessed in Sections 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 - GWF plus existing and consented schemes, and also for potential wind farm development within the East Anglia ONE site (although no scheme details are currently available for the East Anglia ONE site so the assessment is made assuming that the whole site could be filled with WTGs). This is effectively the effects for GWF alone, but this section of the assessment pays specific attention to how GWF may add to the effects already arising from existing schemes, and those predicted to arise from approved schemes and the East Anglia ONE site.

8.2.9. In addition, observations on potential cumulative effects of GWF and the East Anglia Round 3 zone are made in Section 8.7.

8.2.10. Receptors that are considered to receive effects of Negligible magnitude from GWF are not included in this assessment, as an effect of such low magnitude manifestly adds nothing or very little regardless of the distribution of other developments. If significant cumulative effects arise on those receptors, they would be as a result of other developments and as such are not relevant for consideration as part of this application.

8.3. Cumulative Landscape Effects

8.3.1. In the context of the existing and consented baseline GWF has been assessed as having Negligible effects on designated landscapes and landscape character types. Cumulative effects on designated landscapes and landscape character due to the addition of GWF will, therefore, be Negligible.

2842_SLVIA 92

8.4. Cumulative Seascape Effects

8.4.1. GWF has been assessed as having Negligible significance of effects on the following regional seascape units:

 Felixstowe/Deben Estuary; and  Stour and Orwell Estuaries.

8.4.2. Cumulative effects on these regional seascape units due to the addition of GWF will, therefore, be Negligible.

8.4.3. GWF has been assessed as having Minor significance of effects on the other three regional seascape units which are:

 Walberswick to Thorpe Ness;  Aldeburgh Bay; and  Hollesley Bay.

8.4.4. The cumulative effects of GWF on these regional seascape units will, therefore, be of Minor significance. These effects are summarised below.

Walberswick to Thorpe Ness

8.4.5. The proposed WTGs will be seen in combination with the WTGs of the GGOWF in southward views within this unit. The distance of these two wind farms from the unit and their proximity to one another means they will appear in combination with one another as a single focal cluster on the distant horizon. The nature of the overlap between the two schemes and their distance from the unit means there will be little perceptible difference in overall WTG density arising from the addition of the proposed WTGs to views seen from the coastline of this unit. There will, however, be an increase in overall WTG spread on the horizon line which will be seen as a northward extension to the GGOWF. Whilst this increase will be noticeable in views from the coast towards the horizon line in the immediate proximity of GGOWF, it will be seen in the context of other prominent industrial structures in southward views along the coast, namely, the pylons and buildings associated with Sizewell power station. Furthermore, whilst the increase in WTG spread will be noticeable in views towards the southeast sector of the horizon line, views directly out to sea to the east and views northwards will remain unaffected. Views seen in succession towards the proposed WTGs and the offshore wind farms of Thanet, Gunfleet Sands and London Array will not be significant due to the distance of these other offshore wind farms from this regional seascape unit.

2842_SLVIA 93

Aldeburgh Bay

8.4.6. The proposed WTGs will be seen in combination with the WTGs of the GGOWF in views from the coastline out to sea towards the southeast sector of the horizon line. The distance of these two wind farms from the coast and their proximity to one another means they will appear as a single, focal cluster on the distant horizon. The nature of overlap between the two schemes and their distance from the coast means there will be little perceptible difference in overall WTG density arising from views towards the proposed WTGs in combination with the WTGs of the GGOWF. Whilst there will be a noticeable increase in overall WTG spread on the horizon line, this increase is not considered to be significant in the context of the existing vast scale of panoramic views available along the coast and the existing distant views to prominent commercial and military structures that characterise existing views along the coast and out to sea seen within this unit. Views in succession between the proposed WTGs and the offshore wind farms of Thanet, Gunfleet Sands and London Array will not be significant due to the distance of these other offshore wind farms from the shoreline of this seascape unit.

Hollesley Bay

8.4.7. In views from the coast of this seascape unit, the proposed WTGs will be seen in the east-southeast sector of the seaward horizon line in combination with the WTGs of the GGOWF. The overlap between the two schemes and their distance from the coast means there will be little perceptible increase in WTG density arising from the addition of the proposed WTGs to the seaward view. There will be a slight increase in the perceived spread of WTGs on the horizon line, however, this increase is not considered to be significant in the context of the vast scale and extent of existing panoramic views available along the coastline within the unit. Similarly, whilst this increase in WTG spread will slightly reduce the degree of existing visual separation between the GGOWF and the offshore wind farms of Gunfleet Sands and London Array, seen in distant southward views from within the unit, this decrease in visual separation is relatively small and will not significantly alter the extent and duration of cumulative views towards operational and consented wind farms seen in succession and in sequence from within the seascape unit.

8.5. Cumulative Visual Effects – Onshore Receptors

8.5.1. In accordance with the Scottish Natural Heritage publication, Cumulative Effect of Wind Farms, Version 2 (April 2005), the assessment has identified three types of cumulative visual effect, namely: views in combination; views in succession; and views in sequence.

2842_SLVIA 94

8.5.2. The assessment of visual effects that will be caused by GWF is given in Section 7.0. Effects on visual receptors at eight representative viewpoints were assessed from the far south to the far north extents of the study area, along the Suffolk coast. Visual effects were judged to be of Negligible magnitude and significance for six of these receptors with only two experiencing greater effects; Viewpoints 3 (Aldeburgh Seafront) and 4 (Orford Ness) were judged to experience effects of Low to Negligible magnitude and Minor significance. These two viewpoints lie on the area of coastline closest to the proposed GWF, both approximately 28-30km from the nearest WTG, with open views across the North Sea towards the site. They also lie to the northwest of the GWF site, where the WTGs in the northern part of the development will be seen to extend to the left of the existing GGOWF on the skyline. Cumulative visual effects will not be greater than Negligible on receptors north of approximately Thorpeness or south of approximately the point where the Butley River meets the River Ore, or from inland areas except where there will be open, panoramic views of the wind farms seen. Cumulative visual effects are, therefore, only considered within this approximate area between Thorpeness and the Butley River, covering approximately 15 to 20km of coastline and limited inland areas close to the coast which might experience open, panoramic views.

In Combination and Succession

Onshore Receptors

8.5.3. The proposed WTGs of the GWF will be seen in combination with the WTGs of the GGOWF from beaches, cliff areas, sea promenades and walks along coastal embankments within the 15 to 20km length of coastline considered for this cumulative assessment. In views towards the GWF and GGOWF seen from the coast north of Orford Ness, the nature of overlap between the existing and proposed WTGs and their distance from the coast means there will be no significantly perceptible increase in density of WTGs seen on the horizon line. There will, however, be an overall increase in the spread of WTGs seen in the southeast sector of the horizon line as a result of the combined view.

8.5.4. Along the coast to the south of Orford Ness, whilst the WTGs of the proposed GWF and existing GGOWF will continue to be seen in combination with each other, this combined view will be seen at an increasing distance by coastal receptors and the overall increase in spread of WTGs on the horizon line arising from the additional WTGs of the proposed GWF will decrease, lessening the degree of perceptible change in seaward views arising from the combined view.

2842_SLVIA 95

8.5.5. Given the sense of distance from the proposed WTGs from the coast, the vast extents of the existing seaward panorama and available seaward horizon line that will remain unaffected by combined visual effects of the two schemes, the magnitude of cumulative effect arising from the addition of the GWF to the existing GGOWF when viewed from this 15 to 20km section of coastline is judged to be Low to Negligible.

8.5.6. Views towards the proposed WTGs in combination and succession with the WTGs of the London Array and Gunfleet Sands wind farms along the coast north of Orford Ness are Negligible in magnitude and significance due, in part, to the screening effect of the headland at Orford Ness and, in part, to the distance of these schemes from this stretch of coastline. South of Thorpe Ness, the southern cluster of proposed GWF WTGs will be visible in combination with the WTGs of the London Array wind farm. South of Orford Ness The proposed GWF as a whole will also be seen in succession with firstly the London Array wind farm and then with the Gunfleet Sands wind farm as part of the sweeping view available along the coast, panning from east to south. As described above, however, the proposed WTGs will not significantly alter the existing cumulative effects arising from the GGOWF as seen in combination with the London Array and Gunfleet Sands wind farms. The magnitude of cumulative effect arising from combined views with the London Array wind farm and views seen in succession with the Gunfleet Sands wind farm is judged, therefore, to be Negligible.

Offshore Receptors

8.5.7. Offshore receptors located to the west of GGOWF will see the WTGs at GWF in the context of those at GGOWF in the foreground, except towards the south where a small part of GWF lies west of GGOWF. GGOWF will, in most instances, be the most prominent WTGs in views, with the WTGs at GWF seen beyond those at GGOWF, increasing the density and possibly the spread of WTGs in the view.

8.5.8. In conditions of suitable visibility, offshore receptors on the sea between Felixstowe and GGOWF will currently, looking from left to right, see GGOWF, then London Array and then Gunfleet Sands wind farms. GWF will increase the density and spread of WTGs in the vicinity of the existing WTGs at GGOWF, within views that are already characterised by wind farms. The East Anglia ONE site will lie at approximately 50km or greater from this area of sea. Details of WTG types or locations are not available but, if the WTGs are 120m hub height and 195m blade tip height, for receptors at sea level hubs are unlikely to be visible beyond approximately 45km. Even when visibility conditions are excellent, development of the East Anglia ONE site is likely to have no greater than Negligible visual effects from this area.

2842_SLVIA 96

8.5.9. Receptors passing within, close to or east of GWF (e.g. fishing, cargo or cruise vessels) will see the GWF WTGs at closer distances and they will become the most prominent WTGs in most views, albeit often seen in the context of the WTGs at GGOWF just to the west. The WTGs at Gunfleet Sands, London Array, Thanet and the East Anglia ONE site will be more distant and relatively minor elements in views.

8.5.10. Proposed aviation and navigation lighting will increase the density of lighting visible to sea based receptors. Aviation and navigation lighting exists at GGOWF and proposed lighting at GGOWF will extend the coverage onto currently unlit areas of sea.

Sequential Views

Onshore Receptors

8.5.11. Receptors travelling along the edge of the coast, such as users of the Suffolk Coastal Path, will experience frequent visual exposure, of varying nature and duration depending on visibility conditions and their location along the coast, arising from the existing visual effects generated by the consented and operational offshore wind farms in the study area. Travelling northwards, the Suffolk Coastal Path diverts inland south of the Butley River and does not re-join the coast until approximately 1km south of Thorpeness; it does not, therefore, travel along the coastal edge for almost the entire length of the 15 to 20km length of coast from where visual effects of Low to Negligible magnitude may be experienced. GWF will not be visible from most of inland parts of the Suffolk Coastal Path within this 15 to 20km section.

8.5.12. Given the above, and the fact that the proposed WTGs will not significantly increase the existing extent or duration of visual effect on sequential views over that arising from the GGOWF and other wind farms in the study area from locations where GWF is visible, the magnitude of cumulative effect due to the addition of the GWF arising from sequential views experienced by receptors travelling along the Suffolk Coastal Path is judged to be Negligible.

Offshore Receptors

8.5.13. As stated in Appendix 1, sequential views occur when the observer has to move to another viewpoint to see different developments. Offshore receptors will have unimpeded views towards all wind farms, with the only restricting factors being distance and visibility (which is dependant on atmospheric conditions and daylight).

8.5.14. Vessels travelling west-east from Harwich, for example, will be able to see Gunfleet Sands, London Array and potentially Thanet wind farms to the

2842_SLVIA 97

south, and GGOWF and GWF to the east. WTGs in the East Anglia ONE site are likely to be too distant to be visible. Travelling eastwards towards GGOWF and GWF those developments will become gradually more prominent. Passing by and east of GGOWF and GWF, those developments will be the most prominent and the others will recede in views until, with increasing distance, they become invisible; the exception to this will be WTGs at the East Anglia ONE site might be visible to the north..

8.5.15. Vessels travelling north-south, for example, will pass the East Anglia ONE site to the east first. Moving southwards GGOWF and GWF will become closer to the vessels and they will become the most prominent developments with Gunfleet Sands, London Array and Thanet wind farms seen in the distance to the south and south-west. After passing GGOWF and GWF those wind farms will gradually recede in views, the East Anglia ONE site is likely to disappear from views, and Gunfleet Sands, London Array and Thanet will become more prominent.

8.5.16. Cumulative effects of adding GWF to the existing and consented offshore wind farms and the East Anglia ONE site will be as assessed for GWF alone in paragraphs 7.4.19 to 7.4.21. In summary:

 For fishing, commercial, and industrial ships the magnitude of effect is, at greatest, Medium for vessels closest to GWF, reducing to Low and Negligible with increasing distance. As the workers on the ships would have a generally Medium to Low sensitivity to the type of change proposed, the significance of effect is assessed as Moderate to Negligible depending on the proximity of the receptor to the WTGs.  The magnitude and significance of effect due to the addition of the GWF is judged as Negligible to recreational and sailing vessels within the areas shown as ‘Sailing Areas’ and ‘Racing Areas’ on Figure 16.9 of Chapter 16 of the ES. However, there may be other recreational sailing vessels that pass closer to GWF and these would experience a temporarily higher magnitude of effect. For vessels that pass close to or within GWF, cumulative effects due to the addition of the GWF will be as great as Medium magnitude and Moderate significance.  The overall magnitude of impact due to the addition of GWF to passengers on cruising routes is judged as Low as it will be a temporary visual impact seen within the context of the existing GGOWF, and for a small proportion of the vessel’s overall route. In passing there is potential for greater impacts (Medium magnitude) but for a short period of time. The passengers on the cruising routes will have a Medium sensitivity to the proposed change. The overall significance of effect is considered to range from Moderate to Negligible depending on the proximity of the receptor to the WTGs.

2842_SLVIA 98

8.6. Cumulative Viewpoint Appraisal

8.6.1. Viewpoints 3 and 7 were agreed with Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council and Natural England, for the assessment of cumulative effects. As described in Section 7.3, receptors at Viewpoint 7 (The Naze) will experience effects of Negligible magnitude and Negligible significance. Cumulative visual effects on receptors at Viewpoint 7 due to the addition of GWF will, therefore, be Negligible given that all other wind farm sites already been included as part of the baseline environment.

8.6.2. The nature of cumulative effects described for viewpoint 3 below are broadly representative of the combined views towards the WTGs of the proposed GWF and GGOWF seen from within the area between Thorpeness and the Butley River, covering approximately 15 to 20km of coastline.

8.6.3. Distances from the GWF are measured to the nearest WTG within the layout assessed.

Viewpoint 3 Aldeburgh Seafront

Grid reference 646633, 256935

Distance and Direction from GWF 31.6km to the northwest

Distance and Direction from 29.1km to the northwest GGOWF

Distance and Direction from the 46.5km to the north London Array Wind Farms

Receptor Residents/Tourists

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, Designations Heritage Coast

Landscape Character Type n/a

Regional Seascape Unit Aldeburgh Bay

2842_SLVIA 99

Proposed View

8.6.4. The proposed view is illustrated on the wireframe and photomontage views (Figures 2842/WF-C/03 and 2842/PM-C/03) and described in Section 7.3.

Magnitude and Significance of Cumulative Effect

8.6.5. The WTGs of the proposed GWF will be seen in combination with the WTGs of the GGOWF in the same sector of the seaward view on the southeast horizon line. Due to the distance of the existing and proposed WTGs from the viewpoint, the overlapping schemes will read as a single distant feature on the horizon line rather than a series of disparate elements or two distinct, separate schemes. The overall combined spread of the GGOWF and GWF schemes will, however, increase the span of the southeast horizon occupied by WTGs from 26.5° to 37°. Whilst the WTGs of the London Array wind farm are theoretically visible in succession with the combined GGOWF and GWF schemes when receptors turn to see views along the coastline to the south, the WTGs of the London Array wind farm lie at a distance greater than 46.5km and are not considered, therefore, as part of the assessment of cumulative effects on this viewpoint.

8.6.6. The cumulative effect of the proposed WTGs in combination with the WTGs of the GGOWF will not significantly alter the existing character of seaward views visible from this viewpoint, nor will it fundamentally change any of the key elements within the existing view. The magnitude of cumulative effect is considered, therefore, to be Low to Negligible. The sensitivity of this viewpoint is regarded as High. The overall significance of cumulative effect is judged to be Minor.

8.7. Potential Cumulative Effects of GWF with East Anglia Round 3 zone

8.7.1. WTGs in East Anglia Round 3 zone could potentially occupy a large proportion of seaward views from the northern extents of the coastline within the study area, and in particular from the Walberswick to Thorpeness regional seascape unit. The zone boundary is as close as approximately 15km from the coastline in this area (see Figure 07). The south-west corner of the East Anglia Round 3 zone lies approximately 2km from GWF and WTGs within the Round 3 zone, GGOWF and GWF could occupy almost the entire horizon when viewed from this area of coast, with a small gap between the Round three zone and GWF / GGOWF. The WTGs will mostly be 25 to 35km or more from the coastline except for those within the north-western part of the Round 3 zone where they could be approximately 15km from the coast. Whilst the East Anglia Round 3 zone could potentially cause significant seascape, landscape or visual effects on some coastal receptors within the most northern part of the study area, GWF will cause minimal additional

2842_SLVIA 100

effects. There could potentially, therefore, be some significant overall cumulative effects but these would be due to the East Anglia Round 3 zone alone (due to its size and proximity from the coast) and not by the addition of GWF.

8.7.2. The East Anglia Round 3 zone is likely to lead to significant cumulative seascape and visual effects on offshore receptors, principally due to the scale of the Round 3 zone. GWF and the East Anglia Round 3 zone lie within close proximity to each other and, combined with the existing GGOWF development, they could lead to an extensive area of wind farm development in the North Sea, stretching from the southern tip of GWF to the northern tip of the Round three zone.

8.7.3. The extent of these cumulative effects can only be determined when details of the size and location of individual development sites within the East Anglia Round 3 zone are known.

2842_SLVIA 101

9.0 Mitigation

9.1.1. The inherent characteristics of the proposed GWF, means there are very limited opportunities for incorporating mitigation measures as part of the development. The size and generating capacity of the WTGs and associated offshore sub-station infrastructure has to be sufficient to ensure that they remain commercially viable and the actual siting of the WTGs is, to a large extent, predetermined by the Crown Estate with only more local adjustments being possible to best suit prevailing seabed and other conditions. However, it is important to note that the location of the proposed GWF has been guided largely by the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process undertaken for the 2nd round of offshore wind developments. A key conclusion of this SEA process was that no Round 2 developments should be sited within an 8km visual exclusion zone in order to minimise potential visual impacts upon local receptors. As a result of adhering to this recommendation, and being sited well beyond this 8km zone, potential visual impacts of the proposed GWF have already been mitigated for to a large degree.

9.1.2. Careful consideration has been given to the colour of the WTG structures in order to ensure that they remain relatively visually recessive. There is, however, a degree of conflict with existing standard requirements for structures out at sea, which clearly have to remain visible, and identifiable to shipping. Thus, the need to paint the lower sections of the WTG columns yellow, in accordance with Trinity House requirements, is unavoidable. Whilst this assists with improving visibility at sea it should make no difference to visibility from land given that the WTGs are to be seen at a minimum distance of over 27km. Navigation and aviation requirements also necessitate that the WTG locations should be identifiable at night and lit with navigation and aviation lights. At a minimum distance of over 27km, however, these navigation lights will make little or no difference to night- time visibility from land.

2842_SLVIA 102

10.0 Summary and Conclusion

10.1. Introduction

10.1.1. The final design of the proposed GWF has not been fixed at this stage. The project is being taken forward on the basis of envelope parameters including a defined site area and a maximum capacity of up to 504MW. A number of WTG sizes and densities are being considered and this SLVIA assesses the effects of the tallest WTG option, given that these are likely to have the greatest seascape, landscape and visual effects. This SLVIA, therefore, assesses the effects of 72 number 7MW WTGs with nominal hub and blade tip heights of 120 and 195m above sea level respectively.

10.2. Summary of Landscape and Seascape Effects

10.2.1. Even though the proposed GWF is located at a distance of approximately 27km to the east of the nearest stretch of coastline at Orford Ness, the scale and extent of the scheme will still have some effect on the seascape and landscape environments of the study area.

10.2.2. The primary source of the effects will arise from the operational phase of the offshore WTGs. The WTG columns are necessarily large structures and this assessment is based on the largest potential WTGs that would result in approximately 72 number, 195m high WTGs being introduced into the wider offshore extents of the study area. Being sited out at sea, however, means the WTGs will be placed in a receiving environment that has both the scale and simplicity of form to not only accommodate the development, but to also provide it with an appropriate contextual setting. Thus, although the WTGs are in themselves of a substantial scale, the expansive skies, simple composition and linear nature of the existing receiving environment combine with the overall scale of the seascape, to provide capacity to accommodate the proposed WTGs, even though there is little opportunity to incorporate meaningful mitigation measures to reduce the scope of the WTGs’ effect. Furthermore, the study area already includes the operational offshore wind farms at Gunfleet Sands and Thanet, the partially constructed wind farms at GGOWF and London Array Phase I, and will also include the consented offshore wind farm at London Array Phase II, once constructed. As such, the proposed WTGs will not introduce an unfamiliar element into the wider environment of the study area.

10.2.3. The proposed WTGs are located well beyond any of the landscape receptors lying within the study area. The proposed GWF will not, therefore, result in any physical effect upon any of the landscape receptors within the study area. Any effects arising will be limited, therefore, to indirect effects upon the visual attributes of the landscape receptors.

2842_SLVIA 103

10.2.4. With regard to effects on designated landscapes, views towards the WTGs from the inland extents of the study area are very limited, with very distant glimpsed or partial views anticipated from a small number of elevated open areas lying immediately adjacent to lower-lying areas of marshland and coastal farmland within the designated landscapes of the study area. On the coastal edge of these designated landscapes, whilst there will be open views towards the WTGs along much of their length, the WTGs will be seen in the same sector of the seaward horizon as the GGOWF. Due to their distance from the shore and the degree of overlap between the existing and proposed schemes, the increase in spread and density of WTGs seen on the horizon line arising from the addition of the proposed GWF will not be significant. The effect on the designated landscapes within the study area is considered, therefore, to be of Negligible magnitude and significance.

10.2.5. Similarly, with regard to the extent of effects on landscape character types, the limited visibility of the WTGs from inland areas means the magnitude and significance of effect on all of the landscape character types within the study area will be Negligible and no prospect of any effect upon their defining characteristics.

10.2.6. With regard to the anticipated effects on the identified regional seascape units, all of the units will experience some degree of visual exposure towards the WTGs of the proposed GWF. However, the proposed WTGs will not directly affect the seascape units and there will be no effects on the physical elements of their defining characteristics. The only effects will be on distant views of new WTGs from the units. They will also be seen in the context of the existing GGOWF. The significance of effect arising from this visual exposure will be greatest for the seascape units lying north of Bawdsey where the increased spread of turbines seen on the distant horizon line will be discernible, and where the proposed wind farm is closest to the receptors, resulting in a Moderate-Minor significance of effect. Further south, the decreased spread of the turbines relative to the existing spread of the GGOWF in views from the coast will combine with the increasing distance of the proposed turbines from the coastline and the decreased sensitivity of the coastline around the Port of Felixstowe to reduce the effect on the seascape units to the south of Bawdsey to a significance that is judged to be Negligible.

10.3. Summary of Visual Effects

Onshore Receptors

10.3.1. The GWF WTGs will be seen from land based viewpoints collectively as a notable cluster of visual elements on the far horizon line, set within a simple open panorama comprised predominantly of sea, coastal edge and sky. They will be seen in the context of the existing GGOWF, with the degree of overlap

2842_SLVIA 104

between the proposed and existing schemes and the distances of both schemes from the coastline resulting in them appearing as a single distant feature on the horizon line.

10.3.2. The magnitude of effect on views from the majority of the coastline within the study area is reduced by the distance of the WTGs from visual receptors along the coast and the relatively recessive nature of most of the WTGs of the proposed GWF in relation to the WTGs of the GGOWF. The magnitude of effect on views is further reduced due to the degree of overlap between the existing and proposed schemes, the relative lack of perceptible increase in WTG density and the limited degree of additional spread of WTGs on the horizon line.

10.3.3. The magnitude and extent of visual effects is at its greatest in views from the coast north of the approximate location where the Butley River meets the River Ore, 5km southwest of Orford Ness, up to approximately Thorpeness, where the locations of the WTGs of the proposed and existing schemes relative to the angle of view from the coast will result in the a perceptible increase in the overall spread of WTGs visible on the distant horizon line. The distance of the WTGs from this 15 to 20km length of coastline and the peripheral position of the WTGs within the field of seaward view from the coast north of Orford Ness, however, will combine to reduce the visual effects of this additional WTG spread. In views towards the WTGs along the coast south of where the Butley River meets the River Ore, approximately 5km southwest of Orford Ness, the magnitude and extent of visual effect decreases, for whilst the WTGs will shift to become more of a central focus in seaward views, they gradually become more distant as the coastline moves away from GWF. Furthermore, the perceived visual increase in WTG spread on the horizon line arising from the proposed GWF will be notably less than that seen in views from the coast north of Orford Ness.

10.3.4. The existing visual prominence of built elements sited intermittently along the coastline of the study area, including the developed and industrialised foreshore associated with the Port of Felixstowe in the south of the study area and Sizewell power station in the north of the study area, combine with other prominent military and maritime features along the coast edge to help reduce the visual effects of the WTGs. This, combined with the very limited area of visual exposure experienced throughout the inland extents of the study area means the overall effect on the visual amenity of the study area is considered to be of Negligible magnitude and significance, with only visual receptors along the 15 to 20km section of coast north and south of Orford Ness experiencing a greater level of effect. Receptors within the 15 to 20km section of coast between approximately the Butley River and Thorpeness could experience effects of Low to Negligible magnitude and Minor significance.

2842_SLVIA 105

Offshore Receptors

10.3.5. There are many commercial fishing and industrial ships which frequent the waters around GWF and the turbines will potentially be a substantial change to views when in the vicinity. However, receptors will be focussed on their line of work and due to their generally transient nature, effects would be reduced. It is judged that the magnitude of effect is, at greatest, Medium for vessels closest to GWF, reducing to Low and Negligible with increasing distance. As the workers on the ships would have a generally Medium to Low sensitivity to the type of change proposed, the significance of effect is assessed as Moderate to Negligible depending on the proximity of the receptor to the WTGs.

10.3.6. Recreational sailing and racing areas lie close to the coast, at 30km or more from GWF. The proposed turbines will be seen in the context of existing turbines at GGOWF and the magnitude and significance of effect on these receptors is judged as Negligible. However, there may be other recreational sailing vessels that pass closer to GWF and these would experience a temporarily higher magnitude of effect. For vessels that pass close to or within GWF effects will be as great as Medium magnitude and Moderate significance.

10.3.7. The majority of cruising routes lie 15km or more west of GWF, beyond GGOWF and, the proposed turbines will be seen in the context of existing turbines at GGOWF. Two cruising routes pass closer to GWF and visual effects will be substantial for some parts of the routes; however, views will already be affected by the existing turbines at GGOWF which lies similar distances from the routes. The overall magnitude of impact is judged as Low as it will be a temporary visual impact seen within the context of the existing GGOWF, and for a small proportion of the vessel’s overall route. In passing there is potential for greater impacts (Medium magnitude) but for a short period of time. The passengers on the cruising routes will have a Medium sensitivity to the proposed change. The overall significance of effect is considered to range from Moderate to Negligible depending on the proximity of the receptor to the WTGs.

10.3.8. At night, navigation and aviation lights will be visible in what is currently a dark seascape, except where there are existing lights, for example those associated with the adjoining existing GGOWF.

2842_SLVIA 106

10.4. Summary of Cumulative Effects

Onshore / Coastal Receptors including Regional Seascape Units

10.4.1. The proposed GWF will not significantly add to the existing cumulative effects generated by the consented and existing operational offshore wind farms in the study area. The GWF turbines, being further offshore, have a slightly increased ZTV out to sea. The cumulative ZTV studies indicate the theoretical landward visibility of the proposed WTGs will not extend greatly beyond the existing areas of visual exposure associated with the WTGs of the GGOWF. As a result, although the proposed GWF WTGs will add to the existing spread of WTGs seen on the horizon line when viewed from land, they will rarely alter the degree or extent of existing visual exposure, nor will they generate significant additional effects on landscape or seascape character. The overall cumulative effect of the proposed GWF over and above that caused by the existing and consented wind farms of the study area is considered, therefore, to be no more than Low to Negligible.

10.4.2. WTGs located within future development sites within the East Anglia Round 3 zone could potentially occupy a large proportion of seaward views from the northern extents of the coastline within the study area, and in particular from the Walberswick to Thorpeness regional seascape unit. WTGs within the Round 3 zone, GGOWF and GWF could, theoretically, occupy almost the entire horizon when viewed from his area of coast, with a small gap between the Round three zone and GWF / GGOWF. Whilst there could potentially be some significant overall cumulative effects they would be due to developments within the East Anglia Round 3 zone (due to its size and proximity from the coast) rather than the addition of GWF. The extent of these cumulative effects can thus only be determined once development details of the East Anglia Round3 zone are known.

Offshore Receptors

10.4.3. Offshore receptors comprising people on recreational and commercial vessels located to the west of GGOWF (where the highest density of recreational vessels occur) will see the WTGs at GWF in the context of those at GGOWF in the foreground, except towards the south where a small part of GWF lies west of GGOWF. GGOWF will, in most instances, be the most prominent WTGs in views, with the WTGs at GWF seen beyond those at GGOWF, increasing the density and possibly the spread of WTGs in the view.

10.4.4. Receptors passing within, close to or east of GWF (e.g. fishing, cargo or cruise vessels) will see the proposed WTGs at closer distances and they will become the most prominent WTGs in most views, albeit often seen in the context of the WTGs at GGOWF just to the west. The WTGs at Gunfleet Sands, London

2842_SLVIA 107

Array and Thanet wind farms will be more distant and relatively minor elements in views.

10.4.5. The East Anglia Round 3 zone may lead to significant cumulative seascape and visual effects on offshore receptors, principally due to the scale of the Round 3 zone. GWF and the East Anglia Round 3zone lie within close proximity to each other and, combined with the existing GGOWF development, they could lead to an extensive area of wind farm development in the North Sea, stretching from the southern tip of GWF to the northern tip of the Round three zone.

10.4.6. Proposed aviation and navigation lighting will increase the density of lighting visible to sea based receptors. Aviation and navigation lighting exists at GGOWF and at other existing and consented wind farms to the south-west, and proposed lighting at GGOWF will extend the coverage onto currently unlit areas of sea.

2842_SLVIA 108

Appendix 1: Seascape, Landscape and Visual Assessment (SLVIA)

Methodology

1) Introduction

LDA Design has an established methodology for carrying out Seascape and Visual Impact Assessments (SVIAs) for proposed offshore wind farm developments. The methodology may be varied slightly to address site or development / context specific situations, and the terms used to describe particular levels of effect may be varied (e.g. the use of the word Substantial instead of Major - see below) at the request of the EIA coordinator in order to correlate with other assessments in an ES. The standard methodology, including likely variations, is described below along with any variations specific to this particular assessment. Additional supporting information is also provided within appendices.

2) Overview

The methodology employed has 4 key stages, which are described in more detail in subsequent sections, as follows:

 Baseline - includes the gathering of documented information; scoping of the assessment and agreement of that scope with the client, EIA coordinator and local planning authority; site visits; and, initial reports to client and/or EIA coordinator of any issues that may need to be addressed within the design.  Design - where appropriate, review of initial layout/ options, WTG choice(s), and mitigation options.  Assessment - includes an assessment of the seascape, landscape and visual effects of the full scheme, requiring site based work and the completion of a full report and supporting graphics.  Cumulative Assessment - assesses the effects of the proposal in combination with other wind farm developments.

The general assessment methodology draws upon the established Countryside Agency methodology (Landscape Character Assessment Guidance, 2002) and other recognised guidelines, in particular the Institute of Environmental Assessment and the Landscape Institute's Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, second edition 2002; Scottish Natural Heritage's 'Visual representation of Wind Farms Best Practice Guidance' (2006, albeit published in May 2007); the Guidance on the Assessment of the Impact of Offshore Wind Farms (DTI, 2005); and, the

2842_SLVIA

Companion Guide to PPS22 (ODPM, 2004). The assessment is necessarily iterative, with stages overlapping in parts.

Specific methodologies relevant to offshore wind farm developments are particularly relevant and the proposed methodology for the seascape assessment broadly follows the guidance set out in the Maritime Ireland/Wales Interreg 1994 - 1999 Guidance 'Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment', (GSA), published in March 2001. This sets out a clear methodology for undertaking seascape characterisation and for the evaluation process, and subsequent judgements arising. The guidance document is the result of joint pilot studies carried out between Wales and Ireland and sets out a clear process for undertaking a seascape assessment. It also provides practical guidance for undertaking field survey work and the field study forms are utilised during site assessment work.

These methodologies commonly aim to systematically appraise the existing landscape / seascape condition, to identify all the significant physical and visual characteristics and assess their quality or value as well as the perceived, visual amenity value. These then provide a baseline against which the key Seascape/Landscape and Visual effects can be predicted and evaluated and their magnitude and significance assessed in a logical and well reasoned fashion.

Natural England (NE) and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) jointly commissioned LDA Design in late 2010 to prepare a new, common methodology for seascape characterisation. This was not available at the time that this SLVIA for GWF was carried out and it was agreed with NE that the GSA should be followed and not the emerging methodology.

3) Methodology for Identification of Seascape Units

The Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment (GSA) states clearly that:

'Seascape assessment is an extension of landscape character assessment rather than a specialism in its own right. It does not replace the need for a thorough landscape assessment on land (para 1.6).'

It is therefore important to recognise the interrelationship between, and interdependency of, the sea and land. Identified seascape units will thus, whatever their scale and extent, straddle segments of the coastline with their character being defined by both seaward and landward elements. The GSA then highlights that, whilst some key elements in seascape assessment are common to landscape assessment, there are others that are noticeably different or wholly absent from landscape character assessment work. The key differences are identified as:

2842_SLVIA

 The effects of historic and cultural issues related to the marine environment  The coastline acting as a clearly defined edge  Variability and dynamism associated with the marine and coastal components  Difficulties associated with understanding the scale and distance of elements set within the marine component  Different principals of visual movement arising from the coastline and marine components  Amenity functions and uses of the seashore  Functions and uses of the sea

Paragraphs 2.1 - 2.7 of the GSA, review each of these in turn, in further detail, highlighting key characteristics and issues. All elements, quite correctly, need to be considered during the process of defining the geographical extent of seascape units. Worthy of particular highlight are the issues associated with visibility, both from the land towards the sea, and vice versa. Clarity of visibility is in turn determined by prevailing weather conditions including such aspects as air moisture content and air pressure. Visibility in turn, influences the visual receptor's perception of distance and there are inherent difficulties in judging both scale and distance when looking across expanses of sea. Perspective can often be condensed and misread due to an absence of reference points to provide a sense of scale. Moreover, where the immediate coastline shelves gently, a further dynamic is introduced into the view, varying according to the state of the tide and the resultant extent of exposed foreshore. This both changes the character of local areas on a regular basis and also further alters visual judgements. To accommodate all of these various elements the seascape assessment process requires sufficient time to be spent on site to enable a proper understanding of the local environment.

Chapter 4 of the GSA provides clear guidance on the identification of the spatial extent of seascape units. The GSA proposes three tiers of units, namely: national, regional and local, and notes that the smaller units will effectively 'reside' within the larger regional and national units. Clear guidance is given on both the seaward and landward extent of the various scaled seascape units as well as suggestions as to their likely lateral extent along the coastline. Whilst the landward extent of seascape units can be more readily defined due to the multitude of physical elements and the complexity of landform, it is far more difficult to define a seaward extent. Thus, visibility becomes a key component in defining the seaward extent of the seascape units which can overlap as they 'bleed out' along the coastline.

2842_SLVIA

National Seascape Unit

The GSA advises that national seascape units will cover extensive sections of the coastline where there is an overriding common defining characteristic such as coastal orientation or landform. It suggests that such units will be defined by major headlands of national significance. The units are then defined as extending for up to 24km offshore and inland to the full extent of the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI). Coastal orientation and the topography of the coastline are identified as key defining characteristics.

Regional Seascape Units

The GSA advises that the most appropriate scale for undertaking seascape characterisation in association with coastal developments, such as offshore wind farms, is the regional unit. It sets out the main recommended parameters for defining regional seascape units, which are noted as generally extending for up to 15 km offshore and inland for up to 10km. It is noted that the landward extent of the regional seascape unit may well include areas of visually dead ground i.e. areas of land that are not inter-visible with the sea component of the unit.

Defining Capacity for Change

The Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment defines the evaluation process, and the issues to be considered as seeking to define the capacity of a seascape unit to accommodate the changes arising from the proposed offshore wind farm development. The GSA states that 'Seascape evaluation is defined as the judgement and ranking of seascapes according to their quality, value or capacity to accommodate change'. The GSA provides key guidance as to how quality, value and the capacity to accommodate change should be evaluated and this process has been followed and applied to the identified regional seascape units.

4) Baseline

The baseline study establishes the planning policy context, the scope of the assessment and the key landscape/seascape and visual receptors. It includes the following key activities:

 A desk study of relevant current national, regional and local planning policy for the site and surrounding areas.  Agreement of the main study area radius with the local planning authority.

2842_SLVIA

 A desk study of nationally and locally designated landscapes within the agreed study area.  A desk study of existing landscape and seascape character assessments for the site and surrounding areas, both at national, regional and local level.  Draft Zone of Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) studies to assist in identifying potential viewpoints and to indicate the potential visibility of the proposed offshore wind farm, and therefore the scope of receptors likely to be affected. The methodology used by LDA Design in the preparation of ZTV studies is described separately within an Appendix 3.  The identification of and agreement upon, through consultation, the scope of assessment for cumulative effects.  The identification of and agreement upon, through consultation, the number and location of representative viewpoints within the study area.  Identification of the range of other visual receptors within the study area.  Site visits to become familiar with the site and surrounding seascape / landscape and to identify viewpoints and receptors.

During this stage, the scheme design may not yet have been finalised and there may be a degree of iteration between this stage (particularly in respect of preparing ZTV studies and consequent changes to likely effects on receptors) whilst the design is finalised.

5) Design

The degree of 'design fix' for offshore schemes coming forward for assessment can vary. Often there is the need to consider a number of alternative schemes and, through consultation, to reach agreement as to which of the scheme options constitutes the worst case scenario scheme in accordance with the 'Rochdale Envelope' principals. For some sites, the WTG layout may already be fixed, in which case input to the design may be limited to advising on mitigation or an indication that adjustments to particular WTG arrangements would be desirable. In other cases, it may be that no decisions have yet been made, and therefore a range of options by way of WTG numbers, sizes and layouts could be considered, and reviewed with the client and EIA team in order to arrive at an optimum proposal that best addresses the balance between potentially conflicting issues, which will include both beneficial and adverse effects. However, it will be appreciated that proposals located within the more challenging offshore environments cannot always afford a significant degree of fine tuning to WTG layout.

2842_SLVIA

Beyond design changes to the arrangement of WTGs, including the number and size of WTGs, opportunities for significant mitigation measures are inevitably limited due largely to the nature of the proposed development and the character of the receiving marine environment. The scale of development and distance from the coastline means that there are no real meaningful opportunities for incorporating other mitigation measures. However, within the evident constraints of the proposed development, mitigation measures are considered and, wherever possible, incorporated into the evolving scheme in order to best address potential effects.

The design, siting and mitigation of potential effects of the offshore substations and monitoring mast(s) will also be considered whilst the onshore grid connection routes are usually the subject of a separate application and thus do not form part of the assessment.

The documented assessment will include:

 A description of the proposed wind farm development.  A description of the design process and any iterations of the design.  A description of any mitigation measures incorporated within the proposals to help reduce identified potential landscape and visual effects.

6) Assessment

The assessment of effects includes further desk and site based work, covering the following key activities:

 The preparation of ZTVs based on the finalised design for the development.  The preparation of computer generated wireframes showing the proposed development from the agreed representative viewpoints  An assessment of the magnitude and significance of effects upon the seascape regional units, landscape character, landscape designations and the existing visual environment arising from the proposed development during construction, operational and decommissioning stages.  The production of photomontages from a selection of the agreed viewpoints showing the anticipated view following construction of the proposed wind farm development.

7) Preparation and use of Visuals

The preparation of the ZTVs, wireframes and photomontages complies with the SNH 'Visual Representation of Wind Farms Best Practice Guidance'. The

2842_SLVIA

ZTVs and wireframes are used to inform the field study assessment work, providing additional detail and accuracy to observations made on site. In line with the SNH guidance, photomontages are produced in order to assist readers of the assessment in visualising the proposals, should not be used alone in reaching judgements of effect. In the wireframes and photomontages, the turbines are facing into the prevailing wind direction (the way they would most commonly be oriented). This results in a representative variation in the appearance of the turbines from different viewing angles.

The following points should be borne in mind in respect of the ZTV study:

 Areas shown as having potential visibility only may have visibility of the development, local features such as trees, hedgerows, embankments or buildings could obscure the view.  Since only the WTG hubs and blade tips have been modelled, this may be all that is visible - rather than the WTG tower. This is particularly true of areas near the edges of potential visibility.

A detailed description of the methods by which ZTVs, wireframes and photomontages are prepared is included within a separate appendix.

8) Assessment Terminology and Judgements

A full glossary of terms is provided as an appendix to the SLVIA. The key terms used within assessments are Sensitivity, Magnitude and Significance.

Sensitivity to change is assessed for both seascape/landscape receptors such as regional seascape units, designated areas and landscape character areas, and for visual receptors (people) at agreed viewpoints. It provides an indication of the likelihood of unacceptable effects on those receptors from a development of the type proposed.

A description of how sensitivity is assessed for each receptor type is included below. It is usually rated on the following scale:

 High - material effects are likely to arise from a development of this nature.  Medium - material effects may arise from a development of this nature.  Low - material effects are unlikely to arise from a development of this nature.

Sensitivity of landscape character areas is influenced by their characteristics and is frequently considered within documented landscape character

2842_SLVIA

assessments and capacity studies. Sensitivity of designated landscapes is influenced by their value as indicated by their designation. Sensitivity of both landscape character areas and designated landscapes is also influenced by the degree to which a wind farm within the sea, within their settings, has potential to cause unacceptable effects. This is affected by whether sea views from them contribute to their character or reasons for designation. The offshore components of an offshore wind farm will not occur within or physically effect land based character areas or designated landscapes.

Sensitivity of visual receptors is primarily a function of the expectations and occupation or activity of the receptor and the importance of the view.

The Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment (GSA) indicates that the sensitivity of regional seascape units to change is an important factor in assessing the significance of effects upon a particular seascape. For example, a seascape of a grand and generous scale with a limited array of constituent elements may be deemed to have a greater capacity to accommodate change and hence have a lower level of sensitivity to a particular type of development, than a more intimate seascape that might become dwarfed by large-scale development. On the other hand, the GSA also intimates, a more fragmented seascape may have an increased capacity to accommodate change (and hence a lower level of sensitivity) on account of the existence of promontories and/or high landform that assists in intermittently concealing and revealing views of a particular offshore development. There is thus a clear need to consider both the scale of the seascape and its complexity, and the degree to which views towards offshore development change or broadly remain static.

Sensitivity of Regional Seascape Unit

 High - Important components or zones of particularly distinctive character susceptible to relatively small change.  Medium - A seascape of moderately valued characteristics reasonably tolerant of change.  Low - A relatively unimportant seascape, potentially tolerant of substantial change.

The appraisal also identifies the degree of sensitivity to change in representative views from key receptors and more generally within the ‘visual envelope’ of the proposed development.

Magnitude of effect is assessed for all seascape, landscape and visual receptors and identifies the degree of change. It is rated on the following scale:

2842_SLVIA

 High - Total or major alteration to key elements, features or characteristics, such that post development the baseline situation will be fundamentally changed.  Medium - Partial alteration to key elements, features or characteristics, such that post development the baseline situation will be noticeably changed.  Low - Minor alteration to key elements, features or characteristics, such that post development the baseline situation will be largely unchanged despite discernible differences.  Negligible - Very minor alteration to key elements, features or characteristics, such that post development the baseline situation will be fundamentally unchanged with barely perceptible differences.

Whilst the duration of effects is also a consideration, the normal lifespan of a windfarm, though temporary, is a period of up to 25 years (or less). This is a reasonable length of time so is not taken into account in determining magnitude. The reversibility of effects is however, a material consideration and will be referred to within the assessment.

Significance indicates the importance of the effect, taking into account the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the effect. It is usually rated on the following scale:

 Major (sometimes called Substantial) - indicates an effect that is very important in the planning decision making process.  Major-Moderate - indicates an effect that is material in the planning decision making process.  Moderate - indicates a noticeable effect that is not material in the planning decision making process.  Minor (sometimes called Slight) - indicates an effect that is peripheral in the planning decision making process.  Negligible (sometimes called Minimal or No Change) - indicates an effect that is akin to no change and is thus not relevant to the planning decision making process.

Significant effects (in terms of the EIA regulations) are those that are Major- Moderate or Major. As stated within the EIA regulations, if an effect is not significant, it should not be considered as material to the decision making process. It should also be noted that whilst an effect may be significant, and therefore material in coming to a decision, that does not necessarily mean that such an impact would be unacceptable.

2842_SLVIA

Where intermediate ratings are given, e.g. "Moderate-Minor", this indicates an effect that is both less than Moderate and more than Slight, rather than one which varies across the range. In such cases, the higher rating will always be given first; this does not mean that the impact is closer to that higher rating, but is done to facilitate the identification of the more significant effects within tables.

The process of forming a judgement of significance of effect is based upon the assessments of magnitude of effects and sensitivity of the receptor to come to a professional judgement of how important this effect is in terms of making a decision about whether consent should be granted. This judgement is illustrated by the table below:

SENSITIVITY

MAGNITUDE Low Medium High

High Moderate Major-Moderate Major

Medium Moderate-Minor Moderate Major-Moderate

Low Minor Moderate-Minor Moderate

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

9) Limitations

The nature (or valency) of the effect (Positive, Neutral or Adverse) is not identified. In the case of wind farms, there are difficulties in indicating whether seascape/landscape and visual effects will be positive or adverse. Much depends upon the attitudes and predispositions of the individual. As has been shown in a number of opinion surveys, the attitudes of the general public vary widely from those who think that wind farms blight the landscape to others who feel that they are a beautiful or positive addition, in some instances regardless of the natural beauty/value of the landscape in question. In general terms there appears to be a majority view that is positive towards wind energy generation and its appearance in the seascape / countryside and this is particularly so once a wind farm is built in a particular location. In examining visual effects, it is not realistic to ignore public opinion (nor the likelihood that professionally qualified landscape architects may have differing positions) when discussing the effect upon views perceived by the public and positive/adverse judgements are therefore not made within assessments.

2842_SLVIA

Making positive/adverse judgements for effects of wind farms on landscape character based on current guidance would be of questionable value, particularly if using the conventional interpretation (which is implicit in many local plan policies) that any ’out of character’ development should be considered adverse. This would effectively make all wind farm developments result in adverse effects on seascape / landscape character except if they were proposed near to another wind farm. For this reason, such judgements are not included in assessments.

10) Landscape Character

The European Landscape Convention (2000) provides the following definition:

“Landscape means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors.”

The Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland, CA/SNH, 2002 defines landscape character as:

“the distinct, recognisable and consistent pattern of elements in the landscape that makes one area different from another.”

It also notes that (para. 2.1):

“Character makes each part of the landscape distinct, and gives each its particular sense of place. Whether we value certain landscapes for their distinctiveness, or for other reasons, is a separate question.”

Landscape character assessment is defined as (Natural England website – credited as a quote from the guidance):

"the tool that is used to help us to understand, and articulate, the character of the landscape. It helps us identify the features that give a locality its 'sense of place' and pinpoints what makes it different from neighbouring areas."

The sensitivity of seascape regional units and landscape character areas judged is based on both the attributes of the receiving environment and the characteristics of the proposed development. Thus, the key characteristics of the seascape units / landscape character areas are considered, along with scale, openness, topography; the absence of, or presence, nature and patterns of development, settlement, landcover and land uses in forming the character. The condition of the receiving seascape / landscape, i.e. the intactness of the existing character will also be relevant in determining sensitivity. The likelihood of material effects on the seascape units /

2842_SLVIA

landscape character areas can be judged based on the scale and layout of the proposal and how this relates to the characteristics of the receiving seascape / landscape. Thus large-scale seascapes / landscapes are likely to be less sensitive to large scale wind farm developments, whilst some small scale, enclosed seascapes / landscapes may be highly sensitive to all but very small scale proposals.

Wind turbine developments are unusual in their effects upon seascape / landscape character as they primarily involve the addition of elements rather than any alteration to, or removal of, existing features. The introduction of a wind farm into an existing seascape / landscape adds a new feature which strongly affects the “sense of place” in its near vicinity, but with distance, the existing characteristics reassert themselves. At its most basic level, the magnitude of effect can best be understood by considering how one might perceive a particular place post-construction; i.e. If the baseline perception is “I am in a field.”, then this may change to: “I am in, or at, a wind farm” (High magnitude); “I am in a field near a wind farm” (Medium); “I am in a field and I can see a windfarm over there” (Low); or remain as “I am in a field.” (Negligible).

It is specifically noted within Landscape Character Assessment – Guidance for England and Scotland, CA/SNH, 2002 (para 1.14) that:

“Landscape Character Assessment is not a tool designed to resist changes that may influence the landscape. Rather it is an aid to decision-making - a tool to help understand what the landscape is like today, how it came to be like that, and how it may change in the future.”

In para 6.32 it describes the purpose of Key Characteristics in landscape assessment, as follows:

“Key characteristics are those combinations of elements which help give an area its distinct sense of place. They tend in many cases to be ‘positive’ characteristics but they may also, in some cases, be ‘negative’ features which nevertheless are important to the current character of the landscape. If the key characteristics which are identified were to change or be lost there would be significant consequences for the current character of the landscape. These would usually be negative but sometimes positive where some characteristics currently have a negative influence on the character (e.g. the effects of a busy road corridor). Key characteristics should therefore be the prime targets for monitoring change and for identifying landscape indicators.”

It follows from the above that in order to assess whether seascape / landscape character is significantly affected by a development, it should be determined

2842_SLVIA

how each of the key characteristics would be affected. The judgment of magnitude therefore reflects the degree to which the key characteristics and elements which form those characteristics will be altered by the proposals.

11) Landscape Designations and Value

The sensitivity of designated landscapes is assessed based on their relative value. All landscapes are valued to a greater or lesser extent, and local people generally value open countryside regardless of whether or not it is designated. However, a despoiled or degraded landscape would generally be of Low value (and corresponding Low sensitivity in this respect). Undesignated, ‘everyday’ countryside would tend to be of Medium value. Nationally designated landscapes, which enjoy statutory protection (National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) have a High value (and thus a high sensitivity in this respect). Locally designated landscapes would have High-Medium value and sensitivity, as would Heritage Coasts, which though nationally designated, are protected only via local plan policy.

In considering the effects on designated areas, a number of factors need to be considered. The effects on the component seascape / landscape character areas and the effects on views from within and towards the designated area need to be understood. These effects are then considered in light of the documented “special qualities” and purposes of the designation; and the proportion of the designated area that is affected, in order to arrive at a judgement of the magnitude of effects on the designated area.

Thus the judgement of the significance of effect on designated areas takes into account the value of the landscape (via the sensitivity rating) and the degree to which the purposes of designation are affected (via the magnitude).

12) Viewpoints and Visual Receptors

A wide variety of visual receptors can reasonably be anticipated to be affected by a proposed wind farm development. The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment indicate that the following factors affect the sensitivity of a viewpoint: The location and context of the viewpoint; the expectations and occupation or activity of the receptor and the importance of the view. These are all interlinked considerations, as the location, context and importance of the view will influence the likely activities and expectations of the receptor. The range of visual receptors will include pedestrians, and recreational users of the surrounding landscape such as walkers, cyclists and those otherwise engaged in the pursuit of leisure activities within the visual envelope of the site, local residents, motorists, those working outdoors and other workers. All categories of receptors can potentially be affected to a greater or lesser degree by a wind farm development. The four main visual

2842_SLVIA

receptor groups are considered in more detail below under the headings of residents, the travelling public, and visitors.

Residents

Local residents tend to have a higher level of sensitivity to changes in their landscape and visual environment than those passing through. For residents, the most important views are those from their homes, although they will also be sensitive to other views such as those experienced when travelling to work or other local destinations. However, it is these latter views, from public areas nearby houses that are of relevance to the main body of the visual impact assessment (views from private properties are considered under the Residential amenity assessment – see below).

Workers

Workers are generally less sensitive to effects as they are focused on the tasks they are carrying out. Indoor workers generally have a Low sensitivity, and outdoor workers, such as farmers and those offering outdoor pursuits are considered to have a Low to Medium sensitivity.

The Travelling Public

This category of visual receptor group overlaps to a degree with the other categories in that it embraces local residents, workers and those who come to visit the area. This group of visual receptors will include the following:

 Motorists - For major trunk routes and motorways, the sensitivity of users will be Low, as they will be travelling at speed and will be primarily focussed on achieving their destination. Users of other A-roads will have a Low to Medium sensitivity, unless these are particularly scenic or slow routes, in which case the sensitivity may be assessed as Medium. The users of local roads will have a Medium sensitivity.

 Cyclists and footpath users – These groups are addressed under the heading of visitors as they are generally less concerned with the object of reaching their destination than with the enjoyment of being outside and enjoying the landscape and available views.

Users of the roads identified above will vary in their level of sensitivity to the proposed development depending primarily upon the purpose for which they are travelling. For example, local residents and those on business will be more preoccupied with achieving their destination than in enjoying the scenery and the views available along their route. In contrast, day trippers and longer term visitors to the area are likely to be more concerned with the views they enjoy as they travel, but the speed and direction of travel and the

2842_SLVIA

fact that they are in a vehicle will reduce their sensitivity compared to, for example, walkers.

Effects on offshore receptors are also assessed. This group of receptors will include the following:

 Workers on fishing, commercial and industrial ships. Their focus will be on their line of work and, similar to outdoor land based workers, are considered to have a Low to Medium sensitivity.  Recreational or racing sailors. They are considered to be of Medium sensitivity as, although they may have an interest in their surroundings, they will be concentrating on sailing or racing.  Passengers on ferry or cruising routes. They are considered to be of Medium sensitivity as their primary objective will be the journey but they will also have opportunities to enjoy the scenery.

Assessment of effects on offshore receptors is carried out as a desk-based exercise and is not informed by visualisations or site based work.

Visitors

This category includes several visual receptor groups, each with different objectives and levels of sensitivity to any change in the fabric or character of the landscape and views arising from the proposed development. This group includes those who are mainly concerned with enjoyment of the outdoor environment but also those who may pursue indoor recreational pursuits and is anticipated to include the following (arranged in decreasing sensitivity):

 Those whose main preoccupation is the enjoyment of scenery (High sensitivity).  Recreational walkers and equestrians (High sensitivity)  Those visitors engaged in cultural pursuits (High-Medium sensitivity)  Cyclists (High-Medium sensitivity)

Public Paths

Where applicable, the effects on the visual amenity on public paths in the vicinity of the site are assessed. Particular reference is made to effects on National and Regional Trails and Cycle routes.

2842_SLVIA

Assessments are informed by viewpoints which are located on routes and by site visits and reference to aerial photography to ascertain the likely extent and nature of views available from the routes.

Residential Amenity

Views from private property are not a material consideration in determining planning applications unless the proposed change is sufficiently unpleasant or intrusive to cause unacceptable harm to residential amenity. For this reason, bearing in mind the distance from the coastline of offshore wind farm developments, the effects upon individual residential properties is not assessed.

13) Cumulative Assessment

The purpose of the cumulative effect assessment is to consider the potential effects upon the seascape and visual environments in relation to the existing wind farm developments and other known consented and proposed wind farm developments in the area. It raises questions over thresholds of acceptable change (spatial and temporal) and the landscape/seascape’s capacity to accept change.

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Effect Assessment (2nd edition, 2002) advises that:

‘cumulative landscape and visual effects result from additional changes to the landscape or visual amenity caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other developments (associated with or separate to it), or actions that occurred in the past, present or are likely to occur in the foreseeable future.’

A search area from the proposed offshore wind farm site is agreed with the local authority. Within the agreed radius, all relevant local planning authorities and appropriate statutory consultees are contacted to identify existing and consented wind turbine developments, both on and offshore, as well as applications yet to be determined. For each of these schemes agreement is reached with the Local Planning Authority as to whether they should be included in the assessment. Initial cumulative ZTVs, showing the likely areas where schemes may be visible may be used to inform such discussions.

Schemes which are in scoping or recent refusals (which may yet be appealed) are also noted, but are not included within the assessment unless they become active applications before the LVIA is completed.

2842_SLVIA

The cumulative assessment does not address the magnitude or significance of the effects arising from the individual developments themselves included within the cumulative assessment, but looks at the seascape and visual effects arising from the combination of turbines at proposed offshore wind farm with one or more other wind farm developments within the parameters identified.

The cumulative assessment examines the same groups of seascape / landscape and visual receptors as the assessment for the main scheme, though different viewpoints may be used in order to better represent the likely range of effects arising from the combination of schemes. The assessment is informed by cumulative ZTVs, showing the extent of visual effects of the schemes in different colours to illustrate where visibility of more than one development is likely to arise. Cumulative wireframes are prepared which show each of the developments in different colours so that they are each readily identifiable. Cumulative photomontages are also prepared.

In addition, the effects on users of routes through the area, from which wind farms may be sequentially visible as one passes through the landscape are also considered. This assessment is based on the desk study of ZTVs and aerial photography, and site visits to travel along the routes being assessed.

The way in which the assessment is described and presented is varied depending on the number and nature of scenarios which may arise. This variation is needed in order to convey to the reader the key points of each assessment. For example, the three different cumulative combinations that may arise for an assessment in which there are two existing undetermined applications can each be assessed individually. A situation in which there are 10 applications cannot reasonably be assessed in this way and the developments may need to be grouped for analysis.

Cumulative Landscape and Seascape Effects

As set out above in the methodology for landscape and seascape effects, the magnitude and significance of cumulative effects on the identified landscape designations, landscape features and seascape character units are a function of the baseline sensitivity of each receptor, the number and scale of the proposed wind farms in that area and the overall size and shape of the receptor / character area. Cumulative landscape and seascape effects will be assessed for each receptor / character unit where they are affected by more than one of the proposed wind farms.

2842_SLVIA

Cumulative Visual Effects

There are two types of cumulative effects on visual amenity, namely effects arising from combined and sequential views. In accordance with the Scottish Natural Heritage publication Cumulative Effect of Wind Farms version 2 (April 2005) these comprise:

 Combined views which ‘occur where the observer is able to see two or more developments from one viewpoint. Combined visibility may either be in combination (where several wind farms are within the observer’s arc of vision at the same time) or in succession (where the observer has to turn to see the various wind farms).’  Sequential views which ‘occur when the observer has to move to another viewpoint to see different developments.’

Cumulative visual effects will vary in degree depending on

 the number and sensitivity of visual receptors;  the duration, frequency and nature of views;  the relative effect of each individual wind farm with regard to visual amenity; 14) Distances

Where distances are given in the assessment, these are approximate distances between the nearest turbine and the nearest part of the receptor in question, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

2842_SLVIA

Appendix 2: Regional Landscape Character Descriptions

Coastal Dunes & Shingle Ridges, Coastal Levels, Estate Sandlands and Rolling Estate Sandlands

2842_SLVIA

5 Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges

Key Characteristics

• Flat or gently rolling landform of sand or shingle

• Low fragile vegetation

• Vast open uncluttered landscape

• Historic military structures

• Occasional large buildings in an empty landscape

• Occasional fishing huts and boats on the beach

• Only in short stretches is there the paraphernalia of intensive tourist activity, beach huts and piers

Location

This landscape is found in five narrow bands along the Suffolk coast: short stretches to the north of Lowestoft; at Kessingland; from Southwold to the north side of Dunwich; a long stretch from the south side of Dunwich Heath through to Bawdsey, including the substantial shingle spit of Orford Ness; and then a final short stretch at Felixstowe, ending at Landguard Point. There is also a small area of dunes that now form Felixstowe Ferry Golf Links.

Geology and landform

These shingle ridges or coastal dunes are formed by wave action and longshore drift on sand and stones. When forming beaches, the shingle creates a long high ridge backed by soft cliffs or saltmarsh. However, apart from on Orford Ness there are no areas of natural transition from beach to saltmarsh because of the presence of sea defences. At Orford Ness a succession of shingle ridges has coalesced to form a broad and very flat plain, although the long tail of the spit remains a broad ridge. This 11-mile-long spit is the largest of its type on the east coast and has been evolving since at least the Middle Ages, though the ‘nose’ or ‘ness’ that was more prominent in the past has been largely lost since 1601.

Soils and vegetation

Because there is essentially no soil on the shingle, it is extremely arid and salty making it very difficult for plants to colonise these habitats. However vegetation does make a contribution to this landscape. Over time, wave action will sort the stone of the beach by size creating ridges of fine material on which it is possible for some plant life to colonise. However any disturbance of this vertical sorting of the stone will cause the matrix of plant roots and fine gravel to break down, resulting in permanent loss of the vegetated shingle.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 5 Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Settlement

On the shingle beaches of the county the intrusion of sea defence structures such as walls and groins is readily apparent. In short stretches there are beach huts and piers. However other income generating activity is not very apparent with only a small number of fishing boats now based on the beach.

The most significant structures in this landscape are those related to military defence. The most southerly is the fort at Landguard; the first fortification here was built for Henry VIII, but the first real fort was built in 1625, though renewed and enlarged many times up to the 20th century. From 1809 a string of Martello towers was built from Aldeburgh down to Felixstowe (and across the Orwell at Shotley) as a defence against Napoleon. These large dark towers are prominent features on this stretch of the coast, as can be seen at Bawdsey and Shingle Street. The two World Wars of the 20th century have left behind large numbers of structures along the coast, ranging from concrete gun batteries and pillboxes to anti-tank blocks and remains of scaffolding. There is also the vast and complex range of buildings at Orford Ness, from the early lighthouse to the Cobra Mist building and the World Service transmitter array. Especially on the Ness the built structures are on the same vast scale as the landscape.

Visual experience

On Orford Ness the lack of familiar points of reference at a recognised scale, such as trees and hedges, together with the presence of several very large buildings of unfamiliar and brutalist design, creates the feeling of a vast and inhuman landscape.

Condition

These are highly dynamic and fragile landscapes. They are threatened directly by human activity which can damage vegetated shingle structures. Furthermore the ability of this landscape to maintain itself is compromised by "coastal squeeze" whereby development behind the beach prevents the dynamic movement of material in response to rising sea levels.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 5 Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Coastal Dunes & Shingle Ridges

Landscape Sensitivity & Change

This is an open landscape made up of fragile landforms that are in a constant state of evolutionary change. The views, both out to sea and often inland, are open and occasionally desolate.

The landscape type is by nature narrow, but it is open to views both in and out. It is therefore profoundly affected by changes in the adjacent landscapes and seascapes. The characteristic qualities of openness, wildness and isolation found in much of this landscape are dependent, to a great extent, on the condition and character of the land that frames it.

There are concentrated areas of human activity and development particularly associated with holiday resorts. In these areas the beach is essentially part of the townscape. However large parts of the shoreline have little human intrusion, except for occasional large-scale structures, such as the Cobra Mist site or the power stations at Sizewell. It is especially in these areas that new development requires careful control to protect the special character of this landscape, which is a key part of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

In addition to the sensitivity of the landscape there are several highly sensitive habitats, including vegetated shingle and saline lagoons. These are particularly vulnerable to recreational pressures as well as to sea level rise.

Key Forces for Change

• Sea level rise, which in the absence of space for the natural coastal processes to take place, will create a situation of "coastal squeeze" leading to the total or partial loss of these landforms. • Small-scale clusters of low-rise development on the coastal slope, coastal levels or beach. • The pressure of recreational activity and access. • Further development of the Sizewell Nuclear power station site and other large-scale infrastructure projects. • The decline of traditional inshore fishing from the beach. • The construction of wind turbines offshore.

Development Management

Conserve the setting of this landscape The construction of new buildings on the coastal slope, or changes of land use, may have an adverse affect on the setting of this landscape. If these changes are to be permitted the highest standards of design and effective mitigation strategies should be

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

5 Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges EP/Edit1/1.10.10

applied to minimise the detrimental impact on both the visual amenity and landscape character of this landscape type.

Construction of buildings that project above the skyline should be avoided if at all possible, while repositioning the proposal or adding a planting scheme behind the building can be partially successful. However, reducing the height of the development may also be required and should be considered even if this entails significant level changes.

Even if it does not puncture the skyline, the majority of new building is likely to be visible from the Saltmarsh and Intertidal Flats. Therefore, construction related to existing clusters and the use of sympathetic and unobtrusive materials is always to be preferred.

Manage the impact of large-scale infrastructure projects Very large-scale infrastructure projects that have an overriding public interest may take place in, or adjacent to, this landscape. However, these will require comprehensive management and long-term planning to minimise the landscape and visual impact during both the construction and operational phases of the project.

Although large-scale construction will cause a significant visual change, this landscape together with the associated Coastal Levels and the Saltmarsh and Intertidal Flats, have some capacity to accommodate large-scale structures. This is because of their open and simple nature. However, it is important to minimise the impact of lighting and associated small-scale clutter, as this will detract significantly from the visual and experiential qualities of this landscape, as well as the special character of the AONB.

Installation of flood or sea defence structures Wherever possible the landscape and visual impact of these structures should be minimised. The use of sympathetic materials and low, unobtrusive structures will reduce the impact of these interventions. However, they may put at risk natural processes that maintain this landscape type and others such as Saltmarsh and Intertidal Flats.

Support the continuation of traditional economic activities Wherever possible small-scale shore based fishing should be supported and the huts and other structures should be maintained as they are characteristic features of this landscape type.

Land Management Guidelines

• Safeguard fossil landforms such as the shingle ridges of Orford Ness. • Safeguard the characteristic coastal processes of this landscape type whenever possible. • Minimise human disturbance to vegetated shingle and other sensitive habitats.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

6 Coastal Levels EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Coastal Levels

Key Characteristics

• Flat marshland adjacent to the coast or estuaries

• Marine alluvium soils

• Sinuous and complex mediaeval dyke networks

th • Uniform 19 century dyke networks

• Cattle-grazed wet grassland

• Widespread modification for arable production

• Small plantations and carr woodlands

• Inland side of rising ground often wooded

• Important wildlife conservation areas

• Unsettled landscape with domestic buildings on the fringes

• Derelict wind pumps

Location

This landscape type is found in a number of areas along the whole of Suffolk’s coast. From north to south, these areas are:

• A large area of marshes on marine alluviums flanking the River Waveney, starting on the edge of Beccles Common and extending eastward through Castle Marsh in North Cove, Share Marsh and Peto’s Marsh in Carlton Colville, Oulton Marsh, Flixton Marshes, Blundeston Marshes, Somerleyton Marshes, Herringfleet Marshes, Scale Marshes, Fritton Marshes, Belton Marshes and on towards the sea at Yarmouth.

• Marshes flanking the Hundred River from Kessingland Beach westward through the Kessingland Levels up to Henstead.

• Marshes flanking the River Blyth and Buss Creek from Walberswick westward up to Wolsey Bridge and Tinker’s Marshes.

• The marshes of the Minsmere Level extending westward to Eastbridge in Theberton.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 6 Coastal Levels EP/Edit1/02.08.10

• The area of a former large mere lying to the south of the existing Meare at Thorpeness and the northern outskirts of Aldeburgh.

• Marshes flanking the sides of the Rivers Alde, Ore and Butley from Aldeburgh south past Orford, to East Lane in Bawdsey.

• Marshes flanking the Deben estuary, from Bawdsey to Ramsholt on the north side and from Felixstowe to Kirton on the south side, and then a smaller and thinner area at the head of the estuary, from Kyson Point in Woodbridge to just beyond Wilford Bridge.

• Marshes on the sides of the Orwell estuary – Trimley Marshes to the north and Shotley Marshes to the south.

• A small area of marsh on the north side of Holbrook Bay in the Stour estuary, just south of the Royal Hospital School.

Geology, landform and soils

These landscapes consist of low-lying, flat marshland beside estuaries and coastal valleys. Underlying the marshes are alluvial deposits of marine origin. Only at Henstead on the Hundred River, the Share Marshes on the Waveney, Sizewell Belts, and Hundred River valley in Aldringham can any significant deposits of peat be found. Marine deposits indicate that in the Roman period and probably for some time afterwards, there was a sizeable sea inlet occupying what is now the Waveney stretching inland as far as Beccles. On the coast at this time Southwold and Sizewell were probably islands, as were some smaller areas such as Buckaney in Alderton and Oxley in Hollesley - both containing the Old English suffix ey meaning ‘an island’. Bawdsey contains the same suffix and would have been virtually an island except for a narrow causeway on the western side.

Landholding and enclosure pattern

Most of the marshland within this landscape has been reclaimed for farming at some time but some areas, such as the Minsmere Levels, have been allowed to revert in the 20th century as wildlife reserves. Marshland reclamation began in the Middle Ages, with works being undertaken at Orford in the 12th century, but turbulent weather in the 13th and 14th centuries led to serious set-backs. Losses of arable land on the Suffolk coast are recorded between 1291 and 1341. Among the places affected was Leiston Abbey. This monastery had been founded on a small island in the marshes in 1182, but frequent inundation of its lands by the sea led to rebuilding further inland in 1363. Not all was lost, for John Norden's excellent maps of 1600-1 show a complex pattern of irregular enclosures along the sides of the Ore, particularly in Sudbourne and Town (Orford) Marshes that are probably medieval in origin.

The rate and scale of marshland reclamation increased greatly in the 18th and 19th centuries. In the northern area, this was facilitated by the establishment of the Commission of Sewers for the Hundreds of Blything, Mutford, Lothingland and Wangford in 1786. Substantial amounts of parliamentary enclosure (though not wholly of

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 6 Coastal Levels EP/Edit1/02.08.10 marshland), was carried out in the Waveney valley: at Worlingham, and North Cove in 1797, in Barnby in 1800, in Carlton Colville and Oulton in 1801 and in Somerleyton, Blundeston and Lound in 1803. Former open areas of marsh, often used for common grazing, were divided up by straight drainage ditches into strongly geometric layouts of new fields. The drainage was further facilitated by the introduction, around 1800, of pumping mills along the banks of the Waveney. On the coast, new main drains were constructed through the Kessingland Level in 1812 and through the Minsmere Level in 1812-3.

Settlement

Ancient settlement in this wet environment is limited to the edges of the marshes and to the islands within it. There are virtually no domestic buildings actually within the landscape. One exception to this is at Iken, where the former Iken Common lay on the edge of the marine sediments in the Alde valley. There was a straggle of houses along its western edge (always higher and drier) by 1783, but a few houses have also appeared along the slightly higher portions of its generally lower eastern edge since its enclosure in 1804.

Trees and woodland cover

Although tree cover is not widespread within this landscape, the small amount that is present can have a significant visual impact because the land is so flat. An example of this can be seen on the marsh south of Sudbourne Park, which contains several plantations. The woodland plantations and belts of the Estate Sandlands often fringe these landscapes, as at Hollesley and Alderton as well as in the north at Fritton.

Visual experience

The views are generally open and wide, and there is usually a profound sense of exposure, enhanced when the sea or a wide estuary is close at hand. On the inland side the rising land, and the trees on it, tend to confine the views.

The presence of livestock on the marshes that are still grassland is an important part of the experience of this landscape.

Condition

Much of this landscape especially in the south of the county on the banks of the Deben and Orwell and from Orford southwards has been converted from grassland to arable. As well as a significant change in management, this has also led to some degradation of the cultural pattern with the simplification of the dyke network.

Although some parts of it are in arable cultivation, the largest remaining tract of coastal levels in grassland is on the Waveney. These coastal levels along the river Waveney give the most extensive impression of how this striking landscape would have looked before conversion to arable. The other grassland units are small and more influenced by the features of the landscape that surrounds them. However some, such as the Shotley Marshes, are in excellent condition.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 6 Coastal Levels EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Coastal Levels

Landscape Sensitivity & Change

This is an extensive, flat, and open landscape that has long views within it, and out to the adjacent rising ground. It is therefore highly sensitive to any interruption of the horizon by built structures of all but the smallest scale. Development on the adjacent slopes, including associated land use change, can have a profound effect on the setting of, and views from, this landscape.

Cattle grazed grassland is the characteristic land cover. However, the extent of this has been reduced by agricultural change. The switch to arable production has, in many places, led to a loss of characteristic landscape features and a simplification of the dyke network.

Carr and plantation woodland is a small but significant feature within this landscape although both agricultural change and nature conservation management has reduced woodland cover. The inland side of this landscape, and the adjoining slope, is often wooded and so maintaining this feature is important to the setting of this landscape.

The demands for habitat creation and enhanced wildlife conservation, in conjunction with adaptation to sea level rise, are already threatening the existence of parts of this landscape. One outcome of this coastal squeeze is likely to be an expansion of the landscape of Saltmarsh and Intertidal Flats into the area covered by Coastal Levels. The management of these changes will require active intervention in the physical processes and a clear long-term vision.

This landscape is a key characteristic of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and, in combination with the landscape types around it, contributes to the special character of the AONB. Furthermore, much of this landscape is part of, or adjacent to, protected and ecologically sensitive sites, including European Designated Sites.

Key Forces for Change

• Sea level rise. • Management of land for nature conservation • Changes to agricultural practice and land use within this landscape. • Changes of land management and land use adjacent to this landscape especially the changes to the quantity, scale and style of built development. • Large-scale infrastructure projects related to Sizewell and the port of Felixstowe.

Development Management

Conserve the setting of this landscape The construction of new buildings on the coastal slope, or changes of land use, can

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

6 Coastal Levels EP/Edit1/1.10.10

easily have an adverse affect on the setting of this landscape. If these changes are to be permitted the highest standards of design and effective mitigation strategies should be applied to minimise the detrimental impact on both the visual amenity and landscape character of the Coastal Levels.

Even if it does not puncture the skyline the majority of new building is likely to be visible from the coastal levels. Therefore, construction related to existing clusters and the use of sympathetic and unobtrusive materials is always to be preferred.

Although large-scale construction will cause a significant visual change, this landscape together with the associated Saltmarsh and Intertidal Flats and the beach (Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges), have some capacity to accommodate large- scale structures. This is because of their open and simple nature. However, it is important to minimise the impact of lighting and associated small-scale clutter as this will detract significantly from the visual and experiential qualities of this landscape, as well as the special character of the AONB.

Manage coastal realignment Where realignment is deemed to be necessary the process should be managed to maintain and enhance local landscape character. Without the active management of this process coastal levels may not return to a mosaic of salt-marsh and intertidal flats. The remains of structures such as river walls and dyke networks may restrict the movement of water and sediment, therefore the process of change is likely to require active intervention.

Installation of flood or sea defence structures Wherever possible the landscape and visual impact of these structures should be minimised. The use of sympathetic materials and low, unobtrusive structures will reduce the impact of these interventions. However they may put at risk natural processes that maintain some landscape types such as Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges, and Saltmarsh and Intertidal Flats.

Maintenance of sites for wildlife conservation There is continued scope for habitat management and enhancement of sites for wildlife benefit. However, these changes need to be managed sensitively with careful consideration of the historic landscape and wider visual landscape impacts, as well as

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

6 Coastal Levels EP/Edit1/1.10.10

the issues raised by increased visitor numbers.

Land Management Guidelines

Support the continuation of traditional economic activities Restore and maintain the grazing with cattle. The continuation of traditional agricultural practices is integral to the character and condition of these landscapes and grazing is often critical to the successful management of important wildlife sites in this landscape.

Restore and retain the pattern of drainage The pattern of meadows divided by ditches and dykes are a characteristic feature of this landscape and should be maintained with sympathetic management. This will also deliver ecological benefits.

Maintain levels of grassland Arable reversion though agri-environment schemes, or with the expansion of livestock enterprises, can help maintain the character of this landscape and also deliver ecological benefits.

Encourage and support appropriate management of woodlands These landscapes contain a proportion of wet and plantation woodland, and it is important to maintain the appropriate balance of grassland and woodland. While wet woodland is an important part of the habitat mix in this landscape excessive creation of plantation woodland should be avoided.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

7 Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Estate Sandlands

Key Characteristics

• Flat or very gently rolling plateaux of free-draining sandy soils, overlying drift deposits of either glacial or fluvial origin

• Chalky in parts of the Brecks, but uniformly acid and sandy in the south-east

• Absence of watercourses

• Extensive areas of heathland or acid grassland

• Strongly geometric structure of fields enclosed in the 18th & 19th

century.

• Large continuous blocks of commercial forestry

• Characteristic ‘pine lines’ especially, but not solely, in the Brecks

• Widespread planting of tree belts and rectilinear plantations

• Generally a landscape without ancient woodland, but there are some isolated and very significant exceptions

• High incidence of relatively late, estate type, brick buildings

• North-west slate roofs with white or yellow bricks. Flint is also widely used as a walling material

• On the coast red brick with pan-tiled roofs, often black-glazed

Location

This landscape character type is found in two main areas of the county:

• Firstly, a large area in north-west Suffolk made up of the dry slopes and central plateau of the Brecks, extending from Freckenham and Kentford eastward on both sides of the River Lark to Wordwell and Hengrave, and northward to Brandon and along the Little Ouse valley to Knettishall.

• Secondly, in south-east Suffolk and in a slightly interrupted series along the coast, taking in a large part of the area known as the Sandlings. The landscape includes the central spine of the Felixstowe peninsula, running from Nacton Heath on the south-east edge of Ipswich eastwards to Levington Heath. It then occupies a series

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 7 Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

of almost contiguous areas stretching eastward from Rushmere to Martlesham and Waldringfield (but excluding the built-up areas of Kesgrave and Martlesham Heath), from Sutton on the east side of the Deben northwards to Leiston, from Westleton and Dunwich to Southwold and Reydon, and from Covehithe to Benacre. There is also an isolated patch on the east side of the Waveney extending from Herringfleet into Belton and Fritton.

Geology, landform and soils

All the parts of this landscape type consist of flat or very gently rolling plateaux of freely- draining sandy soils, overlying drift deposits of either glacial or fluvial origin, sometimes chalky in parts of the Brecks, but uniformly acid and sandy in the south-east. In the southeast there are also surface layers of variable thickness of fine-grained loess deposits, derived from windblown material from glacial sources.

Landholding and enclosure pattern

The dry mineral soils of this landscape type and the general absence of watercourses gave rise to extensive areas of heathland or acid grassland that, historically, were used either for sheep grazing or for rabbit warrens. The sheep-grazed heaths were often referred to as ‘sheepwalks’ and this term still survives in place-names such as The Walks in Aldringham, and Westleton Walks. The earliest warrens were established on the poorest soils and were owned by ecclesiastical landlords: the Bishops of Ely had a warren at Brandon by 1252; the prior and convent of Ely received a specific grant of a warren at Lakenheath in 1300, but had held ‘free-warren’ hunting rights since 1251; and Bury Abbey had a warren at Mildenhall by 1328. Many of the warrens and heaths were enclosed in the period of agricultural improvement in the 18th and 19th centuries and now survive mainly as place-names, eg. Eriswell High Warren, Weather Heath and Nacton Heath. The enclosed land, like that of the Planned Fenlands, has the strongly geometric structure that results from the map-based work of surveyors.

In the early 17th century the open areas around Thetford (Thetford Chase) became an important royal hunting ground, used by both King James and King Charles. In 1636 a warrant was issued for the preservation of the king’s game ‘of hare, partridge and other wild fowl’ in a 12-mile radius of Thetford. Private hunting lodges were also established at Fakenham, Barningham and Sudbourne.

Low land prices and a relatively sparse population gave good opportunities for the formation of parks and an abundance of game was a strong added attraction. Medieval and Tudor deer parks existed at Staverton in Eyke/Wantesden, Blythburgh and Henham and one was established around Hengrave Hall c1588 and another at Euston Hall in the1660s. But the great growth of parks came in the 18th century and was linked to the rise in popularity of game shooting amongst the gentry, with the houses often being described as ‘shooting boxes’. Parks appeared at Santon Downham, Culford, Elveden and Brandon in the north-west and at Rendlesham, Sudbourne and Benacre in the east. The apogees of this type of estate were Elveden and Sudbourne, which in the late 19th and early 20th centuries became nationally famous for their shooting, often attracting royalty to their shooting parties.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 7 Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Large estates are still a feature of this area, particularly in Breckland, and the Elveden Estate is said to be the largest in lowland England. Rabbit, pheasant and partridge shooting is still an important part of the economy of these estate. Their low value after WWI, particularly in Breckland, led them to be bought-up by the newly-established Forestry Commission for forestry plantations.

The arable lands in the north-west were mainly organised as common, open, fields, with some of the more marginal areas only being used intermittently for crops – these occasionally cultivated areas were called ‘brecks’, hence the district’s name, Breckland. The common fields were enclosed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, frequently through the mechanism of parliamentary acts (starting with Cavenham in 1772), though in areas where major landlords had almost total control (as on the Euston and Hengrave estates) enclosure was able to take place without the need for acts. In the Sandlings, the evidence points to a more mixed picture of some common fields and a substantial amount of long-enclosed land. There was parliamentary enclosure of small amounts of common arable in Iken (1805) and in Orford and Gedgrave (1880), but otherwise common farming was ended through local agreement and often before 1700.

Where there was late enclosure, the field pattern is one of straight-sided, relatively large geometric units. Even where there is map evidence for old enclosures, the boundaries have frequently been realigned to make more regular shapes. This is mainly because field boundaries on these sandy soils were less substantial than those on the clayland and short-lived shrubby species such as gorse are recorded as being used in hedges. In the late 20th century the widespread introduction of irrigation has changed the agricultural potential of this land and irrigated vegetable crops are now an important part of the local economy. The noise of water spraying from irrigation equipment, sometimes of giant proportions, is now often a relatively quiet but relentless constant in this landscape.

Settlement

The scarcity of water in these landscapes meant that they were not favoured for settlement but were managed as marginal areas to settlements in the adjacent and better- watered valleys. This relation ship to very early settlement led to the Sandlings being used as burial grounds in the Bronze Age and burial mounds appear throughout this landscape, as at Seven Hills in Nacton, Levington Heath and Martlesham Heath, and more occasionally in the north-west in places like Icklingham. It was similarly used in the Anglo- Saxon period, most famously at Sutton Hoo, where there is a cemetery of royal burial mounds of the 6th and 7th centuries AD, and at Snape, where there were comparable mounds.

The settlement that has taken place has been sparse, consisting mainly of isolated hunting or warren lodges and post-enclosure farmsteads. In the 20th century the sparseness of settlement and the flat nature of the land made it easy to establish a number of WWII airfields: at Lakenheath, Cavenham, Honington and Knettishall in the north-west and at Ipswich, Martlesham and Sutton in the south-east. Of these, Lakenheath has grown into a major American Airforce base, Honington is still a large and active RAF base and Sutton (RAF Woodbridge) is now the base of operations for 23 Engineer Regt (Air Assault) of the Army; the remainder have been swallowed up by quarrying (Cavenham), housing and industrial developments (Ipswich and Martlesham) or

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 7 Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/02.08.10 reverted to farmland (Knettishall). Some specialised settlements or activities have also been developed: for example the permanent Suffolk Showground; the Newbourne Settlement Scheme for unemployed miners (1935-82); and Thorpeness, developed from 1910 onwards as probably the country’s first ‘holiday village’. These are all located in the Sandlings, while in the Brecks the dense coniferous forests hide the Elveden Forest Holiday complex and the Firestry Commission’s High Lodge Centre.

There are some similarities in the vernacular architecture of the two areas, principally in the high incidence of relatively late brick buildings, although in the north-west the bricks are often white or yellow rather than red. Flint is also widely used in Breckland as a walling material, sometimes with an exterior ‘flushwork’ finish of black knapped flints. Pan-tiled roofs, often black-glazed, are a strong feature of the coastal zone, while 19th century slate roofs figure strongly in Breckland.

Communication lines are prominent in this landscape type. The A11 trunk road cuts across the Becks area and the A12 and A14 figure strongly in the south-east, while the railway line from Ipswich to Felixstowe runs alongside one of the areas. . Trees and woodland cover

This is generally a landscape without ancient woodland, but there are some isolated and very significant exceptions: Fakenham Wood in the north-west, and in the south-east, the magnificent and ancient pollarded oaks and holly trees of Staverton Park and the remnants of Sudbourne Great Wood (formerly Scutgrove Wood). All three had hunting usage and Fakenham Wood may have well have been the location of 16 wild ‘woodland horses’ recorded at Fakenham in 1086.

Traditionally, the area also had 'fields with trees’ (as opposed to the closely grown trees of woodland). These can still be seen at Brakey Pin and Oak Pin in Risby. The creation of farmland out of the former heaths in the 18th and 19th centuries resulted in the widespread planting of tree belts and rectilinear plantations. These are commonly of pines in the northeast (originally Scots, but now mainly Corsican) but of mixed character in the south-east, with chestnut featuring strongly in places like Kesgrave. The characteristic ‘pine lines’ of Breckland originated as managed hedges, many of which have now grown out into lines of very striking twisted trees. There are similar lines in the Sandlings area.

A profound change to the character of the Estate Sandlands came with the establishment of the Forestry Commission’s coniferous forests (Thetford Forest, King’s Forest, Rendlesham Forest and Dunwich Forest) from the 1920s onwards. Some smaller areas of coniferous plantations had been trialled in the 19th century, as in Lord Rendlesham’s Tangham Forest, but now large tracts of previously very open heathland or farmland became dense woodland. Although there has been a very strong visual change, the trees were largely planted within pre-existing land boundaries, preserving much of the form of the highly geometric late-enclosure landscape.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 7 Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Visual experience

Despite the presence of so much forestry, the views in this landscape are often long and there can be a powerful sense of isolation. The ‘planned’ nature of the landscape over such a large area does, however, mean that there is little variation in the views.

Condition

The two sections of this landscape are very different, with the south-east having a stronger urban influence. Martlesham has lost much of its rural character and most of the remnant heathland, such as at Rushmere and Foxhall, is in a suburban environment, further ‘tamed’ by being used for golf courses. Even in the central and northern parts of the coastal area there is a steady pressure of suburbanisation and tourism related development.

In the Brecks the landscape remains strongly rural, except in the environs of Bury St Edmunds and Thetford, but is dominated by high-tech modern farming and forestry. The occasional new intrusion, such as the Elveden Forest Holiday Village, has made little impact as it is hidden in the forest.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 7 Guidance Note Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Estate Sandlands

Landscape Sensitivity & Change

This is a flat or very gently rolling landscape of sandy soils covering the Brecks and parts of the Suffolk coast, known as the Sandlings.

It has traditionally been sparsely settled with farmsteads because in most places it was not suitable for the establishment of more concentrated settlement. The only exception to this is in the north of the Sandlings. Here, where this landscape becomes a narrow strip between the river valleys and the heavier land to the west and north, there are significant village clusters. The sparse settlement means that this is a deeply rural landscape so some developments that could be accommodated in visual terms in these areas can still have a profound affect on the character of this landscape type.

In the post war period the Estate Sandlands has seen settlement expansion at Martlesham and Stutton Heath in the Sandlings; and Brandon, Lakenheath and Honington in the Brecks.

There is tree cover throughout this landscape, except in those areas that are still open heathland. The Brecks and the Sandlings have a comprehensive pattern of shelterbelts and small plantation woodlands running across them and there are large areas of state-owned forestry plantations created after WWI.

The character of the landscape is largely made up of C18th and C19th estate farms, irrigated arable crops, new woodlands and tracts of heathland. The poor quality flat land was also used to build and maintain airfields. These sites, both operational and non-operational, continue to be important foci for change and activity in this landscape. In recent years leisure activities have become increasingly important. The state forests are now a significant recreational area in both the Brecks and the Sandlings.

The soil type, agricultural and silvacultural practice, in combination with the areas of remnant heathland, has created important wildlife habitats for a small range of internationally significant bird species. In many cases, especially in the west, there are European designated sites for the protection of these species. Furthermore, much of the coastal part of this landscape type is included within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Key Forces for Change

• Expansion of existing settlements into this landscape and creation of new settlement patterns and clusters associated with infrastructure development • Changes in the management and use of landscape parklands • Conversion and expansion of farmsteads for residential uses • Large-scale agricultural buildings in open countryside

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

7 Guidance Note Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

• Redevelopment of former airfield sites to new uses • The introduction of new agricultural techniques • Leisure as a driving force for changes in economic activity • Mineral extraction

Development Management

Settlement form and expansion In respect of visual impact the regular nature of this landscape means that it does have more potential capacity to accept significant settlement expansion than the ancient countryside of the claylands. The sandland plateau with its simpler and more modern land cover pattern and extensive regular pattern of tree cover can be adapted to accept larger growth.

However, the area does not have a history of substantial settlements. Therefore, the impact on the character of the landscape both directly and indirectly can be highly significant and damaging. Furthermore, given the extensive European ecological designations (SPA and SAC) and the national landscape designations (AONB) found across much of this landscape, the opportunities for significant settlement expansion are further constrained.

Finally, if developments encroach on landscapes located on river valley sides, fen edges or coastal slopes they will have a profound landscape impact on the character of these adjacent landscape types.

The majority of early settlement clusters are outside, or on the edge of, this landscape unless the sandlands are close to better soils. In these fringe areas the settlement pattern begins to take on some of the complex historic features of the claylands, with multiple clusters of settlement. In the heart of the landscape in both the Brecks and the Sandlings there are farms and small groups of estate cottages.

Barn conversions and extensions Given the range of substantial and “late” historic farm buildings within this landscape type there is considerable demand for these to be converted to other uses, although this may not be acceptable in terms of policy. If, however, such applications are supported the result may be large and extensive complexes of multiple dwellings or offices and light industrial units. C19th (and later) farm buildings are capable of accommodating new uses while conserving the character of the landscape rather more easily than older farm structures.

Any new building should usually be close to the existing cluster of buildings and should be subordinate in size to the principal buildings. The design, including finishes such as tiles, brickwork, mortar, or wooden cladding should be appropriate for the style of buildings present. Staining used for exterior boarding should be capable of

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

7 Guidance Note Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

weathering in the traditional way, as a permanent dark or black colouring is not locally appropriate.

The change of land use, especially to residential curtilage, can often be more disruptive to the wider landscape than modifications to the buildings. Changes to the surrounding land from agricultural to residential use, which entails the introduction of lighting and other suburban features, can be extremely intrusive. Unless the site is well hidden, it may be necessary to impose clear conditions relating to the extent of garden curtilage and how this is screened from the wider landscape. The impact of new garden curtilage in this landscape is potentially even more significant than that in a clayland landscape because of the characteristic settlement pattern found here, as discussed above.

Large scale agricultural buildings in open countryside The right choice of siting, form, orientation and colour of these buildings can make a considerable contribution to mitigating their impact. The plantations, shelterbelts, and tree lines found throughout this landscape provide opportunities to design locally appropriate planting schemes to reduce the visual impact further.

The siting of buildings should relate to an existing cluster of buildings whenever possible. Usually, although not in all cases, using a shade of the colour green is preferred as this will integrate well with vegetation. The correct orientation of the building can also significantly change the visual impact of the development, and this consideration should always be explored.

In addition to new planting to mitigate the impact of a development, the location of the development in relation to existing trees that act either as screening or as a backdrop should be carefully considered. The planning authority should ensure these trees are retained for the lifetime of the development. The option to modify the management of existing hedgerows should also be explored. New planting should be designed to integrate the development into the character of the landscape, and may consist of both backdrop and screening planting.

The care and maintenance of the planting should be made a condition of these developments. In many cases the landscape impact of these projects is only acceptable if it is mitigated by effective planting. The applicant should therefore provide a detailed scheme of planting and aftercare, which can form the basis of a condition. Furthermore, depending on the risks to be controlled, the planning authority may need to consider a 106 agreement to secure the landscaping and design requirements for an extended period.

Redevelopment of former airfield sites In most cases a specific master-plan approach is the most effective way to deal with development of these sites. It is then possible to implement strategic planting schemes to mitigate the visual impact of long-term growth on the site, rather than dealing with proposals and mitigation on a piecemeal basis.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

7 Guidance Note Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Specific issues relating to airfield development also include the preservation of cultural and historic features, such as bunkers and control towers, and the need for a design that retains them in an appropriate setting. Also, the alignment of runways etc can be echoed in the layout of buildings and the arrangement of planting.

Landscape of leisure - golf courses, holiday complexes, caravan sites, tourist centres The regular and recent nature of this landscape means that it does have more potential capacity, in respect of visual impact, to accept these developments but effective design and mitigation measures will be vital.

However, the impact on the character of the landscape both directly and indirectly may be highly significant and it may not be possible to effectively mitigate these impacts. Therefore such developments would constitute a profound and undesirable change to landscape character.

Changes in the management and use of landscape parklands Any proposals for change could have a negative impact on these historic landscapes. The majority of sites, regardless of designation status, will require an overarching management plan or strategy to guide changes. This should cover the maintenance, preservation and management of existing features, as well as the restoration or creation of new or lost ones. When sufficient information is not available the applicant should undertake detailed background research. Planning applications that affect historic parklands should therefore be accompanied by a suitable management plan or other detailed evidence, to support the proposals.

Visual impact of cropping and production, and land use changes The changes in cropping practices that have taken place across much of the Estate Sandlands, such as the use of fleece and plastic as well as outdoor pig production, have had a significant effect on the landscape. The siting and style of structures subject to planning control, such as static feed bins for pigs, poly tunnels or reservoirs should be appropriately conditioned to minimise their landscape impact.

Mineral extraction and post working uses As the location for mineral operations is dictated by the availability of economically viable aggregates, alternative siting is not an option. However, careful design and mitigation proposals during extraction, together with effective management and oversight of the restoration of sites, can minimise the impact of mineral extractions.

The post extraction uses of minerals sites can often be problematic. They can make ideal recreation centres, often based around fishing but these can neutralise the wildlife benefits and be a source of intrusive landscape clutter on the valley side. In some cases former mineral workings can be the focus for large-scale development because the land is perceived to be of low value. The visual impact of such developments can be very significant in a confined valley landscape.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

7 Guidance Note Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Land Management Guidelines

• Reinforce the historic pattern of regular boundaries. • Restore, maintain and enhance the pattern of locally distinctive “pine lines”. • Restore, maintain and enhance the network of tree belts and pattern of small plantations found across much of this landscape type. • Extend the cover of heathland paying particular attention to areas of commercial forestry as these have lower nutrients and a residual seed bank. • Develop opportunities for locally distinctive species such as the rare Brecks plants. • Protect distinctive geomorphology such as patterned ground.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

16 Guidance Note Rolling Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Rolling Estate Sandlands

Landscape Sensitivity & Change

This is a sloping valley side landscape type that has been, and continues to be, the focus for settlement and other built structures in the Estate Sandlands, especially in coastal parts of Suffolk.

The Rolling Estate Sandlands are comprehensively settled with villages, hamlets and farmsteads. The cores of villages are generally on the valley sides although settlement change and enlargement may have encroached onto the plateau landscape.

The enclosure pattern is usually more complex than the adjacent arable plateau landscape. The slopes can be dissected by short streams, and have a scattering of small plantations and parklands on them.

The vernacular style can often show a degree of uniformity, with an estate style often prevalent. Farmsteads often exhibit features of C18th and C19th improvement with ranges of “model farm” type buildings

The upper slopes of this landscape are often dotted with plantation woodland or occasionally small landscape parklands associated with late 18th and early 19th century houses of the Nouveau riche, especially in areas close to Ipswich or Bury St Edmunds.

The combination of soil type, agricultural and silvacultural practice, along with areas of remnant heathland, has created important wildlife habitats for a small range of internationally significant bird species. In many cases, especially in the west, there are European designated sites for the protection of these species. Furthermore, most of the coastal part of this landscape type is included within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which also includes a series of sensitive and designated estuary sites.

The spatial relationship of this landscape to the adjacent valley floor, as well as flat coastal landscape types such as coastal levels, saltmarsh and intertidal flats and the beach, mean that change and development here can have an extensive visual impact.

Key Forces for Change

• Expansion of settlements. • Leisure as a driving force for changes in economic activity in this landscape, especially, but not exclusively, on the coastal parts of this landscape. • Changes of land management and land use. • The introduction of new agricultural techniques such as turf or outdoor pig production and changes in the production of high value irrigated crops such as the use of plastic and fleece on a large scale.

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

16 Guidance Note Rolling Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

Development management

Exaggerated visual impact of the height of buildings and structures In these valley side landscapes, the visual impact of new vertical elements is increased by the landform. Therefore new buildings are likely to have a significant impact on both the character and visual amenity of valley floor and valley side landscape types. The setting of specific features and elements of these landscapes, such as small-scale enclosure patterns or historic buildings and monuments, can also be significantly damaged.

The majority of development will, to some degree, be subject to this problem. Therefore, it is essential to manage this issue effectively, taking every opportunity at the earliest stages of the development of the proposal to modify and improve it, or to be clear with the applicant that the impact of the proposal is unacceptable or may be at a high risk of refusal due to landscape impacts.

Settlement form and expansion Valley side landscapes have historically been a focus for settlement. However, large- scale expansion should be confined to the adjacent plateau. In this location the landscape and visual impact can be more easily mitigated with effective planting and design.

Settlement extension in a valley side landscape is likely to have a significant visual impact and adversely affect the character of the landscape, including that of the adjoining valley floor. A comprehensive Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is essential to identify the risks and the options for mitigation. These developments tend to create a highly visible new “roofscape” on the sides of valleys. The effect of this can be partially mitigated by planting within the development as well as on the perimeter and offsite. It is essential to ensure that there is sufficient space within the development for effective planting, and that any requirement for offsite planting is considered at the earliest stage. The proposals for mitigation planting must always be commensurate with the scale of the development and the capacity of the landscape to absorb the development without damage to the landscape character.

It is important to maintain the existing pattern of settlement clusters on the valley sides and minimise visual intrusion on the very sensitive landscapes on the valley floor. New building here needs to be carefully located; it must be of appropriate scale and style as well as being integrated into the existing pattern of vegetation and settlement. There may also be specific styles related to a particular landed estate, which should be considered as a design option. Avoid, wherever possible, ribbon development on valley sides and slopes when this will cause settlement clusters to merge.

Large-scale agricultural buildings on or near valley sides The siting, form, orientation and colour of these buildings make a considerable contribution to mitigating their impact. In a valley side situation, especially if located on the skyline, they will have a considerable visual impact. It is preferable to seek a location outside the valley where the visual impact of this type of development can be mitigated much more effectively. However, especially on the coast, farmsteads are especially concentrated on the valley sides overlooking estuaries, so it may not be

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

16 Guidance Note Rolling Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

possible to find a suitable alternative location. In these situations ensuring that the proposal is fully part of an existing building cluster and backed by trees are important approaches to reducing the visual impact of these developments.

Barn conversions, extensions and modifications to existing housing stock The nature of this landscape, and the relationship to the adjacent valley floor, means that any of these changes can have a much greater impact on character and condition than they might in a flatter landscape. To accommodate these changes the visual impact and cultural appropriateness will need careful consideration.

Manage the expansion of garden curtilage The expansion of a garden which is not in keeping with the existing local pattern has a significant impact on the local character and form of the built environment, as well as on historic patterns of field enclosure. New or expanded curtilage should always be designed to fit into the local context and respect the established pattern. Furthermore, the visual impact of domestic clutter and garden paraphernalia on the wider countryside is often highly significant.

In many cases the extent of gardens in a village or cluster within a parish is relatively uniform, with all gardens following a defined boundary with agricultural land. If settlement expansion is required then the local pattern must be respected wherever possible. However, new garden curtilage may be required in other situations, such as in association with barn conversions, or dwellings for agricultural workers in open countryside.

If a large area of agricultural land is to be attached to a domestic dwelling the planning authority should define the extent of the garden curtilage. The objective is to create a clearly defined and agreed distinction between the wholly domestic areas and, for example, land to be used as a paddock.

Effective boundary planting is essential for reducing the visual intrusion of garden extensions into the open countryside. This should be conditioned as part of the change of land use and is especially important when a section of arable land is taken in, because in these cases there are often no existing hedgerows or other boundary features present.

The style of boundary fencing and hedging to be used can have a significant impact. The use of appropriate low impact materials, such as post and wire fencing is preferable to close boarded fencing or fence panels. If the latter are required they should be screened by appropriate hedging. The local options for this are quite limited, consisting principally of hawthorn or perhaps gorse. However, in some locations the influence of a landed estate may mean there is a locally distinctive tradition of non-native tree or hedge planting.

Landscape of leisure - Golf courses, holiday complexes, caravan sites, tourist centres The regular and recent nature of this landscape means that while the Estate Sandlands plateau does have some potential capacity, in respect of visual impact, to accept these developments, the landform of the valley sides means that risk of significant visual impact on valley floor or estuary landscapes, for example, is very

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

16 Guidance Note Rolling Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/1.10.10

high. The risk to visually sensitive and designated landscapes, such as those within the SC&H AONB, is high and the opportunities for mitigation are usually limited.

Furthermore, the impact on the character of the landscape both directly and indirectly may be highly significant and it may not be possible to effectively mitigate these impacts. Therefore such developments would constitute a profound and undesirable change to the landscape character.

Applicants will need to demonstrate that any such proposals will not have a significant impact. A landscape and visual impact assessment is likely to be essential for this, and the scope of this work should be drawn up in consultation with the local planning authority.

Visual impact of cropping production and land use changes The changes in cropping practices that have taken place across much of the Estate Sandlands as a whole, such as the use of fleece and plastic, and outdoor pig production, have also had a significant effect on this landscape. The siting and style of structures subject to planning control, such as static feed bins for pigs, poly tunnels or reservoirs should be appropriately conditioned to minimise their landscape impact.

Land Management Guidelines

Suffolk Landscape Guidance

16 Rolling Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Rolling Estate Sandlands

Key Characteristics

• Rolling river terraces and coastal slopes

• Sandy and free draining soils with areas of heathland

• Late enclosure with a pattern of tree belts and straight hedges

• Landscape parklands

• A focus of settlement in the Estate Sandlands landscape

• 19thC red brick buildings with black glazed pantiles in the east

• Lark valley buildings are frequently of brick or flint with tiled or slate roofs

• Tree belts and plantations throughout

• Occasional and significant semi-natural woodlands and ribbons of wet woodland

• Complex and intimate landscape on valley sides

Location

This landscape character type occurs in two main areas of the county:

• On the south side of the Lark valley from Tuddenham eastward to Hengrave and a narrow strip on the north side from West Stow to Fornham St Martin.

• On the sides of the lower valleys of the east Suffolk rivers: • the land surrounding Smear Marshes in the area of South Cove and Reydon • the sides of the Wang valley from Sotherton to Wangford • the Blyth valley sides from Halesworth to Blyford and its southern tributary from Bramfield to Wenhaston • the valleys of the Alde and Fromus from Farnham and Saxmundham to Iken and then forming a narrow band above the coastal levels to Orford and Gedgrave, around the Butley River and its tributaries to Hollesley and Bawdsey • the Deben valley from Ramsholt, past Woodbridge and Ufford almost to Wickham Market, and along its western tributaries to Martlesham, Newbourne, Falkenham, Brightwell and Bucklesham

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 16 Rolling Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

• along the north side of the Orwell Estuary from Felixstowe to the margins of Ipswich.

Geology, landform and soils

In the Lark valley this landscape is found on the flat or gently rolling river terraces where deep, free-draining, sandy soils of the Newport series overlie sandy glacial deposits on top of chalk. In the east coast valleys, this landscape is found on similar sandy Newport series soils on river terraces and coast-edge slopes where they overlie thin glacial deposits on top of Crag sands.

Landholding and enclosure pattern

In the Lark valley the dryness of the soils has limited their land-use and historically there were extensive heaths – Tuddenham Heath, Cavenham Heath, Mill Heath, Home Heath and Clamp Heath. Of these, Cavenham Heath is the largest survivor and is now a nature reserve. Part of Tuddenham Heath was used as a WWII airfield but is now largely a gravel quarry. The field pattern here is predominantly one of late enclosure with straight hedges and tree belts.

In east Suffolk, the landscape generally occurs as narrow valley-side strips that echo the landscape character of the adjoining uplands. There is a greater mix of land and soil types so patterns of fields can be quite variable from straight, geometric units to more sinuous shapes. As in the Lark valley, however, dryness was a problem in some areas and this is reflected by a number of extant or former heaths or commons, particularly in the northern half: Wrentham Common, Frostenden Common, Cove Common, Reydon Common, Wangford Common, Wenhaston Black Heath, Wadd Common in Snape and Iken Heath.

In most places the estate character of the settlement and enclosure is not particularly marked, showing up sometimes as higher densities of timber trees in the hedges or in locally similar groups of buildings.

Settlement

Being elevated land beside water courses, these landscapes were utilised for settlement from an early date. On the river terrace at Fornham All Saints there are the buried remains of major Neolithic ritual monuments that now only show as cropmarks – a large causewayed enclosure, a long cursus and various rings. Bronze Age building remains have been found at Cavenham, and at Wenhaston in the Blyth valley there is the site of small Roman town. Medieval churches with clusters of houses around them line the sides of the valleys at intervals of about 1.5 to 2 miles, with some additional isolated farmsteads in between.

At Hengrave a park was established partly over former common field strips in 1587 to enhance the setting of the magnificent early Tudor mansion beside the medieval church. The 18th century park on the other side of the valley at Fornham St Genevieve has now disappeared and much of the land has been quarried for sand and gravel. Two parks were also established in the 18th century overlooking the Orwell Estuary: Orwell Park and Broke Hall, the latter having a landscape designed by Humphry Repton (Red Book of c.1792).

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 16 Rolling Estate Sandlands EP/Edit1/02.08.10

Between the Alde and the Deben there are some isolated occurrences of this landscape within the Coastal Levels which reflect the former existence of marshland islands, as at Iken church, Burrow Hill in Butley, Oxley Dairy in Hollesley and Buckanay Farm in Alderton. In the last two cases the place-names contain the Old English suffix –eg meaning ‘an island’ (Oxeneye (1327) = ‘oxen-island’ and Bukney (1521) = ‘goat-island’). Iken church was the site of Icanho, a monastery founded in mid 7th century by St Botolph and destroyed by Viking raiders in the late 9th century. A probable monastery of a similar date existed at Burrow Hill, not far from the medieval Butley Priory. Semi-islands also seem to have existed at Bawdsey (‘Baldhere’s island’), Gedgrave (‘goat grove’; the Hall is on the site of the lost church of St Andrew, where seamen’s wives from Orford went to pray for their husbands) and Raydon Hall (’rye hill’) in Orford.

In the Lark valley buildings are frequently of brick or flint with tiled or slate roofs and have a 19th century air of symmetry and planning, contrasting with the more vernacular timber- framed buildings of the clayland areas to the south. The Tudor white bricks of Hengrave Hall are an early precursor of the strong 19th century fashion for white bricks, with production sites in the valley at Flempton and Culford.

Red brick 19th century buildings are a strong feature of in the eastern valleys, with the material coming from a number of small local brickworks, as at Frostenden, Uggeshall, South Cove, Wenhaston and Benhall – of these, the South Cove Brickworks at Cove Bottom is the sole survivor. Roofs often have curved pan-tiles, sometimes black glazed.

Trees and woodland cover

Woodland in the form of belts, coverts and plantations is a consistent feature throughout these landscapes and is a reflection of its late enclosure character, but there are also occasional semi-natural oak woodlands on some of the slopes. There are even ribbons of wet woodland along some of the small tributaries, such as ‘The Wilderness’ along the Falkenham Brook.

Visual experience

In contrast to the surrounding ‘uplands’ of the Estate Sandlands, these landscapes are usually more complex and intimate, the managed, open, estate feel being replaced by a pattern of small streams and smaller fields. The views are shorter and more confined and settlement is more evident so the countryside feels less empty.

Condition

Many of these valley side landscapes are under considerable development pressure because there are concentrations of settlement and land use change. However there are excellent areas of semi-natural landscapes and intact landscapes in many places.

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

Appendix 3: Methodology for the preparation of Visuals

ZTV Studies

ZTV studies are prepared using the ArcGIS Viewshed routines. This creates a raster image that indicates the visibility (or not) of the points modelled. Each turbine is analysed at nacelle and blade tip height. Two studies are carried out, with the first using a topographic model alone, in accordance with SNH guidance. A second study is also prepared including settlements (generally mapped in at an assumed average of 7.5m above ground level) and woodlands (generally mapped in at an assumed average of 15m high above ground level). If significant deviations from these assumed heights are noted during site visits, for example young or felled areas of woodland, or significant areas of single storey development, the features concerned will be adjusted within the model. The areas of settlement and woodlands are based on 2001 Census data and the National Inventory of Woodland Types (all woodlands of 2ha or more in size in England) from the Forestry Commission.

The visibility is modelled taking into account both the curvature of the earth and light refraction, in accordance with SNH guidance. Within a ZTV all observers are presumed to be 2m tall (in order to compensate for the likely margin of error within the ground model as indicated within the SNH Guidelines). The ZTV also begins at 1m from the observation feature (for example the wind turbine) and will work outwards in a grid of the set resolution (generally 20-30 sq. m) until it reaches the end of the terrain map for the project.

For all plan production LDA Design will produce a ZTV that has an overlay of the 1:50,000 Ordnance Survey Raster mapping in a Bitmap 50% threshold form. The ZTV will be reproduced at either 1:50,000 or 1:100,000 scale depending on the study area. For a typical 25km radius study area, the ZTVs will be printed on an A1 sheet at 1:100,000 scale.

Ground model accuracy

Depending on the project, different height datasets may be used. Ordnance Survey Landform Profile (roughly linked to quality of 10K mapping ) and Landform Panorama (roughly linked to the quality of 50K mapping) are supplied as point datasets from which a triangulated mesh is created within GIS (often referred to as a TIN). Below is listed the different data products and their specifications:

2842_SLVIA

Product Distance Vertical Error Horizontal Between Points Error

Landform Profile 10m +/- 1.8m +/- 1m

Landform 50m +/- 5m +/- 3m Panorama

For most purposes, the Landform Panorama data will be used, but on certain occasions more detailed analysis of areas close to the site may be required, in which case, ZTVs based on Landform Profile data with areas of vegetation and building footprints drawn from the OS 1:10,000 mapping may be used. Similarly, more detailed surface mapping products such as Nextmap or LIDAR (also supplied as point datasets) may be used.

Wireframes

Wireframes are produced in 6 key stages: 1) Photography is undertaken by a professional photographer using a digital SLR camera and 50mm equivalent lens. A tripod (usually 1.6m high) is used to take overlapping (50%) landscape format photographs which are joined together using Adobe Photoshop software to create a single panoramic image for each viewpoint. These are then saved at a fixed height and resolution to enable correct sizing when reproduced in the final images. The photographer also notes the GPS location of the viewpoint and takes bearings to visible landmarks whilst at the viewpoint. 2) Creation of a ground model and 3D Mesh to illustrate that model - This is created using OS landform panorama point data (or occasionally other terrain datasets where required) and KEY Terrafirma ground modelling software. 3) The addition of the turbine wireframes to the 3D model using AutoCAD- The turbines are correctly proportioned to match the nacelle height and blade lengths proposed for the development. They are also modelled to closely resemble the turbines proposed. The turbines are then inserted into the 3D model at the proposed locations, facing into the prevailing wind direction. 4) Wireframe generation – The viewpoints are added within the 3D AutoCAD model with each observer point being inserted at 2m above the modelled ground plane. The location of the landmarks identified by the photographer may also be included in the model. The view from the

2842_SLVIA

viewpoint is then generated using the AutoCAD camera function, creating a number of single frame images, which also include bearing markers. For cumulative wireframes, each wind farm will be shown in a different colour. As with the photographs, these single frame images are joined together using Adobe Photoshop software to create a single panoramic image for each viewpoint. These are then saved at a fixed height and resolution to ensure that they are the same size as the photographs. 5) Wireframe matching – The wireframes are matched to the photographs using a combination of the visible topography; bearings taken on site and the bearing markers; and the landmarks which have been included in the 3D model. 6) Reproduction – the wireframe images are presented on sheets which are 297mm high and the length needed to show the view. The photographs are shown at 140mm high (a viewing distance of 300mm) with the wireframes below. Data required by the SNH guidance and a location plan is also included on each sheet. Where very wide panoramas (more than 2000 degrees) are required to show all of the schemes within a cumulative study, the view will be split across two sheets.

Photomontages

Photomontages are produced in 4 key stages: 1) Wireframe preparation, up to stage 5 above. 2) AutoCAD is used to produce a rendered 3D view of the turbines from the viewpoint. The rendering uses a pale grey colour (similar to that used for many turbines) and lighting conditions according to the time of day for the viewpoint photograph. These images are then saved at a fixed height and resolution to ensure that they are the same size as the photographs. 3) The rendered turbines are then added to the photographs in the positions identified by the wireframe (using Adobe Photoshop to overlay the photograph with both the wireframe and rendered turbines to ensure accuracy). The images are then layered to ensure that the turbines appear in front of and behind the correct elements visible within the photograph.

Reproduction – the photomontage images are presented on sheets which are 297mm high and the length needed to show the view which is usually cropped to 90 degrees of the wireframe view, focussed on the wind farm location. The photographs are shown at 200mm high (a viewing distance of 435mm). Data required by the SNH guidance and a location plan is also included on each sheet. Where very wide panoramas (more than 135

2842_SLVIA

degrees) are required to show all of the schemes within a cumulative study, the view will be split across two or more sheets.

2842_SLVIA

Appendix 4: Source Documents

Landscape & Renewable Energy Policy

 South Coastal District Plan - Adopted 2006 (Suffolk Coastal District Council)  Planning Policy Guidance 20: Coastal Planning (Sept 1992, HMSO)  Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (Feb 2004, HMSO)  Planning for Renewable Energy: A companion Guide to PPS22 (ODPM, 2004)  UK Marine Policy Statement (HM Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government, March 2011)  Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Department of Energy & Climate Change, July 2011.  National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). Department of Energy & Climate Change, July 2011.

Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment

 The Countryside Agency's Character Map (Character Area No. 82).  Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment, (Suffolk County Council, 2008).  Visual Representation of Wind Farms Best Practice Guidance, (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2006, albeit published in 2007).  Guidance on the Assessment of the Effect of Offshore Wind Farms, (Department of Trade & Industry, 2005).  An assessment of the sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish Seascape in relation to wind farms, (Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned Report 103, 2005).  Guidance: Cumulative Effects of Wind Farms, (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2005).  Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment/Landscape Institute, 2002)  Landscape Character Assessment Guidance (Countryside Agency/Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002)  Maritime Ireland/Wales Interreg 1994-1999 'Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment' (GSA) published in March 2001.

2842_SLVIA

Appendix 5: Glossary

Cumulative effects. The summation of effects that result from changes caused by a development in conjunction with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions.1 Indirect effects. Effects on the environment, which are nor a direct result of the development but are often produced away from it or as a result of a complex pathway. Sometimes referred to as secondary impacts. Landscape character type. A landscape type will have broadly similar patterns of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use, settlement and field pattern discernible in maps and field survey records.1 Landscape effects. Change in the elements, characteristics, character and qualities of the landscape as a result of development. These effects can be negative or positive.1 Landscape character means the distinct and recognisable pattern of elements that occur consistently in a particular type of landscape, and how these are perceived by people. It reflects particular combinations of geology, landform, soils, vegetation, land use and human settlement. It creates the particular sense of place of different areas of the landscape.1 Landscape quality (or condition) is based on judgements about the physical state of the landscape, and about its intactness, from visual, functional, and ecological perspectives. It also reflects the state of repair of individual features and elements which make up the character in any one place.1 Landscape value is concerned with the relative value that is attached to different landscapes. In a policy context the usual basis for recognising certain highly valued landscapes is through the application of a local or national landscape designation. Yet a landscape may be valued by communities for many different reasons without any formal designation.

2842_SLVIA

Landscape capacity refers to the degree to which a particular landscape character type or area is able to accommodate change without significant effects on its character, or overall change of landscape character type. Capacity is likely to vary according to the type and nature of change being proposed.1 Landscape sensitivity. The extent to which a landscape can accept change of a particular type and scale without material effects on its character.2 Magnitude. A combination of the scale, extent and duration of an effect.1 Mitigation. Measures, including any process, activity or design to avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate for adverse landscape and visual effects of a development project.1 Receptor. Physical landscape resource, special interest or viewer group that will experience an effect. 1 Regional seascape units. They will normally be defined by regional headlands, islands, or coastal features and the determining factor will be shared intervisibility (although there will be pockets inside this where some other parts are not visible). The unit will generally extend up to 15km offshore, and inland to the extent of the ZVI or buffer. The distance offshore (or the offshore buffer) may be extended where there is elevated topography in close proximity to the shore.3 Seascape. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘Seascape’ as a ‘picture or view to the sea’. However for the purposes of this [GSA] guide we have broadened the concept and assumed the definition to include:  Views from land to sea  Views from sea to land  Views along coastline  The effect on landscape of the conjunction of sea and land These parameters are used to define the seascape areas included in this methodology. Some additional areas on land may be included that are coastal in character, but which may not have direct views of the sea, such as areas behind sand dunes.3

1 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment/Landscape Institute, 2002) 2 Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency, 2002 3 Maritime Ireland/Wales Interreg 1994-1999 'Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment' (GSA) March 2001.

2842_SLVIA

Visual amenity. The value of a particular area or view in terms of what is seen. Visual effect. Change in the appearance of the landscape as a result of development. This can be positive (i.e. beneficial or an improvement) or negative (i.e. adverse or a detraction). 1 Visual envelope. Extent of potential visibility to or from a specific area or feature. 1

Zone of visual influence. Area within which a proposed development may have an influence or effect on visual amenity. 1

2842_SLVIA