Wind Energy Strategy in South West Sheffield

Supplementary DocumentDecember 2014

Introduction

Methodology

Purpose and Scope

Landscape Character Assessment (LCA)

This document, accompanying the public consultation posters, aims at providing more comprehensive description of and justification for the methodology used in this project, so as to increase transparency. Furthermore, a separate section is given to discuss the findings of public attitude towards wind energy development that has been one of the crucial consideration factors in making design decision.

Sheffield City Council has been exploring feasibility of wind energy development to the west of the City as a response to the national vision of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. Hence, Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment are employed as a tool kit that systematically collects and analyses baseline data in the sense of landscape profession. In the end of the process, a decision on one or more precise locations will be drawn from the study. Design proposals including alternatives, for a wind farm that can generate 10MW will be delivered for authority’s vetting and public consultation.

The study area covers the western peri-urban edge of Sheffield, running roughly from the south of Road A57 to the north of Totley Tunnel (for more accurate extent of the study area, please refer to Appendix I). Since the scale of study area and scope of work is between local authority assessment and site specific assessment, the scale of drawings and maps used will float between 1:25,000 and 1:10,000.

Throughout the study process, LCA has been a fundamental element as it creates a framework for further assessment to be built upon. A hierarchy of landscape character types and landscape character areas is set out for this project that will allow more area-specific study.

In order to develop a rough characterisation of landscape character areas before getting into a more refined assessment, a desk study has been conducted which includes relevant existing landscape character assessments and data on various landscape attributes. A landscape character assessment issued by Peak District National Park Authority (2009) that offers a regional overview of the landscape typology in the Peak District and adjacent areas, including the study area, has been considered. By studying this landscape character assessment together with data from online official sources compiled in GIS, draft landscape character types and areas were identified. Table 01 summarises the corresponding sources of particular information. In the characterisation of the landscape types and areas, an awareness of the danger of generalising based on specific landscape elements was maintained. Therefore consideration of all the landscape elements and their relationship to each other shaped the draft indicative character types and areas. Landscape elements which influenced the indicative plan included the topography (e.g. valleys and plateaux, land use (e.g. field enclosure and disused quarries) and habitats (e.g. plantations and moorlands).

Table 01 Various Sources of Landscape Data

Sources

The draft landscape character plan is followed by preparation of field survey which will complement the desk study process, clarify vagueness and ensures the information is up-to-date. Field survey also provides an opportunity to look into the perceptual and aesthetic attributes, such as balance, scale, enclosure and legibility, which can hardly be identified and confirmed simply by desk study. Prior to the field survey, a survey sheet which formulates all the assessment procedures and landscape attributes needed is made to ensure full data collection. The selection of landscape attributes to be assessed has been informed by Figure 1.1 What is landscape? in Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England, Scotland & Wales (Consultation Draft) issued in 2011 (thereafter called LCA Guidance) and Wind Turbine Development – Landscape Assessment, Evaluation and Guidance – Final Report for Breckland Council, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council by Land Use Consultant issued in 2003 (thereafter called WTD Guidance). In addition, landscape attributes, e.g. prominence of skyline, sense of remoteness and presence of vernacular structure, which are sensitive to changes caused by wind energy development, should also be taken into account. The LCA survey sheet can be found in Appendix II.

After the completion of the field survey, the data collected allows a more precise study which may lead to amendment to the draft landscape character types and areas. The result will then be summarised by having 1) bullet points of key landscape characteristics for each landscape character area, 2) brief description of each landscape character area, and 3) a map showing the extent of landscape character types and areas.

Landscape Data

Existing Landscape Character Assessment

Peak District National Park Authority regional landscape typology

Various Landscape Attributes

EDINA land use, topography and aspects, drainage system

MAgic geology, soil types, habitats and designations

English Heritage time depth, e.g. scheduled monuments, Historic Landscape Character

Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (LSA)

Reference has been made to the unpublished draft of Topic Paper: Towards an Approach for Assessing Landscape Sensitivity issued in 2011 by Land Use Consultant (thereafter called Paper 2) to inform the methodology of LSA for this project. Therefore, the definition of landscape sensitivity adopted in this project will follow the one stated in Paper 2 which is

It is worth noting that the word “sensitivity” used in this project does not imply any sense of intrinsic, inherent or overall nature. Instead, in the context of this project, landscape sensitivity is a term specific to the construction of a wind farm which can generate 10MW. Over that specificity, landscape sensitivity is the combination of landscape character sensitivity and visual sensitivity which are defined in Paper 2 as:

The landscape character and visual sensitivity were assessed separately, so that confusion between landscape character attributes concerning visual aspects such as skylines, and visual sensitivity, were avoided. These two sub-sensitivity assessments were both carried out for each of the previously identified character areas. To formulate an assessment criteria, the landscape characteristics considered most relevant to the wind energy development are considered as sensitivity indicators. Definitions as to what constitutes high and low sensitivity were assigned to each of these indicators, so that a consistent judgement standard across the study area can be maintained. (Please refer to Appendices III and IV for the survey sheets of landscape character sensitivity and visual sensitivity respectively.) The list of sensitivity indicators was compiled through a review of guidance documents and examples of good practice including Visual Impact Provision – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of Existing Electricity Transmission

“the relative ability of a landscape to respond to and, where appropriate, accommodate change of a particular type. It reflects landscape character, the nature of change and the way both are experienced and perceived. (clause 19)”

“Landscape character sensitivity: the sensitivity of the landscape as a whole, in terms of its overall character, its quality and condition, the aesthetic aspects of its character, and also the sensitivity of individual elements contributing to the landscape. This will include visual and aesthetic aspects on character and may include effect son adjacent character areas. (clause 21 para. 2)”

”Visual sensitivity: the visibility and the potential scope to mitigate the visual effects of any change that might take place. Visibility will be a function particularly of the landform of a particular type of landscape and of the presence of potentially screening land cover, especially trees and woodland. It may also be a reflection of the people who are likely to perceive the landscape and any changes that occur in it, and the type of people likely to be exposed to views of the change, whether residents, workers, visitors, those travelling in or through the area or those involved in leisure activities. These studies may consider viewer and viewpoint sensitivity. Such information may, however, be more appropriate at the site scale of an LVIA when the particular location of a proposed change is known. (clause 21 para. 3)”

Protected Landscape in England and Wales – Technical Report issued by NationalGrid in 2014 (thereafter called the NationalGrid) and WTD Guidance.

The Landscape Character Sensitivity assessment was conducted by field survey as most of the criteria required on site observation and judgement. Depending on the relative complexity of each landscape character area, some required multiple assessment points. By taking an average of the results of these points, a representative sensitivity of that landscape character area was deduced. Some attributes were not shared by all assessment points, such as human influence and settlement, and were excluded when taking average. Extra comments were noted at particular assessment points, most commonly the sighting of existing wind farm which contributed to cumulative effect. Landscape visual sensitivity assessment, however, was undertaken as a desk-based study due to the fact that data related to the receptor aspect and the general visibility aspect can be easily accessed and analysed via GIS and other online authority sources. Table 02 below summarises the indicators of sensitivity of different attributes.

After the assessment, each landscape character area was given a rating for character sensitivity and visual sensitivity ranging from low, to low-medium, to medium-high, to high. The ratings of landscape character sensitivity and visual sensitivity were then integrated into one general rating by taking a weighted average with weighting factors of 3 to 1, representing landscape character sensitivity and visual sensitivity respectively. Visual sensitivity weighs less than the landscape character sensitivity as the ability of landform or landcover to screen wind turbines within this context is limited. Landscape character has more variable ability to respond to and accommodate the changes caused by the wind energy development. Appendix VI summarises the steps that produce a general landscape sensitivity of each landscape character area.

Table 02 Indicators of Various Visual Attributes

For the survey sheet of visual sensitivity assessment, please refer to Appendix IV

Aspects Visual Attributes

Visitors

Vehicle Users

Rural Residency

Sheffield Residency

Potential Screening Cover

Landform

Indicators

cycle routes, paths, visitor amenities

roads

number of residency

visibility from the wider urban area computed by ZTV

Presence of screening, e.g. woodland

Elevation and diversity

Receptors

General Visibility

Landscape Value Assessment

Compatibility

Siting Decision

The definition stated in Paper 2 is adopted in this project:

With reference to the NationalGrid and Topic Paper 6: Techniques and Criteria for Judging Capacity and Sensitivity the assessment criteria were set out and definition of two extreme levels (e.g. high and low values) were assigned. (For the survey sheet of landscape value assessment, please refer to Appendix V). Criteria of the landscape value assessment was judged according to expert knowledge and experience and was conducted on site as most of the criteria required first-hand experience and observation. Some landscape character areas’ values were represented as an average of multiple assessment points when there was certain degree of complexity within the area. Landscape value is treated in this project as a separate layer of information from landscape sensitivity which differs from the conventional approach. Landscape value was not combined with landscape sensitivity to form capacity. The emphasis was shifted to landscape sensitivity while landscape value acts as a supplementary layer of data to help confirm decisions. The advantage of this new approach is that there is no ambiguity when combining sensitivity and value to form capacity (for example, medium sensitivity and low value will make medium or low capacity). It avoids open interpretations of “capacity” and prevents the concept that a definite threshold amount of a development to be accommodated can be identified. It also discourages people from correlating sensitivity with value and capacity, for example sensitivity is reversely proportional to capacity.

Since multiple assessments were needed to feed into the result of the LSA and comparison between results of different assessments was necessary, compatible systems among assessments was essential. Landscape character sensitivity, visual sensitivity and landscape value assessments refer to the same base map of landscape character areas from the LCA. A scale of four-grade system applies to all the assessments, from low, medium-low, medium-high to high, so that comparison of results is feasible. Moreover, the wordings of the landscape attribute have been kept as similar as possible in all the landscape assessments.

When the least sensitive landscape character areas were identified the landscape value of these areas were checked against them. From this a conclusion was reached as to the least sensitive landscape character area and therefore the most appropriate area for the placement of a 10MW wind farm.

To summarise the major steps involved in the Project, a flow chart is made and shown in Appendix VII

“the relative value attached to different landscapes by society, at any given point in time. Some areas of landscapes that have particular value may be identified for special recognition by local or national landscape designations. (clause 24)”

Public Attitude towards Wind Farms in England and Scotland

In recent times, development of onshore wind energy has been emerging to meet the national vision. This has raised controversy due to the negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts perceived to be created by wind farms (Allen et al., 2007).

Public concern can be a cause of refusal of planning permission for renewable energy projects (Allen et al., 2007).

According to the research carried out by Allen et al. (2007) a vast majority (84%) of the residents of the study area suggested that wind energy should be included in the UK’s energy portfolio while the remaining 16% were either undecided or believed that wind energy should not be advocated further as an energy source for the UK. The overwhelming reason given for this was that wind energy does not ‘‘produce enough electricity’’ to make a significant contribution to UK electricity demand and so ‘‘too many wind farms would be required’’.

In contrast, debate around NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome is unfolding. This is the different attitudes between general acceptance and resistance to specific projects close to ones’ dwellings which can be explained by the fact that people support renewable energy as long as it is not in their own backyard (Burer, 2006).

The research of Allen et al. (2007) reveals that the public’s concern regarding the environmental impacts of wind farms is subjective and sociological factors are important in determining their extent, such as a person’s knowledge of the technology, exposure to particular media reports and the opinions of friends and relatives living locally.

They also suggest that the visual impact of wind farm is the most important environmental issue that arises from wind turbines and power transmission lines being constructed in the open, upland landscapes required for effective wind generation. Two further aspects of visual intrusion from wind turbines are sun glint and sun flicker, which can annoy residents and become a blinding hazard to drivers. Sun glint occurs when the sun’s rays are intermittently reflected from the turbine rotors and sun flicker refers to the intermittent shadow cast when the rays of the sun are viewed through a turning turbine.

Allen et al. (2007) believe that noise arising from the mechanical components of the wind turbine (e.g., gearbox) and the aerodynamic characteristics of blades and blade–tower interaction is considered to be a significant barrier to the deployment of wind energy. The magnitude of noise annoyance has been found to be influenced by a person’s opinion of the visual impact of wind turbines as well as sound characteristics and pressure. Additionally, the degree of annoyance will depend upon noise tone, intermittency and sensitivity of individuals under certain circumstances, such as sleeping. Careful turbine siting can minimise sound emission to nearby dwellings. This is demonstrated in the findings of a study by Moorhouse et al. (2007), which reports that only 20% of operational wind farms in the UK have been subject to formal noise complaints.

Public Attitude towards Wind Farm

People’s Belief towards Environmental Concerns of Wind Farm

Opinion in Terms of Typical Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Farms in Scotland

Impact of the Wind Farm in Scotland

In a British summary of research (Damborg and Krohn, 1998) the typical arguments for and against wind power were investigated.

On one hand, people believe that renewable energy is very much an alternative to fossil energy sources. Also, they worry about the climate change and express that it must be taken seriously. Moreover, people suggest that wind energy is limitless and, unlike fossil fuels, it does not pollute the environment and is safe.

On the other hand, it is stated that renewable energy with the current technology cannot be a ultimate solution of the energy problems, as wind turbines are unreliable and dependent on the wind. Additionally, wind energy is expensive, wind turbines spoil the scenery and they emit noise.

There has been a considerable argument about the impact of wind farm, with Braunholtz (2003) stating that there is little difference in the views of people who lived there prior to the development, and those who have moved in after the wind farm was built. One in five of both groups (21% and 18% respectively) feel that the wind farm has had a positive impact, while 7% and 4% respectively feel that it has been negative.

He also suggested that People who are optimistic about wind farm more likely to say are familiar with it, as they see windturbines in different cercumistances than those who feel windfarm has had negative impact feel that their local windfarm has had a generally positive impact on the area are more likely to say that they can see the turbines in a variety of circumstances (such as from their homes, travelling on local road, walking countryside etc) than are those who consider the windfarm to have had a negative impact. Thus, it would appear, the situations in which the turbines can be seen to have no direct negative correlation with attitudes to windfarms.

References

Land Use Consultants. (2003) Wind Turbine Development – Landscape Assessment, Evaluation and Guidance – Final Report for Breckland Council and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council. UK, Land Use Consultants.

Gillespies, Land Use Consultants and Swanwick, C. (2014) Visual Impact Provision – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of Existing Electricity Transmission Infrastructure in Nationally Protected Landscape in England and Wales – Technical Report. UK, NationalGrid.

Peak District National Park Authority. (2009) Landscape Strategy and Action Plan 2009 – 2019. UK, Peak District National Park Authority.

English Heritage. (2014) The national heritage list for england – map search. UK, English Heritage. [Accessed 16th December 2014].

Land Use Consultants. (2011a) Consultation draft topic paper: towards an approach for assessing landscape sensitivity (unpublished). UK, Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage.

Land Use Consultants. (2011b) Consultation draft landscape character assessment guidance for England, Scotland and Wales. UK, Countryside Council for Wales, Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage.

Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency. (No Date) Landscape character assessment – guidance for england and scotland – topic paper 6: techniques and criteria forjJudging vapacity and sensitivity. UK, Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside Agency.

Braunholtz, S. (2003). A survey of local residents in scotland. Scottish Executive Social Research.

Eltham, D., Harrison, G. and Allen, S. (2007). Change in public attitudes towards a Cor-nish wind farm: Implications for planning. Energy Policy. 36 (1), 23-33.

Krohn, S. and Damborg S. (1998). On Public Attitudes Towards Wind Power. Renewable Energy. 16 (1), 954-960.

Wustenhagen, R., Wolsink., M. and Burer, M. (2006). Social acceptance of renewable ener-gy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy. 35 (1), 2683–2691

Existing LCA and LVIA Consulted

Guidance

Literature about Public Attitude towards Wind Farm

Appendix

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

Title

Landscape Character Types and Areas

Landscape Character Assessment Survey Sheet

Landscape Character Sensitivity Survey Sheet

Visual Sensitivity Survey Sheet

Landscape Value Assessment Survey Sheet

Steps of Producing Landscape Sensitivity

Summary of Steps Involved in Decision Making

Appendix I Landscape Character Types and Areas

BOLE

HIL

L.sl

opin

g ea

rly e

nclo

sure

BRO

WN

ED

GE.

roug

h en

clos

ed u

plan

d.

HAL

LAM

MO

OR

.m

oorla

nd

LAD

Y C

ANN

ING

.m

oorla

nd

RED

MIR

ES R

ESER

VOIR

Sre

serv

oir v

alle

y

settl

ed p

asto

ral e

nclo

sure

DO

RE

MO

OR

.

BLAC

KA M

OO

R.

moo

rland

past

oral

enc

losu

reR

ING

ING

LOW

.

woo

ded

valle

yLI

MB

VALL

EY.

recr

eatio

nal l

and

ECC

LESA

LL W

OO

DS.

peri-

urba

n va

lley.

OLD

HAY

VAL

LEY.

MAY

FIEL

D V

ALLE

Y.w

oode

d va

lley

Lan

dsc

ape

ch

ara

cte

r are

as

Appendix II Landscape Character Assessment Survey Sheet

Appendix II Landscape Character Assessment Survey Sheet

Appendix III Landscape Character Sensitivity Survey Sheet

Appendix IV Visual Sensitivity Survey Sheet

INDICATORS: LOW MEDIUM - LOW

MEDIUM - HIGH HIGH low sensitivity definition high sensitivity definition

RECEPTORS:

Visitors (Inc. cyclists etc) No cycle routes/paths/visitor amenities etc

Cycle routes/paths/visitor amenities etc

COMMUTORS No roads Presence of roads

Rural Residents No or few residencies High number of Residencies

Sheffield Residents Low or no visibility from the wider Sheffield area

High visibility from the wider Sheffield area.

VISUAL :

Presence of Potential Screening Cover high screening low screening

Landform low elevation / undulating landform

high elevation / flat topography

Appendix V Landscape Value Assessment Survey Sheet

Appendix VISteps of Producing Landscape Sensitivity

Low Medium Low High

AVG: Med LowCalculation:(1+2+4) / 3 ≈ 2

Character Sensitivity Assessment

Criteria 1: Criteria 2: Criteria 3:

Medium Low Low Low

AVG: LowCalculation:(2+1+1) / 3 ≈ 1

Character Sensitivity Assessment

Criteria 1: Criteria 2: Criteria 3:

High Medium High High

AVG: HighCalculation:(4+3+4) / 3 ≈ 4

Visual Sensitivity Assessment

Criteria 1: Criteria 2: Criteria 3:

Medium High Medium High High

AVG: Medium HighCalculation:(1+2+4) / 3 ≈ 3

Visual Sensitivity Assessment

Criteria 1: Criteria 2: Criteria 3:

Assessment Point A1

Assessment Point A2

Weighting Factor

Weighting Factor

Weighting Factor

Weighting Factor

Sensitivity of Point A1

(2 x + 4 x ) / ≈ 3

Medium High

3 1 4

Sensitivity of Point A2

(1 x + 3 x ) / ≈ 2

Medium Low

3 1 4

Sensitivity of Landscape Character Area A

Medium High

(3+2)/2 ≈ 3

Matching Table

1

Low

2 3 4

Medium Low HighMedium

High

&

&

is

is

Landscape Character Area A

Landscape Charac-ter Area C

Landscape Charac-ter Area B

Assessment Point A1

Assessment Point A2

Appendix VIISummary of Steps Involved in the Project

Defining Purpose and Scope of the Project

Identifying relevant existing landscape character assessmentcollecting data of different aspects, e.g. topography, geology and designations as a set of Baseline data Draft landscape character types and areasPreparing survey sheets by selecting landscape attributes to be assessed

Landscape Character Assessment

Desk Study

Field Survey

Amendment to draft landscape character types and areas, if necessary

Finalised map of landscape character types and areas Bullet points of key characteristics Brief description of landscape character

Landscape Sensitivity Assessment

Character Sensitivity Assessment

Field Survey Desk Study

Design Decision

Field Survey

Visual Sensitivity Assessment

- Preparing survey sheets by selecting landscape attributes to be assessed- Defining the conditions of high and low sensitivities/values for each landscape attribute

Landscape Value Assessment

Map of landscape sensitivities Map of landscape values

Research on specifications of wind turbines

Studies on relevant guidelines that inform siting decision

Decision check