Galloper Wind Farm Project - National Infrastructure Planning

Galloper Wind Farm Project 

Environmental Statement – Technical Appendices 5 

Landscape and Visual Character – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 

- 20.A 

Seascape, Landscape and Visual Character – Seascape Visual Impact Assessment 

- 20.B 

Galloper Wind Farm Limited 

October 2011 

Document Reference – 5.4.5

Document title Galloper Wind Farm Project 

Environmental Statement – Technical 

Appendices 5 

Document short title Galloper Wind Farm ES 

Document Reference 5.4.5 

Regulation Reference APFP Regulations, 5(2)(a) 

Status Final Report 

Version 4 

Date October 2011 

Project name Galloper Wind Farm Project 

Royal Haskoning 

Reference 

Client Galloper Wind Farm Limited 

Drafted by Royal Haskoning 

Checked by Peter Gaches 

9V3083/R01/303424/Exet 

Date/initials check PG 01.09.11 

Approved by Dr. Martin Budd (Royal Haskoning) 

Date/initials approval MB 01.10.11 

GWFL Approved by Kate Harvey (GWFL) 

Date/initials approval KH 01.11.11

GALLOPER WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 

TECHNICAL APPENDIX 20.A 

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL CHARACTER – LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT 

ASSESSMENT

GALLOPER WIND FARM SUBSTATION 

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

September 2011 

A Worton Rectory Park 

Oxford OX29 4SX 

United Kingdom 

T +44 (0) 1865 887050 

F +44 (0) 1865 887055 

W www.lda-design.co.uk 

LDA Design Consulting LLP 

Registered No: OC307725 

17 Minster Precincts, Peterborough PE1 1XX



Contents 

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................ 6 

1.2. The Proposed Development ......................................................................................... 6 

1.3. Wireframes and Photomontages ............................................................................... 7 

1.4. The Study Area............................................................................................................... 11 

2.0 Assessment Methodology ..................................................................... 12 

2.1. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology ............................. 12 

2.2. Scope of Study ................................................................................................................ 12 

2.3. Consultation ................................................................................................................... 13 

2.4. Field Study ....................................................................................................................... 18 

3.0 Landscape Policy Context ..................................................................... 20 

3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 20 

3.2. Landscape Designations ............................................................................................. 20 

3.3. Suffolk Heritage Coast ................................................................................................ 28 

3.4. Special Landscape Areas............................................................................................. 29 

3.5. Historic Environment ................................................................................................. 29 

4.0 The Existing Landscape Environment ................................................. 32 

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 32 

4.2. Landscape Character and Features of the Development Site and its 

Immediate Context ...................................................................................................... 32 

4.3. Existing Landscape Character Assessments ....................................................... 37 

5.0 The Existing Visual Environment ........................................................ 43 

5.2. Initial ZTV ....................................................................................................................... 43 

5.3. Key Visual Receptor Groups ..................................................................................... 44 

5.4. Representative Viewpoint Appraisal .................................................................... 46 

6.0 Potential for Cumulative Effects .......................................................... 56 

7.0 ZTV Study .............................................................................................. 57 

8.0 Description of the Proposals and Nature of Effects ............................. 60 

8.2. Lighting ............................................................................................................................ 63 

8.3. Programme ...................................................................................................................... 64 

8.4. Decommissioning ........................................................................................................ 65 

2890_LVIA



9.0 Assessment during Construction ......................................................... 67 

9.1. Landscape Effects during Construction ............................................................... 67 

9.2. Effects on Landscape Designations during Construction ............................. 74 

9.3. Visual Effects during Construction ....................................................................... 77 

10.0 Assessment at Year 1 ............................................................................. 89 

10.1. Landscape Effects at Year 1 ...................................................................................... 89 

10.2. Effects on Landscape Designations at Year 1 .................................................... 93 

10.3. Visual Effects at Year 1 .............................................................................................. 96 

11.0 Assessment at Year 15 ......................................................................... 111 

11.1. Landscape Effects at Year 15 ................................................................................. 111 

11.2. Effects on Landscape Designations at Year 15................................................ 116 

11.3. Visual Effects at Year 15 .......................................................................................... 119 

12.0 Assessment during Decommissioning .............................................. 134 

13.0 Mitigation ............................................................................................ 135 

13.1. Mitigation for Onshore Cable Connection...................................................... 135 

13.2. Mitigation for Substation ....................................................................................... 135 

14.0 Residual Effects ................................................................................... 137 

14.1. During Construction ............................................................................................... 137 

14.2. During Operation ...................................................................................................... 137 

15.0 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................. 139 

15.2. Appraisal of Sustainability of the revised draft Nuclear National Policy 

Statement ....................................................................................................................... 140 

15.3. National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6). ........ 141 

16.0 Summary and Conclusion .................................................................. 145 

16.2. Summary of Effects on Landscape Character ................................................. 146 

16.3. Summary of Effects on Landscape Designations .......................................... 149 

16.4. Summary of Visual Effects .................................................................................... 150 

17.0 Appendices .......................................................................................... 159 

Appendix 1. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) Methodology 

Appendix 2. National and Suffolk Landscape Character Descriptions 

Appendix 3. Methodology for Preparation of Visuals 

2890_LVIA



Appendix 4. Galloper Offshore Wind Farm Substation Landscape Mitigation 

Statement 

Appendix 5. Figure SSA/SX/001 Rev 01 from NPS EN-6 (Department for Energy 

and Climate Change, July 2011) 

Appendix 6. Glossary 

Appendix 7. References 

Figures 

Figure 01: Site Location & Policy Context 

Figure 02: Landscape Character 

Figure 04: Topography and Viewpoints 

Figure 05: Residential Properties and Public Rights of Way 

Figure 06: Zone of Theoretical Visibility – Year 1 

Figure 07: Zone of Theoretical Visibility – Year 15 

Figures 2890/WF_DE/01 RevA to 2890/WF_DE/08 RevA: Wireframe views from 

Viewpoints 1 to 8 showing the potential development envelope 

Figures 2890/WF_IL/01 RevA to 2890/WF_IL/08 RevA: Wireframe views from 

Viewpoints 1 to 8 showing an illustrative layout 

Figures 2890/PM/01B/YR1, 2890/PM/02B/YR1, 2890/PM/04B/YR1, 

2890/PM/05B/YR1: Photomontage views at Year 1 from Viewpoints 1, 2, 4 and 5 

(showing potential 14m high building in ‘worst case’ location) 

Figures 2890/PM/01B/YR15, 2890/PM/02B/YR15, 2890/PM/04B/YR15, 

2890/PM/05B/YR15: Photomontage views at Year 15 from Viewpoints 1, 2, 4 and 

5 (showing potential 14m high building in ‘worst case’ location) 

Figures 2890/WF_DE_AM/01, 2890/WF_DE_AM/04, 2890/WF_DE_AM/05, 

2890/WF_DE_AM/06: Wireframe views from Viewpoints 1, 4, 5 and 6 showing 

the potential development envelope (with the additional mitigation area) 

Figures 2890/WF_IL_AM/01, 2890/WF_IL_AM/04, 2890/WF_IL_AM/05, 

2890/WF_IL_AM/06: Wireframe views from Viewpoints 1, 4, 5 and 6 showing an 

illustrative layout (with the additional mitigation area) 

2890_LVIA

2842_LVIA 



Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR1, 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR1, 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR1: 

Photomontage views at Year 1 from Viewpoints 1, 4 and 5 (showing potential 

14m high building in ‘worst case’ location and the additional mitigation area) 

Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR15, 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR15, 

2890/PM_AM/05B/YR15: Photomontage views at Year 15 from Viewpoints 1, 4 

and 5 (showing potential 14m high building in ‘worst case’ location and the 

additional mitigation area) 

2890_LVIA 

Version: 1.11 

Version 

date: 

Comment Final 

9 November 2011 

This document has been prepared and checked in accordance with ISO 9001:2000.

2842_LVIA 

6 



1.0 Introduction 

1.1.1. This report considers the effects that the proposed Galloper Wind 

Farm (GWF) substation will have on the existing landscape and visual 

environments, their characteristic features and on the people who 

view it. The purpose of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 

(LVIA) is to determine the magnitude and significance of any change 

to the character of the landscape as well as the potential impact upon 

views, visual amenity and receptor groups within the study area. The 

assessment will define the existing landscape and visual baseline 

environment within the agreed 3.5km radius study area and assess 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. The assessment will also identify any integral mitigation 

measures to assist with reducing effects upon particularly sensitive 

receptor groups and landscape environments. 

1.2. The Proposed Development 

Refer to Figure 01. 

1.2.1. The GWF is located within the Thames Estuary, approximately 23km 

(or 12 nautical miles) off the Suffolk Coast at Hollesley Bay. The 

Export Cable Route for the wind farm extension project will follow, or 

run in close proximity to, the existing Export Cable Route for the 

Greater Gabbard wind farm (GGOWF), and will come ashore at 

Sizewell in Suffolk. The proposed substation for GWF will be 

partially located within a wood and parts of two fields lying to the 

west of the existing GGOWF onshore substation, with buried cables 

running from the foreshore to the substation, importing electricity 

generated by the GWF, and buried cables and gantries connecting to 

existing 400kV overhead wires for the export of electricity. 

1.2.2. Further detail is provided in section 8.0.

2842_LVIA 

7 



1.3. Wireframes and Photomontages 

1.3.1. Wireframes have been produce to help with the assessment, and 

photomontages have been produced to illustrate what the substation 

might look like. It is not possible to determine the type and layout of 

equipment within the substation compounds at this stage. The parts 

of the proposals that are fixed at this stage are the maximum 

substation floor level (9mAOD), the maximum equipment and 

building heights within different areas of the substation (as shown on 

drawing GWF_583_R1 in Appendix 2 of Appendix 4) and the 

landscape mitigation proposals outside the substation compound 

(comprising profiled landform and planting as described in section 

13.0). 

1.3.2. The gantries are shown at the following levels and heights although 

there might be some minor variations from this when they are 

constructed: 

Base level Height Top level 

West gantry 8.3m AOD 13m 21.3m AOD 

East gantry 7.3m AOD 13m 20.3m AOD 

1.3.3. A number of versions of wireframes and photomontages have been 

prepared, as described in detail below. 

a) Wireframe Figures 2890/WF_DE/01 RevA to 2890/WF_DE/08 

RevA showing potential Development Envelope 

1.3.4. These show maximum potential building and equipment heights 

within the different areas of the substation shown on drawing 

GWF_583_R1 in Appendix 2 of Appendix 4, from Viewpoints 1 to 8. 

These maximum equipment heights are shown as envelope areas on

2842_LVIA 

8 



the wireframes and this LVIA has been undertaken on the assumption 

that buildings and equipment could potentially occupy these entire 

envelopes, in order to give an indication of maximum potential 

effects. In reality buildings and equipment will not be of a uniform 

height throughout each area but pieces of equipment/buildings may 

be up to the heights shown. Much of the equipment will be lower 

than these heights. The tallest building will be in the Galloper 

compound which will be up to 14m above ground level (up to 

23mAOD). The gantries are shown as actual potential structures. 

b) Wireframe Figures 2890/WF_IL/01 RevA to 2890/WF_IL/08 

RevA showing an Illustrative Layout 

1.3.5. These wireframes illustrate the type of equipment likely to be used 

within the substation compounds, from Viewpoints 1 to 8. They are 

not based on an actual final designed substation and equipment is not 

necessarily up to the heights shown on drawing GWF_583_R1 in 

Appendix 2 of Appendix 4. For example, a building will be located in 

the area shown as ‘14m Maximum Height’ on drawing GWF_583_R1 

but, on these wireframes, it is shown at 12m height. 

c) Photomontage Figures 2890/PM/01B/YR1, 2890/PM/02B/YR1, 

2890/PM/04B/YR1, 2890/PM/05B/YR1 

1.3.6. Photomontage views at Year 1 (before proposed planting will have 

matured) from Viewpoints 1, 2, 4 and 5 based on the illustrative 

substation layout, as show in in b) above, but with the following 

change – the potential 14m high building is shown as being 14m high 

and in the ‘worst case’ location for that particular viewpoint, within 

the ‘Maximum Height 14m’ area shown on drawing GWF_583_R1. 

The ‘worst case’ location might be on the extreme edge of the 14m 

high area closest to the viewpoint, or in another location depending 

on, for example, the presence of other features in the foreground that 

might provide screening.

2842_LVIA 

9 



d) Photomontage Figures 2890/PM/01B/YR15, 

2890/PM/02B/YR15, 2890/PM/04B/YR15, 2890/PM/05B/YR15 

1.3.7. Photomontage views at Year 15 (when proposed planting will have 

matured) from Viewpoints 1, 2, 4 and 5 based on the illustrative 

substation layout, as show in in b) above, but with the following 

change – the potential 14m high building is shown as being 14m high 

and in the ‘worst case’ location for that particular viewpoint, within 

the ‘Maximum Height 14m’ area shown on drawing GWF_583_R1. 

e) Wireframe Figures 2890/WF_DE_AM/01, 

2890/WF_DE_AM/04, 2890/WF_DE_AM/05, 

2890/WF_DE_AM/06 

1.3.8. Wireframe views from Viewpoints 1, 4, 5 and 6 showing the potential 

development envelope as a) above and with the ‘additional mitigation 

area’ discussed in section 8.1.1. 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 from excavation works to construct the substation. 

f) Figures 2890/WF_IL_AM/01, 2890/WF_IL_AM/04, 

2890/WF_IL_AM/05, 2890/WF_IL_AM/06 

1.3.9. Wireframe views from Viewpoints 1, 4, 5 and 6 showing the 

illustrative layout as b) above and with the additional mitigation area 

as e) above. 

g) Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR1, 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR1, 

2890/PM_AM/05B/YR1 

1.3.10. Photomontage views at Year 1 (before proposed planting will have 

matured) from Viewpoints 1, 4 and 5 as shown in c) above (i.e. with 

the potential 14m high building in the ‘worst case’ location for that 

particular viewpoint) and with the ‘additional mitigation area’ as e) 

above.

2842_LVIA 

10 



h) Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR15, 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR15, 

2890/PM_AM/05B/YR15 

1.3.11. Photomontage views at Year 15 (when proposed planting will have 

matured) from Viewpoints 1, 4 and 5 with the layout as shown in d) 

(i.e. with the potential 14m high building in the ‘worst case’ location 

for that particular viewpoint and with the ‘additional mitigation 

area’). 

1.3.12. Planting heights illustrated after 15 years are 5.1m for proposed 

woodland core (allowing for planting at 600mm height and average 

growth of 300mm per year) and 3m for woodland edge (allowing for 

planting at 600mm height and average growth of 200mm per year). 

1.3.13. It will be necessary to include a number of lightning rods within the 

development on buildings and other structures. These will have a 

height of up to 3m above these elements and a diameter of up to 

50mm. They are not included on the photomontages or on the 

wireframes showing the illustrative layout, as they will only be 

visible at close distances due to their small diameter. The potential 

envelope of the lightning rods is shown on wireframe Figures 

2890/WF-DE/01 to 2890/WF-DE/08 and their effects have been 

assessed in this LVIA. 

1.3.14. This LVIA has been undertaken on the assumption that buildings and 

equipment could potentially occupy the entire development 

envelopes, in order to give an indication of maximum potential 

effects. The judgements of effects have, therefore, been based on the 

wireframes noted in a) and e), with the screening effects of vegetation 

being judged with reference to photomontages noted in c), d), g) and 

h). 

1.3.15. The gantries and sealing end compounds will be limited to the 

equipment shown in the photomontages although there will be 

minor variations in their location and levels. Minor variations will 

not change the assessed effects.

2842_LVIA 

11 



1.4. The Study Area 

1.4.1. It is accepted practice within landscape assessment work that the 

extent of the study area is broadly defined by the Zone of Theoretical 

Visibility (ZTV) arising from the proposed development within the 

site (the area within which it may be possible to see any part of the 

proposed development). 

1.4.2. Following initial ZTV and field studies, a 3.5km radius study area 

around the proposed substation site was proposed to cover all the 

potentially significant landscape and visual impacts associated with 

the onshore substation development. This was then subsequently 

agreed with Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council 

and Natural England (via letter and e-mail correspondence) as 

summarised in section 2.3.

2842_LVIA 

12 



2.0 Assessment Methodology 

2.1. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Methodology 

2.1.1. The methodology applied to this assessment follows relevant 

standards and guidance principally set out in 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. 

2.1.2. These methodologies aim to systematically appraise the existing 

landscape 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 landscape 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 and the significance matrix which is 

derived from the above guidance documents. 

2.2. Scope of Study 

2.2.1. In order to undertake the assessment a number of clear stages were 

identified and addressed in accordance with the assessment 

methodology, including: 

� a desktop review of current statutory and non-statutory 

documents; 

� a desktop review of existing landscape characterisation material; 

� the identification of a ZTV for the proposed development; 

� the identification of the range of visual receptor groups within 

the study area;

2842_LVIA 

13 



� the identification and agreement, through consultation, upon the 

number and location of representative viewpoints within the 

study area; 

� a review of the existing representative viewpoints; 

� the production of computer-generated wireframes from eight 

agreed representative viewpoints and production of 

photomontages from four of these, showing the anticipated view 

following construction of the proposed substation development; 

� an assessment of the magnitude and significance of effects upon 

designated landscapes, landscape character areas and the visual 

environment arising from during the separate construction, 

operation and decommissioning stages of the proposed 

substation development; 

� the consideration of any mitigation measures that may be 

incorporated within the proposals to help reduce identified 

potential landscape and visual effects; and 

� assessment of residual effects. 

2.3. Consultation 

Consultation with Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County 

Council and Natural England regarding scope of SLVIA 

2.3.1. Following responses to initial scoping consultation undertaken by 

the client, the following authorities and government bodies were 

consulted with respect to landscape and visual issues, including the 

agreement of a 3.5km radius study area around the proposed 

substation development, confirmation of proposed assessment 

methodology, the selection of eight representative viewpoints for the 

visual assessment, and the agreement on the worst-case scenario on 

which the assessment is based. 

2.3.2. In 2009 Suffolk Coastal District Council and Natural England were 

consulted with regards to an initial proposal for the substation.

2842_LVIA 

14 



Suffolk Coastal District Council consulted with Suffolk County 

Council before providing their response. Agreement was reached as 

follows: 

Consultees Date of 

Consultation 

Suffolk 

Coastal 

District 

Council 

Natural 

England 

23 rd December 

2009 

Type of 

Consultation 

Letter 

enclosing 

methodology, 

viewpoints 

and ZTV 

Purpose of Consultation 

Agreement of methodology and 

viewpoints 

25 st January Email Agreement to consultation 

23 rd December 

2009 

19 th , 20 th and 

25 th January 

2010 

Letter 

enclosing 

methodology, 

viewpoints 

and ZTV 

Agreement of methodology and 

viewpoints 

Emails Confirmation that NE do not 

comment on methodology but 

that it should be based on 

Countryside Agency’s 

Landscape Character 

Assessment guidance and 

Landscape Institutes Guidelines 

for LVIA. 

Confirmation that NE cannot 

comment on specific 

viewpoints.

2842_LVIA 

15 



2.3.3. In 2011 the proposals for the substation were revised with the size of 

the development having increased. Following analysis of a ZTV for 

the revised scheme, and further field work, it was decided to alter the 

location of one viewpoint and increase the study area from 3 to 

3.5km. Further consultation on these aspects of the LVIA was carried 

out as follows: 


Consultation 

Suffolk Coastal 

District Council 

Suffolk County 

Council 

Type of 

Consultation 

5 th May 2011 Letter sent by email 

enclosing 

viewpoints and ZTV 

Purpose of 

Consultation 

Agreement of study 

area and viewpoints 

10 th May 2011 Letter sent by email Agreement to 

consultation 

12 th May 2011 Email Clarification of date 

referred to in letter 

sent on 10 th May 

2011 


enclosing 





consultation 

12 th May 2011 Email Clarification of date 



2011 

Natural England 5 th May 2011 Letter sent by email 

enclosing 




12 th May 2011 Email Agreement to 

consultation

2842_LVIA 

16 



Consultation on Preliminary Environmental Report 

2.3.4. 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. 

2.3.5. The proposals presented in the PER showed an envelope of potential 

developed area with little mitigation. The comments received were 

used to inform further scheme design, which is the subject of the 

scheme assessed in this LVIA. A full schedule of consultation 

responses and how they have been addressed is included in the ES. 

The main responses relevant to landscape and visual issues are 

summarised below. 

Design and mitigation 

� Current mitigation proposals (as presented in the PER) are 

inadequate to screen the substation; 

� Importance of providing sufficient and appropriate landscaping 

and minimising landscape and visual impacts due to the location 

of the substation in an AONB; 

� The Development Consent Order (DCO) should contain details of 

slab levels, proposed screen bund cross sections, approximate 

arrangements of significant elements of substation buildings and 

equipment and key landscape mitigation; 

� Lower slab level; 

� Increase bund/planting and screening;

2842_LVIA 

17 



� Locate larger buildings close to the existing copse; 

� Appropriate design of buildings; 

� Reduce cable corridor widths; 

� Minimise light pollution including sky glow in the AONB; 

� Development must include a comprehensive landscaping plan 

that is appropriate to the AONB and that sits comfortably within 

the broader emerging proposals for the wider EDFE estate (the 

Sizewell vision); and 

� Losses of woodland should be mitigated by planting of new 

woodland at a ratio of 6:1, using native species. 

Assessment 

� Fully account for the effects on landscape character in analysis 

and assessment of impact on the AONB; 

� Carry out cumulative assessments with Sizewell C and GGOWF 

substation; 

� Consider the effect on historic landscape character; and 

� Assess effects on settings of scheduled monuments, listed 

buildings and conservation areas. 

Consultation with Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk 

County Council and EDF Energy on substation and landscape 

mitigation proposals 

2.3.6. The substation landscape mitigation proposals were developed in 

consultation with Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County 

Council and EDF Energy. The following process was followed: 

� Consultation responses received on proposals presented in the 

PER were used to inform the development of the draft substation 

and landscape mitigation design.

2842_LVIA 

18 



� Draft proposals were prepared and submitted to Suffolk Coastal 

District Council and Suffolk District Council and were discussed 

with them at a meeting on 25 August 2011. 

� Changes were agreed at the meeting and incorporated into 

revised proposals which were submitted to Suffolk Coastal 

District Council, Suffolk District Council and EDF Energy on 5 

September 2011. 

� Final comments were received from Suffolk Coastal District 

Council (8 September 2011), Suffolk District Council (8 

September 2011), and EDF Energy (7 September 2011). 

Comments were, where possible, incorporated into the final 

proposals on which this assessment is based. 

2.3.7. A more detailed description of the consultation and mitigation design 

process is given in the Landscape Mitigation Statement in Appendix 

4. 

2.4. Field Study 

2.4.1. A field study was carried out during January and March 2010 and 

April 2011 to assess the existing landscape and visual environment. 

The field work involved identification of landscape features of the site 

and the immediate surrounding area, identification of local landscape 

character and an assessment of landscape 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 sensitivity of the view; 

� 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 

screening and seasonality. 

2.4.2. Further field work was then undertaken during May and September

2842_LVIA 

19 



2011 to assess the landscape and visual effects of the proposals on the 

existing landscape and visual environment.

2842_LVIA 

20 



3.0 Landscape Policy Context 

3.1. Introduction 

3.1.1. The national, regional and local policy frameworks recognise the 

importance of renewable energy, but also require that due 

consideration be given to areas of recognised landscape value. As part 

of establishing the existing baseline environment, the assessment 

therefore reviewed and considered a range of relevant landscape 

policy designations at a national, regional and local level. 

3.2. Landscape Designations 

Refer to Figure 01 

3.2.1. The national, regional and locally important landscape designations 

that fall within the study area comprise the following: 

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB 

3.2.2. The development site is located within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths 

AONB. 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. 

3.2.3. 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 nationally protected landscapes in the UK. The 

landscapes within these designations are recognised as being of the

2842_LVIA 

21 



very highest quality and, as such, they are afforded the highest status 

of protection from damaging development at all levels of the 

planning system. 

3.2.4. AONBs form part of a world-wide network of 40,000 protected 

landscapes recognised by the International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature (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.’ 

3.2.5. 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 

created a statutory duty on local authorities to prepare and regularly 

review an AONB Management Plan (S89). 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

2842_LVIA 

22 



beauty’ (S85). 

National Planning Policy Statements 

3.2.6. National planning guidance (PPS1 and PPS7) reinforces the national 

status of AONBs and emphasises the need for the highest level of 

protection. PPS 1 (paragraphs 17-20) states that 'Planning policies 

should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and 

amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole. A high 

level of protection should be given to most valued 

…landscapes…Those with national and international designations 

should receive the highest level of protection' (paragraph 17). It goes 

on to say that, '…significant adverse impacts on the environment 

should be avoided and alternative options which might reduce or 

eliminate those impacts pursued' (paragraph 19). 

3.2.7. In relation to general countryside protection, PPS7 states that 

'Planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and 

character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, 

enhanced. They should have particular regard to any areas that have 

been statutorily designated for their landscape, wildlife or historic 

qualities where greater priority should be given to restraint of 

potentially damaging development' (paragraph 15). It says that 

‘Nationally designated areas comprising … and Areas of Outstanding 

Natural Beauty (AONB), have been confirmed by the Government as 

having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and 

scenic beauty. The conservation of the natural beauty of the 

landscape and countryside should therefore be given great weight in 

planning policies and development control decisions' (paragraph 21). 

3.2.8. It goes on to state that ‘Major developments should not take place in these 

designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances. This policy includes 

major development proposals that raise issues of national significance. 

Because of the serious impact that major developments may have on these 

areas of natural beauty, and taking account of the recreational opportunities 

that they provide, applications for all such developments should be subject to

2842_LVIA 

23 



the most rigorous examination. Major development proposals should be 

demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed. 

Consideration of such applications should therefore include an assessment of: 

(i) the need for the development, including in terms of any national 

considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local 

economy; 

(ii) the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated 

area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and 

(iii) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and 

recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated. 

Planning authorities should ensure that any planning permission granted 

for major developments in these designated areas should be carried out to 

high environmental standards through the application of appropriate 

conditions where necessary.’ (paragraphs 22 and 23) 

3.2.9. 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) 

3.2.10. 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). 

3.2.11. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) sets out

2842_LVIA 

24 



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). 

3.2.12. 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. In relation to development proposed within 

nationally designated landscapes it says: 

‘National Parks, the Broads and AONBs have been confirmed by the 

Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to 

landscape and scenic beauty. Each of these designated areas has specific 

statutory purposes which help ensure their continued protection and which 

the IPC should have regard to in its decisions. The conservation of the natural 

beauty of the landscape and countryside should be given substantial weight 

by the IPC in deciding on applications for development consent in these areas. 

Nevertheless, the IPC may grant development consent in these areas in 

exceptional circumstances. The development should be demonstrated to be in 

the public interest and consideration of such applications should include an 

assessment of: 

� the need for the development, including in terms of national 

considerations, and the impact of consenting or not consenting it upon 

the local economy; 

� the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated 

area or meeting the need for it in some other way, taking account of the 

policy on alternatives set out in Section 4.4; and 

� any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and 

recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be 

moderated. 

The IPC should ensure that any projects consented in these designated areas

2842_LVIA 

25 



should be carried out to high environmental standards, including through the 

application of appropriate requirements where necessary.’ (paragraphs 

5.9.9 to 5.9.11) 

3.2.13. EN-1 gives guidance on mitigation of landscape and visual effects 

including reducing the scale of a project, and design and landscape on 

and off site: 

‘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. 

Within a defined site, adverse landscape and visual effects may be minimised 

through appropriate siting of infrastructure within that site, design including 

colours and materials, and landscaping schemes, depending on the size and 

type of the proposed project. Materials and designs of buildings should 

always be given careful consideration. 

Depending on the topography of the surrounding terrain and areas of 

population it may be appropriate to undertake landscaping off site. For 

example, filling in gaps in existing tree and hedge lines would mitigate the 

impact when viewed from a more distant vista.’ (paragraphs 5.9.21 to 

5.9.23) 

3.2.14. 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)

2842_LVIA 

26 



� Onshore wind (>50MW) 

3.2.15. GWF falls into the category of an offshore wind farm >100MW. EN-3 

does not discuss the onshore components of an offshore wind farm in 

detail but refers to the generic landscape and visual impacts covered 

in Section 5.9 of EN-1. 

Regional Policy 

3.2.16. Policy ENV2 of the East of England Plan (2008) states that ‘Within the 

AONBs priority over other considerations should be given to 

conserving the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of each 

area.’ 

Local Policy 

3.2.17. 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. 

3.2.18. 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. 

3.2.19. Policy AP12 states: 

‘In order to safeguard the quality of the landscape within the Suffolk Coast 

and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as shown on the Proposals 

Map, the District Council will not grant planning permission for any 

proposed development which would have a significant adverse impact on the 

landscape. Only proven national interest and lack of alternative sites can 

justify an exception.

2842_LVIA 

27 



Where development proceeds because of proven national interest, the 

removal and mitigation of any adverse effects of the development on the 

landscape and its wildlife will be required in the event of that development 

becoming redundant at a later date. 

For any development in the AONB, the environmental effects of new 

proposals will be a major consideration, having regard to the economic and 

social well-being of the area. The District Council will require a high 

standard of design and landscaping, and other appropriate measures to be 

taken in order to minimise the impact of the development on the landscape.’ 

3.2.20. Policy AP122 protects the Sizewell Gap area. The substation lies to 

the west of the protected area but would be visible from parts of it. 

Policy AP122 states: 

‘The District Council will seek to improve and enhance the appearance of the 

Sizewell Gap area, as shown on the Proposals Map, for the benefit of 

residents and tourists.’ 

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Management Plan 

2008-2013 

3.2.21. The Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB Management Plan seeks to coordinate 

the action of the organisations that make up the AONB 

Partnership while also setting a framework for any organisation or 

individual whose activities will have an impact on the objectives for 

the area. 

3.2.22. Paragraph 3.4.6 states ‘The offshore wind farm at the Greater Gabbard is 

unlikely to have landscape implications though the on-land transfer station 

does have to be accommodated. On-shore locations are more testing and a 

robust assessment process is needed to ensure the quality of the landscape is 

not affected.’ 

3.2.23. The Management Plan sets out a vision for the Suffolk Coast and 

Heaths in 2028 including: ‘A high quality landscape, its special qualities

2842_LVIA 

28 



retained and enhanced’ (paragraph 4.2.1) 

Landscape Sensitivity to Change 

3.2.24. Given the high value, open character and the unique nature of the 

lowland landscapes within the AONB, the sensitivity of this 

designated landscape to the change proposed by the offshore wind 

farm substation is considered to be High, in accordance with the 

methodology in Appendix 1. Nationally designated landscapes, which 

have statutory protection, have a high value and a High sensitivity. 

3.3. Suffolk Heritage Coast 

3.3.1. The Suffolk Heritage Coast is a designated area of coastline located 

within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and extending offshore, 

covering the Suffolk Coast between Kessingland and Felixstowe. The 

eastern edge of the Suffolk Heritage Coast follows the line of Sandy 

Lane which lies a few metres east of the proposed cable sealing 

compounds and gantries, and approximately 0.25km east of the main 

substation compound. The onshore connection will pass through this 

designated area of coastline. 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. 

3.3.2. There is no specific policy for the Suffolk Heritage Coast designation 

listed in the adopted Suffolk Coastal Local Plan. 


3.3.3. Given the local importance of its high scenic quality and its largely 

unspoilt nature, the sensitivity of the Suffolk Heritage Coast to the 

change proposed by the offshore wind farm substation 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.

2842_LVIA 

29 



3.4. Special Landscape Areas 

3.4.1. The valleys and tributaries of the Rivers Alde, Blyth, Deben, Fynn, 

Hundred, Mill, Minsmere, Ore and Yox; and Parks and Gardens of 

historic or landscape interest are designated by Suffolk Coastal 

District Council as Special Landscape Areas. 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.’ 

3.4.2. There are two Special Landscape Areas located within the study area: 

the Hundred River Special Landscape Area, extending across the 

southern part of the study area at a distance of 2.3km from the 

proposed substation; and the Special Landscape Area associated with 

tributaries of the Minsmere River, extending across the northern part 

of the study area at a distance of 2.2km from the substation site. 

Analysis of the ZTVs (Figures 06 and 07) identifies that the 

development will not be visible from either of the two Special 

Landscape Areas and impacts on these areas of designated landscape 

are, therefore, not assessed. 

3.5. Historic Environment 

3.5.1. The scope of this assessment does not cover the effects of the 

proposed development on individual Conservation Areas and other 

historic built features or their setting. These areas are discussed in the 

Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Chapters of the ES. The general 

distribution of Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments and 

Registered Historic Parks and Gardens has been considered however, 

as it informs judgments on the character and historic importance of

2842_LVIA 

30 



the existing landscape resource. 

Scheduled Monuments 

3.5.2. There are three bowl barrows lying within the study area to the south 

and southeast of the site at distances of 1.7km, 2.4km and 2.6km. In 

addition to the bowl barrows, Leiston Abbey is located approximately 

2.5km to the northwest of the site. 

Listed Buildings 

3.5.3. The nearest listed building to the proposed onshore connection and 

substation is The Watch-House (Grade II listed) at Sizewell Gap, 

located 0.9km west of the proposed substation site and lying in close 

proximity to the route of the onshore cable. The next nearest listed 

buildings are located within the settlement of Leiston. In the wider 

study area, there are further listed buildings lying at a distance of 2km 

or greater from the proposed development. 

Conservation Areas 

3.5.4. Leiston Conservation Area is located approximately 2.1km to the west 

of the site. 

3.5.5. Analysis of the ZTVs (Figures 06 and 07) and field assessment has 

identified that the development would not be visible from any of the 

Scheduled Monuments or Listed Buildings, or Leiston Conservation 

Area. Construction works associated with the onshore connection on 

Sizewell Beach would be visible from the Watch-House.

2842_LVIA 

31 



Table 1: Landscape Designations and the Historic Environment 

taken forward for assessment 

Landscape Designations Approximate 

minimum 

Distance 

from site 

Suffolk Coast AONB 0km High 

Sensitivity to 

change/to 

the 

Development 

Suffolk Heritage Coast 0km High-Medium

2842_LVIA 

32 



4.0 The Existing Landscape Environment 


4.1.1. In reviewing the existing landscape environment due consideration 

has been given to landscape character assessments that have been 

completed at the national and more local level. An appraisal of the 

existing landscape features for the development site and the 

immediate surrounding area has also been undertaken. 

4.2. Landscape Character and Features of the Development Site and 

its Immediate Context 

The Substation Site 

4.2.1. The site of the substation compound covers part of a woodland west 

of the existing GGOWF substation and parts of two fields. The 

northern field (Boom Covert) is a gently undulating, scrubby pasture 

field containing closely grazed grass sward and some scattered small 

trees and patches of gorse. The southern field is a rectangular arable 

field. Post and wire fences separate the fields and woodland, with a 

discontinuous line of scrub running along the fence between the two 

fields. The woodland includes pine, beech, sycamore and oak trees, 

varying in height between approximately 10m-15m. The GGOWF 

substation to the east is enclosed by this woodland on its north, west 

and south sides. 

4.2.2. The arable field lies on a low plateau, sloping down to Sizewell Gap 

road to the south. A line of pylons and overhead wires cross the 

southeast corner of the field. From the field there are medium 

distance views to the south, although longer distance views are 

limited by blocks of coniferous and deciduous woodland in the 

middle distance. The pylons, however, can be seen extending into the 

distance in the wider landscape beyond. Views are obscured by trees 

and woodland lining Lover’s Lane approximately 0.6km to the west, 

and in the landscape to the north.

2842_LVIA 

33 



4.2.3. The grazing field slopes in a northward direction away from the 

arable field and has a more intimate and enclosed character with 

views to the south and west contained by landform and views to the 

north and east largely limited by woodland and boundary vegetation 

adjacent to the field. 

4.2.4. Cable corridors will run from the substation to proposed cable sealing 

comp0unds and gantries which will connect to the existing overhead 

wires at the location of the existing pylons east of the GGOWF 

substation. One will run to the north of GGOWF substation, through 

Sizewell Wents woodland, and the other to the south, through a 

second smaller arable field, before joining the proposed cable sealing 

comp0unds and gantries. The cable sealing compounds and gantries 

will lie adjacent to two large pylons in an area of land to the east of 

GGOWF that has been recently landscaped as part of the works for 

the GGOWF substation, with young tree and shrub planting 

protected by shelters or fencing. 

4.2.5. Whilst the site of the proposed substation lies within the Suffolk 

Coast and Heaths AONB, the existing quality of the site’s landscape 

character and features is diminished by the presence of the existing 

pylons and substation lying in close proximity to the site. 

4.2.6. Whilst the enclosed and intimate character of the northern field and 

the woodland in which the substation will be located increases their 

sensitivity to the type of development proposed by the substation, the 

existing large-scale, elements including the GGOWF substation, 

pylons and Sizewell Power Station in the wider landscape moderate 

the site’s sensitivity. 

Cable Connection Route 

4.2.7. The route of the onshore cable connection passes through a series of 

medium-large scale arable fields lying to the south and north of the 

Sizewell Gap road.

2842_LVIA 

34 



4.2.8. The route of the proposed onshore cable connection lies within the 

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and the Suffolk Heritage Coast 

designations. The existing quality of these landscapes is, however, 

significantly compromised at the local level by a number of large 

scale detractors, namely: Sizewell Power Station and a series of 

visually dominant pylons. 

Landscape to the East of the Proposed Substation Site 

4.2.9. The landscape to the east of the proposed substation site includes a 

diverse range of built structures and land-uses scattered over a gently 

undulating landform. Immediately to the east lies the newly 

constructed GGOWF offshore wind farm substation comprising a 

rectangular green building, transformers and switchgear enclosed by 

security fencing. The large-scale, geometric structures and buildings 

associated with Sizewell Power Station to the northeast, both onshore 

and offshore, are visually prominent and tend to dominate the 

landscape. Views towards pylons are also common in the landscape 

to the east of site. These large-scale, structures contrast strongly with 

the natural, hummocky, marram grass-tufted dunes that stretch along 

the coast edge at Sizewell Beach. There are also a number of smaller, 

more traditional, maritime built structures such as the timber clad 

watch tower, stained-timber fishing huts and small fishing boats 

scattered along Sizewell beach. The inland areas to the east of the site 

comprise a series of undulating medium-large scale fields bounded by 

a variety of hedgerow treatments including short clipped hedgerows, 

and outgrown medium and tall hedgerows. There are also several 

small pockets of woodland with Scots pine forming a common 

species. The infrastructure and buildings associated with Sizewell 

Power Station dominate inland views to the east of the site, although 

views towards these elements are partially screened by topography 

and woodland blocks in places. The pylons are prominent features in 

views to the east of the site. 

4.2.10. The landscape to the east of the site lies within the Suffolk Coast and

2842_LVIA 

35 



Heaths AONB and Suffolk Heritage Coast. The visual prominence of 

buildings and infrastructure associated with Sizewell Power Station, 

however, diminishes the quality of the local landscape. 

Landscape to the North of the Proposed Substation Site 

4.2.11. The landscape to the north of the substation site includes a series of 

medium to large scale fields comprising tracts of rough grazing, 

marshland and areas of scrub. Deciduous woodland blocks and tree 

belts are common in the landscape, as are outgrown field boundaries. 

There are also a number of visually prominent stands of Scots pine. 

This results in the local landscape to the north of the substation site 

having a wooded and enclosed character, with views into the wider 

landscape often limited by vegetation. A series of pylons form a 

dominant linear feature in the landscape and Sizewell Power Station 

can often be seen amongst the vegetation on the wooded horizon line. 

The tranquillity of the existing landscape is compromised by a 

number of elements including the buzzing sound emitted by the 

overhead pylons and the more distant noise generated by activities 

associated with Sizewell Power Station. 

4.2.12. The landscape to the north of the site lies within the Suffolk Coast 

and Heaths AONB and the Suffolk Heritage Coast designations and 

the relatively intact field boundaries and the strong structure lent to 

the landscape by the woodland vegetation contribute to the existing 

quality of the landscape. The views and noise associated with the 

pylons and Sizewell Power Station, however, reduce the quality of the 

local landscape. 

Landscape to the West of the Proposed Substation Site 

4.2.13. The landscape to the west of the substation site comprises a mixture 

of medium and large scale arable and pasture fields, enclosed by a 

variety of boundary treatments including medium, clipped 

hedgerows, outgrown field boundaries and some areas of post and 

rail. There are also some belts of woodland and these combine with

2842_LVIA 

36 



the treed boundaries and gently undulating landform to limit long 

distance views into the wider landscape in places. There are a number 

of industrial-scale buildings and structures on the outskirts Leiston 

and pylons are visible in the landscape south of the settlement. The 

wider rural landscape appears to be largely intact, characterised by 

narrow and incised, winding country lanes. There are, however, a 

number of views towards the urban edge of Leiston as well as towards 

holiday parks and market garden greenhouses from within the rural 

landscape. 

4.2.14. A part of the landscape to the west of the site lies within the Suffolk 

Coast and Heaths AONB. The remainder, whilst predominantly rural 

in character, contains a number of detracting elements associated 

with the urban edge of Leiston. 

Landscape to the South of the Proposed Substation Site 

4.2.15. The landscape to the south of the proposed substation is characterised 

by a gently undulating landform with a diversity of land-uses 

including heathland, arable farming, pig-farming, holiday parks, 

horse grazing and woodland. Outgrown field boundaries are 

common, as are patches of scrub and gorse. A line of pylons 

dominates the landscape and Sizewell Power Station is frequently 

visible. There are also medium to long distance views towards built 

structures on the edge of Leiston to the west. A number of Pine and 

deciduous woodland blocks on elevated slopes have a strong visual 

presence in middle distance views to the north. The dominance of the 

pylons combines with the mixture of land uses and vegetation types 

to give a discordant array of elements in many views, whilst the 

wooded horizon lines combine with the outgrown field boundaries 

and areas of scrubby pasture to lend an intimate character to the 

landscape. The buzzing of overhead pylons is audible, as is noise 

generated by cars and trucks travelling along the Sizewell Gap road. 

4.2.16. Much of the landscape to the south of the substation site lies within 

the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and Suffolk Heritage Coast

2842_LVIA 

37 



designations. The quality of this landscape is, however, reduced at a 

local level due to the dominance of the pylons and the ready 

availability of views towards Sizewell Power Station and industrial 

structures on the edge of Leiston. 

4.3. Existing Landscape Character Assessments 

4.3.1. The following landscape character assessment information is 

available in the study area: 

4.3.2. Natural England’s National Character Areas provide the broader 

framework and determine the character of the British countryside at a 

national level. The majority of the study area lies within the bounds 

of Character Area 82, Suffolk Coast and Heaths. Refer to Appendix 2 

for a full description of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Character Area. 

4.3.3. At the regional / county scale, four documents addressing landscape 

character have been published. 

� The Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 2008, updated 2011 

� Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB Management Plan 2008 – 2013. 

This follows the same character areas as the Suffolk Landscape 

Character Assessment. 

� The Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB - Landscape Guidelines 

� Suffolk Coast and Heaths Landscape Assessment 1993 

4.3.4. The Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 2008, updated 2011 

provides the most appropriate scale of assessment and level of 

information for this LVIA. The character areas described in the 

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment are, therefore, used as a basis 

for the assessment of effects on landscape character. 

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 2008, updated 2011 

4.3.5. This landscape character assessment was published for the county of

2842_LVIA 

38 



Suffolk by Suffolk County Council. Five of the landscape character 

types defined by this assessment have been identified within the 

study area as follows: 

� Ancient Estate Claylands 

� Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges 

� Coastal Levels 

� Estate Sandlands 

� Rolling Estate Claylands 

4.3.6. The extent of these landscape character types are illustrated on Figure 

02. The ZTV studies (Figures 06 and 07) and field study has identified 

that the development will not be visible from the Rolling Estate 

Claylands landscape character type. Effects on this character type are, 

therefore, not assessed further. 

4.3.7. The key characteristics of the remaining four types are described in 

further detail below and full descriptions are included in Appendix 2. 

Ancient Estate Claylands 

4.3.8. 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. 

4.3.9. This landscape character type lies at a minimum distance of 1.9km 

west of the substation site and further from the route of the onshore 

connection.

2842_LVIA 

39 



Sensitivity to Change 

4.3.10. 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. 

4.3.11. 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 the type of change proposed. It is considered, 

therefore, that the sensitivity of the Ancient Estate Claylands to the 

type of change proposed by the substation development, outwith its 

area is High-Medium. 

Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges 

4.3.12. 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. 

4.3.13. This landscape character type lies at a minimum distance of 0.5km 

east of the substation site and the route of the onshore connection to 

the substation passes through it. 


4.3.14. This is a highly dynamic and fragile landscape character type whose 

ongoing maintenance has been compromised by coastal 

development.

2842_LVIA 

40 



4.3.15. The uncluttered, low-lying nature of this landscape type increases its 

sensitivity to the type of change proposed by the substation 

development. The paraphernalia and activities associated with 

tourism, however, go some way to moderate this sensitivity. It is 

considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of this landscape character 

type to the change proposed by the substation development, outwith 

its area, is High-Medium. 

Coastal Levels 

4.3.16. 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 19 th 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. 

4.3.17. This landscape character type lies at a minimum distance of 0km 

northeast of the substation site, adjoining the location where a 

proposed cable corridor passes around the northern edge of the 

existing GGOWF substation. The onshore connection route passes 

just south of the character type it as it extends eastwards from the 

substation. 


4.3.18. 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,

2842_LVIA 

41 



that remain in excellent condition. 

4.3.19. 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. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of this 

landscape character type to the type of change proposed by the 

substation development, outwith its area, is High-Medium. 

Estate Sandlands 

4.3.20. 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 18 th and 19 th 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 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 pantiled 

roofs, often black-glazed, are commonly found. 

4.3.21. The substation site lies within this landscape character type and the 

onshore connection route passes through it as it extends eastwards 

from the substation. 


4.3.22. Many areas of the Estate Sandlands have lost much of their rural 

character due to the steady pressure of suburbanisation and tourismrelated 

development. High-tech modern farming and forestry also

2842_LVIA 

42 



tend to dominate in certain areas. Sizewell Power Station and lines of 

pylons and overhead wires also lie in this character type. 

4.3.23. 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 substation development. 

The frequency of long distance views, however, increases its 

sensitivity. The sensitivity of this landscape character type to the 

change proposed by the substation development is considered, 

therefore, to be Medium. 

Table 2: Suffolk Landscape Character Types taken forward for 

assessment 

Suffolk County Landscape 

Character Types 

Distance 

from site 

(minimum) 


change/to the 

development 

Ancient Estate Claylands 1.9km High-Medium 

Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges 0km High-Medium 

Coastal Levels 0km High-Medium 

Estate Sandlands 0km Medium

2842_LVIA 

43 



5.0 The Existing Visual Environment 

Refer to Figures 06 and 07 (ZTVs at Years 1 and 15) and 04 

(Topography and Viewpoints). 

5.1.1. The purpose of the visual assessment is to determine the extent of the 

ZTV of the development (the area of land form within which it may 

be possible to see any part of the proposed development) and to 

determine how visible the proposal would be from principal 

representative viewpoints and from this, the likely effects on various 

visual receptor groups. 

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 computer generated ZTV at Year 1 

(Figure 06) identifies key stretches of the landscape from which the 

proposed development may be theoretically visible within the agreed 

3.5km radius study area, without the effects of screen planting 

implemented as part of the development. The computer generated 

ZTV at Year 15 (Figure 07) identifies areas from where the 

development may theoretically be visible once screen planting has 

matured. 

5.2.2. The real extent of the proposed development’s visibility is never more 

than theoretical in its extent. For example, if an area is not shaded it 

indicates that the target point is almost certainly not 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 is likely that local features 

not included within the model, for example hedgerows, 

embankments and buildings, will locally screen views towards the 

target point. 

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

visuals.

2842_LVIA 

44 



5.3. Key Visual Receptor Groups 

5.3.1. A variety of visual receptors can be expected to be affected by the 

onshore proposals connected with the wind farm development. The 

views available to receptors will vary depending on the intricacies of 

the vegetation and industrial built form. The visual receptors will 

include not only local people, but also those travelling through the 

area and those visiting the area for recreational and amenity purposes. 

The three main receptor groups include local residents, the travelling 

public and visitors to the area. Refer to Appendix 1 for details of the 

methodology for assessing the visual receptor’s sensitivity to change. 

Residents 

5.3.2. Residential properties within 1km of the site are shown on Figure 05. 

The actual effect on residents will depend on the orientation of the 

dwellings, the extent of boundary vegetation associated with the 

properties and the presence of intervening hedgerow vegetation and 

trees. 

Travelling Public 

5.3.3. This category of visual receptor groups embraces both residents and 

those who travel to or through the area. The group includes travellers 

along main roads and minor roads. The ZTV indicates travellers using 

Sizewell Gap road to the south of the site; and Lover’s Lane, 

Buckleswood Road, Abbey Lane and Valley Road to the west of the site 

may experience intermittent views towards the substation 

development. Travellers using the Sizewell Gap road may also 

potentially be affected by the construction phase of the cable corridor. 

5.3.4. Potential visual effects on local road users are represented by 

viewpoint numbers 4, 5, 7 and 8 (section 5.4).

2842_LVIA 

45 



Visitors and the Tourism/Amenity Resource 

5.3.5. This visual receptor category embraces a wide variety of individual 

visual receptor groups, whose principal preoccupation is with the 

enjoyment of the outdoor environment, the open countryside and the 

tourism/amenity resource. These receptor groups include visitors to 

the beach at Sizewell, holiday makers staying at the caravan 

campsites to the west and south of Sizewell beach and walkers and 

horse riders using the local public right of way (PROW) network. 

5.3.6. There are a number of footpaths and bridleways within the study 

area. Those closest to the site are shown on Figure 05. The closest 

PROW (a bridleway) extends in a north-west to south-east direction 

along Sandy Lane, passing the edge of Broom Covert and in close 

proximity to the northern and eastern edges of the substation site. 

This bridleway is well used by local dog walkers and also appears to 

be locally valued, as evidenced by a wooden bench located near the 

style at the entrance to Broom Covert. 

5.3.7. In the wider landscape to the south of the substation site, there is a 

dense footpath network extending south of Sizewell Gap road, some 

of which forms part of the Aldringham Walks conservation area 

managed by the RSPB. Another notable footpath to the south of the 

site is the Sandlings Walk (A 60 mile long distance route between the 

eastern fringes of Ipswich and Southwold) which extends northwards 

from the southern portion of the study area, passing at an 

approximate minimum distance of 0.2km to the southeast of the 

cable sealing compounds and gantries at the eastern edge of the 

substation site (viewpoint 4 lies on this part of the route) before 

extending eastwards to follow the coastline northwards. The Suffolk 

Coastal Path (A 50 mile long distance route from Felixstowe to 

Lowestoft) also follows the coastline in the eastern extents of the 

study area, passing at a minimum distance of approximately 0.5km 

east of the proposed cable sealing compounds and gantries at the 

eastern edge of the substation site. The proposed route of the onshore

2842_LVIA 

46 



cable connection will cross the route of the Sandlings Walk and the 

route of The Suffolk Coast Path. 

5.3.8. Potential visual effects on visitors and the tourism/amenity resource 

are represented by viewpoint numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. 

5.4. Representative Viewpoint Appraisal 

5.4.1. The representative viewpoints were agreed in consultation with 

Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council and Natural 

England. The assessment does not include offshore viewpoints as the 

majority of visual receptors are land-based. The locations of the eight 

representative viewpoints are shown on Figure 04. The existing views 

can be seen on Figures 2890/WF_DE/01 RevA to 2890/WF-DE/08 

RevA. The existing views and sensitivities of the visual receptors are 

described below and summarised in Table 3. The magnitude and 

significance of effect from each representative viewpoint are 

established and anticipated effects summarised in sections 9.3, 10.3 

and 11.3 of this report. 

Viewpoint 1 – Residential Properties and PROW North-West of 

the Site 

Grid reference: 645683, 263208 

Distance and Direction from the substation: 0.93km to the northwest 

Receptor: Residents/Users of the PROW/Local Road Users 

Designations: Lying on the boundary of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths 

AONB 

Landscape Character Type: Estate Sandlands 

Existing View 

5.4.2. This viewpoint is located east of Lover’s Lane at the junction of a

2842_LVIA 

47 



minor road and the bridleway that runs north of the site. The minor 

road is a small loop road located in front of three cottages and a 

landscape contractors and the viewpoint is taken at the entrance to an 

arable field adjacent to the buildings. The view is a simple 

composition comprising arable fields and overgrown hedges in the 

foreground, woods and trees on the horizon, two parallel lines of 

pylons crossing the skyline and Sizewell Power Station forming a 

landmark to the left of the view. Woodland on the skyline occupies 

part of the substation site. 

5.4.3. The gappy overgrown hedgerow in the middle distance of the view, 

the line of pylons spanning the horizon and Sizewell Power Station 

reduce the quality of the view. The landscape that can be seen within 

the view, however, lies within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB. 

Sensitivity of Visual Receptor 

5.4.4. Receptors would predominantly be users of the bridleway and local 

residents. As such, the receptors are considered to have a High 

sensitivity to the proposed change. 

Viewpoint 2 – Public Right of Way North of the Site 


Distance and Direction from the substation: 0.13km to the north 

Receptor: Bridleway Users 

Designations: Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB 


Existing View 

5.4.5. The viewpoint is located on the bridleway in close proximity to the 

site. The viewpoint overlooks grazing land which also contains

2842_LVIA 

48 



scattered small trees and areas of scrub. Woodland occupies the left 

of the view, obscuring views beyond. To the middle and right of the 

view there is an open skyline punctuated by pylons. The substation 

site is obscured by the woodland and rising ground in the foreground, 

which also obscures views towards Sizewell Gap road to the south 

and Lover’s Lane to the east. 

5.4.6. Whilst the landscape lies within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, 

the existing pylons reduce the overall quality of the view. 


5.4.7. Given that the receptors would predominantly be users of the 

bridleway, the sensitivity of the receptor to the proposed change is 

High. 

Viewpoint 3 – Sizewell Beach Car Park 


Distance and Direction from the substation: 0.51km to the east 

Receptor: Local Residents & Visitors 

Designations: Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and Suffolk Heritage 

Coast 


Existing View 

5.4.8. The viewpoint is located on elevated ground in a car park located 

adjacent to Sizewell Beach. Sizewell Power Station is located to the 

right of the viewpoint and views towards it are partially obscured by a 

wood. To the forefront of the viewpoint there is open recreational 

ground with picnic tables and a line of scrub. A line of trees, 

approximately 15m high, traverse the horizon. The substation site is

2842_LVIA 

49 



located approximately beyond the tree line to the west. The top of 

one of the pylons that lie on the eastern edge of the substation site can 

just been above the trees. Beyond the limits of the illustrated 

photographic panorama, views to Sizewell Beach and the North Sea 

beyond it can be seen in an eastwards direction from the viewpoint. 

The foreground of the seaward view includes a series of undulating 

dunes, tufted with marram grass, and a number of beach huts and 

fishing huts scattered along the beach edge. In the wider seaward 

view, two sizeable offshore platforms to the east of Sizewell Power 

Station form prominent features in the middle distance. 

5.4.9. Whilst the landscape visible within the view lies within the Suffolk 

Coast and Heaths AONB and within the Suffolk Heritage Coast, it is 

judged that the presence of the large offshore platforms and the other 

industrial structures associated with Sizewell Power Station visible in 

the wider landscape reduce the overall quality of the existing view. 


5.4.10. Given that receptors would predominantly be local residents and 

visitors to Sizewell Beach, the receptor is considered to have a High 

sensitivity to the proposed change. 

Viewpoint 4 – Sizewell Gap road 


Distance and Direction from the substation: 0.29km to the southeast 

Receptor: Users of Sandlings Walk long distance route and the minor 

road 

Designations: Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB and Suffolk Heritage 

Coast 

Landscape Character Type: Boundary between Coastal Levels & 

Estate Sandlands

2842_LVIA 

50 



Existing View 

5.4.11. The viewpoint is located on Sizewell Gap road. Sandlings Walk long 

distance route passes along this road. The temporary construction 

works comprising spoil heaps, Heras fencing and red and white poles 

that can be seen in Figure 2890/WF_DE/04 RevA have now been 

removed and the field restored to grassland. The foreground 

comprises a line of low-lying scrub vegetation aligning Sizewell Gap 

road, with a grass field rising away from the viewpoint beyond. A line 

of telegraph poles runs across this field. The pylons to the east and 

south of the site form a prominent feature within the view, extending 

across the landscape. The woodland block occupying the substation 

site is visible on the horizon in the middle distance. An existing dark 

green building in the GGOWF substation compound can just be seen, 

enclosed by this woodland. Outgrown boundary vegetation aligning 

Sandy Lane track to the east of the site is also visible in the middle 

distance. Timber post and rail fencing and cabinets can be seen in the 

foreground to the right of the view. Beyond the limits of the 

illustrated photographic panorama, there are clear views towards 

Sizewell Power Station above the horizon to the north. 

5.4.12. Whilst the viewpoint lies within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB 

and Suffolk Heritage Coast, views towards the pylons and GGOWF 

substation in the middle distance and towards Sizewell Power Station 

to the north combine to reduce the existing overall quality of the 

view. 


5.4.13. Given that receptors would include users of Sandlings Walk long 

distance route, the sensitivity of the receptor to the proposed change 

is considered High. 


Grid reference: 646767, 262507

2842_LVIA 

51 



Distance and Direction from the substation: 0.2km to the south 

Receptor: Local Road Users 



Existing View 

5.4.14. This viewpoint is located on Sizewell Gap road which leads to 

Sizewell Beach. The view looks towards the site of the proposed 

substation through a gap in the vegetation that aligns the road. The 

land in the foreground of the view is under arable cultivation and 

rises up to the area of woodland occupying part of the substation site. 

A scrubby embanked field boundary extends from the foreground to 

the middle distance of the view, rising towards the horizon. Overhead 

wires extend across the open skyline in the foreground of the view 

and in the middle distance of the view, pylon towers form a notable 

vertical feature, with Sizewell Power Station visible on the horizon 

beyond. Earthworks, machinery and site cabins associated with the 

construction of the GGOWF onshore substation that can be seen in 

Figure 2890/WF_DE/05 RevA have now been removed and the ground 

landscaped, including new planting which, at present is small and not 

clearly visible from this location. The existing GGOWF substation is 

almost completely screened by the woodland on the skyline, but the 

dark outline of a building can just be seen through the trees. 

5.4.15. Whilst this viewpoint lies within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths 

AONB, the existing baseline quality of the view is lowered by the 

dominating presence of pylons and Sizewell Power Station. 


5.4.16. As receptors would predominantly be local road users, the sensitivity 

of the receptor is judged to be Medium.

2842_LVIA 

52 



Viewpoint 6 – Footpath to the South of Lover’s Lane 


Distance and Direction from the substation: 0.69km to the south 

Receptor: Bridleway Users 



Existing View 

5.4.17. The viewpoint is located on a bridleway to the south of the substation 

site, forming part of the Aldringham Walks conservation area 

managed by the RSPB. The foreground includes an arable field in the 

centre of the view and an area of heathland comprising grass, bracken 

and scrub to the left of the view. Woodland and pylons can be seen in 

the middle distance and Sizewell Power Station is a feature to the 

right of the view. The woodland occupying the substation site is a 

feature on the skyline in the centre of the view, although the ground 

within the site (at the base of and to the left of the woodland) is 

screened by landform and vegetation along a field boundary and 

Sizewell Gap road. The bridleways and footpaths forming the 

Aldringham Walks are generally fringed by scrub vegetation and 

outgrown hedgerow vegetation. 

5.4.18. Whilst the viewpoint lies within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, 

the presence of pylons and the view towards Sizewell Power Station 

combine to reduce the quality of the view. 


5.4.19. As receptors would predominantly be walkers using the local public 

rights of way network, the sensitivity of the receptor to the proposed 

change is considered to be High.

2842_LVIA 

53 



Viewpoint 7 – Road Junction between King George’s Avenue 

and Lover’s Lane 


Distance and Direction from the substation: 0.69km to the southwest 


Designations: On the boundary of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths 

AONB 


Existing View 

5.4.20. This viewpoint is located on the road junction between King George’s 

Way and Lover’s Lane, on the road leaving Leiston. The view towards 

the substation site and the landscape within the Suffolk Coast and 

Heaths AONB is obscured by immature woodland planting to the 

edge of the road. Pylons and street lighting are visible to the south. 


5.4.21. Given that receptors would mainly be motorists travelling along local 

roads, the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be Medium. 

Viewpoint 8 – Abbey Lane 


Distance and Direction from the substation: 3.3km to the northwest 


Designations: None 

Landscape Character Type: Ancient Estate Claylands

2842_LVIA 

54 



5.4.22. This view is from higher ground to the west of the substation site 

looking across an arable field bound by woodland and hedgerows in 

the foreground, falling towards a broad valley. Trees run across the 

view in the distance and Sizewell Power Station is a feature on the 

skyline beyond. Overhead wires cross the skyline, running from the 

power station to the centre of the view, disappearing behind 

woodland to the right to the right of the view. A line of telegraph 

poles with overhead wires crosses the field in the foreground. 

Sizewell Wents woodland and the two pylons east of the site of the 

proposed substation are visible on the distant skyline. Behind the 

viewpoint is a mobile home/camping site which is screened from the 

road by a hedgerow; there would not be views towards the site from 

within the mobile home/camping site. 


5.4.23. Given that receptors would mainly be motorists travelling along local 

roads, the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be Medium.

2842_LVIA 

55 



Table 3: Existing Sensitivity of Representative Viewpoints 

Viewpoint Distance and 

Direction 

from the 

Substation 

Viewpoint 1 – 

Residential Properties 

and Public Right of 

Way northwest of the 

site 

Viewpoint 2 – Public 

Right of Way north of 

the site 

Viewpoint 3 –Sizewell 

Beach car park 


Gap road 


Gap road 

Viewpoint 6 – Public 

Right of Way south of 

the site 

Viewpoint 7- Junction 

between King George’s 

Avenue and Lover’s 

Lane 


Abbey Lane 

0.93km to the 

northwest 

0.13km to the 

north 

0.51km to the 

east 

0.29km to the 

southeast 

0.2km to the 

south 

0.69km to the 

south 

0.69km to the 

west 

3.3km to the 

northwest 

Receptor 

Group 

Residents & 

Bridleway Users 

Bridleway Users High 

Residents & 

Visitors to 

Sizewell Beach 


Change/to 

the 

development 

High 

High 

Users of 

Sandlings Walk 

and Local Road 

High 

Local Road 

Users 

Medium 

PROW Users High 

Local Road 

Users 

Local Road 

Users 

Medium 

Medium

2842_LVIA 

56 



6.0 Potential for Cumulative Effects 

6.1.1. The following proposals could potentially be included for cumulative 

LVIA: 

1) Sizewell C. No proposals are currently available for Sizewell C 

and it is, therefore not possible to include in a meaningful 

cumulative assessment. However, there is a ‘nominated site area’ 

and consultees have requested that potential cumulative effects 

with Sizewell C are discussed in the LVIA; 

2) Sizewell B dry fuel store. This proposed development lies within 

the existing Sizewell footprint, screened from the landscape. The 

LVIA prepared by Gillespies for British Energy for that 

development assesses impacts to be negligible - there will 

therefore be no significant cumulative effects with Galloper 

wind farm substation; and 

3) GGOWF substation. GGOWF is part of the existing baseline for 

the LVIA of GWF. It is, therefore, not assessed as a separate 

cumulative development. 

6.1.2. A discussion on potential cumulative effects of GWF with Sizewell C 

is given in section 15.0. Cumulative effects with Sizewell B dry fuel 

store and GGOWF substation are not assessed for reasons given above.

2842_LVIA 

57 



7.0 ZTV Study 

7.1.1. Figures 06 and 07 show areas from where different parts of the 

proposed development might potentially be visible at Years 1 and 15. 

The proposed substation site area is a footprint within which 

different elements of the substation will be located. The design and 

arrangement of these elements has not been determined at this stage, 

so the ZTV plan is based on maximum potential heights of elements 

within different parts of the site, in accordance with the parameters 

shown on Drawing GWF_583_R1 Rev 1 (included in the Landscape 

Mitigation Statement in Appendix 4). Buildings and equipment will 

not be of a uniform height throughout each area but pieces of 

equipment/buildings may be up to the heights shown. Much of the 

equipment will be lower than these heights. The tallest building will 

be in the Galloper compound which will be up to 14m high above 

ground level (23mAOD). It will be necessary to include a number of 

lightning rods within the development on buildings and other 

structures but these will have a height of up to 3m above these 

elements and a diameter of up to 50mm. Due to their small diameter, 

they will only be visible from close proximity and have, therefore, not 

been included in the ZTV studies. 

7.1.2. Figures 06 and 07 also show the potential visibility of the cable 

sealing compounds and gantries east of the site (in orange). The 

design of these has also not been determined as this stage but the ZTV 

has been run at their anticipated maximum potential height of 13min 

accordance with the levels given in paragraph 1.3.2. 

7.1.3. The ZTV model has allowed for the removal of existing woodland 

within and to the east of the site which will open up visibility to the 

east. 

7.1.4. As illustrated on Figures 06 and 07, theoretical visibility towards the 

proposed substation development is most prevalent within a 1km 

radius of the substation site within a quadrant from east to northwest, 

rotating in a clockwise direction. There are also reasonably extensive

2842_LVIA 

58 



areas of potential visibility up to 2 to 2.5km to the southwest and 

southeast, reducing significantly beyond this with increasing distance 

from the site, and to a greater distance to the northwest. 

7.1.5. The ZTV plans show patches of land with potential visibility to the 

north of Leiston extending up to approximately 3.4km in the area of 

Abbey Lane, with narrow cones extending to approximately 5km. 

7.1.6. Within the immediate vicinity of the site, visibility to the north can 

be seen to be limited by blocks of woodland, although there is a cone 

of theoretical visibility extending towards the sewage works to the 

west of Sizewell Power Station. Views of the substation development 

beyond a 1km radius of the site to the north are largely screened by 

blocks of woodland in the wider landscape, except for small areas 

extending to the coast up to 3km and further out to sea. 

7.1.7. Potential visibility extends as far as an existing belt of trees west of 

Sizewell Beach car park to the east, north of Sizewell Gap road, and to 

rising land west of the beach south of Sizewell Gap road. 

7.1.8. There is theoretical visibility towards Sizewell Common and beyond 

that intermittently up to distances of approximately 2.5km in the 

southeast of the study area. 

7.1.9. Potential visibility extends up to approximately 2.3km from the site 

in an area of farmland to the south of Leiston. 

7.1.10. A belt of woodland extending to the north of Sizewell Gap road and to 

the east of Lover’s Lane partially screens views towards the proposed 

substation development from the settlement of Leiston. Vegetation 

on a railway line and large scale employment buildings on the northeastern 

edge of Leiston provide further screening from the settlement. 

7.1.11. By comparing Figures 06 and 07 it can be seen that planting will have 

an effect on screening different elements of the substation from the 

landscape. The greatest effect will be within the area of land closest to

2842_LVIA 

59 



the site - north of Sizewell Gap road, east of Lover’s Lane, south of 

Sandy Lane and west of the woodland west of Sizewell. It is notable 

that the proposed woodland planting is likely to completely screen 

the substation from the rural land up to almost 0.5km to the south, 

west and north. Planting will also reduce areas with visibility of the 

substation and gantries from areas beyond this. It should be borne in 

mind, however, that mitigation planting will be screening many of 

the lower elements within the substation and it might be that only 

the tops of the tallest structures (e.g. the tallest buildings) are actually 

visible at Year 15 from areas where no change in visibility is shown. 

This is confirmed by examining the photomontage views at Years 1 

and 15. 

7.1.12. Site assessment identifies that actual visibility is much less than 

indicated on Figures 06 and 07. There are many small scale features 

including trees and hedgerows present in the landscape that reduce 

visibility further than indicated on the ZTV plans.

2842_LVIA 

60 



8.0 Description of the Proposals and Nature of Effects 

8.1.1. The construction of the onshore cable connection and the 

development of the proposed substation will include the following 

changes to the landscape within the study area: 

� The removal of an area of woodland to enable the construction of 

the proposed substation and cable connection corridors. 

� The temporary presence of site office buildings, machinery, 

fencing, signage, lighting, access tracks and earthworks and the 

sounds and movement associated with these elements during the 

construction phase. 

� The construction of two compounds, the GWF compound and 

the transmission compound. They would be located adjacent to 

each other and together are referred to as the “GWF substation”. 

� The construction within the GWF substation compound of 

equipment including: 

− Switchgear; 

− Transformers; 

− Mechanically switched capacitors; 

− Mechanically switched reactors; 

− Harmonic filters; and 

− Control, communication and monitoring equipment. � 

� Each compound would be enclosed by a fence containing the 

external equipment outlined above, with the additional features: 

− Interconnecting cables; 

− Access tracks, gravel paths and hard standing; 

− Control buildings; 

− Internal substation roads

2842_LVIA 

61 



− Car parking; 

− Communications mast; 

− Earth mats; 

− Lighting; 

− Dump tanks; 

− Water tanks; 

− Back up diesel generators; 

− Welfare facilities; and 

− Security fencing. 

� An existing communications pole at GGOWF will be re-located 

to just outside the southern edge of Sizewell Wents wood. It 

comprises a communications device mounted on timber pole. 

The existing communications pole is not as tall as existing trees 

in the wood. 

� Earthworks associated with the substation. The ground will be 

excavated to create a maximum platform level of 9mAOD, but 

with downward vertical deviation permissible up to 1m (to 

8mAOD) to address potential ground variability and to achieve 

satisfactory drainage falls on the platform. Note that this LVIA 

works on the basis of impacts from a 9m platform level, this 

being the ‘worst case’. A profiled landform will be constructed 

around the north, west and south sides to provide screening. 

The assessment within this LVIA is based on a landform design 

presented on Drawing 2890_07H in the Landscape Mitigation 

Statement in Appendix 4. There is, however, potential for an 

‘additional mitigation area’ to be available to utilise additional 

spoil generated during construction of the substation, to create 

slacker slopes on the southern side of the landform. The effects 

of the proposals with the ‘additional mitigation area’ are also 

assessed in this LVIA. The ‘additional mitigation area’ is included

2842_LVIA 

62 



in wireframe and photomontage Figures described in items e, f, g 

and h in section 1.3. 

� The construction of an access road from the existing access road 

to GGOWF. 

� Cable sealing compounds and gantries to connect to the existing 

overhead transmission lines. 

� Construction of the onshore cable connection which will be 

implemented by horizontal directional drilling from the 

foreshore of Sizewell Beach to the location of the proposed 

transition bays south of Sizewell Gap road (requiring surface 

excavation only at each end), surface excavation from the 

transition bays to the substation, with horizontal directional 

drilling where it passes under Sizewell Gap road and the minor 

road that runs south from Sizewell Gap road. This will mean that 

existing roadside hedgerows will be retained. It is not anticipated 

that construction of the onshore cable connection will result in 

the loss of any existing trees, woodland or hedgerows. There will 

be a temporary compound on Sizewell Beach. 

The onshore cabling between the transition bays and the 

substation will be approximately 900m in length. The aim will 

be to utilise one continuous cable over this distance. However it 

is possible that two sections will be required and jointed together 

at a joint box. Consideration will be given to locate any joint 

boxes close to a field boundary to minimise any impact to 

agricultural activities. 

� Planting and other landscape works to a scheme agreed with the 

relevant planning authority. The mitigation strategy is discussed 

in section 13.0 and included in Appendix 4.

2842_LVIA 

63 



8.2. Lighting 

GWF compound (the westerly compound) 

8.2.1. A detailed permanent lighting plan for the GWF compound element 

of the substation will be produced during the design phase in line 

with the following principles unless otherwise agreed with the local 

planning authority: 

� lighting will not be turned on unless personnel are present on 

site; 

� the substation is unmanned therefore the default lighting option 

will be no lighting; 

� lighting may be required during planned and emergency 

maintenance operations; 

� where feasible, planned maintenance operations will be carried 

out between the hours of 8am and 6pm; 

� lighting will generally be downward pointing to minimise sky 

glow; 

� automatic low level lighting will be incorporated at the access 

gate and control building; and 

� no lighting will be installed on the access route except at the 

access gate. 

8.2.2. There will, therefore, be no lights on for most of the time during 

operation. When people are present during the hours of darkness 

lighting will be on for operational purposes and will be designed to 

minimise light pollution. Effects of lighting from the GWF 

compound during operation will, therefore, be minimal and is not 

referred to in the LVIA.

2842_LVIA 

64 



Transmission compound 

8.2.3. This assessment is based on there being no lighting as the 

transmission compound is unmanned. Lighting will be installed for 

use during planned/emergency maintenance. Automatic security 

lighting will be installed at the gate area and control building. Other 

lights will be manually operated. 

8.2.4. National Grid will agree a detailed design which will include a plan of 

lighting arrangements with the Local Planning Authority 

Sealing end compounds 

8.2.5. This assessment is based on there being no lighting as the sealing end 

compounds are unmanned. Lighting will be installed for use during 

planned/emergency maintenance. 

8.2.6. No lighting such as aircraft warning lights will be installed on the 

gantries. 

Construction 

8.2.7. Lighting will be required during the construction period. In general 

work will be restricted to take place from 7am - 8pm and temporary 

lighting may be required for any activity during this time. Specific 

activities may require lighting outside this time period if they are 

occurring during winter or into the evening and it's a requirement to 

continue the activity, e.g. continuous concrete pours, cable landfall, 

horizontal directional drilling or commissioning of electrical 

equipment. 

8.3. Programme 

8.3.1. Onshore, the construction programme will be up to five years but this 

will not be five years of intensive construction activities. Peak 

activities will be spread through the five year period and be in

2842_LVIA 

65 



different locations at different times. 

8.3.2. 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 LVIA addresses effects of the 32 month construction phase, a 25 

year operational phase and a 2 year decommissioning phase. 

8.4. Decommissioning 

8.4.1. A full Decommissioning Plan for the project would be drawn up and 

agreed with the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) 

before construction commences. For the purpose of this assessment it 

has been assumed that: 

� export cables between the landfall and the substation site will be 

disconnected and left in situ in order to reduce environmental 

impacts, unless otherwise advised by the relevant planning 

authority; 

� any equipment installed within the onshore transition pit will 

remain in situ, unless otherwise advised by the relevant planning 

authority; 

� the substation development will be dismantled and removed 

from site; 

� hard standing areas will be broken up and the associated wastes 

removed from site; 

� the profiled landform, woodland and other planting will be 

retained unless otherwise advised by the relevant planning 

authority; and

2842_LVIA 

66 



� the areas from where the substation has been removed within 

Sizewell Wents woodland and the proposed landform and 

woodland planting will be returned to a natural habitat as agreed 

with the relevant planning authority.

2842_LVIA 

67 



9.0 Assessment during Construction 

9.1. Landscape Effects during Construction 

Effects of Onshore Cable Connection 

9.1.1. The cable connection will have greatest effects during construction. 

9.1.2. The route of the onshore cable connection will extend through the 

Estate Sandlands and through the Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges 

landscape character types and will pass immediately adjacent to the 

boundary of the Coastal Levels landscape character type. The 

landscape effects during the construction phase are anticipated to be 

limited in their extent to approximately 500m to the north and south 

of the cable route and temporary beach compound, with the greatest 

effects up to approximately 200m from these works. These landscape 

effects will be experienced in the context of Sizewell Power Station 

and the disturbance and new elements (such as transmission pits) 

associated with the recently completed GGOWF wind farm onshore 

cable connection and their influence on the local quality and integrity 

of these landscape character types. There will be a substantial 

amount of excavation and earthworks associated with the route 

where it passes through the Estate Sandlands landscape character 

type. 

9.1.3. The sensitivity of the Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges is assessed as 

High-Medium. The magnitude of effect is assessed as Low up to 

approximately 200m from the onshore cable connection corridor and 

temporary beach compound. The overall significance of effect on this 

landscape character type up to approximately 200m from the onshore 

cable connection corridor and temporary beach compound is assessed 

to be Moderate, for the duration of the construction phase, reducing 

with increasing distance. 

9.1.4. The sensitivity of the Coastal Levels is assessed as High-Medium. The 

effects will be on views towards the excavation works from the

2842_LVIA 

68 



southern tip of the character type. The magnitude of effect is assessed 

as Low and the significance of effect as Moderate-Minor up to 

approximately 200m from the onshore cable connection corridor, for 

the duration of the construction phase, reducing with increasing 

distance. 

9.1.5. The sensitivity of the Estate Sandlands is assessed as Medium. The 

magnitude of effect is assessed as High and the significance of effect as 

Major-Moderate up to approximately 200m from the onshore cable 

connection corridor, for the duration of the construction, reducing 

with increasing distance. 

9.1.6. No landscape effects are anticipated on the Ancient Estate Claylands 

landscape character type during the construction of the cable corridor 

as they lie at a minimum distance of 2km from the corridor and the 

works are not anticipated to be visible from this type. 

Effects of the Substation and Connection to the National Grid 

during Construction 

9.1.7. This work comprises the substation, the sealing end compounds and 

gantries, the cable corridors between the substation and the sealing 

end compounds and gantries, and construction of the profiled 

landform. 

Magnitude of Effect on Landscape Character around the Site 

9.1.8. The effects on landscape character would be greatest to an area of land 

closest to the site, decreasing with distance and with the influence of 

existing built development and tree screening around the site. These 

effects would reduce more quickly with increased distance where 

there is existing built development (e.g. to the east of the site) or 

significant trees and woodland that would buffer the proposed 

development from adjacent land areas (e.g. to the north of the site). 

9.1.9. The proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area'

2842_LVIA 

69 



discussed in section 8.1.1 would lead to similar effects on landscape 

character as those assessed without the ‘additional mitigation area'. 

While the landform with the ‘additional mitigation area’ would be 

slacker and tie into the existing landform north of Sizewell Gap road 

more gradually, the extent, magnitude and significance of effects on 

landscape character would be similar with or without the additional 

landform. The effects of the proposals with and without the 

‘additional mitigation area’ are, therefore, not specifically discussed 

further in this section. 

9.1.10. Construction of the proposed development with the ‘additional 

mitigation area' discussed in section 8.1.1 would lead to similar effects 

on landscape character as those assessed without the ‘additional 

mitigation area'. The effects of the proposals with and without the 



9.1.11. During construction, effects on landscape character would be of High 

magnitude as follows: 

� Within the site; 

� Within the area up to approximately 0.3km from the site to the 

west, south and north. 

− The two fields within which the substation is located 

(Broom Covert and the arable field to the south) up to 

the bridleway on Sandy Lane running north of these 

fields (Viewpoint 2 lies on this bridleway). An 

overgrown hedgerow runs along the western edge of the 

arable field helping to reduce effects further west, and a 

local area of high ground runs across Broom Covert 

approximately o.3km from the substation, reducing 

effects beyond. 

− To the south to Sizewell Gap road. This strong linear 

feature in the landscape, lined with tall hedgerows, 

helps to reduce effects further south.

2842_LVIA 

70 



− Land within which the gantries are located to the east 

up to Sandy Lane. Sandy Lane is also a strong linear 

feature lined with banks, hedges and trees which helps 

to reduce effects further east. 

9.1.12. Effects would reduce to Medium magnitude up to a distance of 

approximately 0.5 to 0.75km to the north-west, west, south and east. 

The magnitude of effects reduces rapidly to Negligible beyond these 

limits due to distance and the buffering effects of landform, 

vegetation and development. 

9.1.13. Effects on landscape character to the north of the bridleway (Sandy 

Lane) which runs north of the site would be of Negligible magnitude 

due to the buffering effects of vegetation except for in the vicinity of 

the northeast corner of the GGOWF substation site where a proposed 

cable corridor will result in the removal of existing woodland 

between the bridleway and the existing substation. This will open up 

views of the GGOWF substation from an area of grazing meadows 

(within the Coastal Levels landscape character type). This area of 

grazing meadows is already influenced by the presence of two pylons, 

overhead wires, and Sizewell Power Station to the northeast. 

Effects on Landscape Character Types during Construction 

9.1.14. The extent of visibility of works during construction is likely to be 

similar to the visibility at Year 1. The ZTV at Year 1 (Figure 06) and 

field study has identified that the proposed substation and connection 

to the national grid will not be visible from the Coastal Dunes and 

Shingle Ridges landscape character type. The only part of the 

construction works which are likely to be visible from this character 

type are the works on the beach. 


9.1.15. The development will be located within the Estate Sandlands and the 

magnitude of effects will be as described from paragraph 9.1.8.

2842_LVIA 

71 



9.1.16. One of the operations during construction will be the removal of a 

large proportion of the existing Sizewell Wents woodland. There will 

also be disturbance from temporary lay down and site 

accommodation extending over a wider area than the substation site 

itself, and from elements such as spoil heaps, construction traffic and 

the visual movement of vehicles. Excavation including works to 

lower the substation platform, use of subsoil and topsoil to form the 

proposed landform, and construction of the elements within the 

substation and the cable connections and sealing end compounds and 

gantries will affect the character of the landscape. They will be new 

elements in the landscape, albeit set within the context of existing 

infrastructure at GGOWF substation and the adjacent pylons and 

overhead wires, and the more distant Sizewell Power Station. 

Construction lighting will also affect landscape character, when it is 

needed during working hours. 

9.1.17. Within the areas described in paragraph 9.1.8 (including Sizewell 

Wents wood, part of Broom Covert, the two arable fields to the south 

of Broom Covert and Sizewell Wents (up to Sizewell Gap road), and 

the land within which the gantries will be located (up to Sandy Lane)) 

the magnitude of effect during construction will be High. The 

sensitivity of the Estate Sandlands is Medium. The significance of 

effect during construction within this localised area will be Major. 

Beyond this distance the magnitude and significance of effect would 

reduce rapidly with distance, and as existing vegetation, landform and 

development buffers effects. The effects will be Adverse. 

9.1.18. The Estate Sandlands is a large landscape character type, extending 

for approximately 50km from Felixstowe in the south to Kessingland 

in the north. Significant (Major-Moderate or Major) effects will be 

experienced in a local area already influenced by large scale 

infrastructure associated with Sizewell Power Station and electricity 

transmission. However, the overall landscape effects on this 

landscape character type during construction will be of Negligible 

magnitude and Negligible significance.

2842_LVIA 

72 




9.1.19. There will be no direct effects on this landscape character type at 

during construction. Effects will be caused by changes to the setting 

of the character type. The removal of trees within Sizewell Wents 

woodland and presence of construction activities will affect the 

setting of the character type. The construction works might be visible 

from a narrow area of the Coastal Levels landscape character type 

extending for up to 1km northwards and from the southernmost 

finger of the character type west of Sizewell Beach car park. In 

addition, construction of the proposed cable corridor will result in the 

removal of existing woodland between the bridleway and the 

substation to the northeast of the GGOWF substation, opening up 


within the Coastal Levels. These changes could result in effects of 

Medium magnitude on landscape character up to approximately 

0.5km north of GGOWF and 0.3km east of the gantries. The 

sensitivity of the Coastal Levels is High-Medium. The significance of 

effect in these areas is judged to be Major-Moderate. The magnitude 

and significance of effect on this character type is likely to decrease 

rapidly moving northwards. Effects will not extend beyond 

approximately 0.3km east of the gantries due to the buffering effects 

of existing trees west of Sizewell Beach car park. The effects will be 

Adverse. 

9.1.20. These effects will occur within a relatively small area of the Coastal 

Levels landscape character type that is already influenced by the 

proximity of Sizewell Power Station immediately to the east, and by 

pylons and overhead wires crossing the Coastal Levels. However, the 

overall landscape effects on this landscape character type will be of 

Negligible magnitude and Negligible significance owing to the extent 

of the character area and the limited extent of the landscape 

anticipated to be affected by the GWF substation development.

2842_LVIA 

73 




9.1.21. The construction works will potentially be visible from within 

localised areas of this character type, approximately 2.5km and 

further from the site. Field assessment has identified that, in reality, 

visibility will be very limited. Viewpoint 8 represents a ‘worst case’ 

view from a publically assessable location within this area. The 

magnitude of effect on receptors represented at viewpoint 8 is 

considered to be Negligible (see section 9.3). Very occasional 

Negligible effects on views from this landscape character type would 

result in effects of Negligible magnitude and Negligible significance 

during construction.

2842_LVIA 

74 



9.2. Effects on Landscape Designations during Construction 


9.2.1. The proposed substation and onshore cable connection lie within the 

AONB, as illustrated on Figure 01. The magnitude of effects on the 

character of the AONB will be similar to the effects on landscape 

character types described above. The same landscape character types 

are described in section 2 of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB 

Management Plan (2008-2013). 

9.2.2. During construction the onshore cable connection will cause 

localised effects of High magnitude up to approximately 200m from 

the cable corridor where it will be installed using surface excavation. 

The significance of effect on this area will be Major for the temporary 

duration of the works only. The works will cause effects of Low 

magnitude and Moderate significance up to approximately 200m 

from the cable corridor and temporary beach compound where it will 

be installed using directional drilling on Sizewell Beach. The 

magnitude of effect of the cable connection during operation will be 

Negligible. 

9.2.3. One of the operations during construction will be the removal of a 

large proportion of the existing Sizewell Wents woodland. There will 

also be disturbance from temporary lay down and site 

accommodation extending over a wider area than the substation site 

itself, and from elements such as spoil heaps, construction traffic and 

the visual movement of vehicles. Excavation including works to 

lower the substation platform, use of subsoil and topsoil to form the 

landform, and construction of the elements within the substation and 

the cable connections and sealing end compounds and gantries will 

affect the character of the landscape in this part of the AONB. They 

will be new elements in the AONB, albeit set within the context of 

existing infrastructure at GGOWF substation and the adjacent pylons 

and overhead wires, and the more distant Sizewell Power Station.

2842_LVIA 

75 






the land within which the gantries will be located (up to Sandy 

Lane)), the magnitude of effect during construction will be High. This 

will reduce to Medium up to a distance of approximately 0.5 to 

0.75km to the north-west, west, south and east, and for a narrow area 

with potential visibility of the GGOWF and GWF substation to the 

north. The effects on the AONB will be of Major significance, 

reducing to Major-Moderate significance within these areas. 

9.2.5. The magnitude of effects reduces rapidly to Negligible beyond these 

limits due to distance and the buffering effects of existing landform, 

vegetation and development. Effects will not extend further 

eastwards than approximately 0.3km from the proposed gantries due 

to the screening effects of existing trees west of Sizewell Beach car 

park. The effects will be Adverse. 

9.2.6. The designated area covers 403 square kilometres stretching from 

Kessingland in the north to the River Stour in the south. The effects 

caused by construction of the proposed GWF substation will be 

confined to a small area of the AONB and an area that is already 

influenced by the presence of GGOWF substation, pylons and 

Sizewell Power Station. 

9.2.7. Construction of the proposed development with the ‘additional 


on the landscape of the AONB as those assessed without the 

‘additional mitigation area'. 

Suffolk Heritage Coast 

9.2.8. The proposed substation lies beyond the boundaries of the Suffolk 

Heritage Coast designation. At Year 1 the ZTV indicates limited areas 

of intervisibility between the landscape lying within the Suffolk 

Heritage Coast and the substation development; this is likely to be

2842_LVIA 

76 



similar during construction. On site assessment confirms this 

visibility is likely to be further reduced by the presence of screening 

vegetation in the intervening landscape. The construction works will 

be visible from an area of landscape to the east of the site up to a belt 

of trees west of Sizewell Beach car park. Viewpoint 4 illustrates a view 

from within the Heritage Coast from this direction. 

9.2.9. The route of the onshore connection passes through landscape within 

the Suffolk Heritage Coast and magnitude of effects will be similar to 

those described for the AONB. During construction the onshore cable 

connection will cause only localised effects of High magnitude up to 

approximately 200m from the cable corridor where it will be installed 

using surface excavation, and of Low magnitude up to approximately 

200m from the cable corridor and temporary beach compound where 

it will be installed using directional drilling on Sizewell Beach. The 

magnitude of effect of the cable connection during operation and 

decommissioning will be Negligible. 

9.2.10. The area of Heritage Coast landscape between Sandy Lane and the belt 

of trees west of Sizewell Beach car park will experience effects of 

Medium magnitude due to the loss of the woodland and introduction 

of the construction works, within its setting to the west. The character 

of this area of landscape is already strongly influenced by the 

presence of the existing pylons and overhead wires which are larger 

structures than those within the proposed development. 

9.2.11. The Heritage Coast is of High-Medium sensitivity. 

9.2.12. The effects on this pocket of Heritage Coast during construction will 

be of Moderate significance. Beyond this area the effects will rapidly 

reduce to Negligible due to the presence of the development at 

Sizewell Power Station to the north and the buffering effects of 

existing vegetation and landform to the north, east and south. 

9.2.13. The designated area covers approximately 390 square kilometres. The 

effects caused by the construction of the proposed GWF substation

2842_LVIA 

77 



will be confined to a small area of the Heritage Coast and an area that 

is already influenced by the presence of GGOWF substation, pylons 

and Sizewell Power Station. 

9.2.14. The ‘additional mitigation area’ lies outside the Heritage Coast. 

Construction of the proposed development with the ‘additional 


on the landscape of the Heritage Coast as those assessed without the 

‘additional mitigation area'. 

9.3. Visual Effects during Construction 

Onshore Cable Connection 

9.3.1. The extent of significant visual exposure during the onshore 

connection cabling work will be largely confined to the immediate 

area surrounding the works at Sizewell Beach and to the local roads 

and nearby properties within approximately 500m of the cabling 

trench and directional drilling along the extent of its route inland. 

9.3.2. The visual effects associated with the construction phase will include 

views of active construction machinery, temporary signage and 

fencing and the construction of temporary tracks to enable access for 

construction machinery. These visual effects will be largely 

temporary in nature and limited to the duration of the construction 

period. It is not anticipated that any hedgerow or tree vegetation will 

need to be removed to allow construction of the cable corridor. 

Substation and Connection to the National Grid 

9.3.3. The visual effects associated with the substation and connection to 

the national grid will result from two main changes, the removal of 

the central part of an existing woodland (Sizewell Wents) which is a 

feature in the landscape, and the introduction of the substation and 

associated works. Removing the woodland will also open up views of 

existing pylons and the existing GGOWF substation. The elements

2842_LVIA 

78 



are listed in more detail section 8.0. 

9.3.4. The following analysis identifies the general visual effects on each of 

the identified receptor groups within the study area. 

Effects on Visual Receptor Groups during Construction 

Residents 


Many of these properties will have little or no view of the proposed 

development. Leiston lies approximately 1km from the area of 

construction activity. There will be no views towards the 

construction work associated with the cable corridor from properties 

on the eastern edge of Leiston due to the mature boundary vegetation 

within the village and due to the intervening vegetation and rising 

landform in the wider landscape extending between the village and 

the site, with the potential exception of a small number of houses at 

the eastern edge of Heath View which might have distant oblique 

views from first floor windows. 

9.3.6. The properties with the greatest potential for views are summarised 

below. 

9.3.7. Views towards the proposed construction works from properties to 

the southwest of the site, south of Sizewell Gap road, are likely to be 

largely screened by boundary vegetation and woodland blocks in the 

intervening landscape. It is possible that the works will be visible 

above woodland from Crownlands Cottage (1 on Figure 05). 

9.3.8. The dwellings at Sizewell Beach are predominately seaward-facing in 

orientation. There will, however, be views towards the activities and 

landscape disruption associated with the construction of the onshore 

cable route from some properties. Construction of the substation 

may be visible from the backs of 1-4 Coast Guard Cottages (26-29 on 

Figure 05).

2842_LVIA 

79 



9.3.9. The property of Home Farm (44 on Figure 05), situated to the south of 

the Sizewell Gap road, will have an open view across gently 

undulating field towards the construction of the onshore cable 

connection route and substation. 

9.3.10. Some of the properties north of Sandy Lane (10-16, 32 and 47 on 

Figure 05) will have oblique views of the construction of the proposed 

substation through or between vegetation in gardens or lining the 

lane. The vegetation partially or completely obscures views from 

some of these properties. 

9.3.11. 1 and 2 Rosery Cottages (30 and 31 on Figure 05) might have views of 

the construction works associated with the gantries and cable 

connections to them, from the fronts of the properties, seen in the 

context of the existing much larger pylons. However, it is possible 

that intervening vegetation along the bridleway will obscure these 

views. The construction of the northern cable corridor from the 

proposed substation to the gantries will require the removal of 

woodland on the northeast and east sides of the existing GGOWF 

substation and it is possible that this will open up views of the 

substation from the properties. 

9.3.12. The effects of the proposed development on residential receptors will 

be the same with or without the ‘additional mitigation area’ discussed 

in section 8.1.1. 

9.3.13. The residential amenity of residential properties would not be 

unacceptably harmed by the construction of the substation or 

onshore cable connection to their view. 


9.3.14. During the construction phase, views towards the onshore cable 

connection route to the south of the Sizewell Gap road will be 

partially screened, and in places wholly screened, from local road 

users by the outgrown medium hedgerows aligning the road and also

2842_LVIA 

80 



by the elevated nature of the landform to the south of the road. There 

will, however, be open, oblique views towards the construction of the 

cable corridor along its extents to the north of the Sizewell Gap road 

available to motorists and pedestrians travelling along this road. 

9.3.15. During construction the existing woodland belt to the north and east 

of Lover’s Lane and Sizewell Gap road is of sufficient height to 

effectively screen views towards the proposed substation along most 

of the length of these roads (see for example Viewpoint 7). Where a 

gap opens up in the roadside vegetation along Sizewell Gap road to 

the south of the site, the temporary laydown and accommodation 

areas, and construction works, will be visible. Removal of trees 

within Sizewell Wents will open up a gap in the woodland, which 

will be most visible from a section of Sizewell Gap road to the southeast 

of the site. 

9.3.16. Views of the construction works from more distant roads will be 

limited by roadside hedgerows, and other vegetation and 

development in the landscape. 

9.3.17. The effects of the proposed development on the travelling public will 

be similar with or without the ‘additional mitigation area’ discussed 

in section 8.1.1. While construction of the additional landform will 

be visible from Sizewell Gap road it will make little difference to 

effects on this receptor as the additional landform covers land that 

will already be occupied by temporary laydown and accommodation 

areas. 


9.3.18. There may be partial views towards the construction of the onshore 

cable connection and substation from Cliff House Caravan Park to the 

southeast. 

9.3.19. Whilst there are no views towards the construction works associated 

with the proposed substation available from Sizewell Beach, visitors

2842_LVIA 

81 



to the beach will have open views towards the activity and temporary 

landscape disruption resulting from the construction of the onshore 

cable connection. These effects will, however, be experienced in the 

context of the existing views and operational noise generated by 


9.3.20. The effects of the proposed development will be similar with or 

without the ‘additional mitigation area’ discussed in section 8.1.1. 

Representative Viewpoint Assessment during Construction 

9.3.21. The following analysis considers the visual effects on the eight agreed 

representative viewpoints identified and described as part of the 

existing visual environment. Reference should be made to the 

existing photographic panoramas, wireframes and photomontages 

which illustrate the existing and proposed view for the viewpoints. 

Wireframes and photomontages have not been produced for the 

construction phase but the effects of the removal of existing trees 

during the construction phase can be seen by comparing the existing 

views (shown on the wireframes) and proposed views (shown on the 

photomontages). 

Viewpoint 1 – Residential Properties and Public Right of Way North 

West of the Site 

Proposed View 

9.3.22. Removal of the centre of the woodland will create a gap, opening up 

views of the existing pylons beyond which will be framed between 

the two retained woodland edges. Construction of the proposed 

substation and earthworks will also be visible on the skyline in this 

gap, extending to the right of the woodland into the arable field. The 

temporary laydown and site accommodation area will be screened by 

intervening landform, although the upper parts of some elements 

(such as site accommodation buildings, stockpiles, and vehicles) 

might be visible within these areas. The works will be seen below and

2842_LVIA 

82 



in the foreground to the pylons and overhead wires, and the retained 

woodland. Moving construction traffic will be visible. The 

discontinuous hedgerow on the edge of the foreground field will 

provide some screening in summer but it will be possible to see the 

works through the hedge in winter. 

Magnitude and Significance of Effect 

9.3.23. The works will cause a change in the view, removing part of one 

element and adding new elements and movement to the existing 

simple composition of view. The construction works will, however, 

be seen in the context of the existing pylons and overhead wires. The 

magnitude of effect during construction will be Medium. The 

sensitivity of the receptor is High and the significance of effect during 

construction will be Major-Moderate. The change will be Adverse. 

9.3.24. Moving machinery associated with construction of the ‘additional 

mitigation area’ might be visible from this viewpoint. However, it is 

not considered that this work will change the effects assessed above. 


Proposed View 

9.3.25. Construction of the substation to the west of Sizewell Wents will 

form add new elements on the skyline, occupying a large proportion 

of the skyline in the view. From this angle most of the woodland to be 

removed will be screened by trees to be retained. The construction 

works will extend from the wood onto the open skyline to the right of 

the view. The eastern part of the construction works will be screened 

by the northern retained edge of Sizewell Wents and scrub vegetation 

occupying the hollow in the foreground of the view. The different 

constituent components of the construction works will be seen in the 

context of, or possibly screen, the existing pylon towers and wires 

spanning the horizon line behind them.

2842_LVIA 

83 



9.3.26. Construction of the proposed landform on the northern edge of the 

site will be seen on the skyline, raising the skyline as it is created, 

gradually screening the existing pylons and proposed construction 

works beyond. 


9.3.27. The partial screening of the construction works by foreground 

vegetation and the existing pylons spanning the horizon line go some 

way to moderating the magnitude of effect of the proposed works. 

The addition of the proposed construction works on the skyline will, 

however, form a change in southward-facing views. The magnitude 

of effect is judged to be High. The sensitivity of receptors represented 

by this viewpoint is High. The significance of effect during 

construction is assessed as Major. The change will be Adverse. 

9.3.28. The ‘additional mitigation area’ will not be visible from this 

viewpoint. Construction of the ‘additional mitigation area’ will not 

change the effects assessed above. 


Proposed View 

9.3.29. The trees lying to the west of the viewpoint will screen the 

construction works. It might just be possible to glimpse construction 

works associated with the gantries through the trees in winter but it 

is unlikely to be a noticeable change to the view. 


9.3.30. Given the lack of visibility of the proposed construction works, the 

magnitude of effect is judged to be Negligible. Whilst the receptors 

represented by the viewpoint are considered to have a High 

sensitivity to the proposed change, the Negligible magnitude of effect 

means that the significance of effect during construction is also

2842_LVIA 

84 



Negligible. 





Proposed View 

9.3.32. The central part of the woodland currently visible at the site of the 

proposed substation will be removed. The construction works will be 

seen in the new gap in the trees, and in the foreground and to the left 

of the trees. The removal of the woodland will enable the existing 

building within the GGOWF substation compound to be seen on the 

skyline, becoming a more visible feature in the view. The lower parts 

of the existing pylons in the foreground, which are currently seen 

against the backdrop of the existing woodland, will be silhouetted 

against the sky once the trees have been removed. The proposed 

gantries and cable sealing compounds will be seen adjacent to the 

existing pylons as they are constructed. The construction works will 

be seen on the skyline, with the new landform raising the skyline to 

the left of the woodland. The works will be seen in the context of the 

existing pylons and overhead wires, and Sizewell Power Station to the 

right of the view. The existing pylons and overhead wires are 

substantially larger than the proposed structures and occupy a much 

greater proportion of the sky. 


9.3.33. The removal of the woodland and addition of the construction works 

will be a change to the view. The effect will be reduced to some 

degree by the fact that the development will be seen in the context of 

the existing pylons and overhead wires and Sizewell Power Station in 

the wider context. The Magnitude of effect during construction is 

assessed as High to Medium. The sensitivity of the receptors

2842_LVIA 

85 



represented by this viewpoint is High and the significance of effect 

during construction is Major-Moderate. The change will be Adverse. 

9.3.34. Moving machinery and earthworks associated with construction of 

the ‘additional mitigation area’ will be visible from this viewpoint. 

However, it is not considered that this work will change the effects 

assessed above. While construction of the additional landform will 

be visible it will make little difference to effects on this receptor as the 

additional landform covers land that will already be occupied by 

temporary laydown and accommodation areas. 


Proposed View 

9.3.35. Most of the woodland on the skyline will be retained, screening parts 

of the proposed substation beyond. Only the extreme right and left 

hand sections of woodland will be removed in this view, during the 

construction phase. The substation construction and in particular the 

new landform will be seen extending to the left of the woodland onto 

the open skyline. The foreground field will be occupied by temporary 

laydown and site accommodation. Temporary laydown and site 

accommodation will also be visible to the right of the view, around 

the base of the existing pylons; this area and the construction of the 

gantries will be visible in the context of the existing pylons and 

overhead lines, and Sizewell Power Station beyond. 


9.3.36. The magnitude of effect on receptors represented by this viewpoint is 

considered to be High, primarily due to the introduction of the 

substation and landform on the currently open skyline to the left of 

the view, and the presence of the temporary laydown and site 

accommodation areas. The sensitivity of receptors represented by this 

viewpoint is Medium. The significance of effect during construction 

is assessed as Major-Moderate. The change will be Adverse.

2842_LVIA 

86 




the ‘additional mitigation area’ will be visible from this viewpoint. 

However, it is not considered that this work will change the effects 

assessed above. While construction of the additional landform will 

be visible on the foreground slope it will make little difference to 

effects on this receptor as the additional landform covers land that 

will already be occupied by temporary laydown and accommodation 

areas. 

Viewpoint 6 – Footpath to the south of Lover’s Lane 

Proposed View 

9.3.38. A small part of the woodland on the skyline in the centre of the view 

will be removed. The retained woodland will screen part of the 

substation under construction but it will extend to the left of the 

woodland and be visible on the skyline beneath the existing overhead 

wires and pylons, and in the context of Sizewell Power Station. The 

gantries under construction will be visible to the right of the 

woodland, although the most easterly gantry will be largely screened 

by foreground trees. The temporary laydown and site accommodation 

areas are likely to be screened by intervening landform and 

vegetation, although it is possible that some taller elements within 

them will be visible. 


9.3.39. The loss of small areas of existing woodland and introduction of the 

substation under construction will cause a change to the view during 

construction, although the change will be seen in the context of the 

existing infrastructure and power station. The existing features will 

continue to dominate the view. The magnitude of effect during 

construction is assessed as Medium to Low. The sensitivity of 

receptor is High and the significance of effect during construction is 

Moderate. The change will be Adverse.

2842_LVIA 

87 




the ‘additional mitigation area’ is likely to be visible from this 

viewpoint. However, it is not considered that this work will change 

the effects assessed above as it will be mostly screened by intervening 

landform and vegetation, and the additional landform covers land 

that will already be occupied by temporary laydown and 

accommodation areas. 

Viewpoint 7 – Road Junction between King George’s Way and Lover’s 

Lane 

Proposed View 

9.3.41. Whilst the initial ZTV studies indicated views may be possible from 

this viewpoint, in reality the roadside hedge and tree belt planted 

beyond it will limit views towards the construction areas. 


9.3.42. Given the screening effects of the vegetation in the foreground of the 

view, the magnitude of effect on receptors represented by this view 

point during construction is considered to be Negligible. The receptor 

sensitivity is judged to be Medium and the significance of effect 

during construction is Negligible. 





Proposed View 

9.3.44. Part of the woodland on the distant skyline will be removed and it 

will be possible to see some of the upper parts of construction 

activities. These changes would be barely perceptible.

2842_LVIA 

88 




9.3.45. The magnitude of change during construction would be Negligible. 

The sensitivity of the receptors is judged to be Medium. The 

significance of effect during construction would be Negligible. 



change the effects assessed above.

2842_LVIA 

89 



10.0 Assessment at Year 1 

10.1. Landscape Effects at Year 1 

Effects of Onshore Cable Connection at Year 1 

10.1.1. At Year 1 the only visible features will be the transmission pits which 

will comprise up to four underground pits each with 2 x 5m wide 

hard surfacing flush with ground level, enclosed by a post and rail 

fence. Landscape effects of the onshore cable connection on 

completion will be Negligible. 

Effects of the Substation and Connection to the National Grid at 

Year 1 


10.1.2. The magnitude of effects on landscape character will be less during 

operation than during construction. This is because the temporary 

lay down and site accommodation areas will have been restored to 

arable farmland or acid grassland and the substation will be enclosed 

by a new gently profiled landform that will integrate with the 

existing landform. 

10.1.3. The proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area' 










10.1.4. At Year 1, effects on landscape character would be of High magnitude

2842_LVIA 

90 



as follows: 

� Within the site; 


west, south and north. 











feature in the landscape, lined with tall hedgerows, 

helps to reduce effects further south. 



feature lined with banks, hedges and trees which helps 

to reduce effects further east. 

10.1.5. Effects would reduce to Medium magnitude up to a distance of 

approximately 0.5 to 0.75km to the north-west, west, south and east, 

and a small area to the north. The magnitude of effects reduces 

rapidly to Negligible beyond these limits due to distance and the 

buffering effects of landform, vegetation and development. 



due to the buffering effects of vegetation except for in the vicinity of 

the northeast corner of the GGOWF substation site where a proposed 

cable corridor will result in the removal of existing woodland 

between the bridleway and the existing substation. This will open up

2842_LVIA 

91 




(within the Coastal Levels landscape character type). This area of 

grazing meadows is already influenced by the presence of two pylons, 

overhead wires, and Sizewell Power Station to the northeast. 

Effects on Landscape Character Types at Year 1 


10.1.7. The main changes that will affect landscape character will be the 

removal of part of Sizewell Wents woodland and the creation of the 

proposed landform with the substation behind, and the cable sealing 

compounds connecting to the existing overhead cables. The 

constructed features will be new elements in the landscape, albeit set 

within the context of existing infrastructure at GGOWF and the 

adjacent pylons and overhead wires, and Sizewell Power Station to the 

north-east. The proposed landform will screen lower parts of the 

substation including security fences, vehicles and smaller scale 

equipment, with taller structures such as larger buildings and 

lightning rods protruding above it. At Year 1 (and until it is cloaked 

in maturing woodland), the proposed landform will be a new feature 

but, due to its gentle outside slopes, it will integrate into the existing 

landform. Planting will be new and, due to the small size of plants, 

will have little effect at this stage. 





the magnitude of effect at Year 1 will be High. The sensitivity of the 

Estate Sandlands is Medium. The significance of effect at Year 1 

within this localised area will be Major-Moderate. Beyond this 

distance the magnitude and significance of effect would reduce 

rapidly with distance, and as existing vegetation, landform and 

development buffers effects. The effects will be Adverse.

2842_LVIA 

92 





in the north. Significant (Major-Moderate or Major) effects will be 

experienced in a local area already influenced by large scale 

infrastructure associated with Sizewell Power Station and electricity 

transmission. However, the overall landscape effects on this 

landscape character type at Year 1 will be of Negligible magnitude 

and Negligible significance. 


10.1.10. There will be no direct effects on this landscape character type at Year 

1. Effects will be caused by changes to the setting of the character 

type. The removal of trees within Sizewell Wents woodland will open 

up visibility of the substation and sealing end compounds and 

gantries and this will indirectly affect landscape character. The ZTV 

(Figure 06) indicates that the proposed substation might be visible 

from a narrow area of the Coastal Levels landscape character type 

extending for up to 1km northwards and from the southernmost 

finger of the character type west of Sizewell Beach car park. In 

addition, construction of the proposed cable corridor will result in the 

removal of existing woodland between the bridleway and the 



within the Coastal Levels. These changes could result in effects of 

Medium magnitude on landscape character up to approximately 

0.5km north of GGOWF and 0.3km east of the gantries. The 

sensitivity of the Coastal Levels is High-Medium. The significance of 

effect in these areas is judged to be Major-Moderate. The magnitude 

and significance of effect on this character type is likely to decrease 

rapidly moving northwards. Effects will not extend beyond 

approximately 0.3km east of the gantries due to the buffering effects 

of existing trees west of Sizewell Beach car park. The effects will be 

Adverse. 

10.1.11. These effects will occur within a relatively small area of the Coastal

2842_LVIA 

93 





pylons and overhead wires crossing the Coastal Levels. The overall 

landscape effects on this landscape character type will be of 



anticipated to be affected by the GWF substation development. 


10.1.12. The ZTV (Figure 06) indicates that the development will potentially 

be visible from within localised areas of this character type, 

approximately 2.5km and further from the site. Field assessment has 

identified that, in reality, visibility will be much less than indicated 

by the theoretical ZTV. Viewpoint 8 represents a ‘worst case’ view 

from a publically assessable location within this area. The magnitude 

of effect on receptors represented at viewpoint 8 is considered to be 

Negligible (see section 10.3). Very occasional Negligible effects on 

views from this landscape character type would result in effects of 

Negligible magnitude and Negligible significance at Year 1. 

10.2. Effects on Landscape Designations at Year 1 


10.2.1. At Year 1 the only visible features of the onshore cable connection 

will be the transmission pits which will comprise up to four 

underground pits each with 2 x 5m wide hard surfacing flush with 

ground level, enclosed by a post and rail fence. Effects of the onshore 

cable connection on the landscape of the AONB at Year 1 will be 

Negligible. 

10.2.2. The main changes that will affect the landscape of the AONB at Year 1 

will be the removal of part of Sizewell Wents woodland and the 

creation of the proposed landform with the substation behind, and 

the cable sealing compounds and gantries connecting to the existing

2842_LVIA 

94 



overhead cables. The constructed features will be new elements in 

the AONB, albeit set within the context of existing infrastructure at 

GGOWF and the adjacent pylons and overhead wires, and Sizewell 

Power Station to the north-east. The proposed landform will screen 

lower parts of the substation including security fences, vehicles and 

smaller scale equipment, with taller structures such as larger 

buildings and lightning rods protruding above it (although the 

lightning rods will be minor elements only visible from within close 

proximity). At Year 1 (and until it is cloaked in maturing woodland), 

the proposed landform will be a new feature but, due to its design 

including gentle outside slopes, it will integrate into the existing 

landform. Planting will be new and, due to the small size of plants, 

will have little effect at this stage. 




the land within which the gantries will be located (up to Sandy 

Lane)), the magnitude of effect at Year 1 will be High. This will reduce 

to Medium up to a distance of approximately 0.5 to 0.75km to the 

north-west, west, south and east, and for a narrow area with potential 

visibility of the GGOWF and GWF substation to the north. The 

effects on the AONB will be of Major significance, reducing to Major- 

Moderate significance within these areas. 

10.2.4. The magnitude of effects reduces rapidly to Negligible beyond these 

limits due to distance and the buffering effects of existing landform, 

vegetation and development. Effects will not extend further 

eastwards than approximately 0.3km from the proposed gantries due 

to the screening effects of existing trees west of Sizewell Beach car 

park. The effects will be Adverse. 



caused by the proposed GWF substation will be confined to a small 

area of the AONB and an area that is already influenced by the

2842_LVIA 

95 



presence of GGOWF substation, pylons and Sizewell Power Station. 


discussed in section 8.1.1 would lead to similar effects on the 

landscape of the AONB as those assessed without the ‘additional 

mitigation area'. While the landform with the ‘additional mitigation 

area’ would be slacker and tie into the existing landform north of 

Sizewell Gap road more gradually, bringing local benefits, the overall 

extent, magnitude and significance of effects on the AONB would be 

similar with or without the additional landform. 






cable connection on the landscape of the Heritage Coast at Year 1 will 

be Negligible. 

10.2.8. The proposed substation lies beyond the boundaries of Suffolk 

Heritage Coast and the only effects will be indirect effects on the 

setting of a small part of the designated area. At Year 1 the ZTV 

indicates limited areas of intervisibility between the landscape lying 

within the Suffolk Heritage Coast and the substation development. 

On site assessment confirms this visibility is likely to be further 

reduced by the presence of screening vegetation in the intervening 

landscape. The substation will be visible from an area of landscape to 

the east of the site up to a belt of trees west of Sizewell Beach car park. 

Viewpoint 4 illustrates a view from within the Heritage Coast from 

this direction. 

10.2.9. The area of Heritage Coast landscape between Sandy Lane and the belt 

of trees west of Sizewell Beach car park will experience effects of 

Medium magnitude due to the loss of the woodland and introduction 

of the substation and gantries, within its setting to the west. The

2842_LVIA 

96 



character of this area of landscape is already strongly influenced by 

the presence of the existing pylons and overhead wires which are 

larger structures than those within the proposed development. 


10.2.11. The effects on this pocket of Heritage Coast at Year 1 will be of 

Moderate significance. Beyond this area the effects will rapidly reduce 

to Negligible due to the presence of the development at Sizewell 

Power Station to the north and the buffering effects of existing 

vegetation and landform to the north, east and south. 


effects caused by the proposed GWF substation at Year 1 will be 

confined to a small area of the Heritage Coast and an area that is 

already influenced by the presence of GGOWF substation, pylons and 


10.2.13. The ‘additional mitigation area’ lies outside the Heritage Coast. The 

proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area' discussed 

in section 8.1.1 would lead to similar effects on the landscape of the 

Heritage Coast as those assessed without the ‘additional mitigation 

area'. 

10.3. Visual Effects at Year 1 

Effects on Visual Receptor Groups at Year 1 

Residents 


Many of these properties will have little or no view of the proposed 

development. 

10.3.2. The onshore cable connection works will be complete and not cause 

any significant changes to views. The changes discussed below are

2842_LVIA 

97 



due to the presence of the substation and gantries, and associated 

works north of Sizewell Gap road. 

10.3.3. Leiston lies beyond 1km from the site. There will be no views towards 

the proposed from properties on the eastern edge of Leiston due to the 

mature boundary vegetation within the village and due to the 

intervening vegetation and rising landform in the wider landscape 

extending between the village and the development, with the 

potential exception of a small number of houses at the eastern edge of 

Heath View which might have distant oblique views from first floor 

windows. 


below. 

10.3.5. Views towards the proposed substation from properties to the 

southwest of the site, south of Sizewell Gap road, are likely to be 


intervening landscape. It is possible that the substation will be visible 

above woodland from Crownlands Cottage (1 on Figure 05). 


orientation. The substation may be visible from the backs of 1-4 Coast 

Guard Cottages (26-29 on Figure 05) 



undulating field towards the proposed substation. 


Figure 05) will have oblique views of the proposed substation through 

or between vegetation in gardens or lining the lane. The vegetation 

partially or completely obscures views from some of these properties. 


the gantries from the fronts of the properties, seen in the context of

2842_LVIA 

98 



the existing much larger pylons. However, it is possible that 

intervening vegetation along the bridleway will obscure these views. 

The construction of a cable corridor from the proposed substation to 

the existing grid will require the removal of woodland on the 

northeast and east sides of the existing GGOWF substation and it is 

possible that this will open up views of the substation from the 

properties. 




10.3.11. The residential amenity of residential properties would not be 

unacceptably harmed by the addition of the substation or onshore 

cable connection to their view. 


10.3.12. At Year 1 the cable connection route to the south of the Sizewell Gap 

road will cause very little changes to views from roads. 

10.3.13. The existing woodland belt to the north and east of Lover’s Lane and 

Sizewell Gap road is of sufficient height to effectively screen views 

towards the proposed substation along most of the length of these 

roads (see for example Viewpoint 7). Where a gap opens up in the 

roadside vegetation along Sizewell Gap road to the south of the site, 

the substation will be visible on the skyline (see Viewpoint 5). 

Removal of trees within Sizewell Wents will open up a gap in the 

woodland, which will be most visible from a section of Sizewell Gap 

road to the south-east of the site (see Viewpoint 4). 

10.3.14. The ZTV indicates that views towards the substation are theoretically 

possible from parts of Valley Road, Sandy Lane, Buckleswood Road, 

Abbey Lane and the north-south extents of Lover’s Lane. In reality, 

however, on site assessment confirms that localised embankments 

and/or outgrown hedgerows and scrub vegetation aligning these

2842_LVIA 

99 



roads will combine with vegetation in the intervening landscape to 

limit views from these roads towards the substation. Viewpoint 8 lies 

on Abbey Lane. 

10.3.15. Although views are likely to be limited by vegetation aligning Lover’s 

Lane and also by woodland blocks and trees in the wider landscape 

towards the site, occasional, partial, glimpsed views may be possible 

in some places along elevated portions of this road, at a distance of 

1.5km or more from the site, by motorists travelling eastwards. 



in section 8.1.1. While the landform with the ‘additional mitigation 

area’ would be slacker and tie into the existing landform more 

gradually when viewed from Sizewell Gap road, it would make little 

difference to effects on this receptor group. 



road will cause very little changes to views. 

10.3.18. There will be views towards the substation from Cliff House Caravan 

Park to the southeast. 

10.3.19. There will be no views of the proposed substation from Sizewell 

Beach. 

10.3.20. The ZTV studies indicate that the proposed substation development 

will not be visible from the Suffolk Coast Path and on site assessment 

confirms this to be the case. On site assessment confirms that there 

will be views towards the proposed substation from parts of 

approximately 150m length of Sandlings Walk long distance route 

where it runs along minor road immediately south of Sizewell Gap 

road (although tall roadside hedgerows screen views from much of 

this length), and from approximately 200m length of Sizewell Gap

2842_LVIA 

100 



road (Viewpoint 4 lies on this section of road). The substation is 

unlikely to be visible from other sections of Sandlings Walk except 

for potential occasional more distant glimpses. 

10.3.21. Many of the PROWs to the south of the Sizewell Gap road are aligned 

along much of their length by outgrown hedgerows or are fringed by 

scrubby vegetation in the wider landscape around them. Views will 

be available towards the substation from some of the PROWs to the 

south of the site, where views towards the wider landscape open up 

through gaps in outgrown boundary. Viewpoint 6 illustrates the 

potential most open and direct view from these PROWs. The loss of 

existing woodland and replacement with the substation which will 

extend over a wider area of the view will cause a noticeable change, 

although it will be seen in the context of the existing infrastructure 

and power station which act as a backcloth to the view. The existing 

features will continue to dominate the view but the new substation 

will be an obvious new feature. 

10.3.22. There is a bridleway extending along Sandy Lane in a north-south 

direction less than 50m east of the easternmost proposed gantry. 

Views from this section will be of the new gantries and beyond to a 

new gap in the woodland with the existing pylons and GGOWF 

substation, and the new GWF substation, silhouetted against the 

skyline. However, much of this route is lined with embankments and 

vegetation screening views towards the substation and young native 

trees and shrubs have been planted in the field to the west of the 

bridleway, as part of the GGOWF scheme which will, in time, provide 

further screening. The route of this bridleway then extends in a 

north-westwards direction, passing the northeast corner of the site 

where the proposed cable corridor will result in the loss of existing 

woodland, opening up views of the existing GGOWF substation. It 

continues northwest through the pasture field (Broom Covert), in 

which part of the site is situated, before extending in a westerly 

direction towards Leiston Common. There will be views of the 

proposed substation from much of this route when travelling in an

2842_LVIA 

101 



easterly direction from Leiston Common to Broom Covert, although 

intermittent vegetation and landform screens views from some 

sections. In these views, the substation will be seen against the 

backdrop of the remaining sections of adjacent retained woodland, or 

on the skyline in a new gap in the woodland or to the right of the 

woodland (see Viewpoint 1). The substation will also be seen in the 

context of the existing partial, glimpsed views towards Sizewell 

Power Station in the wider landscape to the east and direct views 

towards the pylons the wider landscape to the south. 



Workers 

10.3.24. Workers at the existing GGOWF substation which adjoins the site 

will have views of the GWF substation. The ZTV indicates that views 

towards the proposed substation are not visible from Sizewell Power 

Station. Agricultural workers working in around the site will have 

views towards the proposed substation. The effects of the proposed 

development will be similar with or without the ‘additional 

mitigation area’ discussed in section 8.1.1. 

Representative Viewpoint Assessment at Year 1 





which illustrate the existing and proposed view for the viewpoints as 

follows: 

Wireframe and Photomontage views without ‘additional mitigation 

area’ 

� Wireframe Figures 2890/WF_DE/01 RevA to 2890/WF_DE/08 

RevA

2842_LVIA 

102 



� Photomontage Figures 2890/PM/01B/YR1, 2890/PM/02B/YR1, 

2890/PM/04B/YR1, 2890/PM/05B/YR1. 

Wireframe and Photomontage views with ‘additional mitigation area’ 

� Wireframe Figures 2890/WF_DE_AM/01, 2890/WF_DE_AM/04, 

2890/WF_DE_AM/05, 2890/WF_DE_AM/06 

� Photomontage Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR1, 

2890/PM_AM/04B/YR1, 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR1. 



Proposed View 

10.3.26. Removal of the centre of the woodland will create a gap, opening up 

views of the existing pylons beyond which will be framed between 

the two retained woodland edges. The proposed substation will also 

be visible on the skyline in this gap, extending to the right of the 

woodland into the arable field. The upper parts of the proposed 

landform will be visible (the lower parts being screened by existing 

intervening landform), screening lower parts of the substation 

beyond. The works will be seen below and in the foreground to the 

pylons and overhead wires, and the retained woodland. The 

discontinuous hedgerow on the edge of the foreground field will 

provide some screening in summer but it will be possible to see the 

substation through the hedge in winter. 


10.3.27. The changes to the view will include removal of part of the woodland 

and adding a new element to the existing simple composition of view. 

The substation will, however, be seen in the context of the existing 

overhead wires and pylons and will be partially screened by the new 

landform. The magnitude of effect at Year 1 will be Medium. The 

sensitivity of the receptor is High and the significance of effect at Year

2842_LVIA 

103 



1 will be Major-Moderate. The change will be Adverse. 


viewpoint, being screened by other parts of the proposed landform in 

the foreground. Implementation of the proposed development with 

the ‘additional mitigation area’ will not change the effects assessed 

above. 

10.3.29. By comparing the following Figures it can be seen that, from this 

viewpoint, there is no difference in the appearance of the proposed 

development between schemes without or with the ‘additional 

mitigation area’: 

Without ‘additional 

mitigation area' 

With ‘additional 


Wireframe 2890/WF_DE/01 RevA 2890/WF_DE_AM/01 

Photomontage 

Year 1 

2890/PM /01B/YR1 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR1 


Proposed View 

10.3.30. The proposed substation and landform will form a new feature on the 

skyline, occupying a large width of the view. It will extend from 

Sizewell Wents woodland to the left of the view onto the open skyline 

to the right of the view. The substation will be partially screened by 

the northern edge of the woodland, which will mostly be retained (a 

small area of trees on the edge of the wood will be removed in this 

view), and scrub vegetation occupying the hollow in the foreground. 

The different constituent components of the substation will be seen 

in the context of, and largely screen, the existing pylon towers and 

wires spanning the horizon line behind them.

2842_LVIA 

104 



10.3.31. The proposed landform on the northern edge of the site will be seen 

on the skyline, raising the skyline across a wide part of the view. It 

will integrate with the existing landform due to gentle outside slopes, 

except at the north-east edge, closest to Sizewell Wents wood, where 

the slope will be steeper to maximise screening of the substation 

beyond. (Note - this steeper slope will become hidden as woodland 

planting matures.) The proposed landform will screen much of the 

substation with only the upper parts of taller elements potentially 

visible above. It will be possible to see the lightning rods at this 

distance. The substation will be visible through a gap between 

Sizewell Wents wood and the proposed landform where the landform 

is set back to avoid damaging existing trees. 


10.3.32. The facts that most of the substation will be screened by existing and 

proposed landform and vegetation, and that the proposals will largely 

screen the existing pylons currently seen silhouetted against the sky, 

will go some way to moderating the magnitude of effect of the 

proposed substation. The addition of the proposed landform and 

substation will, however, form a notable change in southward-facing 

views due to the scale of change on the skyline. The magnitude of 

effect is judged to be High. The sensitivity of receptors represented by 

this viewpoint is High. The significance of effect at Year 1 is assessed 

as Major. The change will be Adverse. 


viewpoint. Implementation of the proposed development with the 

‘additional mitigation area’ will not change the effects assessed above. 


Proposed View 

10.3.34. The trees lying to the west of the viewpoint will screen the proposed 

substation. It might just be possible to glimpse the gantries through

2842_LVIA 

105 



the trees in winter but it is unlikely to be a noticeable change to the 

view. 


10.3.35. Given the lack of visibility of the proposed substation, the magnitude 

of effect is judged to be Negligible. Whilst the receptors represented 

by the viewpoint are considered to have a High sensitivity to the 

proposed change, the Negligible magnitude of effect means that the 

significance of effect is also Negligible. 





Proposed View 

10.3.37. The central part of the woodland visible at the site of the proposed 

substation will be removed and replaced with the substation. The 

proposed substation and landform will also be seen on the skyline to 

the left of retained woodland. The removal of the woodland will 

enable the existing building within the GGOWF substation 

compound to be seen on the skyline, becoming a more visible feature 

in the view. The lower parts of the existing pylons in the foreground, 

which are currently seen against the backdrop of the existing 

woodland, will be silhouetted against the sky once the trees have been 

removed. The proposed gantries and cable sealing compounds will be 

seen adjacent to the existing pylons, also silhouetted against the sky. 

The existing and new substation structures will be seen in the context 

of the existing pylons and overhead wires. The existing pylons and 

overhead wires are substantially larger than the proposed structures 

and occupy a much greater proportion of the sky.

2842_LVIA 

106 




10.3.38. The removal of the woodland and replacement with the substation, 

landform and gantries on the skyline will be a change to the view. 

The effect will be reduced to some degree by the fact that the 

development will be seen in the context of the existing pylons and 

overhead wires and Sizewell Power Station. The Magnitude of effect 

at Year 1 is assessed as High to Medium. The sensitivity of the 

receptors represented by this viewpoint is High and the significance 

of effect is Major-Moderate. The change will be Adverse. 

10.3.39. The ‘additional mitigation area’ will be visible from this viewpoint as 

a slacker slope on the south side of the landform, tying in more 

gradually with the existing landform. However, implementation of 

the proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area’ will 

not change the effects assessed above. The ‘additional mitigation area’ 

will cause a minor additional change to the view caused by 

construction of the substation as a whole. 

10.3.40. The differences in appearance of the development with and without 

the ‘additional mitigation area’ can be seen by comparing the 

following Figures: 






Photomontage 

Year 1 

2890/PM /04B/YR1 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR1

2842_LVIA 

107 




Proposed View 

10.3.41. Most of the existing woodland on the skyline will be retained, 

screening parts of the proposed substation beyond. Only small parts 

of the extreme right and left hand sections of woodland will be 

removed in this view. The proposed substation and landform will be 

seen extending to the left of the woodland onto the open skyline. The 

proposed landform will integrate with the existing landform and will 

screen most of the substation beyond. Upper parts of the tallest 

structures might be visible above the proposed landform. The gantries 

will be visible to the right of the view, in the context of the existing 

pylons and overhead lines, and Sizewell Power Station beyond. 



considered to be High, due to the introduction of the proposed 

landform and substation on the currently open skyline to the left of 

the view, and the gantries to the right of the view. The sensitivity of 

receptors represented by this viewpoint is judged to be Medium. The 

significance of effect at Year 1 is assessed as Major-Moderate. The 

change will be Adverse. 

10.3.43. The slacker landform associated with the ‘additional mitigation area’ 

will be visible from this viewpoint, tying in more gradually with the 

existing landform. However, it is not considered that this work will 




following Figures:

2842_LVIA 

108 








Photomontage 

Year 1 

2890/PM /05B/YR1 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR1 


Proposed View 

10.3.45. A small part of the woodland on the skyline in the centre of the view 

will be removed. The retained woodland will screen part of the 

proposed substation but the substation will extend to the left of the 

woodland and be visible on the skyline beneath the existing overhead 

wires and pylons, and in the context of Sizewell Power Station. The 

upper parts of the proposed landform will just be visible, screening 

lower elements within the substation. The gantries will be visible to 

the right of the woodland, although the most easterly gantry will be 

largely screened by foreground trees. 


10.3.46. The loss of small areas of existing woodland and introduction of the 

substation will cause a change to the view, although the change will 

be seen in the context of the existing infrastructure and power 

station. The existing features will continue to dominate the view but 

the new substation will be a visible new feature. The magnitude of 

effect at Year 1 is assessed as Medium to Low. The sensitivity of 

receptor is High and the significance of effect is Moderate. The change 

will be Adverse.

2842_LVIA 

109 



10.3.47. The upper part of the ‘additional mitigation area’ is likely to be visible 

from this viewpoint. However, it is not considered that this will 

change the effects assessed above as it will be mostly screened by 

intervening landform and vegetation. 


Lane 

Proposed View 



beyond it will limit views towards the proposed substation. 




point during at Year 1 is considered to be Negligible. The receptor 

sensitivity is judged to be Medium and the significance of effect at 

Year 1 is Negligible. 





Proposed View 


will be possible to see some of the upper parts of the substation, as a 

minor distant element in the view. These changes would be barely 

perceptible.

2842_LVIA 

110 




10.3.52. The magnitude of change at Year 1 would be Negligible. The 

sensitivity of the receptors is judged to be Medium. The significance 

of effect would be Negligible. 



‘additional mitigation area’ will not change the effects assessed above.

2842_LVIA 

111 



11.0 Assessment at Year 15 

11.1. Landscape Effects at Year 15 

Effects of Onshore Cable Connection at Year 15 

11.1.1. At Year 15 the only visible features will be the transmission pits 

which will comprise up to four underground pits each with 2 x 5m 

wide hard surfacing flush with ground level, enclosed by a post and 

rail fence. Landscape effects of the onshore cable connection at Year 

15 will be Negligible. 

Effects of the Substation and Connection to the National Grid at 

Year 15 


11.1.2. At Year 15 mitigation planting associated with GWF and GGOWF 

will have matured and will help to screen the development from the 

landscape, as discussed in sections 7.0 and 13.0. The new woodland to 

the north, west and south, planted on the proposed landform, will 

appear as part of Sizewell Wents woodland, and screen all but the 

tallest structures within the substation compounds. 

11.1.3. The planting would reduce the magnitude of effect on landscape 

character within the land around the site as described below. 









‘additional mitigation area’ are, therefore, not specifically discussed

2842_LVIA 

112 




11.1.5. Planting would reduce the effects on landscape character from High 

magnitude (at Year 1) to Medium magnitude (at Year 15) as follows 


west, south and north. As shown on the ZTV plan (Figure 07) the 

substation is likely to be completely screened from this area and 

the change will be due to the presence of new woodland in what 

is currently open farmland. 











feature in the landscape, lined with tall hedgerows (and 

a new / enhanced hedgerow), helps to reduce effects 

further south. 



feature lined with banks, hedges and trees, and further 

tree planting is proposed immediately to its east, which 

helps to reduce effects further east. 

11.1.6. Effects would reduce to Low magnitude up to a distance of 

approximately 0.5 to 0.75km to the north-west, west, south and east, 

and a small area to the north. The magnitude of effects would be 

Negligible beyond these limits due to distance and the buffering 

effects of existing landform, vegetation and development.

2842_LVIA 

113 





due to the buffering effects of existing and proposed vegetation. 

Effects on Landscape Character Types at Year 15 


11.1.8. The main substation compound will have become enclosed by 

woodland by Year 15. Sizewell Wents (comprising existing and new 

trees) will appear as a larger woodland in the landscape, with a varied, 

naturalistic edge appropriate to local landscape character and the 

Sizewell Vision being developed by EDF. Woodland is a characteristic 

feature in this landscape type. The substation and gantries will be 

new elements in the landscape, albeit set within the context of 

existing infrastructure at GGOWF and the adjacent pylons and 

overhead wires, and Sizewell Power Station to the north-east. 

Planting and landform associated with GWF and GGOWF will help to 

integrate them into the landscape. At Year 15, the woodland will 

cloak the proposed landform except for the outside edge which will 

be the same landuse as the existing fields (grazing in Broom Covert, 

arable to the east and south), further integrating the proposals into 

the landscape. 





the magnitude of effect at Year 15 will be Medium. The sensitivity of 

the Estate Sandlands is Medium. The significance of effect at Year 15 

within this localised area will be Moderate. Beyond this distance the 

magnitude and significance of effect would reduce rapidly with 

distance, and as existing vegetation, landform and development 

buffers effects. The works will be both beneficial (new tree, scrub and 

hedgerow planting) and adverse (removal of woodland, and 

introduction of new structures). On balance it is judged that effects

2842_LVIA 

114 



will be Adverse. 



in the north. Effects will not be significant. The overall landscape 

effects on this landscape character type at Year 15 will be of Negligible 

magnitude and Negligible significance. 


11.1.11. There will be no direct effects on this landscape character type at Year 

15. Effects will be caused by changes to the setting of parts of the 

character type. The ZTV (Figure 07) indicates that the proposed 

substation will have become largely screened from areas of landscape 

character type that had visibility at Year 1, with the gantries being the 

main elements that remain visible. 

11.1.12. The sensitivity of the Coastal Levels is High-Medium. The effects on 

areas up to approximately 0.5km north of the cable corridor and 

0.3km east of the gantries, at Year 15, are judged to be of Low 

magnitude and Moderate-Minor significance. The magnitude and 

significance of effect on this character type is likely to decrease 

rapidly moving northwards and will not extend further eastwards 

than 0.5km due to the screening effects of existing trees west of 

Sizewell Gap car park. The effects will, on balance, be Adverse. 

11.1.13. These effects will occur within a relatively small area of the Coastal 



pylons and overhead wires crossing the Coastal Levels. The overall 

landscape effects on this landscape character type will be of 



anticipated to be affected by the GWF substation development.

2842_LVIA 

115 




11.1.14. The ZTV (Figure 07) indicates that the development will potentially 

be visible from within localised areas of this character type, 

approximately 2.5km and further from the site. Field assessment has 

identified that, in reality, visibility will be much less than indicated 

by the theoretical ZTV. Viewpoint 8 represents a ‘worst case’ view 

from a publically assessable location within this area. The magnitude 

of effect on receptors represented at viewpoint 8 is considered to be 

Negligible (see section 11.3). Very occasional Negligible effects on 

views from this landscape character type would result in effects of 

Negligible magnitude and Negligible significance at Year 15.

2842_LVIA 

116 



11.2. Effects on Landscape Designations at Year 15 






cable connection on the landscape of the AONB at Year 15 will be 

Negligible. 

11.2.2. The main substation compound will have become enclosed by 

woodland by Year 15. Sizewell Wents (comprising existing and new 

trees) will appear as a larger woodland in the landscape, with a varied, 

naturalistic edge appropriate to local landscape character and the 

Sizewell Vision being developed by EDF. Woodland is a characteristic 

feature in this part of the AONB. The substation and gantries will be 

new elements in the landscape, albeit set within the context of 

existing infrastructure at GGOWF and the adjacent pylons and 

overhead wires, and Sizewell Power Station to the north-east. 

Planting and landform associated with GWF and GGOWF will help to 

integrate them into the landscape. At Year 15, the woodland will 

cloak the proposed landform except for the outside edge which will 

slope gradually to integrate with the existing ground profile, and have 

the same landuse as the existing fields (grazing in Broom Covert, 

arable to the east and south), further integrating the proposals into 

the landscape. 

11.2.3. Within the areas described in paragraph 11.1.5 (but not including the 

substati0n itself) (including Sizewell Wents wood, part of Broom 

Covert, the two arable fields to the south of Broom Covert and 

Sizewell Wents (up to Sizewell Gap road), and the land within which 

the gantries will be located (up to Sandy Lane)) the magnitude of 

effect at Year 15 will be Medium. The sensitivity of the AONB is High. 

The significance of effect at Year 15 within this localised area will be

2842_LVIA 

117 



Major-Moderate. Beyond this distance the magnitude and 

significance of effect would reduce rapidly with distance, and as 

existing vegetation, landform and development buffers effects. 

11.2.4. The works will be both beneficial (new tree, scrub and hedgerow 

planting) and adverse (removal of woodland, and introduction of new 

structures). On balance it is judged that effects will be Adverse. 



caused by the proposed GWF substation will be confined to a small 

area of the AONB and an area that is already influenced by the 

presence of GGOWF substation, pylons and Sizewell Power Station. 


discussed in section 8.1.1 would lead to similar effects on the 

landscape of the AONB as those assessed without the ‘additional 

mitigation area'. While the landform with the ‘additional mitigation 

area’ would be slacker and tie into the existing landform north of 

Sizewell Gap road more gradually, bringing local benefits, the overall 

extent, magnitude and significance of effects on the AONB would be 







cable connection on the landscape of the Heritage Coast at Year 15 

will be Negligible. 

11.2.8. The proposed substation lies beyond the boundaries of Suffolk 

Heritage Coast and the only effects will be indirect effects on the 

setting of a small part of the designated area. At Year 15 the ZTV 

(Figure 07) indicates limited areas of intervisibility between the

2842_LVIA 

118 



landscape lying within the Suffolk Heritage Coast and the substation 

development. The substation itself will be largely screened by new 

planting but the tallest structures will be visible from two fields to the 

east / southeast of the site. Viewpoint 4 illustrates a view from within 

the Heritage Coast from Sizewell Gap road between these fields. 

11.2.9. This area of Heritage Coast landscape will experience effects of up to 

Low magnitude due to the introduction of the substation and gantries 

within its setting to the west / northwest. The character of this area of 

landscape is already strongly influenced by the presence of the 

existing pylons and overhead wires and Sizewell Power station which 

are larger structures than those within the proposed development. 


11.2.11. The effects on this pocket of Heritage Coast at Year 15 will be of 

Moderate-Minor significance. Beyond this area the effects will rapidly 

reduce to Negligible due to the presence of the development at 

Sizewell Power Station to the north and the screening effects of 

existing vegetation and landform to the north, east and south. 


effects caused by the proposed GWF substation at Year 15 will be 

confined to a small area of the Heritage Coast and an area that is 

already influenced by the presence of GGOWF substation, pylons and 


11.2.13. The ‘additional mitigation area’ lies outside the Heritage Coast. The 

proposed development with the ‘additional mitigation area' discussed 

in section 8.1.1 would lead to similar effects on the landscape of the 

Heritage Coast as those assessed without the ‘additional mitigation 

area'.

2842_LVIA 

119 



11.3. Visual Effects at Year 15 

Effects on Visual Receptor Groups at Year 15 

Residents 

11.3.1. The onshore cable connection works will any significant changes to 

views. The changes discussed below are due to the presence of the 

substation and gantries, and associated works north of Sizewell Gap 

road. 

11.3.2. Views from Leiston will not change between Years 1 and 15. There 

will be no views towards the proposed from properties on the eastern 

edge of Leiston due to the mature boundary vegetation within the 

village and due to the intervening vegetation and rising landform in 

the wider landscape extending between the village and the 

development, with the potential exception of a small number of 

houses at the eastern edge of Heath View which might have distant 

oblique views from first floor windows, although it is likely that the 

proposed woodland planting on the western side of the substation, 

and the existing young plantation northwest of Sizewell Gap road and 

Lovers Lane will provide some screening. 


below (refer to Figure 05). 

11.3.4. Views towards the proposed substation from properties to the 

southwest of the site, south of Sizewell Gap road, are likely to be 


intervening landscape and these will have grown further after 15 

years (particularly the existing young plantation northwest of 

Sizewell Gap road and Lovers Lane). It is possible that the substation 

will be visible above woodland from Crownlands Cottage (1 on Figure 

05) although it will be seen enclosed with and partially screened by 

the proposed woodland planting on the southern and western site 

edges.

2842_LVIA 

120 




orientation. The substation may be visible from the backs of 1-4 Coast 

Guard Cottages (26-29 on Figure 05), although it might be partially 

screened by proposed woodland planting to the east of Sandy Lane. 



undulating field towards the proposed substation. It will be seen 

enclosed and partially screened by proposed woodland planting on 

the southern edge, providing a continuation to Sizewell Wents 

woodland. Existing young planting implemented as part of GGOWF 

will also have matured providing potential screening of the proposed 

gantries to the east of the site. 


Figure 05) will have oblique views of the proposed substation through 

or between vegetation in gardens or lining the lane. The vegetation 

partially or completely obscures views from some of these properties. 

Where views are possible the substation will be seen enclosed with 

and partially screened by the proposed woodland planting on the 

northern and western site edges, forming a continuation to Sizewell 

Wents woodland. 


the gantries from the fronts of the properties, seen in the context of 

the existing much larger pylons. However, it is possible that 

intervening vegetation along the bridleway and new planting south 

of the bridleway will obscure these views. New planting, and existing 

young planting carried out as part of GGOWF, will have matured 

providing some additional screening of the existing GGOWF and 

proposed GWF beyond. 

11.3.9. After 15 years mitigation planting will have matured, improving 

views from these properties. The residential amenity of residential 

properties would not be unacceptably harmed by the addition of the 

substation or onshore cable connection to their view.

2842_LVIA 

121 








road will cause very little changes to views from roads. 

11.3.12. The existing woodland belt to the north and east of Lover’s Lane and 

Sizewell Gap road is of sufficient height to effectively screen views 

towards the proposed substation along most of the length of these 

roads (see for example Viewpoint 7). Where a gap opens up in the 

roadside vegetation along Sizewell Gap road to the south of the site, 

the substation will be visible on the skyline (see Viewpoint 5). It is 

proposed to plant up an existing discontinuous hedge along this 

section of road which, after 15 years, will screen views towards the 

substation if it is allowed to grow to 2 – 3m height, similar to existing 

hedgerows on the southern side of the road. Woodland planting on 

the proposed landform on the south side of the site will provide 

further screening, enclosing the substation in woodland and 

enlarging the size of Sizewell Wents in views. 

11.3.13. The ZTV indicates that views towards the substation are theoretically 

possible from parts of Valley Road, Sandy Lane, Buckleswood Road, 

Abbey Lane and the north-south extents of Lover’s Lane. In reality, 

however, on site assessment confirms that localised embankments 

and/or outgrown hedgerows and scrub vegetation aligning these 

roads will combine with vegetation in the intervening landscape to 

limit views from these roads towards the substation. Viewpoint 8 lies 

on Abbey Lane. 

11.3.14. Although views are likely to be limited by vegetation aligning Lover’s 

Lane and also by woodland blocks and trees in the wider landscape 

towards the site, occasional, partial, glimpsed views may be possible 

in some places along elevated portions of this road, at a distance of

2842_LVIA 

122 



1.5km or more from the site, by motorists travelling eastwards. New 

woodland planting on the western and northern sides of the 

substation will enclose and partially screen it when seen from these 

locations. 



in section 8.1.1. While the landform with the ‘additional mitigation 

area’ would be slacker and tie into the existing landform more 

gradually when viewed from Sizewell Gap road, it would make little 

difference to effects on this receptor group. 



road will cause very little changes to views. 

11.3.17. There will be views towards the substation from Cliff House Caravan 

Park to the southeast. It will be seen enclosed in existing and 

proposed woodland. 

11.3.18. There will be no views of the proposed substation from Sizewell 

Beach. 

11.3.19. The ZTV studies indicate that the proposed substation development 

will not be visible from the Suffolk Coast Path and on site assessment 

confirms this to be the case. 

11.3.20. On site assessment confirms that there will be views towards the 

proposed substation from parts of approximately 150m length of 

Sandlings Walk long distance route where it runs along minor road 

immediately south of Sizewell Gap road (although tall roadside 

hedgerows screen views from much of this length), and from 

approximately 200m length of Sizewell Gap road (Viewpoint 4 lies on 

this section of road). It will be seen enclosed and partially screened by 

proposed woodland planting on the southern edge of the substation,

2842_LVIA 

123 



providing a continuation to Sizewell Wents woodland. Existing 

young planting implemented as part of GGOWF will also have 

matured providing potential screening of the proposed gantries to the 

east of the site. The substation is unlikely to be visible from other 

sections of Sandlings Walk except for potential occasional more 

distant glimpses. 

11.3.21. Many of the PROWs to the south of the Sizewell Gap road are aligned 

along much of their length by outgrown hedgerows or are fringed by 

scrubby vegetation in the wider landscape around them. Views will 

be available towards the substation from some of the PROWs to the 

south of the site, where views towards the wider landscape open up 

through gaps in outgrown boundary. Viewpoint 6 illustrates the 

potential most open and direct view from these PROWs. The loss of 

existing woodland and replacement with the substation which will 

extend over a wider area of the view will cause a noticeable change, 

although it will be seen in the context of the existing infrastructure 

and power station which act as a backcloth to the view. It will be seen 

enclosed and partially screened by proposed woodland planting on 

the southern edge, providing a continuation to Sizewell Wents 

woodland. The existing features will continue to dominate the view 

but the new substation and larger woodland will be an obvious new 

feature. 

11.3.22. Views from the bridleway running along Sandy Lane in a north-south 

direction will be of the new gantries and beyond to a new gap in the 

woodland with the existing pylons and GGOWF substation, and the 

new GWF substation, silhouetted against the skyline. However, much 

of this route is lined with embankments and vegetation screening 

views towards the substation and young native trees and shrubs have 

been planted in the field to the west of the bridleway, as part of the 

GGOWF scheme which will, after 15 years, provide further screening. 

The proposed cable corridor will result in the loss of existing 

woodland where the bridleway passes the northeast corner of 

GGOWF substation, opening up views of substation. Scrub /

2842_LVIA 

124 



woodland edge planting is proposed in this location and after 15 years 

will provide some screening. There will be views of the proposed 

substation from much of the bridleway where it passes north of 

Broom Covert to Leiston Common; it will be seen enclosed with and 

partially screened by the proposed woodland planting on the 

northern and western site edges, forming a continuation to Sizewell 

Wents woodland (see Viewpoint 1). The substation will also be seen 

in the context of the existing partial, glimpsed views towards Sizewell 

Power Station in the wider landscape to the east and direct views 

towards the pylons the wider landscape to the south. 



Workers 

11.3.24. Workers at the existing GGOWF substation which adjoins the site 

will have views of the GWF substation. The ZTV indicates that views 

towards the proposed substation are not visible from Sizewell Power 

Station. Agricultural workers working in around the site will have 

views towards the proposed substation. Woodland and other planting 

will help to screen the substation and gantries and integrate the 

development into the landscape. The effects of the proposed 

development will be similar with or without the ‘additional 

mitigation area’ discussed in section 8.1.1. 

Representative Viewpoint Assessment at Year 15 





which illustrate the existing and proposed view for the viewpoints as 

follows: 

Wireframe and Photomontage views without ‘additional mitigation

2842_LVIA 

125 



area’ 

� Wireframe Figures 2890/WF_DE/01 RevA to 2890/WF_DE/08 

RevA 

� Photomontage Figures 2890/PM/01B/YR15, 2890/PM/02B/YR15, 

2890/PM/04B/YR15, 2890/PM/05B/YR15. 

Wireframe and Photomontage views with ‘additional mitigation area’ 

� Wireframe Figures 2890/WF_DE_AM/01, 2890/WF_DE_AM/04, 

2890/WF_DE_AM/05, 2890/WF_DE_AM/06 

� Photomontage Figures 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR15, 

2890/PM_AM/04B/YR15, 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR15. 



Proposed View 

11.3.26. After 15 years the proposed woodland planting on the western and 

northern edges of the site will enclose and largely screen the proposed 

substation and landform. The new woodland will be seen as a 

continuation to Sizewell Wents woodland, and it will join the two 

areas of retained woodland which have been separated during the 

construction of the substation. 

11.3.27. The upper parts of the proposed substation are likely to be visible on 

the skyline above this woodland. The works will be seen below and in 

the foreground to the pylons and overhead wires, and parts of the 

retained woodland. The discontinuous hedgerow on the edge of the 

foreground field will provide some screening in summer but it will be 

possible to see the new woodland and substation through the hedge 

in winter. 


11.3.28. The changes to the view will be removal of part of the woodland and

2842_LVIA 

126 



addition of new woodland and structures. The substation will, 

however, be seen in the context of the existing overhead wires and 

pylons and will be largely screened by the new woodland. The 

magnitude of effect at Year 15 will be Low. The sensitivity of the 

receptor is High and the significance of effect at Year 15 will be 

Moderate. The change will be Adverse. 


viewpoint, being screened by other parts of the proposed landform 

and planting in the foreground. Implementation of the proposed 

development with the ‘additional mitigation area’ will not change the 

effects assessed above. 

11.3.30. By comparing the following Figures it can be seen that, from this 

viewpoint, there is no difference in the appearance of the proposed 

development between schemes without or with the ‘additional 

mitigation area’: 






Photomontage 

Year 15 

2890/PM /01B/YR15 2890/PM_AM/01B/YR15 


Proposed View 

11.3.31. After 15 years the proposed landform and woodland planting on the 

northern edge of the site will largely screen the substation. It might 

be possible to see the upper parts of some tall structures above the 

trees close to Sizewell Wents wood. It is likely that lightning rods

2842_LVIA 

127 



would be discernible at this distance, if they are not screened. The 

proposed landform and woodland will form new elements on the 

skyline, occupying a large width of the view. The proposed woodland 

will extend from Sizewell Wents to the left of the view. The proposed 

woodland will largely screen the existing pylon towers and wires that 

currently span the horizon line. 


11.3.32. The almost complete screening of the proposed substation compound 

and existing pylons by foreground vegetation go some way to 

moderating the magnitude of effect of the proposed substation. The 

principal effect will be change to a more wooded skyline. The toe of 

the proposed landform will be visible, integrating with the landform 

and vegetation in Broom Covert. The magnitude of effect is judged to 

be High to Medium due to the scale of the change on the skyline. The 

sensitivity of receptors represented by this viewpoint is High. The 

significance of effect at Year 15 is assessed as Major-Moderate. On 

balance it is considered that the changes will be Neutral as the 

existing pylons will be screened but it is possible that some substation 

structures will be visible above trees. In the longer term, as trees 

continue to grow, it is likely that all substation structures will become 

screened. 





Proposed View 

11.3.34. The trees lying to the west of the viewpoint will screen the proposed 

substation. It might just be possible to glimpse the gantries through 

the trees in winter but it is unlikely to be a noticeable change to the 

view. Mitigation planting will not be visible.

2842_LVIA 

128 




11.3.35. Given the lack of visibility of the proposed substation, the magnitude 

of effect is judged to be Negligible. Whilst the receptors represented 

by the viewpoint are considered to have a High sensitivity to the 

proposed change, the Negligible magnitude of effect means that the 

significance of effect is also Negligible. 





Proposed View 

11.3.37. After 15 years the proposed woodland belt east of Sandy Lane will 

provide screening of the lower parts of the proposed gantries and 

GWF substation, the existing pylons and GGOWF substation, and the 

gap between the two separated parts of Sizewell Wents. Proposed 

woodland planting on the proposed landform and to the east of the 

landform on the southern side of the site will screen lower parts of the 

GWF substation beyond. The upper parts of taller structures within 

the substation might still be visible but the proposed planting and 

existing young planting implemented as part of GGOWF will screen 

much of the lower elements, simplifying the view. 

11.3.38. The new structures will be seen in the context of the existing pylons 

and overhead wires, and Sizewell Power Station to the north. The 

existing pylons and overhead wires are substantially larger than the 

proposed structures and occupy a much greater proportion of the sky. 


11.3.39. The effects will reduce in magnitude between Years 1 and 15, due to 

the screening and simplifying effects of planting. The development

2842_LVIA 

129 



will be seen in the context of the existing pylons and overhead wires, 

and Sizewell Power Station in the wider context. The Magnitude of 

effect at Year 15 is assessed as Medium. The sensitivity of the 

receptors represented by this viewpoint is High and the significance 

of effect is Major-Moderate. The change will be Adverse. 

11.3.40. The ‘additional mitigation area’ might be visible from this viewpoint 

as a slacker slope on the south side of the landform, tying in more 

gradually with the existing landform. However, it is likely to be 

mostly screened by maturing planting in the foreground and on the 

landform itself. Implementation of the proposed development with 

the ‘additional mitigation area’ will not change the effects assessed 

above. 









Photomontage 

Year 15 


Proposed View 

2890/PM /04B/YR15 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR15 

11.3.42. The proposed woodland planting on the southern side of the site will 

screen most of GWF substation structures that were previously 

visible. Only the upper parts of potential lightning rods are likely to 

be visible, if they are located close to the southern boundary of the

2842_LVIA 

130 



site, but they will be minor elements in the view. A small part of a 

potential 14m high building could be visible but it is likely that it will 

be screened. 

11.3.43. The woodland planting will be seen as a continuation of Sizewell 

Wents changing what is an open part of the skyline to a wooded 

skyline. It will cloak most of the proposed landform in the view. The 

toe of the proposed landform will be visible, integrating with the 

existing landform and arable field. 

11.3.44. Most of the existing woodland on the skyline will be retained, 

screening parts of the proposed substation beyond. Only the extreme 

right and left hand sections of woodland will be removed in this view. 

The gantries will be visible to the right of the view, seen in the context 

of the existing pylons and overhead lines, and Sizewell Power Station 

beyond. 



considered to be High to Medium, primarily due to the introduction 

of the woodland on the currently open skyline to the left of the view. 

The sensitivity of receptors represented by this viewpoint is judged to 

be Medium. The significance of effect at Year 15 is assessed as 

Moderate. The changes will be both beneficial (new woodland 

extending Sizewell Wents) and adverse (some new structures 

including gantries visible). On balance it is considered that the 

changes will be Adverse. 

11.3.46. The slacker landform associated with the ‘additional mitigation area’ 

will be visible from this viewpoint, tying in more gradually with the 

existing landform. However, it is not considered that this work will 



the ‘additional mitigation area’ can be seen by comparing the

2842_LVIA 

131 









Photomontage 

Year 1 

2890/PM /05B/YR15 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR15 


Proposed View 

11.3.48. The proposed woodland planting on the southern side of the 

substation will screen most of the proposed structures within the 

substation beyond, with only the upper parts of potential lightning 

rods and small parts of potential taller buildings being visible. If they 

are visible, lightning rods will be very minor elements in the view due 

to the small diameter of the rods (up to 50cm). Retained woodland on 

the southern side of Sizewell Wents will also screen part of the 

substation. The gantries will be visible to the right of the woodland, 

although the most easterly gantry will be largely screened by 

foreground trees. 

11.3.49. The overall impression from this viewpoint will be of a more wooded 

skyline with some relatively minor new structures visible, seen in the 

context of existing larger structures including overhead wires and 

pylons, and Sizewell Power Station. 


11.3.50. The increase in woodland and addition of relatively minor new 

structures will cause a change to the view, although the change will 

be seen in the context of the existing woodland, infrastructure and

2842_LVIA 

132 



power station. The existing features will continue to dominate and 

the new woodland will strengthen an already wooded skyline. The 

magnitude of effect at Year 15 is assessed as Low. The sensitivity of 

receptor is High and the significance of effect is Moderate. The change 

will, on balance, be Neutral. 

11.3.51. The upper part of the ‘additional mitigation area’ might be visible 

from this viewpoint. However, it will be largely or entirely screened 

by foreground vegetation and maturing planting on the landform 

itself. It is not considered that the ‘additional mitigation area’ will 



Lane 

Proposed View 



beyond it will limit views towards the proposed substation. 




point at Year 15 is considered to be Negligible. The receptor 

sensitivity is judged to be Medium and the significance of effect is 

Negligible. 




2842_LVIA 

133 




Proposed View 


will be possible to see some of the upper parts of the substation, as 

minor distant elements in the view. New woodland planting might 

just be visible. These changes would be barely perceptible. 


11.3.56. The magnitude of change at Year 15 would be Negligible. The 

sensitivity of the receptors is judged to be Medium. The significance 

of effect would be Negligible. 




2842_LVIA 

134 



12.0 Assessment during Decommissioning 

12.1.1. As the cable connection equipment will be disconnected and left in 

situ the works will be limited in duration and effect. Landscape 

effects, effects on designated landscapes and visual effects of 

decommissioning the onshore cable connection will be Negligible. 

12.1.2. Effects on landscape character, designated landscapes and visual 

receptors during decommissioning will be limited as the landform 

and new woodland planting will be retained and, after 25 years, it will 

provide effective screening of the substation as it is dismantled. The 

only changes potentially visible from outside the enclosing woodland 

(north, west and south of the substation) will be the presence of 

contractor’s compound and storage areas outside the woodland, if 

they are required in this location, and the movement of vehicles. The 

works will not be visible from a wide area and will be relatively short 

term. Landscape effects, effects on designated landscapes and effects 

on visual receptors during decommissioning, with or without the 

‘additional mitigation area’ discussed in section 8.1.1 are unlikely to 

be significant.

2842_LVIA 

135 



13.0 Mitigation 

13.1. Mitigation for Onshore Cable Connection 

13.1.1. Careful consideration has been given to the route of the cable 

connection corridor to ensure that there is only a minimal lasting 

visible effect upon the landscape resource, its character and 

constituent features. The close alignment of the proposed cable 

connection to the route of the connection to GGOWF substation will 

minimise the additional spread of construction activity and extent of 

landscape disturbance beyond that already affected in the landscape 

of the study area. 

13.1.2. The cable connection will be installed by underground directional 

drilling ensuring that there is no disturbance to the sand dunes to the 

west of Sizewell Beach, and to two roads and hedgerows lining the 

roads. It is not anticipated that any trees, shrubs or hedgerows will be 

removed. 

13.2. Mitigation for Substation 

During Construction 

13.2.1. During construction effects will be minimised by retaining and 

protecting as much existing vegetation as possible (and particularly 

Sizewell Wents wood, trees, hedgerows and acid grassland in Broom 

Covert). Trees will be protected in accordance with recommendations 

by an arboriculturalist. Soils will be handled and stored to minimise 

damage to soil structure. Working areas will be kept to a minimum. 

During operation 

13.2.2. A landscape mitigation strategy for the substation design, addressing 

effects during operation, has been prepared and this is presented in 

Appendix 4. The strategy has been prepared with reference to existing 

documented information describing and assessing the landscape

2842_LVIA 

136 



within the vicinity of the proposed substation and identifying certain 

existing characteristics, principles and guidelines. This information 

and our own assessment of the site and its context have provided a 

framework for the design and mitigation strategy.

2842_LVIA 

137 



14.0 Residual Effects 

14.1. During Construction 

14.1.1. The mitigation measures discussed in section 13.2 form part of the 

proposals assessed in section 9.0 and the residual impacts are 

effectively the same as those experienced during construction. 

14.2. During Operation 

14.2.1. Mitigation has been designed into the proposed scheme in order to 

minimise adverse landscape and visual effects. The residual effects 

will be as assessed for Year 15 and summarised in Table 5. 

14.2.2. Significant (Major or Major-Moderate) effects that are assessed as 

adverse in nature will be limited to the following receptors at Year 15. 

14.2.3. The site – the character of the site will be changed by the removal of a 

large proportion of Sizewell Wents woodland leaving two areas 

separated by the new substation, which will extend into what is 

currently an arable field where it will be enclosed by a profiled 

landform planted with woodland, integrating into the existing 

ground profiles and landuses within the retained fields. New planting 

will help to integrate the substation into the landscape and create a 

greater area of woodland than was lost, increasing the size of Sizewell 

Wents by approximately 35%. 

14.2.4. The landscape of the AONB will experience effects of Major-Moderate 

significance within the site and an area up to approximately 0.3km 

from the site, except in areas where existing woodland provides 

screening (e.g. some areas to the north) where there will be no effects. 

Effects will, on balance, be Adverse. 

14.2.5. Visual receptors at two viewpoints will experience significant effects 

at Year 15:

2842_LVIA 

138 



� Viewpoint 2 on the bridleway approximately 0.13km to the 

north of the site. The changes are mainly due to the extent of new 

woodland that will be visible across part of an existing open 

skyline. The visual effects are assessed as Major-Moderate 

significance. On balance it is considered that the changes will be 

Neutral as the existing pylons will be screened but it is possible 

that some substation structures will be visible above trees. In the 

longer term, as trees continue to grow, it is likely that all 

substation structures will become screened. 

� Viewpoint 4 on Sizewell Gap road to the east of the site (also part 

of the Sandlings Walk) where the development and new 

woodland will be seen on the skyline, albeit in the context of 

existing infrastructure. The visual effects are assessed as Major- 

Moderate significance. The effects will be Adverse.

2842_LVIA 

139 



15.0 Cumulative Effects 

15.1.1. As indicated in section 6.0, one potential source for cumulative effects 

has been identified and considered. Sizewell C is one of the sites 

nominated by the Department of Energy and Climate Change for a 

new nuclear power station. There is no information available on the 

proposed layout. 

15.1.2. EDF Energy has nominated a site which is included in the recently 

published National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation 

(EN-6) (Department for Energy and Climate Change, July 2011) (see 

Figure SSA/SX/001 Rev 01 in Appendix 5). This shows two parts of the 

nominated site area, a larger area to the north (1km and more from 

the site of the proposed GWF substation) and a second smaller area 

adjacent to the site of the proposed substation, in the field 

immediately east of Sandy Lane. EDF’s site nomination report 

(Strategic Siting Assessment for the Development of New Nuclear 

Power Stations in the UK. Site Nomination Report for: Sizewell. EDF 

Energy 30.03.09) states that ‘The nominated site includes a secondary 

area to the south of Sizewell A and B power stations, between Sizewell 

Wents and the hamlet of Sizewell. This area has been identified 

because it may be needed to accommodate ancillary facilities to meet 

operational requirements.’ (Section 1.1). No further information is 

provided on the use of this area. 

15.1.3. The main part of the Sizewell C will lie north of the existing power 

station with a new access road connecting to the existing road 

network to the north-west. This area lies approximately 1km or more 

from the site of the proposed GWF substation. The existing Sizewell 

Power Station lies closer to the proposed substation, within 

approximately 0.5km. 

15.1.4. As discussed in section 3.2, 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

2842_LVIA 

140 



the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Proposed nuclear 

power stations are addressed in National Policy Statement for Nuclear 

Power Generation (EN-6), Volumes I and II. An Appraisal of 

Sustainability was carried out on the draft NPS. Relevant parts of 

these documents in relation to potential cumulative landscape and 

visual impacts are summarised below. 

15.2. Appraisal of Sustainability of the revised draft Nuclear National 

Policy Statement 

(Appendix 1 & 2 to the Main Report. Planning For New Energy 

Infrastructure. Department for Energy and Climate Change, October 

2010.) 

15.2.1. The lifetime of a nuclear power station is given as: 

� Construction: short term 5-6 years 

� Operation: long term, base case of 60 years (with possible 

extension subject to regulatory approval) 

� Decommissioning: around 30 years 

� Lifetime of site: approximately 160 years (including interim 

onsite storage of discharged fuel). 

15.2.2. The report gives a summary of potential effects at each of the sites 

nominated for nuclear power stations. In relation to Sizewell it says: 

‘Some significant negative effects at a National Scale. 

During construction and operation there are likely to be direct and indirect 

adverse impacts on distinctive landscape character and features at local scale 

within an area of nationally designated landscape character and quality 

(Suffolk Coasts and Heaths AONB, Suffolk Heritage Coast). Despite being 

located alongside the existing power station there is likely to be long term 

deterioration in some views within a nationally designated landscape and on 

a Heritage Coast, until decommissioning.’

2842_LVIA 

141 



15.2.3. In terms of significance of potential strategic effect at each 

development stage it says that, during construction and operation, 

development of Sizewell C is ‘problematical because of known 

sustainability issues; mitigation or negotiation difficult and/or expensive; 

effect considered to be of regional/national/ international significance’. 

15.2.4. In terms of potential cumulative landscape effects for any of the sites 

it says ‘Cumulative Impacts vary from site to site, however, the landscape 

and visual impacts of other energy related development occurs repeatedly 

and will be an important consideration in many cases.’ 

15.3. National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6). 

(Volumes I and II. Planning for new energy infrastructure. 

Department for Energy and Climate Change, July 2011) 

15.3.1. NPS EN-6, taken together with the Overarching National Policy 

Statement for Energy (EN-1), provides the primary basis for decisions 

taken by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) on 

applications it receives for nuclear power stations. Volume II, Annexe 

C, includes discussion on individual sites assessments. 

15.3.2. It notes that detailed consideration of the proposals at the local level 

could result in changes to the nominated boundary area for Sizewell 

C. (paragraph C.8.69) 

15.3.3. In terms of landscape and visual issues at Sizewell C it says: 

‘With regard to the visual impact of the development, the nominator has 

proposed that this could be mitigated, in part, by locating the principal 

structures along the same visual axis of the existing stations. The nominator 

has also noted that there is established plantation woodland to the north-west 

of the site and it would be the intention to retain some of this woodland to help 

screen the development. The nominator has also proposed that mitigation is 

also likely to be achieved by minimising ancillary land use in those areas 

away from the main power station site, although this would depend on

2842_LVIA 

142 



consultation with local planning authorities. 

Finally, the nominator of the site has noted that there is some potential for 

landscape and nature conservation benefits through the creation of habitats 

such as heath land on land surrounding the site, which it believes could help 

offset the impacts of additional development in the AONB and provide 

landscape continuity with those heath land areas adjoining the Sizewell 

Estate to the north and south. 

The Appraisal of Sustainability has noted that the existing power station 

structures are already prominent features within the AONB from local 

viewpoints and are visible from some longer-distance viewpoints, including 

from higher ground inland and from Southwold on the coast to the north. 

Whilst the new power station will be seen within the context of the existing 

power stations, before their decommissioning, given the likely scale of the 

development, there are likely to be some long lasting adverse direct and 

indirect effects on landscape character and visual impacts on the AONB. 

The Appraisal of Sustainability considers that some impacts could be 

potentially mitigated for over time, for example by new planting and 

potentially through compensatory planting in the surrounding area. The 

decommissioning of the facilities may allow some landscape restoration of 

previously developed areas in the long term, however, the Appraisal of 

Sustainability notes that long term land uses for the restored areas are 

difficult to predict at this stage. Therefore the Appraisal of Sustainability has 

found that there is the potential for some long lasting adverse direct and 

indirect effects on landscape character and visual impacts on the Suffolk 

Coast and Heaths AONB, with limited potential for mitigation. 

The impact of transmission infrastructure on the local area was raised by 

responses as a potential issue and the Appraisal of Sustainability notes that 

in-combination adverse effects on landscape are likely to arise from new 

raised roadways and access connections to the rail head and potentially new 

associated transmission lines/grid connectivity. ……’ (paragraphs C.8.70 to 

C.8.74)

2842_LVIA 

143 



15.3.4. Under the heading of Assessment it concludes: 

‘The Appraisal of Sustainability identified that there is the potential for some 

long lasting adverse direct and indirect effects on landscape character and 

visual impacts on the Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, with limited 

potential for mitigation given that the site is wholly within the AONB. 

This could have an effect on the purpose of the designation. To further 

understand these effects and the effectiveness of the mitigating actions 

proposed by the nominator of the site, further detailed assessment at project 

level is required – the Appraisal of Sustainability suggests through the 

provision an integrated landscape, heritage and architectural plan. The 

potential for remaining effects can best be fully assessed when detailed plans 

come forward because they depend on a range of factors including the 

detailed proposals for minimisation and mitigation, the cooling technology 

proposed and location of transmission infrastructure. However, given the 

limited scope for mitigation, a level of impact is likely to remain.’ 

(paragraphs C.8.81 and C.8.82) 

15.3.5. It is, therefore, already recognised that Sizewell C will cause some 

long lasting adverse landscape effects on the landscape of the Suffolk 

Coast and Heaths AONB that cannot necessarily be mitigated. It is 

also recognised that these will occur within the context of existing 

development associated with the existing Power Station and 

transmission infrastructure. 

15.3.6. It is likely that GWF substation and Sizewell C Power Station will be 

present during an overlapping timescale. However, GWF will be 

present for a shorter period (32 month construction phase, a 25 year 

operational phase and a 2 year decommissioning phase) than Sizewell 

C. During this overlapping period there are likely to be cumulative 

adverse landscape and visual impacts. These are likely to be greatest if 

and how the smaller part of the nominated site area to the south (east 

of Sandy Lane) is developed, but much less if only the area to the 

north is developed. It is possible that cumulative effects will be quite 

limited if only the northern part of the nominated site area is

2842_LVIA 

144 



developed (depending on the nature of the development) as areas of 

landscape from where both developments would be visible could be 

quite limited. However the combined projects will extend the areas of 

landscape influenced by development over a wider area of the AONB 

than if only one of the developments occurred. 

15.3.7. The adverse landscape and visual effects of Sizewell C are likely to be 

much greater than those caused by GWF, due to the greater area of 

land cover, scale of development and timescale of Sizewell C.

2842_LVIA 

145 



16.0 Summary and Conclusion 

16.1.1. The assessment process has sought to define the full extent and 

nature of the likely landscape and visual effects arising from the 

construction of the onshore cable connection and substation 

associated with the GWF. 

16.1.2. The effects on landscape character and visual amenity result from two 

main changes, the removal of a central part of an existing woodland 

(Sizewell Wents) which is a feature in the landscape, and the 

introduction of the substation and associated works including a 

profiled landform and substantial new woodland planting. Removing 

part of Sizewell Wents will also open up views of existing pylons and 

the existing GGOWF substation until new planting matures and 

provides some screening. The proposed development will occur in the 

context of the existing substation, pylons and Sizewell Power Station 

which will limit effects to some degree. 


discussed in section 8.1.1 would lead to similar effects as those 

assessed without the ‘additional mitigation area'. While the landform 

with the ‘additional mitigation area’ would be slacker and tie into the 

existing landform north of Sizewell Gap road more gradually, 

bringing local benefits to landscape character and views, the overall 

extent, magnitude and significance of effects on receptors would be 


16.1.4. Landscape and visual effects of the onshore cable connection will be 

limited to the construction phase which will be relatively short term. 

Effects at Years 1 and 15 will be Negligible. 

16.1.5. The main effects will be associated with the construction and 

operation phases of GWF substation and connection to the National 

Grid and these are summarised below and also, for the operational 

phase, in Tables 4 and 5.

2842_LVIA 

146 



16.2. Summary of Effects on Landscape Character 

16.2.1. The magnitude and significance of effects of the substation and 

connection to the National Grid on landscape character will be 

similar during construction and at Year 1. One of the main changes 

during construction will be the removal of a proportion of Sizewell 

Wents woodland and this effect will remain on completion. During 

construction there will be added disturbance from temporary lay 

down and site accommodation extending over a wider area than the 

substation site itself, and from elements such as spoil heaps, 

construction traffic and the visual movement of vehicles. 

16.2.2. At Year 1 a profiled landform will have been created around part of 

the substation where it extends westwards into arable and grass fields. 

The proposed landform and retained areas of Sizewell Wents will 

screen much of the substation, limiting effects on landscape character 

to some degree. The proposed landform will integrate with the 

existing landform due to gradual external slopes. However, the 

proposed landform, substation and gantries will have adverse effects 

on landscape character. 

16.2.3. At Year 15 mitigation planting associated with GWF and GGOWF 

will have matured and will help to screen the development and 

integrate it into the landscape. The new woodland to the north, west 

and south, planted on the proposed landform, will screen all but the 

tallest structures within the substation compounds. Woodland 

planting will cloak the highest parts of the proposed landform with 

the lower, outside slopes being planted with a woodland edge to 

create an organic, naturalist edge comprising native shrubs and open 

grassland, before joining the arable or grassland fields. This treatment 

would be appropriate to local landscape character and the principles 

of the Sizewell Vision being developed by EDF Energy. 

16.2.4. Planting would reduce the effects on landscape character from High 

magnitude (at Year 1) to Medium magnitude (at Year 15) as follows:

2842_LVIA 

147 




west, south and north. As shown on the ZTV plan (Figure 07) at 

Year 15 the substation is likely to be completely screened from 

this area and the change will be due to the presence of new 

woodland in what is currently open farmland. This area 

encompasses: 










− To the south up to Sizewell Gap road. This strong linear 

feature in the landscape, lined with tall hedgerows (and 

a new / enhanced hedgerow), helps to reduce effects 

further south. 



feature lined with banks, hedges and trees, and further 

tree planting is proposed immediately to its east, which 

helps to reduce effects further east. 

16.2.5. Effects would reduce to Low magnitude up to a distance of 

approximately 0.5 to 0.75km to the north-west, west, south and east. 

The magnitude of effects would be Negligible beyond these limits due 

to distance and the buffering effects of existing landform, vegetation 

and development. 

16.2.6. Effects on landscape character types will be as follows: 

16.2.7. Estate Sandlands (Medium sensitivity). The substation development

2842_LVIA 

148 



lies in this landscape character type. Within the site and an area up to 

approximately 0.3km from the site to the west, south and north the 

effects will be of High magnitude and Major-Moderate significance 

during construction and at Year 1, reducing to Medium magnitude 

and Moderate significance at Year 15 due to the effects of mitigation 

planting. Beyond this the magnitude and significance of effect would 

reduce fairly rapidly with distance, and as existing vegetation, 

landform and development buffers effects. The effects will be Adverse. 

16.2.8. The overall landscape effects on this landscape character type during 

construction and operation will be of Negligible magnitude and 

Negligible significance. 

16.2.9. Coastal Levels (High-Medium sensitivity). The substation 

development lies adjacent to this landscape character type and it will 

not be directly affected by the works. Effects will be caused by 

changes to the setting of a small part of the character type. 

Construction of the proposed cable corridor will result in the removal 

of existing woodland between the bridleway on Sandy Lane and the 


visibility of the GGOWF substation from an area of grazing meadows 

within the Coastal Levels. The effect on landscape character up to 

approximately 0.3km east and 0.5km north of the development are 

likely to be of High magnitude and Major significance during 

construction and at Year 1, reducing to Low magnitude and Moderate- 

Minor significance at Year 15. The magnitude and significance of 

effect on this character type is likely to decrease rapidly moving 

northwards. The effects will be Adverse. 

16.2.10. The overall landscape effects on this landscape character type during 

construction and operation will be of Negligible magnitude and 

Negligible significance. 

16.2.11. Ancient Estate Claylands. Effects will be of Negligible magnitude 

and Negligible significance during construction and operation.

2842_LVIA 

149 



16.2.12. Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges (High-Medium sensitivity). The 

only effects on this character type will be during the construction of 

the onshore cable connection, being of Low magnitude and Moderate 

significance up to approximately 200m from the corridor and 

temporary beach compound. The completed development will not be 

visible from this character type. 

16.3. Summary of Effects on Landscape Designations 

Suffolk Coast AONB 

16.3.1. The magnitude of effect caused by the substation and connection to 

the National Grid will be similar during construction and at Year 1, 

reducing by Year 15 as mitigation planting matures. 

16.3.2. Within the site and an area up to approximately 0.3km from the site 

the effects will be of High magnitude and Major significance during 

construction and at Year 1, reducing to Medium magnitude and 

Major-Moderate significance at Year 15, except in areas where existing 

woodland provides screening where there will be no effects. 

16.3.3. Between approximately 0.5 and 0.75km effects will be of Medium 

magnitude and Major-Moderate significance during construction and 

at Year 1 reducing to Low magnitude and Moderate significance at 

Year 15. 

16.3.4. Beyond these distances the magnitude and significance of effect will 

reduce fairly rapidly with distance, and as existing vegetation, 

landform and development buffers effects. The effects will be Adverse. 


16.3.5. The magnitude of effects caused by the substation and connection to 

the National Grid will be similar during construction and at Year 1, 

reducing by Year 15 as mitigation planting matures. Effects will be 

caused by changes to the setting of the Heritage Coast to its west, as

2842_LVIA 

150 



woodland is removed and the substation constructed, and as new 

woodland matures. Two fields north and south of Sizewell Gap road 

to the east of the site will experience effects of Moderate significance 

during construction and at Year 1 reducing to Moderate-Minor 

significance at Year 15. The new development will occur in the 

context of the existing pylons and overhead wires which are larger 

structures than those within the proposed development. Beyond this 

area the effects will rapidly reduce to Negligible due to the presence of 

the development at Sizewell Power Station to the north and the 

buffering effects of existing vegetation and landform to the north, east 

and south. 

16.4. Summary of Visual Effects 

Residents 

16.4.1. The development will be visible from a number of residential 

properties within 1km of the site. Residential amenity of these 

properties will not be unacceptably harmed by the addition of the 

substation or onshore cable connection works to their views. 


16.4.2. Views of the substation from roads will be limited to those from 

Sizewell Gap road and a 150m length of minor road running south 

from this (immediately south of the site). There will also be distant 

glimpses from Lover’s Lane at a distance of 1.5km or more from the 

site and from Abbey Lane at more than 3km from the site. 

Visitors and Tourists 

16.4.3. The substation will not be visible from Sizewell Beach or car park, but 

might be visible to visitors and tourists at Cliff House caravan park to 

the southeast. 

16.4.4. The substation development will be visible from sections of public

2842_LVIA 

151 



rights of way in the landscape around the site. Users of the bridleway 

which runs along Sandy Lane from Leiston Common in the northwest 

to Sizewell Gap road on the southeast will be the most affected. 

Viewpoint 2 lies on this bridleway. The development and planting 

will be seen in the context of the existing woodlands, substation, 

pylons and Sizewell Power Station. Views will be intermittent and, 

after 15 years, the main change will be seen as the extension of 

woodland into an area of farmland. 

16.4.5. The substation will be visible from some sections of public rights of 

way to the south of Sizewell Gap road, although trees, scrub, and 

outgrown hedgerows in this area will limit views and, as mitigation 

planting matures, it will become enclosed and largely screened by 

woodland. 

16.4.6. The substation will not be visible from the Suffolk Coast Path and 

only from a relatively short section of Sandlings Walk long distant 

route to the southeast of the site. 

Representative Viewpoints 

16.4.7. Of the eight representative viewpoints assessed, four will experience 

‘significant’ effects (Major or Major-Moderate significance) at Year 1 

(all being Adverse), reducing to two by year 15 (one being Adverse and 

one Neutral) as mitigation planting provides screening and integrates 

the development into the landscape. These all lie within 1km of the 

site, either on local roads or public rights of way. 

16.4.8. The two viewpoints from which significant effects will be 

experienced at Year 15 are: 

� Viewpoint 2 on the bridleway approximately 0.13km to the 

north of the site. The changes are mainly due to the extent of new 

woodland that will be visible across part of an existing open 

skyline. The visual effects are assessed as Major-Moderate 

significance. On balance it is considered that the changes will be

2842_LVIA 

152 



Neutral as the existing pylons will be screened but it is possible 

that some substation structures will be visible above trees. In the 

longer term, as trees continue to grow, it is likely that all 

substation structures will become screened. 

� Viewpoint 4 on Sizewell Gap road to the east of the site (also on 

the Sandlings Walk) where the development and new woodland 

will be seen on the skyline, albeit in the context of existing 

infrastructure. The visual effects are assessed as Major-Moderate 

significance. The effects will be Adverse. 

16.4.9. Effects on the other three viewpoints assessed will be of Negligible 

significance during construction and operation, due to the 

intervening effects of vegetation screening the development, and / or 

due to distance.

2842_LVIA 

153 

Table 4: Effects Summary – at Year 1 

Significant effects are underlined 

Receptor, sensitivity 

Landscape character types (Year 1) 

Assessment Magnitude of 

effect 


0km 

Sensitivity Medium 


0km 

Sensitivity High-Medium 


1.9km northwest 


Coastal Dunes and Shingle 

Ridges 

0.5km east 


Rolling Estate Claylands 


Significance 

of impact 

Up to approximately 0.3km to the west, south and north High Major- 

Moderate 

Overall effect on character type Negligible Negligible 

Up to approximately 0.5km north and 0.3km east Medium Major- 

Moderate 


Very occasional distant views of Negligible magnitude Negligible Negligible 

The completed development will not be visible from within 

this landscape character type 



Negligible Negligible 


Valency 

Adverse 

Adverse

2842_LVIA 

154 


Landscape Designations (Year 1) 


effect 


0km 

Sensitivity High 


0.01km east 


Viewpoints (Year 1) 

1 – Residential Properties and 

Public Right of Way northwest 

of the site 

0.93km to the northwest 


2 – Public Right of Way north of 

the site 

0.13km to the north 


Up to approximately 0.3km to the west, south and north. 

Up to approximately 0.5 - 0.75km to the north-west, west, south 

and east, and a small area to the north. 

Effects reduce fairly rapidly beyond these areas. Effects limited 

to a small proportion of the AONB. 

The area of Heritage Coast landscape between Sandy Lane and 

the belt of trees west of Sizewell Beach car park. 

Effects reduce rapidly beyond these areas. Effects limited to a 

small proportion of the Heritage Coast. 

View of new gap in woodland framing existing substation and 

pylons, and introduction of new substation. Proposed 

landform screens lower elements of substation. 

Proposed substation and landform visible on skyline. 

Substation seen extending out of existing woodland. Proposed 

landform screens much of substation. 

High 

Medium 

Significance 

of impact 

Major 

Major- 

Moderate 

Valency 

Adverse 

Medium Moderate Adverse 

Medium Major- 

Moderate 

Adverse 

High Major Adverse

2842_LVIA 

155 

Receptor, sensitivity Assessment Magnitude of Significance 

effect 

of impact 

3 –Sizewell Beach car park 

0.51km to the east 


Minimal/No visibility. Negligible Negligible 

4 – Sizewell Gap road 

0.29km to the southeast 



0.2km to the south 


6 – Public Right of Way south of 

the site 



7– Junction between King 

George’s Way and Lover’s Lane 

0.69km to the west 


8 – Abbey Lane 



View of new gap in woodland framing existing substation and 

pylons, and introduction of new substation, landform and 

gantries. 

Loss of a small number of trees to the left and right of the view. 

Introduction of substation and landform on skyline, extending 

out of existing woodland to the left of the view. New gantries 

visible to the right of the view. Proposed landform and existing 

trees screens much of substation. 

Loss of small area of woodland, introduction of substation and 

gantries in middle distance. 

High to 

Medium 

Major- 

Moderate 

High Major- 

Moderate 

Medium to 

Low 


Minor distant new element in the view. Negligible Negligible 

Valency 

Adverse 

Adverse 

Moderate Adverse

2842_LVIA 

156 

Table 5: Effects Summary – at Year 15 

Significant effects are underlined 

Receptor, sensitivity Assessment Magnitude of 

effect 

Landscape character types (Year 15) 


0km 


Up to approximately 0.3km to the west, south and north Medium 


0km 





Coastal Dunes and Shingle 

Ridges 

0.5km east 




Significance 

of impact 


Up to approximately 0.5km north and 0.3km east Low Moderate- 

Minor 


Very occasional distant views of Negligible magnitude Negligible Negligible 







Valency 

Moderate Adverse 

Adverse

2842_LVIA 

157 


Landscape Designations (Year 15) 


effect 


0km 



0.01km east 


Viewpoints (Year 15) 

1 – Residential Properties and 

Public Right of Way northwest 

of the site 



2 – Public Right of Way north of 

the site 



Up to approximately 0.3km to the west, south and north. 

Up to approximately 0.5 - 0.75km to the north-west, west, south 

and east, and a small area to the north. 

Effects reduce fairly rapidly beyond these areas. Effects limited 

to a small proportion of the AONB. 

Two fields to the east / southeast of the substation. 

Effects reduce rapidly beyond these areas. Effects limited to a 

small proportion of the Heritage Coast. 

Proposed landform and woodland will screen of most of the 

substation with taller structures potentially visible above. Seen 

within context of existing infrastructure. 

New woodland on landform visible on skyline, extending out 

of existing woodland and largely screening proposed 

substation and existing pylons. Will occupy a large proportion 

of the skyline. 

Medium 

Low 

Significance 

of impact 

Major- 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Low Moderate- 

Minor 

Valency 

Adverse 

Adverse 

Low Moderate Adverse 

High-Medium Major- 

Moderate 

Neutral

2842_LVIA 

158 

Receptor, sensitivity Assessment Magnitude of Significance 

effect 

of impact 

3 –Sizewell Beach car park 

0.51km to the east 




0.29km to the southeast 





6 – Public Right of Way south of 

the site 



7– Junction between King 




8 – Abbey Lane 



New planting will screen parts of existing and proposed 

structures. 

Loss of a small number of trees to the right and left of the view. 

Introduction of woodland 0n skyline, extending existing 

Sizewell Wents. Substation largely screened by existing and 

proposed woodland and landform. Some structures including 

gantries visible. 

Increase in area of woodland, which will screen most of the 

substation. Parts of substation and gantries likely to be visible 

in middle distance. 

Medium Major- 

Moderate 

High to 

Medium 

Valency 

Adverse 

Moderate Adverse 

Low Moderate Neutral 


Minor distant new element in the view. Negligible Negligible

2842_LVIA 



17.0 Appendices 

Appendix 1. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) 

Methodology 

Introduction 

17.1.1. LDA Design has an established methodology for carrying out 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs) for proposed 

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. 

Overview 

17.1.2. The methodology employed has 4 key stages, which are described in 

more detail in subsequent sections, as follows: 

17.1.3. 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. 

17.1.4. Design – review of initial layout/ options, and mitigation options. 

17.1.5. Assessment – includes an assessment of the landscape and visual 

effects of the scheme, requiring site based work and the completion of 

a full report and supporting graphics. 

17.1.6. The general assessment methodology draws upon the established

2842_LVIA 



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); and, the Companion Guide to PPS22 (ODPM, 2004). The 

assessment is necessarily iterative, with stages overlapping in parts. 

17.1.7. These methodologies commonly aim to systematically appraise the 

existing landscape and visual resource to provide a baseline against 

which the key Landscape and Visual effects can be predicted and 

evaluated and their magnitude and significance assessed in a logical 

and well-reasoned fashion. 

Baseline 

17.1.8. The baseline study establishes the planning policy context, the scope 

of the assessment and the key landscape 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. Typically this is dependent upon site or development 

specific factors. 

� A desk study of nationally and locally designated landscapes 

within the agreed study area. 

� A desk study of existing landscape character assessments for the 

site and surrounding areas, at national, regional and local level. 

� Draft Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) studies to assist in 

identifying potential viewpoints and to indicate the potential 

visibility of the proposed development, and therefore the scope 

of receptors likely to be affected. The methodology used by LDA

2842_LVIA 



Design in the preparation of ZTV studies is described separately 

within a subsequent appendix. 

� Site visits to become familiar with the site and surrounding 

landscape and to identify viewpoints and receptors. 

� The identification of and agreement upon, through consultation, 

the number and location of representative viewpoints within the 

study area. 

� During this stage, the scheme design may not yet have been 

finalised and there may be a degree of iteration (particularly in 

respect of preparing ZTV studies and consequent changes to 

likely effects on receptors) whilst the design is finalised. 

Design 

17.1.9. The documented assessment will include: 

� A description of the proposed development. 

� A description of any mitigation measures incorporated within 

the proposals to help reduce identified potential landscape and 

visual effects. 

Assessment 

17.1.10. 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 landscape character, landscape designations and the existing

2842_LVIA 



visual environment arising from the proposed development 

during construction and operational stages. 

� The production of photomontages from a selection of the agreed 

viewpoints showing the anticipated view following construction 

of the proposed development. 

Preparation and Use of Visuals 

17.1.11. The ZTVs and wireframes are used to inform the field study 

assessment work, providing additional detail and accuracy to 

observations made on site. Photomontages are produced in order to 

assist readers of the assessment in visualising the proposals, but are 

not used in reaching judgements of effect. 

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

� Areas shown as having potential visibility only may not have 

visibility of the development as local features such as trees, 

hedgerows, embankments or buildings could obscure the view. 

� Since only the highest potential points of the substation have 

been modelled, this may be all that is visible – the lower parts of 

the substation may not be visible. This is particularly true of 

areas near the edges of potential visibility. 

17.1.13. A detailed description of the methods by which ZTVs, wireframes and 

photomontages are prepared is included within a separate appendix. 

Assessment Terminology and Judgements 

17.1.14. The key terms used within assessments are Sensitivity, Magnitude 

and Significance. 

17.1.15. Sensitivity to change is assessed for both landscape receptors such as 

designated areas and landscape character areas, and for visual 

receptors (people) at agreed viewpoints. It provides an indication of 

the sensitivity of those receptors to the development proposed and

2842_LVIA 



thus gives an indication of the likelihood of unacceptable effects on 

those receptors. 

17.1.16. A description of how sensitivity is assessed for each receptor type is 

included below. It is usually rated on the following scale (though the 

wording may be altered at the request of the EIA coordinator): 

� 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. 

17.1.17. Magnitude of effect is assessed for all receptors and identifies the 

degree of change. It is rated on the following scale: 

� 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 


will be noticeably changed. 

� Low - minor alteration to key elements, features or 


will be largely unchanged despite discernible differences. 

� Negligible – very minor alteration to key elements, features or 


will be fundamentally unchanged with barely perceptible 

differences. 

17.1.18. Whilst the duration of effects is also a consideration, the normal 

lifespan of a wind farm (and therefore its substation), though 

temporary, is a period of 25 years. This is a considerable length of time 

and so is not taken into account in determining magnitude. The

2842_LVIA 



reversibility of effects is however, a material consideration and will be 

referred to within the assessment. 

17.1.19. 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 


� 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 


17.1.20. Significant effects (in terms of the EIA regulations) are those that are 

Major-Moderate or Major. It should also be noted that whilst an effect 

may be significant, that does not necessarily mean that such an 

impact would be unacceptable. 

17.1.21. Where intermediate ratings are given, e.g. “Moderate-Minor”, this 

indicates an effect that is both less than Moderate and more than 

Minor, 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. 

17.1.22. 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 planning

2842_LVIA 



permission 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 

17.1.23. Key criteria used in determining the extent of an effect include: the 

magnitude of the change, the spatial extent of the change, the 

duration of the change, the degree to which the change is reversible 

and, related to prevailing weather conditions, the percentage 

incidence of the change. 

Valency 

17.1.24. Most people would consider that, without mitigation, a substation 

constructed in a rural landscape is likely to bring adverse changes to 

the landscape and visual amenity. With appropriate mitigation it is 

possible that it could bring beneficial changes. Effects are, therefore, 

defined as adverse, neutral or beneficial as follows:

2842_LVIA 



Nature of 

Effect 

Definition 

Adverse Effect that would result in damage to the condition, integrity 

or key characteristics of the landscape or visual resource 

Neutral Effect that would maintain, on balance, the existing level of 

condition, integrity or key characteristics of the landscape or 

visual resource. Whilst the nature of the change may be 

significant, the proposal does not compromise the inherent 

qualities of the resource and can incorporate a combination of 

positive and negative effects. 

Beneficial Effect that would result in improvement to the condition, 

integrity or key characteristics of the landscape or visual 

resource 

17.1.25. The decision regarding the significance of effect and the decision 

regarding whether an effect is beneficial or adverse (valency) are 

entirely separate. For example, a rating of Major, Beneficial would 

indicate an effect that was of great significance and on balance 

positive, but not necessarily that the proposals would be extremely 

beneficial. 

Landscape Designations and Value 

17.1.26. 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

2842_LVIA 



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. 

17.1.27. In considering the effects on designated areas, a number of factors 

need to be considered. The effects on the component 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. 

17.1.28. 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). 

Viewpoints and Visual Receptors 

17.1.29. A wide variety of visual receptors can reasonably be anticipated to be 

affected by a proposed 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 development. The four main visual receptor groups are considered 

in more detail below under the headings of residents, workers, the

2842_LVIA 



travelling public, and visitors. 

Residents 

17.1.30. 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 

17.1.31. Workers are generally less sensitive to effects as they are focussed 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 

17.1.32. 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.

2842_LVIA 



� 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. 

17.1.33. 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 fact that they 

are in a vehicle will reduce their sensitivity compared to, for example, 

walkers. 

Visitors 

17.1.34. 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)

2842_LVIA 



Residential Amenity 

17.1.35. Recent public inquiry decisions have determined that effects on 

private residences are not a material consideration unless they will be 

affected by views of the development to the extent that views of the 

development would be ‘overwhelming’. The basis for such decision is 

clearly described in the Inspector’s decision for Shooters Bottom Farm 

wind farm (APP/Q3305/A/05/1181087), as follows: 

“the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of 

one person against the activities of another. Rather, it functions to 

regulate the use and development of land in the public interest. In the 

case of living conditions, public and private interest may coincide 

where the impact of a specific development is such as to significantly 

affect the attractiveness of a particular dwelling as a place to live, but 

only if this was in a way that would be perceived by the community at 

large rather than, for example, in consequence of the disposition of a 

particular existing householder towards the generic type of 

development proposed.” 

17.1.36. For this reason, sensitivity, magnitude and significance are not 

assessed in relation to views from residential properties, but an 

assessment is made to identify whether any dwellings would be 

unacceptably harmed by views of the proposed development. The 

assessment is limited to dwellings where, in theory, due to their close 

proximity and potentially open views, large proportions of their 

views could potentially be occupied by a proposed substation. 

Public Rights of Way 

17.1.37. Where applicable, the effects on the visual amenity of Public Rights of 

Way (PROW) in the vicinity of the site are assessed. Particular 

reference is made to effects on National and Regional Trails and Cycle 

routes. Assessments are informed by viewpoints which are located on 

PROW and by site visits and reference to aerial photography to 

ascertain the likely extent and nature of views available from the

2842_LVIA 



routes. Other publicly accessible locations such as permissive rights 

of way, open access land, Woodland Trust sites or similar are also 

considered, although it should be borne in mind that these do not 

have the protection which is afforded to PROW. 

Distances 

17.1.38. Where distances are given in the assessment, these are approximate 

distances between the development site and the nearest part of the 

receptor in question, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

2842_LVIA 



Appendix 2. National and Suffolk Landscape Character 

Descriptions

56 

Suffolk Coast and 

Heaths 

Key Characteristics 

● Geologically different from the rest of East Anglia; 

Crag deposits form deep free-draining acidic sands 

and gravels, easily worked, giving rise to distinctive 

topography and landcover. 

● Largely unspoilt mosaic of estuaries, saltmarsh, 

grazing marsh, reedbed, river valleys, arable, 

heath and woodland, with strong coastal influence, 

eg shingle spits and ridges resulting from 

longshore drift. 

● Large commercial ports of Harwich and Felixstowe 

and seasonal influx of yachts to the rivers and 

harbours provide interest and variety of scale along 

the estuaries, with influence of seabirds, wind and 

intertidal mud flats. 

● Large conifer plantations, closely associated with 

heathland and birch scrub. 

● Sparsely settled, with small nucleated villages and 

isolated farmhouses. Brick buildings with colourwashed 

walls and pantiles as typical features. 

● Coastal towns and villages form the focus of tourist 

activity, especially where combined with sailing. 

● A string of landscaped parkland along the A12 in the 

west, and along the Stour and Orwell estuaries. 

● Impact of major development: Felixstowe docks, 

Sizewell nuclear power stations and the associated 

infrastructure, and military bases. 


The Suffolk Coast and Heaths is a tightly-knit mix of 

landscape types, which gives it a very varied character 

within its narrow, linear compass. It extends along the east 

coast in an open but narrow band of sand and shingle from 

Great Yarmouth, where it borders the Broads, to Harwich 

and the south bank of the Stour. Its western boundary with 

the boulder clay plateau of central East Anglia crosses 

several small east-west river valleys. 

Character Area 

82 

In the northern part of the area, such as at Covehithe, the sea 

eats inexorably away at the land, the low, crumbling cliffs often 

dramatically retreating in a single winter storm. 

The northern part of the area, around Great Yarmouth, 

Gorleston, Lowestoft and Kessingland, is heavily influenced 

by the resident urban population and the seasonal influx of 

tourists. Nonetheless, within the predominantly arable 

landscape around these towns there are important features 

such as Fritton Lake and Somerleyton Park. To the south, 

it is a land of lonely estuaries, mudflats and marshes, of big 

skies over arable fields lacking hedgerows to contain the 

light, sandy soils. Inland are the ‘Sandlings’ a land of pine 

forests, within which mixed areas of heathland grass, gorse, 

bracken and birch have been carved out. Ancient woodland 

is not common in this area so Staverton Park is the more 

remarkable, with its medieval oaks, huge hollies, rowan 

and birch. 

It is not flat land although changes in relief are slight. These 

are still enough to provide an intimate scale and generally 

limited views, although long views are possible in more open 

areas. Slightly higher land on the edge of the clay plateau to 

the west is incised by the rivers Blyth, Deben, Alde and 

Minsmere (Yox), to create intimate, twisting, narrow, 

wooded, pastoral valleys. The settlements have little impact 

JOHN TYLER/COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY

Character Area 82 

Suffolk Coast and Heaths 

Area 82 boundary 

Adjacent Area 

A Road 

B Road 

Railway and station 

County boundary 

District boundary 

Forest 

0-200' 

height above sealevel 

in feet 

86 

A12 

Bentley 

Brantham 

A137 

A14 

IPSWICH 

Manningtree 

Mistley 

E S S E X Tendring 

District 

1 

Wherstead 

A14 

Westerfield 

Ipswich 

District 

A120 

A1214 

Kesgrave 

A1156 

A12 

Babergh 

District 

Tattingstone 

Chelmondiston 

Holbrook 

Stutton 

Shotley 

Gate 

Wrabness 

Erwarton 

Freston 

Woolverstone 

Shotley 

111 

83 

Alton 

Water Res. 

Holbrook 

Bay 

River Orwell 

River Stour 

2 

S U F F O L K 

Martlesham 

Shottisham 

Newbourne 

Bucklesham 

A14 

Harwich 

Harbour 

Wickham 

Market 

A12 

Falkenham 

A14 

HARWICH 

A154 

3 

River Deben 

A1152 

Blaxhall 

Hollesley 

Bawdsey 

FELIXSTOWE 

3 

Sutton 

N O R F O L K 

83 

A1120 

A12 

Wenhaston 

Blythburgh 

River Ore 

A144 

Sternfield 

Snape 

Hollesley Bay 

4 

R. Blythe 

Suffolk 

Coastal 

District 

Dunwich 

Darsham 

Westleton 

Iken 

4 

80 

Blundeston 

Somerleyton 

Henstead 

Kessingland 

Benacre 

Waveney 

Wrentham District 

Covehithe 

South Cove 

Uggeshall 

8 

Wangford 

Reydon 

A1094 

South 

Norfolk 

District 

A145 

Eastbridge 

River 

Alde 

Fritton 

Leiston 

Breydon Water 

Bradwell 

LOWESTOFT 

River Waveney 

A146 

Great 

Yarmouth 

District 

A12 

A143 

A1095 

Walberswick 

Sizewell 

6 

Thorpeness 

Aldeburgh 

Aldeburgh Bay 

Ufford 

Tunstall 

Tunstall Forest 

Rendlesham 

Sudbourne 

Eyke 

Butley 

Orford 

5 

Woodbridge Rendlesham 

Forest 

Orford Ness 

A1117 

Hopton on Sea 

Carlton Colville 

Mutford 

5 

NORTH 

SEA 

A47 

A12 

Southwold 

7 

GREAT 

YARMOUTH 

Gorleston-on-Sea 

A12 

Corton 

0 10km 

9 

TG 

0 

TM 

57

58 

except along the coast. They are more often of brick than 

flint and occasionally display Dutch influence, except perhaps 

in Thorpeness which is a largely weather-boarded, eccentric 

1920s holiday resort. Felixstowe is an important seaport and 

holiday resort with extensive suburbs. 

South of Lowestoft, the coast is largely undeveloped with a 

coast road only between Aldeburgh and Thorpeness. It is a 

subtle landscape of low crumbling cliffs and steep shingle 

banks, sweeping in a series of wide bays punctuated by 

lighthouses, church towers, Martello towers and the 

inappropriate mass of the Sizewell nuclear power stations. 

This open, exposed character contrasts with the sheltered 

peace of the estuaries, whether at high tide, when the often 

well-wooded undulating valley sides meet the water, or at 

low tide, when vast expanses of glistening mudflat are home 

to migratory waders and seabirds. The Stour and Orwell 

estuaries are wide and relatively straight, busy with 

commercial and recreational craft. The Deben, too, is 

popular with sailors but in the smaller estuaries of the Blyth 

and Alde boating is limited to the lower reaches, as extensive 

areas of drained marsh encroach on navigable water. 

The Orwell bridge which was, at the time of its opening in 

1982, one of the largest concrete structures in Europe, 

marks the boundary between the town of Ipswich and the 

tranquil parkland that fringes the Orwell downstream. 

This is still wild country in parts, although tamed away 

from the estuaries and shingle coast, with a general sense 

that nature is in the ascendant despite human efforts to 

tame her. The windblown plantations of Tunstall and 

Rendlesham forests, relics of the 1987 storm, are still a 

poignant reminder of this. 

Physical Influences 

The coastal area is generally flat, indented with estuaries, with 

gentle undulations and variation as the river valleys reach 

inland. Changing sea levels in prehistoric times ‘drowned’ the 

river valleys that had been enlarged by the meltwaters of the 

Anglian Glaciation, creating this subtle, low-lying landscape. 

The soils are of glacial sand, gravel and local till in origin, 

covering the Crag deposits which lie along the eastern coast 

area. These sands and gravels are spread in narrow, 

discontinuous tracts along the coast from Yarmouth to 

Aldeburgh, spreading inland and extending over a low plateau 

past Woodbridge to Ipswich, giving rise to the characteristic 

variation in landcover that is such a feature of the area. 

The primary influence on this area is the sea which shapes 

and changes the coastline and constantly threatens to destroy 

or engulf it. The land is not cut off from the sea by high 

walls, as in North East Norfolk and Flegg, but by low sea 

walls or dunes because much of the saltmarsh area in the 

estuaries lies below sea level. North of Sizewell and 

Southwold, small cliffs mark the boundary between land and 

sea. This is a mobile, generally receding coastline as fallen 

material is washed from the base of the cliffs, some to be 

deposited farther south on the long spit at Orford Ness. 

The pattern of drift geology and water action is 

demonstrated clearly in the Stour and Orwell valleys. There 

the rivers and tributaries incised the till plateau which abuts 

this area to the west, revealing on the lower valley sides a 

variety of sands, gravels, Crag and pockets of the underlying 

London clay. The natural harbour formed at the confluence 

of these two rivers has had a major impact on the visual 

appearance of the estuaries and inland, as both river and road 

transport developed to further trade. The historic industrial 

influence of the Stour navigation is now lost amid cricket-bat 

willows and meadows, but Harwich, Felixstowe and Ipswich 

have all developed as important commercial ports. 

Major developments have a strong influence along this otherwise 

unspoilt coast. Beyond Thorpeness loom the nuclear power 

stations of Sizewell A and B which dominate the low-lying coastline 

for miles in each direction, as do the power lines that emanate 

from them.The area in the foreground is a nature reserve. 

Historical and Cultural Influences 

The Suffolk Coast and Heaths area has a long history of 

settlement since Neolithic times, beginning in the areas of 

light soil and along the river valleys. Woodland clearance 

during this period began the process of heathland creation 

so characteristic of the area. The Romans contributed roads 

and trading settlements, while the Anglo Saxons left a series 

of cemetery sites and burial mounds. At Sutton Hoo, on 

the banks of the Deben opposite Woodbridge, there is the 

royal cemetery of the Wuffingas, the first Anglo-Saxon 

rulers of East Anglia, including the sumptuous ship burial 

of King Raedwald (c. 625AD). The Sutton Hoo treasure is 

on display in the British Museum. 

JOHN TYLER/COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY

This area also fostered the first converts to Christianity, 

when St Felix established the first East Anglian bishopric at 

Dommoc (Dunwich or possibly Felixstowe) in the 7th 

century. For a time, Dommoc became the ecclesiastical 

centre of East Anglia. Dunwich also became a thriving 

medieval port, before succumbing to the sea: 400 houses 

and three churches were swept away in one flood, while 

the last of nine parish churches tumbled into the sea earlier 

this century. Until recently human bones could be picked 

out of the soft, crumbling sand cliff that lies behind the 

narrow, shelving pebbly beach, a ghoulish reminder of 

Dunwich’s past. Elsewhere the remains of numerous 

monastic houses can be seen, Anglo-Saxon in origin at Iken 

and Blythburgh, somewhat later at Leiston, Butley, 

Dunwich and Campsey Ashe. 

Farmland at Ramsholt. Irrigation and modern practices such as 

growing under plastic have significantly increased the productivity of 

soils in the area and changed the character of the land. 

During the Middle Ages the Suffolk coastal ports gained 

importance as centres for trade, shipbuilding and fishing, 

although ports such as Aldeburgh and Orford suffered the 

effects of longshore drift and deposition. Yarmouth 

developed as a major sea port, exporting grain, wool and 

cloth and, in its 19th century heyday, herring. Imports 

included Baltic timber, iron and furs. The town still has a 

huge marketplace and the largest parish church in the 

country, some 23,000 square feet in area. 

Lowestoft never rivalled Yarmouth as a trading port, as its 

access to Norwich was more difficult, but it thrived until 

this century as a fishing port and shipbuilding centre. 

Woodbridge, at the head of the Deben, thrived on wool 

and shipbuilding in the Middle Ages and has a legacy of fine 

buildings from that period. 

Trade with Northern Europe and the Baltic ports assisted 

and influenced the development of these major ports and 

the banks of the larger estuaries provided a fine setting for 

a number of imposing houses and large estates: Wherstead 

Park and Broke Hall (influenced by Repton), Freston 

JOHN TYLER/COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY 

(diapered Tudor brick tower), Woolverstone Hall and 

Orwell Park along the Orwell; Stutton Hall (Elizabethan), 

Crowe Hall (Charles II turned baronial gothic), Holbrook 

(naval school) and Erwarton, with its redbrick Jacobean 

fantasy gateway and 16th century hall, on the Stour. 

Elsewhere within the area three rural parks are included in 

the English Heritage National Register – Campsea Ashe 

Park, Henham (part) and Heveningham Hall and Gardens. 

A dozen other parks and gardens, all situated close to the 

A12, are also historically important. 

Orford’s 12th-century castle keep was built for Henry II in 

septaria and freestone and acts as a landmark for miles around. 

The town decayed from an important port due to siltation in 

the 16th century but attracts many tourists, especially sailors 

who can navigate the treacherous entrance to the Ore/Alde at 

the southern end of the 12-mile Orford Ness spit. 

At times of war, defence against the enemy across the 

North Sea was required and survives most notably in the 

string of Martello towers that dot this coastline, mementos 

of the feared Napoleonic invasion. More recently the area 

became home to numerous airfields and military 

installations of which one, Orford Ness, played an 

important part in the development of radar. It is the 

largest above ground monument to the Cold War in the 

UK, being the site of various nuclear tests as well as the 

site of a major early warning system. It has now been 

bought by the National Trust for its natural history 

interest, as the largest vegetated shingle spit in Europe, as 

well as its historical value. 

Subsequent centuries have had little effect on the 

relatively unspoilt seaside towns and the area has long 

supported a large number of artists attracted by the 

quality of the light, the huge open skies and unspoilt rural 

tranquillity. The poet Crabbe’s poem The Borough, about 

the citizens of Aldeburgh, was the basis of Peter Grimes the 

first opera by Benjamin Britten. Britten settled there in 

1948 and helped establish the annual Festival which has 

been bringing music and visitors to the town and the 

concert hall at Snape ever since. 

On the major estuaries yachtsmen have to beware of 

commercial ships carrying cargo to and from Ipswich, 

Felixstowe and Harwich. The scale of these vessels 

contrasts with the many small yachts moored in areas such 

as Pin Mill, where memories of Arthur Ransome’s We 

Didn’t Mean to Go to Sea and the huge red-brown sails of the 

Thames barges evoke a more traditional sailing history. 

Both on the coast and inland, nature conservation is now 

significant with English Nature, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, 

RSPB and the National Trust responsible for major tracts of 

marsh, heath and shingle. Controlled access is welcomed 

and allows public enjoyment of an internationally valued 

matrix of habitats. 

59

JOHN TYLER/COUNTRYSIDE AGENCY 

60 

Buildings and Settlements 

There is a strong contrast between the 19th and 20th 

century suburban development at either end of the area and 

the isolated villages in between. 

The influence of the Low Countries is seen in Southwold, 

Aldeburgh and the surrounding area, with brick-built Dutch 

gables and the pantiles that were made all over Suffolk from 

1700 to 1900. On the Shotley Peninsula, the interfluve of 

the Orwell and Deben, it is predominantly pegtiles that are 

used. The villages in brick and pantile are small, sparse and 

tucked into the landscape except along the coast where a 

string of former ports are now either silted up by tidal drift 

or eaten away by erosion. Poor road access has limited 

coastal development, and only the industrial buildings stand 

out, closely related to the waterways, as in the complex of 

buildings that constitute the Maltings at Snape Bridge. Part 

of this complex was converted in the 1960s to a splendid 

concert hall, home of the Aldeburgh Festival. Snape Maltings 

now attracts many visitors, intrigued by its juxtaposition with 

the windy reedbeds in the Alde estuary and the mix of arable 

and forestry behind. On Orford Ness the pagodas that are 

The sheltered 

peace of the 

estuaries of the 

Suffolk Coast, 

where wellwooded 

valley 

slopes meet a 

mosaic of water, 

reed and mudflat, 

is seen here at 

Long Reach on the 

river Alde. 

relics of its strategic wartime importance contribute unusual 

structures to the level landscape. 

In The Borough George Crabbe described the inhabitants of 

Aldeburgh thus: 

‘a wild amphibious race, with sullen woe displayed on 

every face, who far from civil acts and social fly, and 

scowl at strangers with suspicious eye’. 

The best view of the town is from the beach, of the lines of 

Dutch gables along the narrow streets that front the sea. It 

is a tough little town, built mainly of brick rather than the 

pebbles that form its undulating beach. Thorpeness, on the 

other hand, is whimsical – the 1920s creation of a local 

landowner, complete with mock-Tudor houses, a Bavarian 

street, ‘The House in the Clouds’, a golf course, a boating 

lake and a water tower disguised as an Elizabethan gatehouse. 

Beyond Thorpeness loom Sizewell A and B, Suffolk’s nuclear 

power stations. ‘B’ looks more mosque-like now it has been 

capped with a dome, but both dominate the coastline for 

miles in each direction, as do the powerlines that emanate 

from them. Southwold is an attractive coastal town, rebuilt 

in red brick after a fire in 1659, attractively set around

several small greens in an attempt to reduce fire risk. 

Felixstowe is now the largest container port in the country 

and has post-war housing estates linked to Victorian terraces 

to form amorphous suburbs. Yarmouth’s South Quay has a 

splendid sequence of Queen Anne and Georgian houses some 

of which are timber-framed behind their more fashionable 

brick façades. Lowestoft is very urban with strong links to 

London’s East End via the fish trade and the railway. 

One unusual structural feature of this area is the crinkle 

crankle or serpentine wall, of which there are 40 in Great 

Yarmouth and Gorleston alone. Most of them are late 

Georgian in date, with a few later examples. Until it was 

breached, the serpentine wall around Easton Park, near 

Woodbridge, was the longest in the world. 

Land Cover 

The variety of soils within the Suffolk Coast and Heaths area 

has largely dictated the differences in land cover. These range 

from the shingle beaches and spits along the coast (Orford Ness 

is a very important coastal feature) to the large-scale Scots and 

Corsican pine plantings on former acid heathland and the arable 

production on the silty clay and loam alluvium of the interestuarine 

areas. Much former saltmarsh has also been drained 

and ploughed. Main crops are wheat, barley, sugar beet and 

potatoes but there are also areas of soft fruit and vegetables and 

increasing numbers of outdoor pigs. Sheep used to graze the 

heathland and are being reintroduced as an aid to restoring 

ecological balance. Grazing in many of the small valley pastures 

and estuarine marshes has been restored and safeguarded, 

helping to maintain the subtle variation within the landscape. 

Enclosure came very late to this area, in the 18th and 19th 

centuries, following agricultural improvements fuelled by 

high corn prices. Some further reclamation has been carried 

out by private landowners since the second world war. The 

area now consists mainly of large estates, such as Benacre, 

Henham, Sudbourne and Sutton, rather than the small 

farms of the adjoining clay plateau. This can give a degree 

of uniformity to the landcover, depending on individual 

landowner’s attitudes to conservation and shooting. 

If the dominant tree in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths area 

is now the Scots pine, it was not always so. Staverton Park 

still contains 4,000 medieval pollard oaks within its deer 

park and some of the mightiest hollies, birches and rowans 

in the country. The monks of Butley Priory entertained the 

Queen of France to a picnic under these oaks in 1528 and 

they withstood the 1987 and 1990 gales far better than the 

vast pine plantations that surround them. Elsewhere there 

are few oaks for there are few hedgerows to contain them 

and very few elms since the outbreak of Dutch Elm disease, 

which had more impact here than elsewhere in Suffolk. 

Copses and woods have been planted for shooting and 

contain a mix of mainly broadleaf species. 

The once extensive ‘sandlings’ heaths, created by woodland 

clearance and grazing in Neolithic times, are now fragmented by 

conifer plantations, agricultural use and development. However, 

they remain a significant characteristic in the area, providing 

spectacular colour in late summer, internationally important 

wildlife habitats and popular areas for recreation, as seen here at 

Sutton Common. 

The Changing Countryside 

● Loss of hedgerow trees, hedgerows and pine lines, due 

to a number of factors, has now largely ceased but 

management is still an issue. Their absence leads to a loss 

of definition and texture within the landscape, especially 

in the large-scale arable areas. 

● Increase in extensive outdoor pig rearing and the use of 

plastic mulches. 

● Heathland losses have now ceased except from 

development around Ipswich. Local corporate 

landowners and wildlife trusts are contributing to 

heathland restoration and management assisted by recent 

incentive schemes, although reversion opportunities have 

still to be fully realized. 

● Redevelopment of redundant military facilities is likely 

to have significant impact. 

● Tourism has been increasing throughout this century 

and is now obvious all through the year, albeit with 

most impact during the summer months. It is limited 

chiefly to the coastal settlements. Planning policies 

appear to have been successful in curtailing the 

development impact of this influx but there are 

pressures on land and sea, especially for mooring 

facilities in the major estuaries. 

● Improvement of the transport infrastructure would have 

knock-on effects, with the possibility of creeping 

urbanization into the rural parts of this area. 

● Coastal erosion and siltation are having a significant 

effect on archaeological sites, such as Dunwich and 

Covehithe, and coastal squeeze is continuing to result in 

loss of salt marsh in some estuaries. 

SUFFOLK WILDLIFE TRUST 

61

62 

● Large-scale isolated development, such as Sizewell and 

Felixstowe Dock, is very visible in this largely open 

landscape and may increase in extent in the future. 

● Increase in telecommunications, marine navigation and 

radio transmitter masts. 

● Importance of estuaries for over-wintering waders and 

migratory birds, and landscape quality, has to be 

balanced with commercial shipping pressure, the impact 

of Felixstowe and Harwich Docks, and potential pressure 

from water-based leisure activities in the larger estuaries. 

Shaping the Future 

● There is scope for the management and replanting of 

hedgerows and hedgerow trees, especially elms and lines 

of pine. 

● The management of heathland should be considered, 

including multi-purpose strategies for forested areas and 

the restoration of heathland areas. 

● An increase in saltmarsh could form part of a new strategy 

to accommodate coastal erosion and flood defences. 

● The impact of recreational boat use on the estuaries and 

its associated development pressure should be addressed. 

● The development of sensitive marketing would 

encourage appropriate tourism. 

Selected References 

ADAS (1995), Suffolk River Valleys Environmentally Sensitive 

Area: Landscape Assessment, MAFF. 

Arnott, W G (1950), Suffolk Estuary, The Story of the River 

Deben, Adlard & Co, Ipswich. 

Beardall, C & Casey, D (1995), Suffolk’s Changing 

Countryside, Suffolk Wildlife Trust, Ashbocking. 

Collins, I (1990), A Broad Canvas: Art in East Anglia since 

1880, Parke Sutton. 

Countryside Commission (1993), The Suffolk Coast and 

Heaths Landscape, CCP 406, Countryside Commission, 

Cheltenham. 

Dymond, D & Martin, E (eds) (1988), An Historical Atlas of 

Suffolk, Suffolk County Council and SIAH, Ipswich. 

Dymond, D & Northeast, P (1985), A History of Suffolk, 

Phillimore, Chichester. 

Fincham, P (1976), East Anglia, Faber, London. 

Jebb, M (1995), Suffolk, Pimlico County History Guides, 

London. 

Land Use Consultants (1993), Suffolk Coast and Heaths 

Landscape Assessment Technical Report, L.U.C., London. 

Phelps, H (ed) (1991), Southwold to Aldeburgh in Old 

Photographs, Alan Sutton, Stroud. 

Ravendale, J & Muir, R (1984), East Anglian Landscape, 

Michael Joseph, London. 

Suffolk Coast & Heaths Joint Advisory Committee (1994) 

Suffolk Coast & Heaths Management Plan, Suffolk County 

Council, Ipswich. 

Tennyson, J (1939), Suffolk Scene, Blackie, London. 

Timpson, J (1990), Timpson’s Travels in East Anglia, 

Heinemann, London. 

Way, A (1978), Suffolk Heritage Coast Plan, Suffolk County 

Council, Ipswich. 

Glossary 

crag: deposits of shelly sand

1 Ancient Estate Claylands 

EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


Location 


• Dissected Boulder Clay plateau 

• Organic pattern of field enclosures 

• Straight boundaries where influence of privately owned estates is 

strongest 

• Enclosed former greens and commons 

• Parklands 

• WWII airfields 

• Villages with dispersed hamlets and farmsteads 

• Timber framed buildings 

• Distinctive estate cottages 

• Ancient semi-natural woodland 

This landscape character type occurs in eastern Suffolk on the indented edge of the 

central clay plateau. The rivers draining east and south have divided the edge of the 

plateau into a series of ‘fingers’ and this landscape is found on those residual areas of 

plateau. These interfluves run in a series from the Hundred River and the River Brett. 

Geology, soils and landform 

The dissected plateau is composed of glacial till or boulder clay left behind by the icesheet 

of the great Anglian Glaciation. The flatter parts have heavy, poorly-drained clay 

soils such as the Beccles series, but on the more undulating edges there are some better 

drained soils such as the Hanslope series. 

Landholding and enclosure pattern 

The enclosure pattern is generally ancient and organic in appearance. However, where 

the estate influence is stronger, as around Helmingham, 18 th and 19 th century 

rationalisation changed the field pattern into more easily managed units with straighter 

boundaries. The fields are medium to large and the hedges vary from large with a mix of 

trees and shrubs to single-species hedges that are more tightly controlled. The 

introduction of clay pipes for under-drainage in the late 18 th century, coinciding with an 

Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment

1 Ancient Estate Claylands 

EP/Edit1/02.08.10 

upswing in grain prices, meant that a lot of pasture was converted to arable during the 19 th 

century. 

Some of the flatter, poorly-drained interfluves were used for large common pastures, eg 

Sotterley Common, Frostenden Green and Clay Common, Otley Green, Crowfield Green, 

Barham Green etc. Many of these were enclosed in the 18 th and early 19 th centuries and 

only their outlines survive as landscape features. Other interfluves were used for medieval 

and Tudor deer parks, eg. Kelsale Park, Helmingham Park and Glemham Park. Later 

landscape parks occur at Coddenham, Heveningham, Easton and Benacre. 

In the 20 th century the flat landscape at Halesworth, Leiston, Parham, Debach and 

Raydon was utilised for World War II airfields. At all those places the wartime use has left 

a legacy of runway remains and buildings, and some have been converted to modern 

industrial use. 

Settlement 

The settlement pattern consists of occasional villages and numerous dispersed hamlets 

and farmsteads. Many of the farmsteads are medieval in origin and some are surrounded 

by moats. The vernacular buildings consist of timber-framed structures interspersed with 

brick ones, though the brick appearance is frequently just a façade added to an earlier 

timber frame. Roofs of flat peg-tiles or curved peg-tiles are common. In a few places the 

estate character is very strong, as at Helmingham, where there are numerous estate 

cottages in a very distinctive 19 th century style. 

Trees and woodland cover 

Blocks of ancient semi-natural woodland are scattered throughout the area, made up of 

oak, ash, field maple, hornbeam and small-leaved lime. Hedgerow trees are ubiquitous 

and in many places this landscape can feel well wooded 

Visual experience 

Despite the reasonably well-wooded landscape the plateau landform means that the views 

are open and can be long. However, the comprehensive network of winding lanes and tall 

hedges means that other areas can be much more intimate. 

Condition 

These landscapes are subject to considerable change which is promoted by their 

relationship to the A12 trunk road and the creation of airfields in the 1940’s. There is 

considerable intrusion of suburbanisation with horse paddocks, barn conversions and 

ranch-style fencing. As on other parts of the plateau claylands, industrial agricultural 

buildings make a significant impact, especially where there is inadequate screening. 


5 Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges 

EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


Location 


• 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 

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. 



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 

20 th 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 20 th 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. 


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. 


6 Coastal Levels 

EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


Location 


• Flat marshland adjacent to the coast or estuaries 

• Marine alluvium soils 

• Sinuous and complex mediaeval dyke networks 

• Uniform 19 th 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 

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. 



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. 


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 20 th 

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 18 th and 19 th 

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 



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. 


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. 


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. 


7 Estate Sandlands 

EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


Location 


• 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 18 th & 19 th 

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 

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 



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. 


All the parts of this landscape type consist of flat or very gently rolling plateaux of freelydraining 

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. 


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 18 th and 19 th 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 17 th 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 18 th 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 19 th and 

early 20 th centuries became nationally famous for their shooting, often attracting royalty to 

their shooting parties. 



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 18 th and early 19 th 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 20 th 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 betterwatered 

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 6 th and 7 th 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 20 th 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 



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 19 th 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. 

. 


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 18 th and 19 th 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 19 th 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. 



EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


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. 


7 Guidance Note Estate Sandlands 

EP/Edit1/1.10.10 


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 C18 th and C19 th 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


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. C19 th (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 



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. 



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. 



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. 


Sandlings Plateau with Farmland The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 


The Sandlings is the flat or gently undulating ‘upland’ plateau that 

runs the full length of the Coast and Heaths. Although the natural 

vegetation cover was originally woodland, the dry sandy soils led 

to the development of extensive heathland as farmers historically 

cleared the trees and ran flocks of sheep. Today, however, the 

predominant form of land use is that of economically productive 

modern agriculture. Isolated farmsteads are common although 

small villages are also to be found. 

Whilst much of Suffolk is known for its patchwork of ancient (often 

Medieval) species-rich hedges, these were not a typical feature 

across most of the Sandlings. The predominance of grazed 

heathland meant that the land was not enclosed by hedges until 

relatively late (19th C) if at all. Elm hedges are often to be found 

along lanes and tracks; whilst linear shelter belts, and in some 

places, lines of pine trees also provide structure. However, the 

overriding character of the landscape tends to be large-scale, open 

and unenclosed. 

However, there are considerable local variations. Hedges and 

hedgerow trees are more common in the northern part of the 

Sandlings and in the Shotley Peninsula (which is known for its 

holly hedges). 

Agriculture is typically in the form of large fields of cereals, 

vegetables or turf often relying on intensive irrigation, the use of 

plastic mulches and other modern techniques. Grazing livestock 

have virtually disappeared but outdoor pigs are a new feature of 

recent decades. 

Key Habitats & Species 

• Farmland, acid grassland verges and field margins. 

• Corn bunting, grey partridge, skylark. Brown hare. 

Lady’s bedstraw, common mallow. 

Issues & Problems 

• Dominance of large, bleak homogenous arable fields 

in the landscape. 

• Impacts of irrigation, including the demand on water 

resources and the increasing number of farm 

reservoirs. 

• Lack of acid grassland and heath habitat. 

• Isolation of existing habitat by large fields. 

• Loss of elm trees and hedgerows to Dutch Elm 

Disease. 

Objectives 

• Retain and manage sympathetically all existing 

hedgerows, shelterbelts and pine lines. 

• Protect and manage existing flower-rich verges and 

establish new verges and field margins. 

• Revert marginal areas of arable land to heathland or 

acid grassland and create new areas of scrub or 

woodland. 

Tree & Shrub Planting 

Recommended species choice: - 

• Hedgerows and shrub lines: Hawthorn, blackthorn, 

field maple. 

• Trees : Scots pine (but see note below), English oak, 

silver birch, ash. 

• In the Shotley Peninsula also include holly, but limit 

the use of silver birch. 

In some parts of the Sandlings, Scots pines are an 

important feature in the landscape and in these cases a 

planting mix with a large proportion of pine is 

recommended. However, in many areas mature pines 

are not common, and therefore should be avoided or 

only planted in small numbers. 

Sandlings Plateau 

with Farmland

Management Guidelines 

1 Ensure new farm buildings are 

well sited and designed. 

2 Screen less attractive farm 

buildings by planting native 

shrubs and trees. 

3 Manage existing hedgerows for 

conservation (see general 

14 

guidelines) and plant up gaps. 

4 Very large fields can be divided 

by cross-field planting of trees 

and shrubs. 

5 Hedgerows can be replanted on 

field margins where they have 

been removed in the past, but 

11 

avoid planting long lengths of 

new hedgerows in areas where 

they were never typical features. 

6 Protect mature pine lines and 

replant gaps with Scots pine. 

7 Plant up gaps in shelterbelts and 

establish broadleaved shrub layer. 

8 Establish grassy banks or 

uncropped strips across 

particularly large fields. 

9 Protect flower-rich roadside and 

trackside verges - avoid planting 

up, ploughing, spraying or 

reseeding. 

10 Establish new uncropped field margins, especially where 

they run alongside a hedge or other habitat. Use natural 

regeneration where possible or a specially designed grass 

mix. 

11 Make use of spring-sown crops for the benefit of wildlife. 

12 Make use of permanent or rotational set-aside to create 

habitat in strips or on whole fields. 

13 Leave unsprayed headlands or rotovate uncropped field 

margins to create habitat for rarer arable annual flowers. 

13 

3 

7 

6 

10 

14 Convert marginal areas to heathland or acid grassland. 

15 Convert marginal areas to scrub or woodland. 

• Ensure farm reservoirs are carefully sited, designed and 

integrated into the landscape with appropriate planting if 

necessary. 

Sandlings Plateau with Farmland The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 

9 

15 

1 

5 

4 

12 

8 

2

Sandlings Plateau with Forest and Woodland The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 


The Sandlings is the flat or gently undulating 

‘upland’ plateau that runs the full length of the 

Coast and Heaths. The landscape is large scale 

and extensive and the soils are generally very 

sandy and light leading to distinctive vegetation 

and land use. 

In pre-historic times the natural vegetation of the 

whole area would have been oak and birch 

woodland, and today a small number of fragments 

remain as ancient woodland, albeit influenced by 

the hand of man. These woodlands can be seen as 

distinct blocks scattered over the farmed 

landscape and are particularly notable in the 

Shotley Peninsula. Prime examples still exhibit 

coppiced or pollarded trees, as evidence of 

traditional management practice. In later 

centuries, broadleaved woodland was also 

planted, often associated with large houses or in 

the form of shelterbelts. 

By contrast the forest plantations are a 20th 

century creation, when swathes of heathland and 

poor quality farmland were planted up with 

commercial conifers. Inside the forest, there is a 

much greater sense of enclosure than on the open 

Sandlings but the 1987 storm created more open 

space, much of which has since been retained. 

There is very little development or settlement 

within the forest, so creating a remote, wild 

character. 


Woodland 

• Pollarded oaks – Specialised lichen and fungi. Bats, owl and 

woodpecker. 

• Ancient coppice woodland – Bluebell, red campion, wood sorrel, 

wood anenome, dog’s mercury. Warblers, chiff-chaff, nightingale. 

Dormouse. Butterflies such as speckled wood and green hairstreak. 

Forest 

• Heather and acid grassland rides and blocks – Woodlark, nightjar 

and other heathland species. 

• Conifer blocks - Crossbill, goshawk, hobby. Deer. 


Woodland 

• Difficulties in gaining economic return from continuing traditional 

forms of management. 

• Neglect or inappropriate management, such as the extensive 

planting of conifers, in some woods. 

• Deer browsing destroying regrowth and seedlings. 

Forest 

• Need to ensure economic return, whilst also supporting 

conservation measures in the forest. 

Objectives 

Woodland 

• Ensure that there is no net loss of woodland area in the AONB. 

• Establish new woodland where appropriate. 

• Promote sound woodland management practice, and where viable 

continue traditional management. 

• Restore woodlands damaged by inappropriate planting, neglect or 

management, and where possible revert back to a natural mix of 

broadleaved species. 

• Promote restocking of ancient woods by natural regeneration or 

using saplings grown from site native seed, rather than re-planting 

with commercial stock. 

Forest 

• Optimise the amount of heathland and other open space in the 

forest area. 

• Maximise diversity of plantation age and structure. 


• Ancient woodland is best restocked through natural regeneration 

or the use of saplings derived from site-native seed rather than 

with commercial stock. Use only species which are originally 

found in the wood such as oak, ash, holly, hazel, hawthorn, field 

maple and rowan. 

• Other broadleaved or mixed woods can be replanted or created 

using oak, ash, holly, hazel, hawthorn, sweet chestnut or other 

species found commonly in local woods, such as Scots pine. 

Commercially valuable species such as sycamore or Corsican pine 

are acceptable as part of an economically productive woodland, 

but should be avoided if the wood is simply for amenity or 

conservation purposes. 

• Coniferous forest plantations are usually part of a large-scale 

commercial operation and are normally planted with fast growing 

Corsican pine. Amenity planting on fringes of conifer blocks is 

usually best avoided and left to natural regeneration (usually birch 

and oak) or allowed to develop as heath. 

Sandlings Plateau with 

Forest and Woodland


Sandlings Woodland 

1 Manage ancient woodlands for 

conservation as well as timber 

production. 

2 Restore coniferised ancient 

woodland to predominantly native 

broadleaved species. 

3 Create wide rides with grassy and 

shrubby margins. 

4 In larger woods, maintain clearings 

and other open space, and plan 

open space in new woods. 

5 In woods traditionally managed by 

coppicing, continue or reinstate the 

practice, where possible. 

6 Avoid ‘clear felling’, instead fell 

mature trees in groups to retain 

continuous cover. 

7 Protect archaeological or historical 

features, particularly the ancient 

woodland bank and ditch. 

8 Protect veteran trees and manage 

appropriately. 

9 Retain and create hedgerows and 

uncropped banks and field margins, 

which create wildlife corridors 

between woods. 

10 Ensure that new woods are well 

designed and positioned in the landscape. 

Sandlings Forest 

11 Forestry blocks and edges should be in keeping with natural 

contours or historical features such as old field patterns 

rather than laid out on artificially straight lines or rigid grid 

patterns. 

12 Ensure that the forest has blocks of trees of different ages to 

increase diversity in the landscape. 

20 

14 

15 

18 

17 

11 

13 Maintain a variety of open ‘rides’, especially wide rides with 

grassy or heathy margins. Avoid rigidly parallel sides by 

scalloping the edges and widening ride junctions. 

14 Retain mature trees as a feature, especially on the skyline or 

on roadsides. 

15 Create blocks of permanent heathland within the forest. 

16 Create open heathy strips along roadsides. 

17 Allow native broadleaved trees and shrubs to regenerate 

naturally on the edges of forestry blocks to soften harsh lines. 

18 Keep stream valleys and wetland areas clear of conifer 

planting. 

19 Retain dead wood, where possible. 

20 Use rotational clear-fell techniques to ensure that there is a 

constant supply of open areas for heathland birds. 

21 Protect archaeological sites from forestry operations and 

keep clear of trees. 

Sandlings Plateau with Forest and Woodland The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 

13 

21 

16 

12 

8 

6 

7 

5 

9 

19 

3 

1 

2 

4 

10

Sandlings Plateau with Heathland The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 


The Sandlings is the flat or gently undulating ‘upland’ plateau that 

runs the full length of the Coast and Heaths. Although its natural 

vegetation cover was originally woodland, the extremely sandy, 

free-draining soils led to the development of extensive heathland as 

farmers historically cleared the trees and ran flocks of sheep. 

Although a great deal was lost in the 20th century, significant 

stretches of heathland still remain and its mosaic of naturally 

occurring heathers, heathy grasses, gorse and other specialised 

flora bring texture and colour to the landscape and creates a wild 

and evocative atmosphere. 

Many of the Sandlings heaths are remote and undeveloped, 

although others are found near settlements and are heavily used for 

recreation, sometimes having been converted to golf courses. 


• Heather heathland and acid grassland. 

• Bell heather, common heather, heath bedstraw, heath 

speedwell, sheep’s sorrel, harebell. 

• Nightjar, woodlark, stonechat, tree pipit, stone-curlew, 

Dartford warbler. 

• Silver-studded Blue butterfly, grayling butterfly, antlion. 

Common lizard and adder. 


• Lack of management by grazing or mowing, allowing 

bracken and scrub to invade. 

• Disturbance caused by heavy recreational use, and 

other human impacts such as unauthorised camping 

or driving on the heaths. 

• Loss of small areas to development, agriculture or 

amenity uses. 

Objectives 

• To protect all areas of heathland, however small, as a 

priority. 

• To ensure long-term management, by light sheep 

grazing or (failing that) mowing, to retain heather and 

prevent invasion of bracken and scrub. 

• To create new heathland especially in areas adjacent 

to existing heath or where it will connect two isolated 

areas of heathland. 


• Generally avoid all tree planting on heathland or acid 

grassland as trees shade out and destroy heather and 

other heathland plant species. 

Sandlings Plateau 

with Heathland


1 Retain the large-scale, wide-open 

character. Avoid planting on 

heathland and control excessive 

natural tree growth. 

2 Some mature specimens of birch or 

pine may be retained as features of 

interest and visual contrast. 

3 Vegetation should be dominated by 

heather and/or heathy (acid) 

grassland. 

4 Encourage heather and manage it to 

ensure a variety of different growth 

phases. 

5 Avoid use of fertiliser, herbicide, 

irrigation or reseeding with 

commercial grass mixes. 

6 Control bracken by spraying or 

cutting to prevent it invading and 

dominating the heath. 

7 Restrict scrub (especially gorse and 

birch) to discrete clumps, especially 

on the fringes of the heath, and 

prevent it from encroaching and 

dominating. Remaining areas of 

gorse can be managed by coppicing 

to provide structural diversity and to 

benefit certain bird species. 

8 Introduce low-intensity sheep 

grazing where possible, and/or 

encourage rabbit grazing. 

9 Position fencing along scrub blocks 

or at the edges of the heath to avoid 

breaking up open views. 

10 Restrict damage and disturbance by 

unauthorised parking, driving or 

camping. 

7 

6 

4 

3 

Sandlings Plateau with Heathland The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 

2 

1 

5 

8 

10 

9

General Guidance The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 


The Coast and Heaths has a very varied character incorporating the 

coastline, estuaries, coastal and stream valleys and the ‘Sandlings’. 

More details on each landscape type are found in the following 

individual guidelines. However, some features are common to all 

areas of the Coast and Heaths and these are outlined below. 

The landscape is in general large-scale and wide-open in character, 

with a profusion of habitats including heath, reedbed, woodland 

and saltmarsh which help to create a very natural character. In 

places the Coast and Heaths seems wild and even unkempt, quite 

different from the pastoral, manicured countryside found elsewhere 

in Suffolk. 

The environment is predominantly rural with relatively little largescale 

industrial or residential development or its associated urbanstyle 

infrastructure, as compared to much of the coastline of southeast 

England. However, settlements in the form of isolated 

farmsteads, attractive villages and historic coastal towns do 

contribute to the unique quality of the area. 

Farming and forestry are key industries and have a major influence 

on the landscape in the form of massive fields of wheat or 

vegetables or swathes of conifer plantation. Herds of cattle still 

graze the marshes, while extensive areas of outdoor pigs reflect 

more recent trends in livestock husbandry. 

These guidelines apply generally throughout the Coast and Heaths 

area, but should be read in conjunction with the relevant 

Landscape Character Guidelines of each specific landscape type. 


• The Coast and Heaths is noted for the extent and 

quality of its surviving wildlife habitats and species, 

many of which are of international importance. It is 

one of the most significant areas in England for 

wildlife, and the landscape is enhanced by evocative 

sights and sounds such as the call of thousands of 

waterfowl on the estuaries in winter or acres of purple 

heath in late summer. 


• Inappropriate development and urbanisation. 

• Effects of coastal erosion, ageing sea walls and sea 

level rise. 

• Impact of intensive farming practice. 

• Limited resources available to manage natural habitats. 

• Decline in livestock husbandry and lack of grazing 

herds and flocks. 

Objectives 

• Retain and enhance the distinctive character of the 

Coast and Heaths. 

• Ensure that new development is in keeping with the 

landscape, and proliferation of urban clutter is 

prevented. 

• Retain traditional landscape features. 

• Maintain and support traditional farming practices, 

such as the grazing of marshes. 

• Promote the implementation of conservation measures 

on intensively farmed land. 

• Retain and manage semi-natural habitats, and increase 

their area where possible. 

• Promote the use of agri-environment grant aid and 

other support to achieve conservation aims. 


• In the open countryside, choose native species which 

occur locally in hedgerows, woods etc. Avoid 

ornamental trees such as Norway maple or red oak 

and conspicuous non-natives such as leylandii. 

• Historic parklands are exceptions to this advice, since 

they generally have a wider variety of non-native 

specimen trees planted as part of the original design. 

Within villages and towns it is also acceptable to plant 

more ornamental trees such as holm oak, horse 

chestnut and rowan. 

• Never plant on heathland, flower-rich grassland, 

wetland or other valuable habitat. 

• Before planting always consider whether natural 

regeneration would be a possibility. 

• Use stock grown from British seed or, even better, from 

Suffolk seed, if available. 

• Keep your species mix simple to avoid a fussy, artificial 

effect. 

Refer to the relevant Landscape Character Guideline for 

further details and the recommended species lists for 

individual landscape types. 

General Guidance


1 Do not grub out hedges or level hedgebanks. 

2 Create a variety of hedgerow shapes – some 

trimmed or coppiced and others allowed to grow 

freely to their full height. 

3 Where possible, trimmed hedges should be cut only 

every other year in winter and allowed to develop a 

good height and width. 

4 Elm hedges need to be periodically coppiced to 

ground level and allowed to regrow; or at least cut 

back occasionally to prevent Dutch Elm Disease 

killing the plant. 

5 Do not spray established hedgebanks and hedge 

bottoms with herbicide. 

6 Plant up gaps in hedgerow. 

7 Reinstate lost hedgerows along field margins or 

roadsides where possible. 

8 Encourage the growth of new hedgerow trees. 

9 Wherever possible, retain ivy on mature trees as a habitat. 

10 Protect veteran trees and avoid felling. Do not plough or cause 

compaction below the crown. Repollarding or other surgery is 

sometimes recommended, especially for willows and poplars, but can 

kill very old trees of all species. Create a new generation of pollards, if 

possible. 

11 Retain dead trees as a habitat wherever possible. Cut off dangerous 

branches rather than felling. 

12 Avoid filling in or culverting ditches and dykes. Avoid over-deepening, 

and manage according to good conservation practice. 

13 Protect ponds. Clear scrub encroachment and prevent polluted inflow. 

14 Protect verges and small blocks of flower-rich grassland or heathland 

by avoiding spraying, ploughing, fertilising or planting with trees. 

Ideally verges should be cut only after flowers have set seed. 

15 Let disturbed and bare ground vegetate by natural regeneration where 

possible. If seeding is unavoidable use a mix designed for the soil 

type, rather than a standard commercial mix. 

16 Where possible, erect fences along hedges or woods etc, rather than 

cutting across open views. 

17 In open countryside unobtrusive post and wire fencing is usually 

preferable to standard wooden post and rail, or urban style fencing. If 

obtrusive fencing is unavoidable consider planting a hedge alongside 

to soften its effect. 

18 Horse paddocks should not dominate the scene. Avoid overgrazing 

and excessive use of fencing, jumps etc. Where possible, avoid subdividing 

fields into small fenced paddocks. 

11 

3 

20 

7 

1 

21 

4 

10 

15 

19 Protect historic and archaeological features – avoid ploughing, 

excessive scrub encroachment, or other damage. 

20 New developments should be well sited and sit well in the landscape. 

21 Screen intrusive buildings with native trees and shrubs. 

22 Traffic, business, tourist, recreational or information signs can create 

unattractive clutter in the landscape. Limit their number and choose 

their design and siting carefully. 

23 Avoid unnecessary use of lighting and excessive traffic calming 

measures on rural roads. 

24 Prevent the development of informal parking especially on verges. 

25 Protect small and winding lanes, especially from the effects of hedge 

removal, widening or verge damage. 

26 Wherever possible, site telecommunication aerials on existing 

structures or masts rather than erecting new masts. 

27 Underground cables wherever possible. 

General Guidance The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 

19 

24 

13 

5 

26 

11 

8 

9 

6 

27 

26 

25 

22 

12 2 

21 

14 

23 

17 

16 

18

Introduction The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 

Landscape Character Guidelines for 

the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of 

Outstanding Natural Beauty 

The Landscape Character Guidelines are a valuable reference tool 

for anyone involved in the management of land within the Suffolk 

Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. They 

describe the eight different landscape types which can be found 

and outline the typical characteristics and features which make 

them special. 

The Guidelines are also packed with positive ideas and suggestions 

on ways in which you can safeguard and enhance the unique 

landscape of this protected area. 

The Suffolk Coast and Heaths was designated an Area of 

Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in 1969, and is now 

one of 41such areas throughout England and Wales. The 

designation recognises the national importance of the 

Coast and Heaths’ high quality, unspoilt landscape and 

gives it equal status to that of a National Park. 

The Coast and Heaths is remarkably varied incorporating 

sweeping estuaries, windswept coastline and the heathy 

‘uplands’ of the Sandlings. Each part of the landscape has 

its own distinctive character which makes it unique, 

however, the differences are subtle and not always 

obvious at first sight. 

Protection is provided through national and local 

planning policy and the work of numerous conservation 

organisations and sympathetic landowners. However, the 

area is not immune to change - agricultural 

intensification, alterations in land management practice, 

development, creeping urbanisation, ecological changes 

and coastal erosion can all alter the landscape both for 

better or worse. 

We believe that the special character of the Coast and 

Heaths deserves the highest level of protection. This does 

not of course mean that the landscape should be 

unchanging, but that, wherever possible, changes reflect 

and enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the 

area, rather than detract from it. 

We appreciate that financial and other constraints may 

mean that these Guidelines may not always be 

immediately, or easily achievable. Also, we do not wish 

to dictate to land managers nor to prevent individuals 

doing something original. Instead we hope that the 

Guidelines will raise awareness of the special character of 

the Coast and Heaths and help anyone planning work in 

the area, either now or in the future, to make informed 

decisions. 

The Landscape Character Guidelines provide useful 

advice for anyone involved in the management of land, 

whether tree planting or other conservation schemes, new 

developments, changes in land use or just day-to-day 

operations. They are relevant not just to large estates or 

farms, but also to any small landholdings. 

Landscape Types of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths 

• Coastline 

• Coastal Valleys 

• River and Stream Valleys 

• Estuary Valley Sides 

• Estuary Valley Floor 

• Sandlings Plateau - With Heathland 

- With Farmland 

- With Forest and Woodland 

Introduction to the 

Landscape Guidelines

How to use the Landscape Character Guidelines 

The Guidelines are designed to be used by the following: 

• Farmers • Grant giving bodies 

• Landowners • Developers 

• Small holders and rural householders • Community groups 

• Local authority officers • Environmental organisations 

• Consultants and contractors • Parish councils 

For each landscape type there is a Guidance Card, which shows a sketch of an ideal scenario, with 

priorities, ideas and advice for management. 

There is also a General Guidance Card which can be applied throughout the whole of the Coast and Heaths. 

The 1:50,000 scale Character Map shows where each of the landscape types can be found in the AONB. 

There is a range of grants available which can help towards the costs of conservation work in the AONB, 

whether large or small scale. Further information and advice on topics mentioned in the guidelines, such as 

hedge planting, woodland management or habitat creation can also be obtained. Please contact the Suffolk 

Coast & Heaths Project for more details. 

Suffolk Coast & Heaths Project 

Dock Lane 

Melton 

Woodbridge 

Suffolk, IP12 IPE 

Tel: 01394 384948 

Email: schaonb@suffolk.gov.uk 

These guidelines have been produced on behalf of the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Partnership. 

Guidelines and map sponsored by the Countryside Agency and English Nature. 

The Suffolk Coast & Heaths Project 

The Project was set up in 1993. Our aim is to conserve the landscape and 

wildlife, provide for quiet enjoyment and promote co-ordinated 

management for an area based on the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of 

Outstanding Natural Beauty. We work closely with landowners, local 

communities, organisations and visitors to help protect the special character 

of the area. 

The Suffolk Coast & Heaths Partnership 

The Partnership is made up of 23 organisations with an interest in the area, 

including the Local Authorities, government agencies, farming 

representatives, and conservation organisations. They have all signed up to 

support the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Management Strategy which sets out 

a framework for the protection and care of the AONB. 

© The Suffolk Coast & Heaths Project 2001 

Text by Kath Hewitt, Drawings by Mark Beesley, Designed by Salmon Design Ltd, Ipswich 

How to use the Landscape Character Guidelines The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines

2842_LVIA 



Appendix 3. Methodology for Preparation of Visuals 

ZTV Studies 

17.1.39. ZTV studies are prepared using the ArcGIS Viewshed routines. This 

creates a raster image that indicates the visibility (or not) of the points 

modelled. 

17.1.40. The visibility is modelled taking into account both the curvature of 

the earth and light refraction, in accordance with Scottish Natural 

Heritage guidance (Visual Representation of Windfarms Good 

Practice Guide, SNH February 2007). 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 development) 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. 

17.1.41. 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 

17.1.42. 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_LVIA 



Product Distance 

Between 

Points 

Landform 

Profile 

Landform 

Panorama 

Vertical Error Horizontal 

Error 

10m +/- 1.8m +/- 1m 

50m +/- 5m +/- 3m 

17.1.43. 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 

17.1.44. Wireframes are produced in 6 key stages: 

4) 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. 

5) 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.

2842_LVIA 



6) The addition of the development wireframes to the 3D model 

using AutoCAD - The development is then inserted into the 3D 

model at the proposed location. 

7) 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 viewpoint is then generated using the 

AutoCAD camera function, creating a number of single frame 

images, which also include bearing markers. 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. 

8) 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. 

9) 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 

17.1.45. Photomontages are produced in 4 key stages: 

1) Wireframe preparation, up to stage 5 above.

2842_LVIA 



2) AutoCAD is used to produce a rendered 3D view of the 

development from the viewpoint. 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 development is 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 development to ensure accuracy). The images are 

then layered to ensure that the development appears in front of 

and behind the correct elements visible within the photograph. 

4) 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 development 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 degrees) are required to show all of the schemes within a 

cumulative study, the view will be split across two or more 

sheets.

2842_LVIA 



Appendix 4. Galloper Offshore Wind Farm Substation Landscape 

Mitigation Statement

Galloper Wind Farm Substation 

Landscape Mitigation Statement 

August 2011 

A 17 Minster Precincts 

Peterborough PE1 1XX 

United Kingdom 

T +44 (0) 1733 310 471 

F +44 (0) 1733 553 661 

W www.lda-design.co.uk 

LDA Design Consulting LLP 

Registered No: OC307725 

17 Minster Precincts, Peterborough PE1 1XX

2890_mitigation 


August 2011 


Contents 

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1. Report Structure ............................................................................................................................................. 2 

2.0 Baseline ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 

3.0 Principles of Mitigation ....................................................................................................................................... 11 

4.0 Proposals.................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

4.1. Agreement of the landscape mitigation strategy with SCDC, SCC and EDF ....................... 13 

4.2. Proposals submitted with the Development Consent Order ..................................................... 15 

4.3. Profiled landform around substation .................................................................................................. 15 

4.4. Sizewell Wents wood ................................................................................................................................. 16 

4.5. Cable corridors, cable sealing compounds and gantries .............................................................. 16 

4.6. Hedgerows ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 

4.7. Fields ................................................................................................................................................................. 17 

4.8. Woodland and hedgerow planting mixes ......................................................................................... 17 

5.0 Additional Mitigation Area ................................................................................................................................ 19 

Appendices 

Appendix 1. Sizewell Estate Integrated Land Management Plan Map 6 Land Use/Habitat 

Appendix 2. Maximum Heights of GWF Substation drawing GWF_583_R1 

Appendix 3. Correspondence with SCDC, SCC and EDF regarding the agreed Landscape 

Mitigation Strategy 

Appendix 4. Drawings 

Appendix 5. Drawing 25456/003/100A showing landform without the ‘additional 

mitigation area’ 

Appendix 6. Drawing 25456/003/101A 100A showing landform with the ‘additional 

mitigation area’


August 2011 


Version: 1.7 

Version date: 20 October 2011 

Comment Final 



1 

August 2011 



This report sets out the proposed landscape mitigation strategy for the Galloper Wind 

Farm (GWF) above-ground onshore works. It illustrates the proposals that will be 

submitted with the Development Consent Order and will form the basis of detailed 

designs that will be submitted for approval post consent. 

Draft proposals have been presented to and discussed with Suffolk Coastal District 

Council (SCDC), Suffolk District Council (SCC) and EDF Energy (EDF). The proposals 

have been modified in consideration of comments received to arrive at the final 

proposals presented in this landscape mitigation strategy. 

In light of the potential landscape and visual effects identified by GWF and evidenced 

in the comments from key consultees, there is an essential need to define key 

principles and therefore give certainty that a robust mitigation strategy will be 

implemented. This is particularly important given the location of the site in the 

Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The 

landscapes within AONBs 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. 

This report therefore sets out proposals that have been agreed with the local planning 

authorities and EDF at this stage, providing confidence in the ability to mitigate 

landscape and visual impacts to the level assessed in the landscape and visual impact 

assessment (LVIA), without compromising the future detailed design and delivery of 

the proposed substation, or the ability to deliver even more effective mitigation. It 

addresses the works relating to the proposed substation and the sealing end 

compounds and the immediate vicinity, including the cable connection corridors to 

the proposed cable sealing compounds and gantries, within the area shown on 

drawing 2890/07H. 

This report does not address the onshore cable connection corridors except where the 

corridor passes north of Sizewell Gap road where it is close enough to the proposed 

substation to influence the mitigation proposals for the GWF compound. This is 

because the proposed onshore cable connection will not cause any significant adverse 

landscape or visual impacts once construction work is completed, as the land will be 

restored to its current condition.


2 

August 2011 


1.1. Report Structure 

This report is structured as follows: 

� Introduction 

� Baseline 

� Principles of Mitigation 

� Proposals


3 

August 2011 


2.0 Baseline 

The existing site and the surrounding landscape provide the context into which the 

substation will be placed. There is existing documented information describing and 

assessing this landscape and identifying certain characteristics, principles and 

guidelines which provide a framework for a design and mitigation strategy. These are: 

� The Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 2008, updated 2011 

� Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Management Plan 2008 – 2013 

� The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 

� Sizewell Estate Integrated Land Management Plan, December 2006 

� Sizewell Estate Landscape Management Plan, May 1996 

The site of the proposed substation and cable connection corridors lie within the 

southern part of Sizewell Estate which is currently owned by EDF Energy. 

Drawing number 2890/02F (Figure 02: Landscape Character) shows the location of the 

substation in relation to landscape character types presented in the Suffolk Landscape 

Character Assessment. 

In addition to the above studies EDF Energy has appointed consultants to prepare a 

strategic landscape vision and masterplan for the Sizewell estate adjoining and 

encompassing the proposed Sizewell C Power station facility. This is at its early stages 

and no material is available at present. 

2.1.1. The Site and its Context 

The site of the substation works covers part of Sizewell Wents woodland west of the 

existing Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind Farm (GGOWF) substation, parts of three 

fields and part of land recently landscaped as part of the planning approval for 

GGOWF. 

The north-western field (Broom Covert) is a gently undulating, scrubby pasture field 

containing a closely grazed semi-natural grassland and some scattered small trees and 

patches of gorse. 

The south-western and southern fields are rectangular arable fields with sandy free 

draining soils. Post and wire fences separate the fields and woodland, with a 

discontinuous line of scrub running along the fence between the two fields. 

Chapter 24 (Terrestrial Ecology) of the Galloper Wind Farm Project Preliminary 

Environmental Report, 3 June 2011 (PER) states that ‘Sizewell Wents is a mixed 

woodland comprising mature Scots pine Pinus sylvestris, sycamore Acer 

pseudoplatanus, beech Fagus sylvatica, and pedunculate oak Quercus robur with


4 

August 2011 


occasional sweet chestnut Castanea sativa and an understorey of hawthorn, elder 

Sambucus nigra, and very occasional honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum. The 

ground flora is sparse with dense leaf litter, occasional common nettle, ground-ivy 

Glechoma hederacea, red campion Silene dioica, and earthstar Geastrum fimbriatum. 

This woodland is considered to be of relatively low ecological value but still represents 

a habitat of local importance.’ 

The GGOWF substation to the east is enclosed by this woodland on its north, west and 

south sides. 

Cable corridors will run from the landfall to the GWF compound, between the two 

compounds, from the transmission compound to proposed cable sealing compounds 

and gantries and from the transmission compound to interconnect with existing 

cables to Sizewell. The cables entering the sealing end compounds will connect to the 

existing overhead wires at the location of the existing pylons east of the GGOWF 

substation. The proposed cable sealing compounds and gantries will lie in a field that 

has been recently landscaped as part of the works for the GGOWF substation, with 

young tree and shrub planting protected by shelters or fencing. 

A more detailed description of the site and its context is given in the full Landscape 

and Visual Impact Assessment by LDA Design. 

2.1.2. The Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment 

The Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment was published for the county of Suffolk 

in 2008 by Suffolk County Council. It was updated in 2011. 

The above-ground onshore works lie within the Estate Sandlands landscape character 

type and the onshore connection route passes through it as it extends eastwards from 

the substation (see drawing 2890/02F in Appendix 4). It is summarised as A landscape 

of large geometric fields, plantation woodlands and remnant heathland. 

Key Characteristics include: 

� 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 

Under Trees and Woodland Cover it says that it is generally a landscape without 

ancient woodland, but there are some isolated and very significant exceptions. It also 

says:


5 

August 2011 


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 north-east (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. …… 

Under Landscape Sensitivity & Change it says: 


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 stateowned 


The character of the landscape is largely made up of C18th and C19th estate farms, 

irrigated arable crops, new woodlands and tracts of heathland. 

Key Forces for Change include large-scale agricultural buildings in open countryside. 

It does not mention the treatment of substations or other such infrastructure under 

the section headed Development Management. However, the guidance in relation to 

the treatment of large scale agricultural buildings in open countryside is helpful in 

providing pointers for the treatment of the substation: 


considerable contribution to mitigating their impact. The plantations, shelterbelts, 

and tree lines found throughout this landscape provide opportunities to design locally 







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


6 

August 2011 


designed to integrate the development into the character of the landscape, and may 

consist of both backdrop and screening planting. 


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. 

Land Management Guidelines include: 

� 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 


� Extend the cover of heathland paying particular attention to areas of commercial 


Conclusion 

The description and guidance given for the Estate Sandlands landscape character type 

in the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment provides helpful guidance on design, 

mitigation and planting in relation to GWF substation. Key points are that design and 

mitigation should consider: 

� Woodland / tree belt planting to provide screening and backdrop to development 

� Hedgerow planting / management 

� Heathland creation 

� Siting, form, orientation and colour of buildings 

� Siting of buildings should relate to an existing cluster of buildings whenever 

possible. There is an opportunity to locate new buildings close to the existing 

GGOWF substation. 

� Location of the development in relation to existing trees that act either as 

screening or as a backdrop. There is an opportunity to locate new buildings close 

to or within the existing Sizewell Wents woodland.


7 

August 2011 


2.1.3. Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Management Plan 2008 – 2013 

The Management Plan seeks to co-ordinate the action of the organisations that make 

up the AONB Partnership while also setting a framework for any organisation or 

individual whose activities will have an impact on the objectives for the area. 

The management plan says that the landscape assets of the AONB are what give it its 

particular character, setting it apart from the wider countryside and leading to its 

designation. 

It goes on to summarise the relevant landscape character types described in the Suffolk 

Landscape Character Assessment including the Estate Sandlands. 

Referring to development it states that, in general, care needs to be taken that 

piecemeal development does not produce cumulative adverse impacts and that it is 

vital that all proposals pay attention to local character and the particular sensitivity of 

the AONB. 

2.1.4. The Suffolk Coast & Heaths - Landscape Guidelines 

The Suffolk Coasts and Heaths partnership, comprising 23 organisations with an 

interest in the area, including Local Authorities, government agencies, farming 

representatives, and conservation organisations, drew up the guidelines in 2001. They 

provide landscape character guidelines for the AONB. It defines eight landscape types 

covering different areas to other landscape character assessments. The GWF substation 

lies on the boundary of two character types - Coastal Valley and Sandlings Plateau with 

Farmland. 

Relevant general guidance includes: 

� Retain and enhance the distinctive character of the Coast and Heaths. 

� Ensure that new development is in keeping with the landscape, and proliferation 

of urban clutter is prevented. 

� Retain traditional landscape features. 

� Tree and shrub planting - In the open countryside, choose native species which 

occur locally in hedgerows, woods etc. Avoid ornamental trees such as Norway 

maple or red oak and conspicuous non-natives such as leylandii. 

Relevant guidance in relation to the Coastal Valley landscape type includes: 

� Planted woodland can be restocked, and new woods created using the following 

species: oak, ash, hawthorn, field maple, hazel, blackthorn or other species which 

occur naturally in the locality. Small proportions of pines are acceptable 

providing they do not create a hard ‘edge’ or a dominant block in the valley 

landscape.


8 

August 2011 


� New hedgerows on the valley sides are not normally a top priority, however, gaps 

in existing hedgerows should be replanted using a mix including hawthorn, 

blackthorn, field maple (and hazel on heavier soils), with oak and ash as tree 

species. 

Relevant objectives and guidance in relation to the Sandlings Plateau with Farmland 

landscape type includes: 

� Retain and manage sympathetically all existing hedgerows, shelterbelts and pine 

lines. 

� Revert marginal areas of arable land to heathland or acid grassland and create 

new areas of scrub or woodland. 

� Tree and shrub planting - Recommended species choice: 

− Hedgerows and shrub lines: Hawthorn, blackthorn, field maple. 

− Trees: Scots pine, English oak, silver birch, ash. 

It notes that in some parts of the Sandlings, Scots pines are an important feature in the 

landscape and in these cases a planting mix with a large proportion of pine is 

recommended. However, in many areas mature pines are not common, and therefore 

should be avoided or only planted in small numbers. 

2.1.5. Sizewell Estate Integrated Land Management Plan, December 2006 

The Sizewell Estate Integrated Land Management Plan (ILMP) lays out commitments 

required to enable British Energy to manage the resources of the Estate in the most 

effective way. It is a record of land uses on the Estate and the evaluation of these to 

produce land management policies and plans. Land uses considered are agriculture 

and forestry. 

Agriculture is separated into two distinct areas. ‘The environmentally high value 

grassland and heaths where agricultural management is one of a number of 

management tools to achieve an environmental objective, and in contrast, the highly 

productive arable land is let to a farming tenant, where commercial returns are the 

primary objective.’ (Paragraph 3.4.1) 

Sizewell Wents is classified as woodland, the two fields to the east/south and 

south/west are classified as arable and Broom Covert to the north-west is classified as 

heathland (see Map 6 Land Use / Habitat in Appendix 1). The ILMP states that 

heathland and acid grassland are closely related habitats and refers to them 

collectively as lowland heath. 

The ILMP was produced before the Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment was 

published and considers character in relation to the national scale assessment and it 

also describes a more detailed landscape character assessment of the Estate. The


9 

August 2011 


detailed assessment places the site in The Sandlings landscape character area which, 

within the vicinity of the site, corresponds with the area covered by the Estate 

Sandlands landscape character type given in the Suffolk Landscape Character 

Assessment. 

It states that ‘The Sandlings on the estate are mainly under intensive arable cropping 

and forestry plantations, with only comparatively small areas of heathland remaining. 

..….’ 

Soils of the Sandlings are typically loamy sands which are free draining and have very 

little capacity to hold moisture. Agricultural productivity is limited due to extent of 

droughtiness of soils which impedes plant growth. 

Heathland 

The ILMP states that ‘Historically the Sandlings were almost entirely covered by 

lowland heath, a semi-natural habitat created by clearance of the primary forests and 

the subsequent low intensity agriculture practised by early settlers of the area. 

However, improvements in agricultural technologies have over recent time made the 

Sandlings much more viable for intensive commercial agriculture and forestry, and 

these landuses have become increasingly dominant influences on the landscape. 

The Sandlings on the estate are mainly under intensive arable cropping and forestry 

plantations, with only comparatively small areas of heathland remaining. ……’ 

(Paragraphs 5.19 and 5.20) 

Woodland 

The ILMP refers to a number of small areas of lowland mixed deciduous woodlands in 

the Sandlings including Sizewell Wents. It states that all woodlands on the Estate are 

under a management plan and that landscape is an overriding management objective, 

with improvement of wildlife being a further benefit. It states that ‘The management 

of the …… woodlands will seek to increase the proportion of broadleaved species where 

appropriate and improve the structure of the woodlands by ride clearing and 

widening. Woody shrubs will be planted along ride sides and on the edges to maximise 

the habitat potential of the woodland edge, and to benefit woodland edge species such 

as woodlark.’ (Paragraph 6.61) 

It gives the following management guidance for Sizewell Wents and some other 

woods on the Estate: 

General Management Specific Management Actions 

Woodland plantations are managed in 

accordance with normal silvicultural 

practice. Thinning, felling and replanting 

Ride areas to be managed and kept open 

by cutting of vegetation.


10 

August 2011 


General Management Specific Management Actions 

operations take place at regular intervals. 

Encourages an uneven age structure, 

through thinning and by natural 

regeneration or replanting. 

Arable 

Control sycamore regeneration to prevent 

restocked trees being inhibited. 

Maintain all newly planted areas until 

established. 

Identify and manage all hazardous trees 

by recording within Tree Risk 

Identification and Management Plan. 

Trees are typically felled, pruned, or 

further monitored on 6 monthly basis. 

The ILMP says that the bulk of the arable land is of limited ecological value and that 

management will focus on maximising the ecological value through the 

establishment and maintenance of hedgerows. (Paragraphs 6.50 and 6.52) 

Conclusion 

Broadleaved woodland, acid grassland, heathland, arable farmland and hedgerows are 

all existing land uses and habitats in the area and appropriate to local landscape 

character and biodiversity. The plant communities and land uses have been strongly 

influenced by the dry, acidic soils. Proposals for new planting and habitat creation 

should be informed by these factors, and by the principles and objectives set out in the 

management plans for the Sizewell Estate Integrated Land Management Plan. 

2.1.6. Sizewell Estate Landscape Management Plan, May 1996 

This management plan was prepared to satisfy the Conditions and Undertakings 

attached to the Consent for Sizewell B power station. It was intended to demonstrate 

Nuclear Electric’s commitment to the establishment and maintenance of the agreed 

landscape scheme for the land in its ownership (the Estate). 

The report records Sizewell Wents as follows: 

� Area: 5.0 ha. 

� Species: Scots pine, sweet chestnut, larch and sycamore. 

� Management objectives: Manage as mixed woodland for landscape and wildlife. 

It does not give any more relevant information than that provided in the more recent 

Sizewell Estate Integrated Land Management Plan discussed above.


11 

August 2011 


3.0 Principles of Mitigation 

In designing the concept substation and landscape proposals the following principles 

have been followed. 

a) The principal objective is to create a substation enclosed within a broadleaved 

wood comprising an extension to the existing Sizewell Wents wood. This 

would be appropriate to local landscape character and also help to screen the 

substation infrastructure from the surrounding landscape and visual 

receptors, and provide a backdrop to development. 

b) Create an organic, naturalistic outside edge to new planting associated with 

Sizewell Wents wood with native trees, shrubs and open grassland. 

c) Replace woodland lost due to the creation of the substation and addition of 

further woodland. 

d) Lower the substation platform level so that above ground infrastructure is 

lowered and therefore less visible. 

e) Create a profiled landform around the north, west and south sides of the 

substation, where it adjoins open fields, using material generated from 

excavation to lower the substation, to provide instant screening and raise the 

ground level on which woodland would be planted. Outside facing slopes to 

be 1:10 to integrate with existing ground profiles. 

f) Minimise the heights of structures to reduce their visibility from the 

surrounding landscape. It has been possible to identify maximum equipment 

heights within different areas of the substation as shown on drawing 

GWF_583_R1 in Appendix 2. Buildings and equipment will not be a uniform 

height throughout each area but pieces of equipment/buildings may be up to 

the heights shown. Much of the equipment will be lower than these heights. 

The tallest building will be in the Galloper compound which will be up to 

14m above ground level (up to 23mAOD). 

It will be necessary to include a number of lightning rods within the 

development on buildings and other structures and these will have a height of 

up to 3m above these elements and a diameter of up to 50mm. They could, 

therefore, project up to 3m above the maximum equipment heights shown on 

drawing GWF_583_R1. Due to their small diameter, they will only be visible 

from close proximity. 

g) Group buildings and taller structures close to the existing GGOWF substation 

so that they form a focused cluster (i.e. to the east of the site). 

h) Locate taller buildings close to or within the existing Sizewell Wents wood to 

provide screening in the short, medium and long term (i.e. to the east of the 

site).


12 

August 2011 


g) and h) have been addressed by locating the proposed transmission 

compound next to GGOWF substation, within Sizewell Wents woodland, and 

by locating the tallest (up to 14m high) building within the Galloper 

compound to the south-east towards Sizewell Wents woodland and the 

transmission compound. This 14m high building is necessarily located on the 

southern side where the cable corridor exports electricity from the offshore 

wind farm. 

i) Finish buildings and structures in dull / neutral colour to minimise their 

visibility and integrate them into the landscape. Avoid pale, bright and 

reflective finishes. 

j) Minimise widths of underground cable corridors through existing woodland 

to minimise the loss of trees, by revised working arrangements. 

k) Align cable corridors to allow for the creation of new woodland in an 

arrangement that provides the most effective screening and landscape 

mitigation. Trees cannot be planted above underground cable corridors. 

l) Minimise lighting to that essential for operational and safety purposes. 

Design lighting to minimise light spillage outside the site, glare and skyglow. 

Design lighting in accordance with the best practice principles set out in The 

Institution of Lighting Engineers Guidance Notes for the Reduction of 

Obtrusive Light 2005. 

m) Create and restore the hedgerow along Sizewell Gap road to provide 

foreground screening to views from the road (to the south) and improve the 

road verge for the benefit of wildlife. 

n) Thicken scrub / woodland edge planting alongside the bridleway to the north 

of the site to provide screening where it is necessary to remove trees due to the 

construction of a cable corridor. 

o) Provide planting, where achievable, on the east side of the substation to 

screen the cable sealing end compounds and gantries, as well as the 

substation, from the landscape and visual receptors to the east / north-east. 

p) All plants and plant communities should be of locally native species / mixes 

or appropriate to the landscape character of the Estate Sandlands landscape 

character type and local biodiversity objectives. 

All details will be agreed with Suffolk Coastal District Council at the detailed design 

stage.


13 

August 2011 


4.0 Proposals 

4.1. Agreement of the landscape mitigation strategy with SCDC, SCC and EDF 

A draft landscape mitigation strategy was submitted to SCDC and SCC in August 2011 

and discussed with them at a meeting on 25 August 2011. The following matters were 

agreed with them and incorporated into the revised proposals: 

1. Shallower outside slope to the landform, approximately 1:10 being seen as a 

good fall to aim for. 

2. North and south slopes were seen as the most important as these were the 

edges visible from public locations (Sizewell Gap road to the south and the 

bridleway on Sandy Lane to the north). 

3. The general height of the landform was considered to be acceptable (being 

16.5mAOD on the southern and western sides and 15mAOD on the northern 

side) and could be varied slightly from these levels as the design develops. The 

height of the landform on the northern side could be increased so that it is 

nearer to 16.5mAOD. 

4. Introduce some variety into the top level so that it is not seen as a straight 

horizontal line. 

5. Levels and slopes can be varied depending on quantity of material available. 

6. The draft proposals showed narrower woodland planting on the north side (in 

Broom Covert) than on the western and southern sides, to enable acid 

grassland to be re-instated in Broom Covert. It was agreed that the woodland 

should be widened on this side to increase screening. The landscape / AONB 

benefits of widening the woodland and landform into Broom Covert were 

considered to outweigh the negative effects on biodiversity, given that the 

landscape has national statutory protection whereas Broom Covert does not 

carry any statutory protection. 

7. Hedgerows are not necessarily appropriate between fields given the approach 

likely to be followed for EDF’s Sizewell Vision for the area and should be 

removed from the proposals. The enhancement to the roadside hedge (on 

Sizewell Gap road) is appropriate and should be kept in the proposals. 

8. Increase percentage of Scots pine in the proposed woodland mix to 30 – 50%. 

9. Hedge planting to be predominantly hawthorn with a small proportion of 

blackthorn. (Note, Christine Blythe, Biodiversity Manager for EDF 

subsequently recommended avoiding the use of blackthorn as she has found 

that it does not establish – see Appendix 3.) 

10. Increase the width of the ‘woodland edge planting with open grassland’ on the 

outside edge of the proposed woodland and create more gradual gradation 

from woodland to less dense woodland to shrubs to grassland. 

11. Retain the 10m woodland strip to the east of the bridleway in the landscape 

mitigation proposals.


14 

August 2011 


The revised proposals were then submitted to SCDC, SCC and EDF for further 

comment. The revised submitted proposals and comments are included in Appendix 3. 

A summary of the comments is given below: 

4.1.1. Landform 

‘I am happy to see the significant improvements in the landform, especially to the 

north towards Sandy Lane in the Broom Covert area. I understand Peter (Peter Holborn 

of SCC) has some concerns about the feathering in to the South but overall this is a 

more appropriate response to the need for a less engineered solution. This landform 

should be seen as the minimum land take/earth sculpturing needed to ameliorate 

what is inevitably an adverse impact on the AONB landscape.’ (Bob Chamberlain, 

SCDC) 

‘I consider that this is the very minimum land take and earth modelling that is 

acceptable to ameliorate the inevitable adverse impact on the AONB. If at all possible 

the toe of the proposed embankment should be extended further south to marry in 

with point in the arable field just north of the 400KV pylons lines where the natural 

contours start to steepen. This would avoid creating a "bench like" feature in the field 

between to steeper slopes.’ (Peter Holborn, SCC) 

The landform has not been extended further at this stage, given the need to minimise 

land take as part of a potential Compulsory Purchase Order process. However, there is 

potential for the landform to be extended to the south, to utilise spare material and 

create slacker slopes, as discussed in Section 5.0. 

‘It would be helpful if the cross section provided on Dwg No 2890/11B was extended to 

show the relationship with existing ground levels up to the road.’ (Peter Holborn, SCC) 

The section has been extended to Sizewell Gap road and presented on drawing 2890/12 

in Appendix 4. 

4.1.2. Planting/Landscape Mitigation 

‘I consider that the planting and other vegetation establishment principles shown on 

Drg No 2890/07F are technically sound, and provide scope to allow the creation of a 

heathland/open woodland matrix beyond the boundary of the GWF works according 

to the emerging Vision for EdF's landownership on the Sizewell Estate.’ (Peter 

Holborn, SCC) 

Christine Blyth of EDF gave comments on species mixes that have been incorporated 

into the proposals.


15 

August 2011 


4.2. Proposals submitted with the Development Consent Order 

The final proposals that will be submitted with the Development Consent Order are 

presented on drawings 2890/07H and 2890/12 in Appendix 4. 

The strategy draws on the principles set out in section 3.0. It relates to the treatment of 

land outside the substation as the design of the substation itself will be carried out by 

future competitive tender. The principles of the location, heights, colour etc. of 

substation infrastructure are therefore not discussed further but will be addressed as 

the design of the substation evolves, following the principles set out in section 3.0. 

4.3. Profiled landform around substation 

Many iterations of engineering and landform permutations have been undertaken by 

Galloper Wind Farm Limited and it has been concluded that the substation platform 

level can be reduced to a maximum level of 9mAOD. This would generate a significant 

volume of material that would be used to create a gently profiled landform around the 

north, west and east sides of the substation, where it adjoins open fields. 

Existing levels: The existing ground within the area covered by the western part of the 

substation (the Galloper compound) lies between approximately 11.1 and 12mAOD. 

The eastern part of the proposed substation (the transmission compound) falls from 

approximately 11.4 mAOD in the south-western corner to 7.2mAOD in the northeastern 

corner. 

Proposed levels: It is proposed that the entire substation will be consented with a 

maximum platform level of 9mAOD, but with downward vertical deviation 

permissible up to 1m (to 8mAOD) to address potential ground variability and to 

achieve satisfactory drainage falls on the platform. Note that this document works on 

the basis of impacts from a 9m platform level, this being the ‘worst case’. 

The outside face of the profiled landform will be a 1:10 slope so that it does not appear 

steep 0r artificial and so that it grades gradually into the existing ground profile. The 

inside slope will be 1:3. This steeper slope will not be visible from the surrounding 

landscape. 

The landform will have a limit of deviation in terms of its height limited to -100mm to 

+300mm. Effects have been assessed as -100mm within the LVIA as this is the 'worst 

case scenario'. 

The landform has been set back from existing trees in Sizewell Wents wood to avoid 

the root protection area. 

The landform will be created with rounded edges and gentle integration between 

existing and proposed slopes.


16 

August 2011 


4.4. Sizewell Wents wood 

Part of the landform will be planted with new woodland to enclose the substation and 

extend Sizewell Wents. The woodland and woodland edge will be of a width of 

approximately 35m on the southern, western and northern sides as shown on the 

drawings. The woodland will not be located close to the substation compound to avoid 

trees overhanging it in the long term and to protect the stability of a new cut slope 

formed by lowering the substation platform. This unplanted area will evolve, through 

natural colonisation and management, into a naturalistic woodland edge / grassland 

habitat for the benefit of wildlife. 

The outside woodland edge will contain a proportion of open grassland to provide a 

varied and naturalistic edge that will have biodiversity benefits (notably for reptiles). 

The areas of Sizewell Wents woodland proposed for removal and planting, shown on 

drawing 2890/07H, are as follows: 

Existing area of the woodland 3.32ha 

Area of woodland to be removed to 1.61ha 

construct substation 

New area of woodland to be planted 2.78ha 

adjoining Sizewell Wents (including 

woodland core and woodland edge with 

open grassland on outside edge) 

Total proposed size of Sizewell Wents 4.49ha 

woodland 

This will enlarge Sizewell Wents by 1.17ha, an increase of approximately 35%. 

In addition, further areas of scrub and woodland would be planted outside Sizewell 

Wents, as shown on drawing 2890/07H. 

4.5. Cable corridors, cable sealing compounds and gantries 

Three cable corridors are shown on drawing 2890/07H. The corridor containing cables 

connecting to the offshore wind farm (south) will be 23m wide and the landform can 

extend across this but tree planting cannot. Shallow rooted shrub species will be 

planted over this corridor where the new landform rises to a minimum of 4m above 

the existing ground level. This will leave a localised gap in the woodland screening. 

Two narrower export corridors (15 to 19m wide) lie to the north and south. These will 

be routed to minimise loss of existing trees. New trees and shrubs cannot be planted on 

these corridors.


17 

August 2011 


Where the cable corridors pass through areas of existing or proposed woodland they 

will be finished with an open grassland habitat which will be created by seeding of 

appropriate native species, or by natural succession and management (subject to 

advice from an Ecologist). 

Two cable corridors connect to the existing pylons via cable sealing end compounds 

and gantries to the east, which are up to 13m high. This area has been recently planted 

and seeded as part of GGOWF. The corridors have been routed to minimise the need to 

remove existing mature trees and shrubs, although trees do have to be removed. 

Where possible planting and seeding will be reinstated on completion of the works 

and new planting implemented to provide screening. 

New tree and scrub planting will be planted along the northern and north-eastern 

edges, south of the bridleway, to thicken existing planting, where this is necessary, to 

improve screening from the landscape to the north / north-east and from Rosery 

Cottages. 

A 10m wide woodland belt will be planted to the east of the bridleway that runs along 

Sandy Lane to help screen the cable sealing compounds and gantries, and also GGOWF 

substation and GWF substation, from the landscape to the east. It should be noted that 

planting is restricted in the immediate vicinity of the sealing end compounds due to 

National Grid’s operational and safety requirements in relation to this infrastructure 

and their existing overhead lines. 

4.6. Hedgerows 

Existing discontinuous hedgerows will be enhanced by planting of new hedge plants 

as shown on drawing 2890/07H. 

4.7. Fields 

The gradually falling landform will continue into the existing fields, beyond the edge 

of the proposed woodland. In these areas it will be re-instated to the current uses 

(grazing pasture in Broom Covert and arable farmland in the two fields to the south). 

This land will be returned to EDF to enable them to continue to manage it as it is at 

present, or implement habitat creation as part of the emerging Vision for Sizewell 

Estate. The varied and naturalistic edge to the proposed woodland and woodland edge 

would integrate well with potential future acid grassland / scrub creation in these 

fields. 

4.8. Woodland and hedgerow planting mixes 

The proposed planting mixes have been developed with reference to Forestry 

Commission Bulletin 112 Creating New Native Woodlands (1994) (loosely on NVC 

woodland W16 lowland oak-birch woodland), the mixes used in planting associated


18 

August 2011 


with the recently completed GGOWF, the species present in Sizewell Wents woodland 

and in established field hedgerows in the vicinity, and advised by Peter Holborn of SCC 

and Christine Blyth of EDF. The objective is to create woodland that: 

• provides effective screening in the medium and long term; 

• is appropriate to local character and biodiversity; 

• is comprised of species that are most likely to establish on the free draining 

soils present on the site; 

• has a varied, naturalistic outside edge; and 

• is an extension of Sizewell Wents. 

The woodland and woodland edge planting mixes are shown on drawing 2890/12. 

Hedgerows would comprise 100% hawthorn.


19 

August 2011 


5.0 Additional Mitigation Area 

There is potential for an ‘additional mitigation area’ to be available to utilise additional 

spoil generated during construction of the substation, to create slacker slopes on the 

southern side of the landform. The landform without the ‘additional mitigation area’, 

on which the proposals described and illustrated in Section 4.0 above, and on 

Drawings 2890/07H and 2890/12 in Appendix 4, is shown on Drawing 25456/003/100A 

in Appendix 5. The landform with the ‘additional mitigation area’ is shown on 

Drawing 25456/003/101A in Appendix 6. 

The effects of the proposals with and without the ‘additional mitigation area’ are 

assessed in the LVIA.


August 2011 


Appendices 

Appendix 1. Sizewell Estate Integrated Land Management Plan 

Map 6 Land Use/Habitat

263000 264000 265000 266000 

LEISTON 

Theberton House 

Abbey Farm 

Lady Chapel 

Drift 

Farm 

The Alders 

645000 646000 647000 648000 

EASTBRIDGE 

Potter's farm 

Leiston 

Old 

Abbey 

Sewage 

Works 

Eastbridge 

Farm 

Upper Abbey 

Refuse Tip 

VALLEY ROAD 

Sports Ground 

Plantation 

Cottages 

The Round House 

Common 

Cottages 

LOVER'S LANE 

Crown Lodge 

Ash Wood 

Leiston Common 

The 

Studio 

Lower Abbey 

Kenton Hills 

Reckham 

Lodge 

Crown Farm 

Sandypytle 

Plantation 

Ash Wood Cottages 

Sizewell Belts 

Reckham Pits Wood 

Halfway 

Cottages 

Nursery Covert 

Hill Top Covert 

Round 

Covers 

St. James 

Covert 

Broom Covert 

Walk 

Barn 

Dunwich 

Forest 

Grimseys 

Rosery Cottages 

Sizewell 

Wents 

Osier Beds 

Goose Hill 

Home Farm 

Power 

Station 

Sizewell Gap Sizewell 

Produced by Environment Systems from ADAS, Wolverhampton. WV6 8TQ. ESIS/006/CSL4401(SIZ)/LandUse_Habitat6C 

Mean High Water 

Mean Low Water 

Minsmere Sluice 

Drawn by 

Verified by 

Sizewell Estate 

Map 6 Land Use/Habitat 

P. Taylor 

R. Edwards 

0 250 -500 

750 1,000 

ADAS, Woodthorne, Wergs Road, 

Wolverhampton. WV6 8TQ. 

Tel 01902 754190. Fax 01902 743602 

Agricultural Infrastructure 

Arable 

Fen 

Foreshore 

Grazing Marsh 

Heathland 

Operational Site 

Reed Bed 

Permanent Pasture 

Residential 

Scrub 

Woodland 

Sizewell Estate Boundary 

This plan is illustrative not definitive. 

Meters 

Date 

Date 

19/02/2007 

20/02/2007 

Scale 1:15,000 at A3 size 

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. 

British Energy 100019324 February 2007 

For reference purposes only. 

No further copies may be made


August 2011 


Appendix 2. Maximum Heights of GWF Substation drawing 

GWF_583_R1

Galloper Wind Farm Proposed Infrastructure 


Maximum Height 

5m 

8m 

11m 

13m 

14m 

Ordnance Survey © Crown Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. 

License number 100020449 

The concepts and information contained in this document are the copyright 

of SSE Renewables (UK) Ltd. Use or copying of the document in whole 

or in part without the written permission of SSE Renewables (UK) Ltd 

constitutes an infringement of copyright. SSE Renewables (UK) does 

not warrant that this document is definitive nor free of error and does not 

accept liability for any loss caused or arising from reliance upon 

information provided herein. Not to be used for navigation purposes. 

0 12.5 25 50 Metres 0 0.025 0.05 

UK Offshore Development 

Plan n/a 

0.0125 Kilometres± 

Maximum Heights of GWF Substation 

Drawing Number: GWF_583_R1 

Rev: 1 

Date: 17/08/11 Created: LW Checked: CM 

Scale: 1:1,500 

Page: A3 

Datum: OSGB36 Projection:British National Grid


August 2011 


Appendix 3. Correspondence with SCDC, SCC and EDF regarding 

the agreed Landscape Mitigation Strategy

Peter Holborn 

Suffolk County Council 

Endeavour House 

8 Russell Road 

Ipswich 

Suffolk 

IP1 2BX 

05 September 2011 

Galloper Wind Farm 

Re: Proposed Galloper Wind Farm Onshore Infrastructure at Sizewell 

Landscape Proposals Update 

Dear Peter 

Thank you for meeting with myself and colleagues on 25 August 2011. Please 

find enclosed with this letter draft minutes of the meeting for your 

comment/approval as appropriate. We welcomed the constructive comments 

with respect to our landscape proposals and trust that the enclosures with this 

letter acknowledge the points discussed. As you are aware we are holding 

imminent and ongoing discussions with the freehold landowner EDF (as a 

statutory consultee) on the final form of the proposals. As such we would 

respectfully request that any comments are received at the earliest opportunity, 

ideally on or before Friday 9th September. 

We considered the meeting very productive and were pleased that we were able 

to reach consensus on the suitability of the onshore Rochdale Envelope 

approach, subject to two caveats we have addressed later in this letter. 

In light of discussions at our meeting I enclose updated and additional plans and 

sections with regard to the proposed landform and other landscape mitigation 

measures. This letter also discusses how the proposals will be dealt with in the 

draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and your proposals in relation to a 

contribution to a fund to mitigate residual landscape impacts on the Area of 

Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 

Proposed landform 


Our ref: GGEXT2379 

Name: Colin McAllister 

Phone : 01793 474113 

E-Mail: colin.mcallister@rwe.com 

At the meeting both SCC and SCDC expressed initial reservations that the 

landform as shown in the draft Landscape Mitigation Statement (Appendix 2, 

Drawing 2890/07D) may not fit adequately into the existing landscape and that it 

may be necessary to reduce the height of the landform or to reduce the incline, 

ideally to a slope of 1 in 10. After discussion it was agreed that a height in the 

RWE npower renewables 

Auckland House 

Lydiard Fields 

Great Western Way 

Swindon 

Wiltshire SN5 8ZT 

T +44 (0)8456 720 090 

F +44 (0)1793 474 841 

I www.npower-renewables.com 

Registered office: 

RWE Npower Renewables 

Limited 

Auckland House 

Lydiard Fields 

Great Western Way 

Swindon 

Wiltshire SN5 8ZT 

Registered in England 

and Wales no. 2550622 

SSE Renewables 

55 Vastern Road 

Reading 

RG1 8BU 

T +44 (0) 7787 437559 

I www.galloperwindfarm.co.uk 

Registered office: 

SSE Renewables Holdings (UK) 

Ltd 

2nd Floor 

83-85 Great Victoria Street 

Belfast 

BT2 7AF 

Northern Ireland 

Registered no: NI043239

egion of 16.5m was appropriate on the key lengths of the west and south sides 

of the landform, but that a higher level (than the current 15m) would be 

preferable on the northern area. This was on the basis of the visual and 

landscape impact on the north side being comparably more important than the 

undesignated acid grassland habitat landtake. It was however also discussed 

that the potential to lower the landform towards the western end would benefit a 

more natural form and act against the potential to create a single ‘reservoir type’ 

flat surface (albeit concealed by planting in the longer term). In light of these 

comments we have examined various revisions to the height of the landform and 

have amended the plan to take into account the comments above, whilst being 

conscious of earthworks balancing and the location of the 14m envelope in the 

southeast quarter. The amended scheme is shown in the accompanying plan 

25456/003/018B which also includes contours for the existing land adjacent to 

the proposed landform, to better show how the landform will blend into the 

existing landscape. We are pleased to confirm that the revised landform 

achieves a slope of 1 in 10 and a very close balance on earthworks volumes, 

such that any difference due to settlement or bulking could be handled within 

limited import/export addressed as ‘worst case’ in the Environmental Statement. 

The main changes from the plan we discussed on the 25 August are set out in 

the following paragraphs. 

Southern edge: The height of the landform to the south of the GWF compound 

has been modified from a uniform 16.5m crest to a varying height of 15.5m at the 

west, rising to 17m over the more exposed cable corridor and falling to 16.5m to 

the east. This will allow a more natural undulating form while providing maximum 

screening of the highest building in the southeast quarter of the compound. The 

landform has also been extended to the east to allow a more gradual integration 

into the existing landscape at this point and to provide further benefit to views 

from the southeast on Sizewell Gap. The front, south facing, slope of the 

landform has been widened to allow a more gradual slope to be introduced when 

viewed from Sizewell Gap. This has resulted in the average gradient of the slope 

slackening to 1 in 10 as requested. We also note your comments in relation to 

the vertical depth of the landform and whether we could therefore plant deeper 

rooted vegetation over the cables. Although subject to detailed design, we 

believe it should be feasible to plant shallow rooted species at the top of the 

embankment. This has been shown as woodland edge planting on the 

accompanying landscape plan. 

Western edge: The height of the landform to the west of the compound has been 

reduced from a uniform 16.5m to a uniform height of 15.5m. This reduction in 

height reflects the fact that the highest buildings in the compound are constrained 

further away to the south eastern quarter of the GWF compound and that views 

from due west are limited by existing planting. The front, west facing, slope of 

this landform has been widened to allow a more gradual slope to be introduced. 

This has resulted in the average gradient of the slope slackening to the 

discussed gradient of 1 in 10. 

Northern edge: The height of the landform to the north of the compound has 

been modified from a uniform 15m to a varying height of 15.5m at the west, rising 

to 16m before falling to 13.5m in the east. This will allow a more natural looking 

form while providing improved integration into the landscape of the buildings in 

the GWF compound. The eastern element of the north facing slope has been 

modified to allow a more gradual alignment change in this area along the 

landform crest. The north facing slope has been widened to allow a more

gradual slope to be introduced when viewed from Sizewell Gap. This has 

resulted in the average gradient of the slope slackening to the discussed 1 in 10. 

This has resulted in the landform extending further into Broom Covert which 

GWFL had previously minimised; this is in response to your comments in relation 

to the relative importance of the AONB and the Broom Covert acid grassland 

habitat. We have, however, sought to minimise the loss of acid grassland in this 

area by moving the woodland component of the planting further up the slope of 

the landform. This will allow the restoration of acid grassland on the lower slope 

of the landform without compromising the landscape mitigation benefits of the 

woodland planting (see attached drawing 2890/07F) 

Other landscape mitigation measures 

At the meeting it was indicated by SCC that the proposed hedgerow 

enhancements running north from Sizewell Gap to the proposed substation and 

at the boundary between Broom Covert and the southerly arable field would not 

be appropriate given the landscape character of the area. In light of this 

comment, GWFL have removed the proposed hedgerow enhancements from the 

enclosed plans and this will be reflected in the submitted Landscape Mitigation 

Statement (LMS). 

SCC also commented at the meeting that the proposed woodland species mix 

should have a higher proportion of Scots Pine and that new hedgerows should 

be 90% Hawthorn with 10% Blackthorn. These amended species mixes will be 

included in the LMS which accompanies the DCO application. 

Sizewell Vision 

In our meeting we discussed the ability for GWF to contribute as a ‘Phase’ to the 

Sizewell Vision that SCC and SCDC are developing for the AONB, and to which 

EDF, in relation to their nearby nuclear assets and future proposals, have already 

made progress. We also discussed that the Vision was focussed on a heathland 

habitat transitioning into woodland cores. The proposals with this letter reflect 

these discussions, whereby GWF’s landform and LMS contribute both a 

woodland core and a transitional zone to future heathland, whilst allowing future 

phases, if or when they occur, to continue the Vision beyond the boundary of the 

GWF works. 

As you aware we strongly anticipate that our application to the Infrastructure 

Planning Commission (IPC) will seek Compulsory Purchase (CPO) powers which 

will have to demonstrate justifiable and proportionate quantity of, and interests or 

rights over and in, land. We consider that in light of our meeting it is 

proportionate to seek interests or rights over land over the extent of landform 

shown. However in our meeting we discussed the potential for the ultimate field 

boundary to be located on our landform, if this could be achieved through 

temporary land rights, which would return the lower landform to the existing 

freehold owner. This would have the benefit of allowing EDF the potential to 

implement the ongoing transitional zone on the landform, in line with any wider 

Vision that may be brought forward in the future. 

Having taken legal advice we are advised that, in the event of CPO, this return of 

freehold over our landform could be achieved by securing the freehold and then

offering to return this to the landowner. We are currently seeking an agreement 

with EDF but if we have to resort to CPO powers, you will appreciate that we 

cannot guarantee that EDF will accept a transfer of the land. GWFL are due to 

meet with EDF to discuss this and the landscape mitigation proposals this week. 

The enclosed plans reflect the preferable fenceline where such an agreement is 

reached, with the CPO powers being sought over the full extent of the 

earthworks. We will discuss such a proposal shortly with EDF as freehold 

landowner, even if this is on the presumption of a CPO scenario, and will keep 

you informed of their views on this and the other proposed landscape mitigation 

measures. 

Draft DCO 

It is our intention to submit detailed plans with the application for the landform to 

be implemented as approved. However the potential to vary the final landform 

within defined limits of tolerance of -100mm and +300mm are proposed to be 

permitted on the vertical accuracy of the approved landform within the draft DCO. 

This is primarily to allow reasonable construction tolerances to be achieved, but 

also allows some variation to create rounded transitions between different heights 

and slopes without breaching the approved landform plan or footprint. We trust 

that the proposed tolerances are reasonable and would propose that they are not 

of material significance to the assessments and adequacy of screening. 

A further provision will also be included in the draft DCO that landscape planting 

will not commence until a planting plan has been submitted to, and approved in 

writing by, SCDC. The landscape and planting plan will be in accordance with 

the Landscape Mitigation Strategy that will be included with the DCO application, 

unless otherwise subsequently agreed with SCDC. 

In our meeting we discussed that GWF were considering providing absolute 

constraints in the draft DCO, that would create parameters within which any 

subsequent agreement to vary would sit. Having taken further advice on this 

matter, we propose that the draft DCO continues to adopt its current approach of 

stipulating that any subsequent variations will respect the original environmental 

assessments. As local planning authorities are well versed in approving plans in 

accordance with environmental assessments, we believe that the IPC will be 

comfortable with this approach. We trust that SCDC, in consultation with SCC, 

would be comfortable with such controls and responsibility over subsequent 

approvals on behalf of the IPC. 

AONB fund 

In our meetings of 6 May, 5 July and 25 August 2011 you explained that you 

considered that GWFL should make a contribution to an ‘AONB fund’ as a means 

of mitigating residual landscape impacts on the AONB as a result of above 

ground onshore development. Discussions with the freehold landowner at the 

substation (EDF) are ongoing, however the existing AONB fund for the Sizewell B 

Dry Store has been identified as a potential vehicle for such a contribution. At our 

most recent meeting we agreed that SCC/SCDC would be comfortable with GWF 

contributing to the AONB fund via any commercial land agreement with EDF, 

provided any contribution was the subject of a clear contractual commitment and 

was sufficiently transparent to show that contributions would be in addition to 

those agreed between SCC, SCDC and EDF for other projects.

In the light of the potential for CPO powers to be included in our DCO application, 

at which time there would not be a commercial agreement in place to achieve the 

proposals above, we propose to proceed with drafting Heads of Terms for a 

Section 106 agreement, as a means to guarantee the contribution to the fund. 

Such an agreement would not be required in the event of a commercial 

agreement with EDF. 

To enable the GWFL contribution to be available to the fund from the beginning 

of the development we intend to link payment to the projected five year combined 

onshore and offshore construction period. GWFL would propose to contribute 

annually to the AONB fund during the construction period, up to a limit agreed 

with SCC and SCDC. The same contribution would be proposed through either 

contractual or legal mechanism mentioned above. 

We trust that the above discussion addresses the key points from our meeting in 

relation to onshore visual and landscape matters. Although there may be some 

final minor amendments to the landform proposed with this letter, in essence the 

attached plan 25456/003/018B represents what GWFL intend to submit as the 

landform proposals in the DCO application. 

I would therefore be grateful if you could respond to this letter and also provide 

any outstanding comments on the draft DCO issued recently. As noted in the 

opening paragraph to this letter we would be very grateful for any further 

comments from your council on or before Friday 9 September, to allow us to 

progress our environmental assessments and progress land discussions with 

EDF. 

Yours sincerely 

Colin McAllister 

Galloper Wind Farm Onshore Consents Manager 

Enclosed: 

Landform Plan 25456/003/018B 

Landscape Mitigation Strategy Plan 2890/D 

Landform Cross-section 2890/11B 

GGEXT2381 draft Minutes of Meeting_25.08.2011 

cc John Pitchford, Sue Hooton, Phil Watson (all SCC), Nick Collinson (AONB Unit) 

Bob Chamberlain (SCDC)

X:\JOBS\2890 Greater Gabbard - LVIA for new Onshore Substation\8 

No rth 

Sizewell Gap Road 

Sandy Lane (bridleway) 

Broom Covert - retained grassland 

Grassland reinstated on new landform 

and managed as part of grazed field 

Open grassland 

habitat 

Woodland edge 

planting with 

open grassland 

Woodland core 

planting 

Preferred fenceline 

shown, subject to 

agreement with landowner 

Arable field reinstated 

on new landform 

0 100m 

1' 

Location of section 

(Drawing 2890/11) 

1 

Greater 

Gabbard 

Substation 

Fields retained for arable 

(potential for future habitat creation by 

EDF as part of Sizewell Vision) 

New / enhanced hedgerow 

Proximity of landraising to 

existing overhead lines subject 

to agreement with National Grid 

Q1 


Thickened 

hedgerow / scrub 

10m wide 

woodland 


Landscape Mitigation Strategy 

ISSUED Peterborough 

BY 

T: 01733 310 471 

DATE Sept 2011 DRAWN CMi 

Notes: 

SCALE @A3 1:2,750 CHECKED PB 

STATUS Draft 

APPROVEDPB 

Q1 

Area recently planted and seeded as part of 

DWG. NO. 

Greater Gabbard Substation works. 

2890/07F 

Existing planting and grassland to be reinstated. 

No dimensions are to be scaled from 

Grass seeding over cable corridors. 

All dimensions are to be checked on 

Existing scrub / hedgerow planting on north Area and measurements north-eastern for indicative edge 

pur 

to be thickened where this would help screen development 

© LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Ass 

from landscape and Rosery Cottages to north-east. 

Sources: Ordnance Survey. 

This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s 0100031673. 

Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2011.All rights reserved. Reference number 

OS Open data © Crown copyright and database right 2011 | Aerial Photography © Bing Maps 

LEGEND 

Proposed (planting / grassland also labeled on 

Existing 

Hedgerow 

A Minor revisions PB 27/07/11 

REV. DESCRIPTION APP. DATE 

PROJECT TITLE 

DRAWING TITLE 

Substation and associated infrastructu 

New landform (landform as shown in d 

25456/003/018B) 

Cable corridor 

Post and wire fence 

New / enhanced hedgerows 

Thickened hedgerow / scrub 

Woodland core planting 

Woodland edge planting with open gras 

Open grassland habitat 

Reinstated grassland / arable field 

Sizewell Wents woodland 

Young woodland / scrub planting 

Grassland 

Arable fields 

F Minor revisions PB 02/09/11 

E Revisions following discussion with SCC and SCDC 

D Minor revisions PB 22/08/11 

C Minor revisions PB 17/08/11 

B Revisions to incorporate changes to new landfor

Woodland core planting mix 

Scots pine 40% 

Pedunculate oak 20% 

Silver birch 20% 

Sweet chestnut 5% 

Hawthorn 10% 

Holly 5% 

Shown on the section at approximately 5.1m high after 15 years allowing for planting at 600mm 

high and average growth rate of 300mm per year 

Woodland edge planting mix 

Hawthorn 25% 

Gorse 20% 

Silver birch 15% 

Blackthorn 10% 

Scots pine 10% 

Pedunculate oak 5% 

Elder 5% 

Holly 5% 

Honeysuckle 5% 

Woodland edges would comprise approximately 60% planting and 40% open grassland. 

Planting shown on the section at approximately 3m high after 15 years allowing for planting at 

600mm high and average growth rate of 200mm per year

From: Bob.Chamberlain@SuffolkCoastal.gov.uk 

To: Colin.McAllister@rwe.com 

Cc: peter.holborn@et.suffolkcc.gov.uk 

Subject: RE: Galloper Wind Farm - onshore landscape changes 

Date: 08 September 2011 11:39:20 

Colin, 

My informal comments are summarised below: 

1. Draft Minutes: I am satisfied that these are an accurate record of our meeting. I can confirm that 

my query relating to the necessity of one of the DCO provisions related to Clause 13. 

2. Proposed Landform: I am happy to see the significant improvements in the landform, especially to 

the north towards Sandy Lane in the Broom Covert area. I understand Peter has some concerns 

about the feathering in to the South but overall this is a more appropriate response to the need for a 

less engineered solution. This landform should be seen as the minimum land take/earth sculpturing 

needed to ameliorate what is inevitably an adverse impact on the AONB landscape. 

3. Planting/Landscape Mitigation: I would be guided in this by Peter who is giving technical landscape 

advice to both SCC/SCDC. 

4. Sizewell Vision: I note your approach and it is one that I can support. The potential to return land to 

EDF to integrate into the overall Landscape Vision for its estate is I consider the right approach. 

5. Draft DCO: I can confirm that I see no problem with allowing the tolerances set out in your letter 

nor do I see a problem with the procedures fro post DCO approval of details provided they sit within 

the worst case scenario/parameters tested in the EIA. 

6. AONB Fund: I agree we need to include the contributions to an AONB Fund in a draft 106 given 

we do not currently have any other method for securing such a mitigating funds. What I am less clear 

about is the period of contribution - why 5 years? When we dealt with the Sizewell B Dry Store 

building we secured a £100k 

initial payment to be followed by £20k per annum for the lifetime of the building. Whilst no two sites 

are ever exactly the same nevertheless I need to understand your reasoning to be able to take 

forward meaningful negotiations in tandem with my colleagues at SCC. 

I hope these comments are helpful at this stage in advance of your further discussions with EDF and 

preparation of your DCO and associated documentation. 

Regards, 

Bob Chamberlain 

Principal Planner (Major Projects) 

01394-444429. 

From: Colin.McAllister@rwe.com [mailto:Colin.McAllister@rwe.com] 

Sent: 05 September 2011 12:23 

To: Bob Chamberlain 

Subject: Galloper Wind Farm - onshore landscape changes 

Bob, please find attached: 

- a letter regarding further changes GWF have made to the landscaping proposals and onshore 

aspects of the application as a result of our meeting on 25 August 

- a plan showing the amended landform 

- a plan of the amended landscape mitigation 

- a cross section of the amended landscape mitigation 

- draft minutes of our meeting on 25 August

Please note that in Action 7.2 of the minutes I have set out that you queried whether Provision 13 of 

the draft DCO relating to statutory notice was needed. Please let me know if this was not the 

provision you queried. 

I would be very grateful if you could let me have any comments on or before Friday 9 September, to 

allow us to progress our environmental assessments and progress land discussions with EDF. 

I have also put a signed copy in the post for your records. 

Regards 



T: 01793 474113 

M: 07989 494337 

E: colin.mcallister@rwe.com 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

The information contained in this email or any of its attachments 

may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive 

use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you 

receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately 

by using the reply facility in your email software and then delete 

this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not 

use, retain or disclose any information contained in this e-mail. 

Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and 

do not necessarily represent those of Suffolk Coastal District 

Council. The Council reserves the right to monitor email 

communications on any part of its network. 

Suffolk Coastal District Council cannot guarantee that this message 

or any of its attachments has reached you complete and/or virus free 

and advises you to carry out appropriate virus checks. 

_____________________________________________________________________

From: Peter.Holborn@suffolk.gov.uk 

To: Colin.McAllister@rwe.com 

Cc: John.Pitchford@suffolk.gov.uk; Sue.Hooton@suffolk.gov.uk; phil.watson@suffolk.gov.uk; 

Nick.Collinson@suffolk.gov.uk; Bob.Chamberlain@SuffolkCoastal.gov.uk 

Subject: RE: Galloper Wind Farm - onshore landscape changes 


Dear Colin, 

Further to your e-mail 5th Sept, I should like to offer the following informal comments on behalf of 

Suffolk County Council. 

1. I confirm the draft minutes are an accurate record of our meeting on 25th August. 

2. Proposed landform: I appreciate the efforts that have been made to improve the visual impact of 

the earthworks particularly to the north of the site in the area of Broom Covert towards Sandy 

Lane. I note from the cross-section provided on Drg No. 2890/11B that the angle of the outer face 

of the slope fronting the road has been reduced to 1:10; I consider that this is the very minimum 

land take and earth modelling that is acceptable to ameliorate the inevitable adverse impact on the 

AONB. If at all possible the toe of the proposed embankment should be extended further south to 

marry in with point in the arable field just north of the 400KV pylons lines where the natural 

contours start to steepen. This would avoid creating a "bench like" feature in the field between to 

steeper slopes. It would be helpful if the cross section provided on Dwg No 2890/11B was 

extended to show the relationship with existing ground levels up to the road. 

3. Planting/Landscape Mitigation: I consider that the planting and other vegetation establishment 

principles shown on Drg No 2890/07F are technically sound, and provide scope to allow the 

creation of a heathland/open woodland matrix beyond the boundary of the GWF works according to 

the emerging Vision for EdF's landownership on the Sizewell Estate. . 

4. AONB Fund; I consider the suggested 5 year period of the 106 contribution is too short. If we 

use the period of the adverse residual impact upon the AONB as a yardstick then 25 years would 

seem more appropriate. 

I hope you find these comments useful in your discussions with EdF and preparation of your DCO, 

Regards 

Peter 

Peter Holborn 

Landscape and Biodiversity Team Leader 

Countryside Service 

Economy, Skills and Environment 

Suffolk County Council 

Endeavour House 

8 Russell Road 

Ipswich 

Suffolk 

IP1 2BX 

tel 01473 264778 

07710 588200 

e:mail peter.holborn@suffolk.gov.uk 

From: Colin.McAllister@rwe.com [mailto:Colin.McAllister@rwe.com] 

Sent: 05 September 2011 12:26

To: Peter Holborn 

Cc: John Pitchford; Sue Hooton; Phil Watson; Nick Collinson 

Subject: Galloper Wind Farm - onshore landscape changes 

Peter, please find attached: 

- a letter regarding further changes GWF have made to the landscaping proposals and onshore 

aspects of the application as a result of our meeting on 25 August 

- a plan showing the amended landform 

- a plan of the amended landscape mitigation 

- a cross section of the amended landscape mitigation 

- draft minutes of our meeting on 25 August 

I would be very grateful if you could let me have any comments on or before Friday 9 September, 

to allow us to progress our environmental assessments and progress land discussions with EDF. 

I have also put a signed copy in the post for your records. 

Regards 



T: 01793 474113 

M: 07989 494337 

E: colin.mcallister@rwe.com 

Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in accordance 

with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimise any 

security risks. 

The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may 

be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of 

the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive 

this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using 

the reply facility in your email software.

From: Rob.Gully@rwe.com 

To: Colin.McAllister@rwe.com; Philip Brashaw 

Subject: FW: Galloper Wind Farm Landscaping Proposals 


Attachments: SZ-plan of GGOW lease.doc 

EdF response to Monday's meeting. 

Regards 

Robert Gully 

Galloper Wind Farm Development Manager 

RWE Npower Renewables Ltd 

Project office tel: 0118 9000724 

Alternative office tel: 01793 474189 

Mobile: 07919 291523 

E-Mail: rob.gully@rwe.com 

Project Website: www.galloperwindfarm.com 

ARE YOU READY TO MEET A STORMY JOB CHALLENGE? 

RWE INNOGY IS LOOKING FOR YOU! 

http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/279718/rwe-npower-renewables/company/job-vacancies/ 

http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/472412/rwe-innogy/career/current-job-offers/ 

RWE Npower Renewables Limited 

Registered Office: Auckland House, Lydiard Fields Business Park, 

Great Western Way, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN5 8ZT. 

Registered in England & Wales, Company Number 02550622. 

RWE npower renewables is an RWE Innogy Company 

From: Blythe Christine [mailto:christine.blythe@edf-energy.com] 


To: Kate Tibble; Lloyd Davies Nick; Alister.Kratt@lda-design.co.uk 

Cc: Gully, Rob; Galloper Wind Farm 

Subject: RE: Galloper Wind Farm Landscaping Proposals 

Kate, 

Thank you. Please find attached a plan of the area leased to GGOW. You will see the northern 

part of the field which is outwith the leased area and which we have used for the reptile 

mitigation. GGOW planted the edge along the boundary on our side of the boundary fence. As 

you can see from the plan, the boundary is to the west of the pylon and overhead line, not the 

east. But it could be that the fence is in the wrong place maybe? The hedge has died anyway and 

given it is on our retained land we do not intend to replant it. We propose to remove the tubes. 

In respect of your proposed species mix, I would make the following suggestions. 

In general terms regarding the woodland and woodland edge plantings, I think that the soil type 

here is one of the lightest on the Estate, and as the land is going to be re-profiled, this will 

increase the droughtiness of the soils and I think the species mixture should reflect this. The 

woodland edge planting with open grassland is 40% open grassland, but it is shown behind a post 

and wire fence so how will access be gained to manage it? It will only remain as open grassland 

if it is managed or if the rabbits decide to keep it closely trimmed. I think this area might actually 

become an area of scrub which is a good habitat anyway. 

Woodland Core Planting Species

Scots Pine 40% 

Sweet Chestnut 20% 

Pedunculate Oak 5% 

Birch 20% 

Field Maple 10% 

Holly 5% 

I have suggested an increase in the sweet chestnut and lowered the oak as oak find it very difficult 

to establish and then compete in these light soil type areas (Paines plantation for example). Field 

maple are a good shrub/low tree species and are drought resistant. 

Woodland Edge Planting Mix 

Scots Pine 10% 

Gorse 20% 

Broom 20% 

Birch 20% 

Holly 10% 

Hawthorn 10% 

Field Maple 10% 

I have added broom to gorse as the two heathland type woody shrubs (blackthorn never 

establishes) and think that oak will struggle and we can let other plants colonise over time. I think 

the woodland edge should be thin, sparse, pine and birch with heathland species so that it will 

have a sense of place within the new surrounding landscape. 

I hope that helps. If you are still in doubt about the reptile area please get back to me. 

Regards 

Christine 

Christine Blythe 

Biodiversity Manager 

Property Services, Barnwood, EDF Energy 

Tel - 01452 652985 Internal - 777 2985 

Fax - 01452 653081 Internal - 777 3081 

Email christine.blythe@edf-energy.com 

http://www.british-energy.com - Powering the low carbon generation 

http://www.edfenergy.com 

Ask yourself whether you need a hard copy. If you do, print it double sided 

From: Kate Tibble [mailto:kate.tibble@sserenewables.com] 


To: Lloyd Davies Nick; Alister.Kratt@lda-design.co.uk; Blythe Christine 

Cc: Rob Gully; Galloper Wind Farm

Subject: Galloper Wind Farm Landscaping Proposals 

Thanks for the meeting yesterday. Please find attached the plans that were discussed in the 

meeting. 

Would you be able to send co-ordinates for the Sizewell C reptile re-location are so that we 

know where the precise location is and there’s no confusion going forward please? 

Christine – I would be grateful if you could review the existing hedgerow that is marked on the 

plans attached by the OHL and confirm whether this matches with the location that you 

thought it should be. 

Many Thanks, 

Kate Tibble 

Galloper Wind Farm Project Manager 

+44(0)7787 437559 

kate.tibble@sserenewables.com 

http://www.galloperwindfarm.com 

This e-mail, and any attachments, is confidential and for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended 

recipient, please telephone +44 (0) 1355 846000. We do not accept legal responsibility for this e-mail or any viruses. 

All e-mails sent and received by us are monitored. Contracts cannot be concluded with us by e-mail. 

This message has been sent from EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd , a company registered in England and Wales No. 

03076445, with registered office at Barnett Way, Barnwood, Gloucester, GL4 3RS.


August 2011 


Appendix 4. Drawings 

2890/02F Figure 02: Landscape Character 

2890/07H Landscape Mitigation Strategy 

2890/12 Landscape Mitigation Strategy – Section 1 – 1’

Path: X:\JOBS\2890 Greater Gabbard - LVIA for new Onshore Substation\8gis\Projects\Revision F\2890_0002_Landscape_character.mxd 

North 

0 1,500m 

3.5km 

3km 

2km 

1km 

LEGEND 

F Substation and cable corridor boundaries upd 

E Legend amended PB 21/09/1 

D Substation and cable corridor boundaries upda 

C Substation and cable connections amended 

B Legend amended PB 18/05/1 

A Substation layout amended WW 01/04/11 


PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 

Figure 02: 


ISSUED BYOxford 

T 01865 8870 

DWG.NO 

DATE 21/09/2011 

SCALE@A31:30,000 

STATUS 

© LDA Des 

2890/02F 

FINAL 

Galloper Wind Farm proposed substatio 

1, 2, 3 & 3.5km Radius around pr 

Wind Farm proposed substation site a 

Galloper Wind Farm proposed 

routes of cable corridors 

Suffolk Landscape Character Types 2008, updated 2011 






Urban 

DRAWN DL 

CHECKED PB 

APPROVED WW 

No dimensions are to be scaled from this drawing. 

All dimensions are to be checked on site. 

Area measurements for indicative purposes only. 

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material wit 

Ordnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her Maje 

© Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes C 

may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 

Licence number 0100031673 [2009] 

Digital Terrain mapping - ©GeoPerspectives [2009] 

Sources: Ordnance Survey, Suffolk Coastal District Counci

X:\JOBS\2890 Greater Gabbard - LVIA for new Onshore Substation\8 

No rth 

Sizewell Gap Road 

Sandy Lane (bridleway) 

Broom Covert - retained grassland 

Grassland reinstated on new landform 

and managed as part of grazed field 

Open grassland 

habitat 

Woodland edge 

planting with 

open grassland 

Woodland core 

planting 

Preferred fenceline 

shown, subject to 

agreement with landowner 

Arable field reinstated 

on new landform 

0 100m 

1' 

Location of section 

(Drawing 2890/12) 

Greater 

Gabbard 

Substation 

Fields retained for arable 

(potential for future habitat creation by 

EDF as part of Sizewell Vision) 

1 

New / enhanced hedgerow 

Proximity of landraising and 

planting to existing overhead 

lines subject to agreement 

with National Grid 

Q1 


Thickened 

hedgerow / scrub 

10m wide 

woodland 

LEGEND 

Proposed (planting / grassland also labeled on 

A Minor revisions PB 27/07/11 


PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 

Substation and associated infrastructu 

New landform 

(landform as shown on drawing 2545 

Cable corridor 

Post and wire fence 

New / enhanced hedgerows 

Thickened hedgerow / scrub 

Woodland core planting 

Woodland edge planting with open gras 

Open grassland habitat 

Reinstated grassland / arable field 

H Layout updated PB 20/10/11 

G Section line, landform and 10m woodland update 

F Minor revisions PB 02/09/11 

E Revisions following discussion with SCC and SCDC 

D Minor revisions PB 22/08/11 

C Minor revisions PB 17/08/11 

B Revisions to incorporate changes to new landfor 

Landscape Mitigation Strategy 

ISSUED Peterborough 

BY 

T: 01733 310 471 

DATE Sept 2011 DRAWN CMi 

Notes: 

SCALE @A3 1:2,750 CHECKED PB 

STATUS Final 

APPROVEDPB 

Q1 

Area recently planted and seeded as part of 

DWG. NO. 

Greater Gabbard Substation works. 

2890/07H 

Existing planting and grassland to be reinstated. 

No dimensions are to be scaled from 

Grass seeding over cable corridors. 

All dimensions are to be checked on 

Existing scrub / hedgerow planting on north Area and measurements north-eastern for indicative edge 

pur 

to be thickened where this would help screen development 

© LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Ass 

from landscape and Rosery Cottages to north-east. 

Sources: Ordnance Survey. 

This drawing may contain: Ordnance Survey material by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s 0100031673. 

Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2011.All rights reserved. Reference number 

OS Open data © Crown copyright and database right 2011 | Aerial Photography © Bing Maps 

Existing 

Hedgerow 

Sizewell Wents woodland 

Young woodland / tree / scrub plant 

Grassland 

Arable fields


August 2011 


Appendix 5. Drawing 25456/003/100A showing landform without 

the ‘additional mitigation area’

11.40 

11.40 

11.88 

11.51 

12.08 

11.96 

11.90 

11.62 11.41 11.63 11.93 12.04 11.93 11.50 

11.48 11.49 11.51 

11.84 

11.27 

11.47 11.70 11.86 

11.91 11.88 

11.64 11.47 11.44 

11.40 

11.38 

11.53 

11.31 

11.27 

10.85 

10.90 

11.11 

11.56 

1.2m p/w Fence 

10.90 

user name: michael pigden 

12.05 

12.04 

12.10 

10.87 

11.54 

12.04 

12.04 

11.50 

11.65 

12.00 

12.02 

12.03 

10.92 

11.85 

1.00m wide 

12.08 

12.09 

11.01 

top of landform 

12.50 

13.00 

13.50 

14.00 

11.85 

14.50 

39.90m 

11.78 

12.02 

15.00 

12.05 

11.10 

11.87 

Min. 

5.0m 

15.50 

14.00 

15.00 

11.89 

11.83 

15.50m 

Rough Grass 

12.05 

11.98 

11.25 

11.83 

11.98 

15.50m 

12.00 

13.00 

11.28m 

11.95 

10.50 

11.50 

12.00 

11.87 



11.48 

9.50 

1.00m wide 

11.77 

9.00 

8.29m 

11.87 

11.92 

11.41 

11.76 

12.05 

11.84 

5.00m 

11.74 

Crops 

11.77 

11.81 

G9 

11.253 

15.50m 

11.70 

11.62 

11.71 

11.76 

11.93 

11.34 

11.58 

50.59m 

11.68 

11.66 

Crops 

11.40 

11.77 

12.63m 

1.00m wide 


11.45 

10.50 

11.00 

11.50 

12.00 

11.30 

11.56 

11.58 

12.50 

11.63 

Min 5.00m 

11.42 

13.00 

13.50 

Farm Track 

14.00 

14.50 

15.00 

6.82m 

16.50m 

15.50 

11.31 

16.00 

15.00 

11.29 

11.47 

11.44 

14.00 

13.00 

11.53 

12.00 

11.00 

10.00 

5.00m 

5.00m 

11.24 

9.00 

11.23 

11.23 

Min 

11.21 

8.90m 

11.08 

11.15 

11.10 

11.45 

10.99 

5.00m 

5.44 

11.12 

5.06 

11.09 

11.204 

G3 

5.145.16 

10.96 

5.14 

5.18 

5.75 

5.16 

5.35 

5.16 5.21 

5.61 

Animal Water Point 

25 

4.914 

11.38 

11.14 

11.09 

11.06 

6.20 

1.2m Mesh Fence 

11.49 

6.67 

5.96 

16.00m 

13.72m 52.07m 

3.94 

3.81 

11.36 

11.10 

11.09 


6.57 

5.38 

3.89 

3.91 

16.00m 

9.00 

Crop 

9.50 

4.12 

6.70 

10.50 

11.50 

4.91 

D1267 

10.79 

PO 

PO 

5.93 

4.07 

D1262 

4.14 

Rough Grass 


12.00 

13.00 

14.00 

15.00 

16.00 

17.00 

16.50 

PO 

Crops 

Crops 

4.85 

4.78 

4.55 

4.68 


D1266 

16.00 

D1272 

4.93 

D1269 

D1268 

4.19 

4.32 

6.40 6.72 

D1271 

D1270 

11.36 

5.49 

6.91 

D1261 

D1260 

D1273 

D1275 

D1276 

4.63 

4.76 

4.96 

D1274 

24 

4.853 

D1263 D1264 

D1265 

5.88 

80.00m 

15.50 

15.00 

14.50 

14.00 

13.50 

4.89 

D1258 

13.00 

D1277 

D1278 

D1308 

D1309 

D1259 

G2.62 H9.5 D 

12.50 

PO 

D1279 

D1257 

D1255 D1256 

D1254 

D1253 

11.49 

12.00 

4.62 

4.57 

4.69 

5.11 

11.31 

4.56 4.50 

4.69 

4.52 

5.05 

4.72 4.88 

11.13 

11.23 

9.90 


D1290 

D1293 D1294 D1292 D1296 

D1295 

D1297 

D1303 

D1299 

D1298 

D1305 D1304 

D1302 D1300 D1301 

D1306 

D1288 D1291 D1289 

D1286 D1287 

D1280 

D1281 D1283 D1282 

D1284D1285 

D1310 

D1311 

D1312 

D1227 

D1313 

D1314 

D1226 

PO 

C195 

D1251 

D1252 

D1246 

D1242 

D1243 D1245 

D1244 

D1241 D1240 D1239 

PO 

D1315 D1316 

D1233 

D1230 

D1053 

D1320 

D1322 

D1324 

D1326 

D1237 

D1236 

D1235 

D1052 

D1317 

D1318 

D1250 

D1051 

D1238 

D1232 

D1231 

D1325 

D986 

D985 

D984 

D983 

D982 

D1321 

D1323 

D1249 

D880 

D878 

D1328 

D1247 

D1054 C190 

PO 

C194 

D1327 

D1183 

D1307 

D1248 

D1228 

D866 


D1056 

D879 

D865 

4.42 

4.23 

D1360 

10.22 

4.36 4.51 

D1376 

D1375 

D1229 

D1221 

D1202 

D1065 

D1060 

D853 

C191 

D855 

10.44 

D1329 

D1330 

D1331 

D1336 

D1333D1335 

D1334 

D1339 

D1340 

D1332 

D1337 

D1338 


10.61 

11.27 

11.01 

4.19 

10.83 


11.03 

3.95 

4.01 

4.12 

11.20 

11.34 

4.01 

11.38 

3.61 

D1343 

D1344 4.332 

D1347 

D1348 D1349 

D1345 

D1352 D1354 

D1350 

D1353 

D1355 

D1346 

D1356 

D1357 D1358 

g0.34,h2.5,d 

D1351 

D1234 

D1063 

D987 

D861 

D852 

D842 

D1361 

C170 

D1061 

D1057 

D1055 

D860 

D854 

D856 

D806 

D988 

D864 

D1363 

D1066 

D1212 

D1186 

D1185 

D1187 

D1359 

D1059 D1058 

D1209 

D1210 

D1211 

D1208 

D1207 

D1205 

D1206 

D1204 

D1201 

D1184 

D851 

D1374 

D1203 

C192 

D1064 

D1062 

D977 

D976 

D971 

D970 

D968 

D1362 

D1188 

D1067 

D881 

D991 

D843 

C163 

D841 

D989 

D975 

D974 

C162 

C151 

D750 

D967 

D1364 

D1365 

D1369 

D1377 D1379 

D1225 

D1224 

D1222 

D1223 

D1220 

D1219 

D1218 

D1217 D1216 

D1215 D1214 

D1213 

D840 

D839 

D806 

D809 D810 

PO 

9 

D1382 

D990 

D1200 

C171 

D972 

C161 

D969 

D1077 

D1076 

D1075D1074 

D863 

D862 

D857 

D751 

D674 

D640 

D859 

D858 

D850 

D849 

D844 

D1068 

C164 D950 

D949 

D973 

D811 

D1072 

D947 

D946 

D965 

D964 

D963 

D962 

D748 

D708 

D639 

D1366 

D1380 

D1381 

PO 

235.0 

D1378 

D1383 

D945 

C152 

D1367 

D1368 

D1189 D1190 

D1191 

D966 

D709 

D638 

D706 

D637 

D1370 

D803 

D749 

D636 

D752 

C193 

D1192D1193 

D1073 

D1071 

D1069 

D1070 

D846D847 

D845 

C145 

D948 

D747 D746 

D940 

3.79 

3.91 

D1195 

D754 

C124 

D1199 

D675 

D676 D677 

D678 

D848 

D673 

D1194 

D978 

D979 

D980 D981 

D941 

D939 

D944 

D943 

D942 

D951 

D953 

D952 

D961 

D1384 

D1385 

D1386 D1387 

D1388 

D882 D883 

D804 

C143 

C144 

D805 

230.0 

D1371 

D955 D954 

D1423 

D1389 

D1390 

D1391 

D956 

D957 

D958 

D959 

11.46 

3.41 

3.38 

3.52 

11.52 

3.58 

D1078 

D1079 

D1080 

D1082 D1081 

D884 

D712 

D635 

D1373 

D753 

D1198 

D992 6.879 

D960 

C160 

D1372 

D1437 

8 

D833 

C132 

D711 

D713 

D710 

D672 

C137 

D745 

C135 

D679 

D606 

C125 

D1422 

D1427 

D1392 

D1341 

D938 

D834 

D835 

D836 

D837 

D838 

D813 

D812 

D633 

D634 

38.00m 

D1197 

D802 

D671 

D670 

D1412 D1413 

D1417 

D1415 

D1416 

D1087 

C120 

D1428 

D1430 

D1440 

D1441 

D1442 

D1196 

C159 D937 

D885 

C136 

D1393 

D629 

D630 

D1424 

D1432 

D1433 D1434 

C138 

D631 

D1394 

D932 

D933 

D895 

D668 

D2001 

D1439 

D1086 

D1085 

D567 

11.69 

D935 

D894 

D890 

D889 

D888 

D642 

D641 

D632 

D1342 

10 

2.248 

D1436 

D467 

3.80 

D1395 

D1396 

D1397 

D1398 

D1400 D1399 

C128 

D1089 

D1090 

D1088 

D993 

D994 

D995 

D928 

D929 

C123 

D755 

D628 

D799 

D758 

D667 

11.73 

D800 D801 

D744 

D719 

D720 

D718 

D716 D717 

D714 D715 

D669 

D931 

D926D927 

D665 

D664 

D663 

D887 

D886 

3.22 

3.23 

3.29 

D832 

D829 

D625 

D624 

Export Cable Corridor 

220.0 

D1429 

D1431 

D1414 

D1435 

D1438 

D896 

C129 

C148 

D814 

D1443 

C197 

D925 

C158 

D934 

D893 

D1421 

D1426 

D1083 

D1418 

D666 

D607 

D568 

D1401 

D623 

D622 

C119 

C172 

C173 

D826 

D798 

D1419 

D1091 

D930 

D757 

C139 

D627 

D626 

D756 

D465 D464 

D463 

11.80 

D1420 

D1425 

D1493 

D1494 

G0.46 H10 D 

C127 

D604 

C106 

3.11 

3.16 

D1444 

D1445 D1448 

D1446 

D1447 

D1449 

D1458 

210.0 

D1457 

G0.32 H8.5 D 

D1094 

C196 

D936 

D831 

D830 

D815 

D924 

C142 

D892 

D705 

C130 

D459 

D458 

D825 

D797 

D1461 

D1462 

D1465 

D1464 

C94 

D466 

D457 

D1455 

D1456 

C156 

D828 

D643 


3.26 

C208 

D1093 

D996 

D1466 

D741 

D740 

D725 D726 

D723 

C133 

D724 

D721 

D722 

D704 

D1459 

C146 

D621 

C112 

11.89 

3.22 

3.22 

C140 

D759 

D780 

D1463 

D1490 

D793 D792 

D794 

D680 D689 

D644 D645 

D573 

C92 

D620 

D603 

C93 

D569 

D562 

D795 

D791 

C105 

3.22 

3.17 

3.36 

D1492 

D1495 

D1450 

C207 

D1095 

C157 

D818 

D1092 

D1084 

D827 

C141 

D1500 

C315 

C155 

D920 

D891 

D1469 D1467 D1468 

D1471 D1470 

D1408 

D1410D1409 

D1406 D1407 

D1405 

D1404 

D1402 

D1403 

G0.49 H9 D 

G0.26 H9 D 

D816 

D817 

D782 

D781 

D743 

D742 

C134 

D738 

D739 

D736 

D734 D735 

D733 

D731 D730 D732 

D728 D729 

D727 

D619 D618 

C122 

D563 

D692 

D703 

D577 

D824 

D819 

D790 

D786 

D785 

D696 

D694 

D695 

D693 

D690 

D688 

D602 

C113 

D919 

D917 

D561 

D560 

D702D701 

D565 D564 

D566 

C90 

C107 

D462 

D570 

11.92 

11.92 

D1484 

D1496 

C200 

C199 

C198 

C147 

7 

8.657 

15.00m 

D796 

D608 

D580 

C91 

D870 

D869 

C110 

C97 

D579 

D578 

D460 

C88 

D461 

C87 

C104 

10.54 

10.77 

12.22 12.33 12.23 

12.47 11.99 11.75 

12.54 

11.40 10.54 

12.46 

11.81 

11.74 

11.59 

11.11 

10.75 

10.16 

11.73 

D574 

Crops 

C114 

D576 

D449 

12.52 

3.13 

3.17 

3.46 

D685 D686 D687 

D681 

D682 

6 

D683 D684 

D662 

D654 

D655 

9.850 

D661 

D660 

D653 

D659 

D652 

C126 

D656 

D657 

D658 

D691 

D697 

D575 

D572 

D571 

D499 

D500 

D498 

D497 

C96 

D494 

C95 

D470 

D472 

D469 

D471 

D468 

D474 

D473 

C82 

C80 

11.84 

D610 

D609 

D554 

D478 

D477 

C44 

11.86 

D479 

11.84 

C116 

C72 

C83 

11.83 

C79 

3.07 

3.09 2.95 

3.39 

D605 D601 

200.0 

D1529 

D1472 

D1473 D1474 

D1452 

D1451 

D1460 

C206 

D1483 

D1502 D1501 

D1513 

D997 

D918 

D1488 

D1498 

C201 

D1453 

C154 

D897 

D1491 

D1497 

D1526 

C209 

D1527 

D1528 

D1530 

C211 

D1531 

D1532 

D1533 

D1537 

D1454 

D1536 

D1411 

D876 

D874 

D877 

D875 

D789 

D916 

D823 

C314 

D1535 D1534 

D1538 

D1539 

D820 

D784 

D783 

D1499 

D923 

D922 

D921 

D737 

D871 

D901 

D868 

C149 

D617 

D1487 

D1482 

D898 

D867 

D647 

D646 

D1485 

D899 

D698 

D553 

D559 

D558 

D551 

D552 

D549 

D548 

D503 D502 

D1508 D1507 

D822 

D788 

D872 

C210 

C150 

D699 

D700 

D616 

D615 

D495 

D475 D476 

C81 

D290 

C220 

D821 

11.73 

D590 

D1480 

D1593 

D1593 

D1566 D1567 

C40 

3.48 

D595 

D593 

D592 

D591 

D594 

C115 

D589 

D557 

D556 

D555 

D547 

D546D545 

D544 

C99 

D506 

D504 

D501 

C108 

D505 

D493 

D492 

D491 

D490 

D448 

Fallen Fence 

Crops 

C71 

D550 

D496 

C41 

C37 

11.65 

3.02 

D651 

D483 

C85 

D1486 

7.39 

D598 

D480 

D426 

8.50 

1.2 Wooden Fence 

C109 

D1489 

D1503 

D1504 

D1506 

D1509 

D1511 

D1510 

C205 

D1517 

D1512 

D1523 

D1525 

D1599 

D1597 

D1596 

D1598 

D1102 

D1103 

C174 

D1105 D1104 

D1101 

D1100 

C175 

D1099 

D1098 

D1097 

D1096 

D1001 

D1000 D1002 

D999 D998 

D1003 

C167 

PO SV 

D1475 

D1476 

D1545 

D1540 

C203 

C202 

D1551 

D1520 

D1543 

D1541 D1542 

C166 

D1516 D1515 

D1544 

D1546 

C204 

C165 

D912 

D1004 

C153 

D915 

D913 

D914 

D1505 

D452 

D453 

C38 

D873 

D427 

D451 

D1481 

D1514 

D1590 

C221 

C70 

D293 

D597 

11.47 

D538 

3.08 

3.10 

D539 

D541 

D543 D542 

C100 

D507 

D648 

C64 

D450 

D508 

C39 

Crops 


D650 

C117 

D596 

D489 

C84 

D600 

C43 

11.20 

11.29 

D588 

D528 

D510 

D509 

D612 

3.68 

D529 

D535 D536 

D537 

D294 

11.43 

D614 

11.25 

C312 

D1630 

D581 

D540 

D511 

D428 

D291 

2.87 

D513 

D512 

C98 

C69 

D649 

D613 

C121 

C42 

8.49 

9.48 

3.64 

2.77 

8.75 

2.74 2.65 

8.03 

10.26 9.42 8.59 7.68 6.94 

7.83 

2.84 

3.48 

2.66 

6.98 

6.98 

2.51 2.68 

8.15 

7.49 

2.75 

3.25 

6.90 

6.20 

5.90 

2.84 

2.48 

8.13 

2.44 

8.44 8.05 7.89 7.76 7.67 7.57 7.56 7.57 7.47 

D425 

C66 

D587 

D482 

D481 

D418 

D419 

D420 

D421 D422 

D423 

D484 

D488 D487 

D486 

D845 

D1629 

C313 

D532 

D533 

C47 

D292 

D289 

D288 

D287 

3.02 

2.32 

2.28 

2.55 

2.10 

2.09 

2.11 

2.08 

2.27 

8.13 

2.29 

2.29 

2.393.35 3.36 

8.59 

8.06 

9.42 

8.10 

9.60 

8.14 

8.138.17 

9.66 

9.77 

8.18 

7.99 

9.75 

8.13 

9.66 

8.05 

8.18 

7.43 

9.62 

8.00 

7.35 7.18 

7.307.05 6.68 5.89 5.54 5.24 5.01 4.98 4.72 4.57 

D530 

D523 

D534 

D514 

C36 

C67 

C68 

C311 

D582 

D417 

C63 

D321 

D416 

D313 

D414 

C35 

D429 

D295 

D315 

D285 

D586 

D424 

D320 

11.07 11.07 10.80 

D1627 

D1625 

D1626 D1624 

D1605D1606 

D1587 

D1577 

D1578 

D1576 G1.50 H12 CON 

D1579 

D1575 

D1583 

D1574 

D1580 D1582 

D1573 

D1581 

D1572 

D1571 D1569 D1570 

D1568 

C215 

D1182 C189 

D1106 

D1005 D1006 

D902 

D1524 

D1518 

D1181 

D1107 

D1519 

D1522 

D1594 

D1521 

D1607 

D1595 

C222 

D1550 

D1548 

D905 

D900 

C214 

D1547 

D1013 

D1014 

D911 

D910 D909 

C241 

D1588 

D1589 

D1591 D1586 

C212 

D1561 

D1560 

D1559 

D1552 

C188 

D1178 

D903 

D1110 

D1109 

D1108 

D1007 

D1009 

D904 

D1012 D1011 

D1549 

D1562 

D1623 

C217 

D1563 

D1553 

D1554 

D1555 

D1556 

D906 

D1180 D1179 

D1112 

D1111 C187 

D1010 

D1008 

D908 

C239 

D599 

D305 

D286 

C242 

D1631 

D515 

D312 

D296 

C118 

D1621 

D1601 D1600 

D1602 

D1603 

D1604 

D1113 

D1565 

C213 

D1585 

C232 

C101 

D410 

C62 

D304 

D283 D284 

C34 

2.8m Security Fence 

C61 

D415 

D282 

C57 

D316 

D306 

D384 

D383 

D382 

D381 

D380 

D379 

C45 

D311 

D525 

D524 

D522 

D520 

D519 

C240 

C103 

C237 

D1628 

D585 

D583 

D521 

D409 

D388 

D307 

D314 

D317 

D303 

D302 

D300 

C60 

D1634 

D1025 

D1021 D1020 

D1022 

D1023 

D1017 D1018 D1019 

D1024 

D1015 

D1016 

C168 

D907 

D1026 

D1172 

D1584 

D1558 

C216 

D1557 

C219 

D1564 

D1027 

C228 

C218 

C226 

D1170 

D1176 

D1114 

D1115 

D1116 D1117 

D1028 

C33 

D279 

D400 

D277 

D1615 

C227 

D1622 

D1171 

D1173 

D1174 C185 

C111 

D584 

D411 

D399 

D1633 C243 

D1618 

D1617 

D517 

C233 

D408 

D387 

C223 

D1118 

D1119 

C169 

D398 

D397 

D391 

D386 D385 

D301 

D280 

8.63 

C238 

D1619 

D526 

D518 

C46 

D281 

C236 

D527 

D310 

D278 

D276 

C32 

D412 

D413 

D389 

D1637 

D407 

D406 

D392 

C102 

D390 

D308 D309 

D319 

C48 

D299 

D298 

D297 

D1686 

D1620 

C234 

D516 

C59 

D1632 

D1617 

C231 

D1029 

C65 

D396 

D395 

D394 

D393 

C58 

D1685 

C235 

D318 

D1636 

C49 



D200 

D201 

D404 D209 

D206 

D207 D208 

C31 

D219 

D231 

D218 

D217 

D220 

Substation 

D203 

D204 

D205 

D210 

D212 

D211 

C27 

D401 

D403 

D213 

D214 

D402 

D216 

D221 

D222 

D230 

D224 

D225 

D226 

D227 

D228 

D275 

D271 

D272 

D268 

D269 

D232 

C30 

C28 

D270 


D186 

D187 

D190 

D189 D188 

D184 

D185 

D223 

D135 

D134 

D215 

Crops 

D179 

D183 

D273 

D133 

C23 

D192 

D182 

D180 

D154 

D175 

D132 

C29 

D191 

D181 

D178 

D177 

D176 

D125 

D274 

D131 

D155 

C22 

D130 

2.30 

3.39 

2.24 

2.21 2.28 

2.47 

2.94 

Substation 


D127 

D167 

D123 


D171 

D172 

D129 

D124 


D165 

D111 

D110 

D109 

D126 

D174 

D166 

D163 

D128 

D173 

C18 

D122 

D105 

C17 



C73 

D377 

D430 

D376 

D233 

D234 

D157 

D378 

D375 

D374 

D431 

D156 

D372 

D235 

D432 

D373 

D436 

D371 

D369 

D370 

D236 

D433 

D434 

D237 

D435 

C56 

D363 

D368 

D367 

D362 

D437 

D238 

D239 

D364 

D365 

D361 

D454 

D240 

D366 

D359 D358 

D438 

D360 

D455 

D456 

D151 

C86 

D357 D356 

D153 

D152 

D242 

D241 

D440 

D348 

D441 

D243 

D439 

D150 

D344 

D342 

D244 

D149 

D345 

D343 

D346 

D339 

D245 

D350 D349 

D246 

C51 

D340 

D338 

D347 

D247 

D341 

D337 

D248 

D148 

D443 

D252 

D442 

D336 

D249 

D250 

D147 2 

C74 

C89 

D251 

D146 

C52D352 

D351 

C75 

9.828 

C53 

D335 

D444 

D334 

D255 

D254 

D253 

D256 

D353 

D257 

C55 

D333 

D355 

D145 

D445 

D332 

C54 

D331 

D259 

C76 

D330 

D258 

D354 

D329 

D261 

D143 

D446 

D260 

C77 

D262 

D144 

D328 

D326 

D327 

D263 

D264 

5 

D265 

D141 

D447 

C78 

D267 

D266 

D139 D113 

C50 

D324 

D142 

D140 

D112 

11.439 

D325 

D137 

D138 

D323 

D322 

D136 

190.0 

D1477 

23 

3.305 

D1478 

180.0 

D1479 

11 

5.670 

D531 

4 

10.387 

G2 

12.449 

G15 

8.903 

167.3 

170.0 

D1639 

D1638 

160.0 

D1641 

D1642 

D1643 

D1644 D1645 

D1640 

D1175 

G16 

9.144 

160.0 

C184 

D1647 

D1646 

D1649 

D1648 

D1650 

D1651 

D1652 

D1653 

D1654 

D1655 

D1656 

D1612 

D1610 

D1177 

D1608 

C186 

C225 

C229 

D1613 

D1120 

150.0 

C183 

D1133 

D1132 

D197 

D405 

D1635 

D1683 

C244 

D1684 

D1687 

D1734 D1735 

D1739 

D1740 D1741 

D1037 

D1611 

D1609 

D1038 

D1721 

D196 

D1682 

D1737 

D1036 

D1733 

D195 

D198 

D1688 

D202 

D1671 

D199 

D1681 

D1680 

D194 

D1672 

D1689 

D1691 

D1690 

D1692 

D1694 

D1695 

D1693 

C249 

C251 

C299 

D1738 

C224 D1614 

C230 

D1169 

D1030 

D1722 

D1728 

C254 

D1125 D1126 

D1124 

D1122 D1123 

D1121 

D1166 

D1167 

D1168 

D1031 

D1165 

C250 

D1724 D1725 

D1035 

D1727 

D1130 

D1131 

D1129 

D1128 

D1127 

C178 

3 

10.732 

D229 

150.0 

IC 

D1736 

D1723 

D1729 

D1040 

D1041 

D1039 

140.0 

D1657 MK 

22 

2.609 

D1732 

D193 

D1674 

C253 

C247 

C252 

D1731 

D1033 

C302 

D1726 

D1024 

D1034 

D1032 

D1673 

D1677 

D1714 

D1164 

C248 

D1043 

D1675 

D1676 

D1678 

D1679 

D1992 

D1730 

C182 

D1696 

D1713 

D1981 

D1045 

D1697 

D2000 

C303 

D1991 

C246 

D1993 

D1985 

D1984 

D1712 

D1134 

D1135 

D1136 

D1044 

C245 

D1703 

C306 

C181 

D1698 

D1050D1049 

D1048 

D1046 

D1047 

D1709 

D1710 

D1711 

C301 

D1973 

D1974 

D1975 

D1976 

D1978 

D1979 

C300 

D1958 

D1955 

D1956 

D1953 

D1954 

D1952 

D1977 

D1980 

C296 

D1968 

D1972 

D1967 

D1971 D1970 

D1963 

D1966 

D1965 

D1962 

D1964 

D1961 

D1960 

D1959 

D1957 

D1950 

D1949 

D1951 

C298 

D1947 

C297 

D1946 

140.0 

D1658 D1659 

D1660 

D1661 

D1662 

D1663 

D1664 

D1665 

130.0 

MK 

D1990 

D1989 

D1706 

D1708 

D1999 

D1701 

12 

4.219 

G11 

9.748 

130.0 

C305 

D1982 D1983 

19.00m 

D1666 

D1667 

D1668 

D1669 

D1670 

D1699 

D1700 

D1996 

D1998 

C180 

D1140 

D1702 

C309 

C308 

D1994 

D1987 

D1986 

D1163 

D1144 

D1145 

D1143 

D1141 D1142 

D1146 

D1139 

D1138 

D1137 

120.0 

D1716 

MK 

Observed at 9.15am on 15 July 2011 

D168 

D1720 D1719 

D164 

D108 

D107 

D1715 

D1717 

D1927 

D1969 

D1928 

C293 

D1718 

C310 

D1997 

D1995 

D1931 

C304 

D1948 

D106 

D170 

C24 

D104 

D1944 

D1162 D1161 

19.00m 

D1158 

D1704 D1705 

C295 

C307 

D162 

C26 

D1945 

C294 

D114 

D1929 

D1147 

D116 

D1924 

D1160 

D100 

D1925 

D1159 

D1923 

D1157 

D158 

D1926 

D1930 

D102 

D103 

D1907 D1908 

D159 

D1943 

C179 

D101 

D169 

C25 

D120 

D161 

C284 

C20 

C280 

D115 

D1909 

D1910D1911 

D1912D1913 

D1914 D1915 

110.0 110.0 

2.74 

3.00 

D1916 D1917 

D121 

D117 

2.55 

D1920 

D1921 

D1922 

D1938 

D1156 

D1939 

D1148 

2.61 2.91 

3.23 


C21 

C19 

D118 

D160 

D97 

D98 

D99 

C279 

D1152 

D1151 

D1149 

D87 

C292 

D1942 

D1155 

C282 

D119 

D1934 

D88 


Fallen Fence 

7.95 

7.98 

3.12 

3.23 

Substation 

D96 

C291 

D89 

D1900 

D1904 D1905 

D1906 

D1903 

D1902 

D85 

D86 

D1901 

D1918 

100.0 100.0 

R40.0m 

D1937 D1936 

D93 

D1941 

D1150 

D90 

C281 

C283 

D95 

D1919 

D91 

D92 

D1898 

D1896 

21 

3.240 

D1932 

D1933 

D94 

D1153 

D1940 

D1154 

C285 

D1935 13 

4.165 

90.0 90.0 

D79 

D80 

D82 

D83 

D84 

C289 

D1899 

D1897 

D1895 

C286 

G14 

8.074 

9.53 

8.10 8.12 8.188.21 

9.57 


7.44 

7.98 

4.80 

7.59 


D77 

D78 

D67 

D66 

D65 

D48 

D47 

D81 

C13 

D55 

C12 

D56 

3.27 

2.98 

3.42 

4.92 5.21 5.18 

7.71 

MK 


D1863 

D1866 

D1865 

D1868 D1867 

D1892 

D1894 

D1893 

D1891 

D1890 

D1889 

D1888 

D1887 

D1874 

D1873 

D1886 

D1872 

D1885 

D1884 D1883 

D1882 

D1881 

D1875 

D1864 

D1880 D1879 

D1876 

D1878 D1877 

D1871 D1869 

D1870 G0.32,H10,D 

D57 

C11 

C290 

D1858 

D1856 

C287 

D1842 

D76 

D1823 

D68 

D63 

D49 C9 

D46 

80.0 80.0 

D54 

C10 

C8 

D64 

D1857 

D1859 

D1860 

D1841 

D1822 

C16 

D58 

C288 

D1821 

D61 D62 

D60 

D59 

D51 

D52 

D50 

D45 

C274 

9.56 

D1824 

9.60 

9.54 

9.21 

D72 

9.49 

9.59 

9.56 

9.05 

9.41 

9.13 

1 

9.333 

D53 

D44 

D43 

D22 

D1817 

D1816 

9.13 

D23 

D42 

D75 

70.0 70.0 

9.39 

D1848 

D1846 

2.96 

D1845 

D1844 

D1839 

D1840 

3.12 

3.29 

D1849 

D1850 

D1837 

D69 D70 

D1838 

C316 

D1825 

C275 

D1826 

D1818 

5.14 

D73 

C15 

7.80 

D1843 

D1847 

5.26 

7.67 


Substation Platform Level 9.00m A.O.D. 

MK 

Excavation Base Level 8.50m A.O.D. 

10.0m 

Landform Level Varies 

C14 

MK 

D41 

D40 

D39 

D37 

D38 

D24 

MK 

D71 

D21 

MK 

MK 

C7 

C5 

D14 

D16 

D74 

D20 

7.64 


3.46 

D1835 

C317 

5.56 

7.57 

9.51 

2.91 

D1852 

D1853 

D1854 

3.03 D1855 

D1851 

D1815 

D19 

D1820 

D3 

D4 

C272 

D1819 

D13 

D12 D11 

D7 

D15 

C3 

C6 

D8 

C5 

C270 

D25 

D26 

D31 

D32 

D30 

D33 

D28 

D29 

D27 

D35 

D36 

D1834 

14 

D1833 4.052 

D1814 

C276 

8.08 

7.89 

D1862 

C271 

D1806 

6.05 

D1803 

7.57 

D1861 

15 

5.518 

D1809 

G13 

7.840 

C267 

60.0 60.0 

D34 

ICBT 

D9 

D10 

D2 D1 

D17 

IC 

C2 

D18 

C262 

7.93 7.93 

C1 

D5 

8.13 

D1832 

7.63 

4.17 

C269 

D1805 

MK 

50.0 50.0 

D6 

D1802 

6.47 

7.07 

7.17 

7.60 

7.51 

7.95 

4.24 

C268 

D1792 

7.67 

7.99 7.98 

9.38 

C278 

D1813 

D1791 

PO 

IC 

D1793 

7.13 

D1836 

C277 

C264 

Dry Trees in this Area 

MK 

4.17 

D1804 

C259 

7.86 

9.30 

7.95 

9.49 

9.61 

9.63 

7.39 

8.10 

8.06 

9.61 

9.67 

3.08 

3.42 

4.31 

4.34 

8.01 

Crops 

2.94 

C273 

D1831 

D1829 

D1830 

D1808 

D1794 

D1786 

ER 

2.0m 

D1812 D1811 

D1788 

D1790 

C265 

7.97 

9.76 

9.66 

C263 

C261 

16 

7.986 

BT 

PEG 

6.0m 

PEG 

MK 

MK 


8.25 

8.22 

8.08 

D1810 

D1801 

G6 

9.825 

40.0 40.0 

C258 


D1828 

D1827 

D1798 

C260 

7.82 

8.748.73 8.73 

7.938.04 8.15 8.30 8.49 8.75 8.63 8.76 

8.66 8.62 8.18 

8.27 

8.56 

8.19 

8.49 

8.65 

8.94 

7.64 

8.55 8.35 8.25 7.94 

9.21 

D1788 

8.24 

C266 

3.09 3.23 

D1799 

10.66 

8.09 

7.88 8.02 8.17 8.37 8.56 8.748.78 8.76 8.75 8.75 8.65 8.62 8.33 8.06 7.78 7.73 7.59 

8.33 

8.34 

10.69 

8.82 

8.47 

3.99 

8.04 8.39 8.59 8.75 

C257 



D1807 

G10 

8.358 

2.0m 

MK 


D1780 

D1784 

10.74 

3.58 

1052 

3.712 

MK 

MK 

MK 

30.0 30.0 

3.84 

D1789 

MK 

D1800 

10.69 

8.41 

8.84 

D1785 

D1774 

PO 

6.13 

8.65 

D1781 

D1771 

10.68 

8.80 

8.93 

D1796 

6.37 

D1795 

8.94 

6.17 

10.66 10.68 10.79 10.91 

8.98 

10.80 

5.87 

8.80 

8.70 

9.03 

8.95 

6.87 

3.47 

20 

3.613 

3.73 

3.87 


D1782 

D1764 

D1783 

D1779 

D1777 

D1776 

C256 

T1 

10.678 

20.0 

D1775 

D1757 

D1772 

D1770 

D1758 

8.83 

8.98 

8.90 

3.90 

6.82 

D1773 

7.52 

9.11 

10.81 

6.48 7.13 

D1778 

D1769 

D1768 

8.91 

8.98 

8.87 

9.14 

10.94 

8.91 

7.42 7.87 

8.01 

D1767 

D1766 

D1765 

D1763 

IC 

D1762 

C255 

D1761 

8.95 

8.76 

9.259.41 9.54 

10.89 

8.34 

8.89 

8.76 

3.64 

3.70 

3.87 

10.92 

8.90 

9.53 

4.04 

7.71 8.12 

D1760 

D1759 

D1753 

8.25 8.74 

8.70 

D1756 

D1755 

D1747 

D1752 

D1754 

D1750 

D1749 

8.85 

D1748 

D1746 

D1745 

D1744 

10.0 10.0 

8.87 

Crops 

D1751 

D1743 D1742 

8.92 

9.01 

8.46 

8.77 

8.69 

9.18 

8.55 

3.743.86 

3.80 

3.88 


0.0 0.0 


9.34 


9.23 

4.26 

8.98 

9.14 

9.01 

9.18 

MK 

9.27 

MK 

8.50 

8.63 

4.33 

9.14 

MK 


8.27 

9.64 

4.00 

MK 

4.44 

9.28 

8.34 

4.10 

4.18 

4.57 

8.21 

7.94 

4.65 

7.75 

8.01 


7.63 

4.77 

7.92 

4.40 

7.88 

4.34 4.48 


7.47 


7.87 

7.75 

7.32 

7.30 

4.84 

4.84 


7.28 

7.72 

7.62 

7.21 

7.05 

6.36 

7.256.95 6.64 6.03 

7.39 

5.75 

7.59 

7.47 

4.67 

5.02 

4.91 5.08 5.47 5.82 

4.77 

5.22 

6.00 

7.29 5.29 6.21 6.46 6.81 7.44 

4.91 

4.85 

6.98 


7.21 

7.45 

6.76 

6.37 

6.02 

5.69 

5.38 

5.17 

6.56 

5.87 

5.11 

6.70 6.35 5.68 5.36 5.08 4.95 4.74 

6.07 

6.34 

5.94 

5.59 

5.31 

5.09 

4.93 

Crops 

6.63 

MK 

6.90 

7.10 

6.22 


5.02 

5.57 

PO 

5.29 

5.38 5.12 4.89 4.74 

4.78 

WM 

4.98 

4.68 

WM 

4.74 

4.98 

4.62 

4.70 

IC 

4.93 


G1 

4.861 

4.58 

4.89 

4.80 

IC 

5.54 

4.93 

4.63 

4.85 

4.65 

5.02 

5.01 

5.11 

IC 

5.38 

1.8m Fence 

4.97 

6.37 

PO 

WM 

4.70 

7.00 



7.24 

PO 

BH 

7.23 

7.04 

7.41 

7.57 7.35 

IC 

4.73 

7.07 

7.79 

7.60 7.78 

7.22 


7.43 

7.97 8.25 

8.04 

7.71 


8.15 

8.33 

7.95 

8.30 

7.93 

8.22 

7.98 

8.33 

4.91 


8.58 

8.27 

8.25 

1.8m Fence 

PEG G7 

9.076 

8.13 

7.84 

7.67 

PO 

Unable to access area due to fence 

7.46 

7.25 

7.15 

6.66 

1.8m Fence 

6.40 

6.27 

MK 

MK 

MK 

MK 

5.80 

5.52 

5.43 

5.10 

4.96 

4.56 

4.44 

4.45 

3.85 

4.03 

4.07 

A Sealing end compound layout and earthworks amended MJP 19.10.11 DTH 

Mark Revision Drawn Date Chkd 

SCALING NOTE: Do not scale from this drawing. If in doubt, ask. 

UTILITIES NOTE: The position of any existing public or private sewers, utility services, plant or apparatus shown on this 

drawing is believed to be correct, but no warranty to this is expressed or implied. Other such plant or apparatus may also 

be present but not shown. The Contractor is therefore advised to undertake his own investigation where the presence of 

any existing sewers, services, plant or apparatus may affect his operations. 

Drawing Issue Status 

GALLOPER WIND FARM 

ONSHORE SUBSTATION WORKS 

PROPOSED OVERALL SITE EARTHWORKS 

VARYING LANDFORM HEIGHT DESIGN 

Client 

Date of 1st Issue 

A1 Scale 

NOTES: 

1. Do not scale this drawing. 

2. All dimensions are in metres unless stated otherwise. 

3. Landform slopes facing the onshore substation are to be 1 in 3 subject to geotechnical confirmation. Landform 

slopes facing away from the onshore substation are to be 1 in 10. 

4. All earthworks associated with the access road are offset 2m from the edge of the carriageway to allow space 

for infiltration swales adjacent to the road and at a gradient of 1 in 3. 

5. The bulk earthwork calculations do not include for a topsoil strip across the site. However, assuming a topsoil 

depth of 300mm the volume generated across the site would be approximately 9730m 3 . 

KEY: 

21.09.2011 

1:1000 

Drawing Number 

Existing NGET Cables 

Existing tree to be removed 

Existing major contour - 0.5m intervals 

Existing minor contour - 0.1m intervals 

Proposed major contour - 0.5m intervals 

Proposed minor contour - 0.1m intervals 

Extent of additional earthworks required for access road to tie into 8.0m substation level 

Additional tree to be removed to enable access road to tie into 8.0m substation level 

F O R I N F O R M A T I O N 

Drawn by 

Checked by 

MJP 

DTH 

Revision 

25456/003/100 A 

Offices throughout the UK, 

continental Europe, Africa and Asia 

www.peterbrett.com 

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 

READING 

Tel: 0118 950 0761 Fax: 0118 959 7498 

File Location: j:\25456 galloper wind farm\003 - earthworks and drainage\cad\dwgs\25456_003_100.dwg


August 2011 


Appendix 6. Drawing 25456/003/101A 100A showing landform 

with the ‘additional mitigation area’

11.48 

11.41 

11.40 

11.40 

11.51 

11.48 11.49 

11.84 11.70 

11.91 11.88 11.93 11.88 

11.62 11.41 11.47 11.63 

11.90 

11.27 

11.86 11.93 12.04 

11.65 

11.51 

11.64 11.47 11.50 11.44 

11.40 

11.53 

11.11 

11.27 

11.38 

10.90 

11.10 

11.25 

11.56 


10.90 

user name: michael pigden 

12.05 

10.85 

12.04 

12.10 

10.87 

11.54 

12.04 

12.04 

11.50 

12.00 

12.02 

12.03 

10.92 

11.85 

1.00m wide 

12.08 

12.09 

11.01 


12.50 

13.00 

13.50 

14.00 

11.85 

14.50 

39.90m 

11.78 

12.02 

15.00 

12.05 

11.87 

Min. 

5.0m 

15.50 

12.00 

13.00 

14.00 

15.00 

11.89 

11.83 

15.50m 

Rough Grass 

12.05 

11.98 

11.83 

11.98 

15.50m 

11.28m 

11.95 

12.00 

11.87 



12.08 

11.50 

10.50 

9.50 

1.00m wide 

11.77 

9.00 

8.29m 

11.87 

11.92 

11.76 

12.05 

11.84 

11.74 

11.96 

5.00m 

Crops 

11.77 

11.81 

G9 

11.253 

15.50m 

11.70 

11.62 

11.71 

11.76 

11.93 

11.34 

11.58 

50.59m 

11.68 

11.66 

Crops 

11.40 

11.77 

12.63m 

1.00m wide 


11.45 

10.50 

11.00 

11.50 

12.00 

11.30 

11.56 

11.58 

12.50 

11.63 

Min 5.00m 

11.42 

13.00 

13.50 


14.00 

14.50 

15.00 

6.82m 

16.50m 

15.50 

11.31 

16.00 

15.00 

11.29 

11.47 

11.44 

14.00 

13.00 

11.53 

12.00 

11.00 

10.00 

5.00m 

5.00m 

11.24 

9.00 

11.23 

11.23 

Min 

11.21 

8.90m 

11.08 

11.31 

11.15 

11.10 

11.45 

10.99 

5.00m 

5.44 

11.12 

5.06 

11.09 

11.204 

G3 

5.145.16 

10.96 

5.14 

5.18 

5.75 

5.16 

5.35 

5.16 5.21 

5.61 

Animal Water Point 

13.72m 

25 

4.914 

11.38 

11.14 

11.09 

11.06 

6.20 


11.49 

6.67 

5.96 

16.00m 

3.94 

3.81 

11.36 

11.10 

11.09 


6.57 

5.38 

3.89 

3.91 

16.00m 

9.00 

Crop 

9.50 

4.12 

6.70 

10.50 

11.50 

4.91 

D1267 

10.79 

PO 

PO 

5.93 

4.07 

D1262 

4.14 

Rough Grass 


12.00 

13.00 

14.00 

15.00 

16.00 

PO 

Crops 

Crops 

4.85 

D1272 

4.78 

4.55 

4.68 


4.93 

D1269 

D1268 

D1266 

4.19 

4.32 

6.40 6.72 

D1271 

D1270 

11.36 

5.49 

6.91 

D1261 

D1260 

D1273 

D1275 

D1276 

4.63 

4.76 

4.96 

D1274 

24 

4.853 

D1264 

D1263 

D1265 

5.88 

80.00m 

PO 

4.89 

D1258 

D1277 

D1278 

D1308 

D1309 

D1259 

G2.62 H9.5 D 

D1279 

D1257 

D1255 D1256 

11.49 

4.62 

4.69 

5.11 

4.57 

11.31 

4.56 4.50 

4.69 

4.52 

5.05 

4.72 4.88 

11.13 

11.23 

9.90 


D1290 

D1293 D1294 D1292 D1296 

D1295 

D1297 

D1303 

D1299 

D1298 

D1305 D1304 

D1302 D1300 D1301 

D1306 

D1288 D1291 D1289 

D1286 D1287 

D1280 

D1281 D1283 D1282 

D1284D1285 

D1254 

D1253 

D1310 

D1311 

D1312 

D1227 

D1313 

D1314 

D1226 

PO 

C195 

D1251 

D1252 

D1246 

D1242 

D1243 D1245 

D1244 

D1241 D1240 D1239 

PO 

D1315 D1316 

D1233 

D1230 

D1053 

D1320 

D1322 

D1324 

D1326 

D1237 

D1236 

D1235 

D1052 

D1317 

D1318 

D1250 

D1051 

D1238 

D1232 

D1231 

D1325 

D986 

D985 

D984 

D983 

D982 

D1321 

D1323 

D1249 

D880 

D878 

D1328 

D1247 

D1054 C190 

PO 

C194 

D1327 

D1183 

D1307 

D1248 

D1228 

D866 


D1056 

D879 

D865 

4.42 

4.23 

D1360 

D1229 

D1221 

D1202 

10.22 

D1065 

D1060 

D853 

4.36 4.51 

C191 

D855 

10.44 

D1234 

D1063 

D987 

D861 

D852 

D842 

D1329 

D1330 

D1361 

D1376 

D1375 

C170 

D1061 

D1057 

D1055 

D860 

D854 

D856 

D806 

D988 

D864 

D1331 

D1363 

D1066 

D1212 

D1186 

D1185 

D1187 


10.61 

D1359 

D1059 D1058 

11.27 

11.01 

4.19 

10.83 


11.03 

3.95 

4.01 

4.12 

D1209 

D1210 

D1211 

D1208 

D1207 

D1205 

D1206 

D1204 

D1201 

D1184 

D851 

D1374 

D1203 

C192 

D1064 

D1062 

D977 

D976 

D971 

D970 

D968 

D1332 

D1362 

D1188 

D1067 

D881 

D843 

D1336 

D1333D1335 

D1334 

D991 

C163 

D841 

D989 

D990 

D975 

D974 

C162 

C151 

D750 

D967 

D1364 

D1365 

D1369 

D1377 D1379 

D1382 

D1225 

D1224 

D1222 

D1223 

D1200 

C171 

D863 

D862 

D857 

D840 

D839 

D751 

D1337 

D674 

D640 

D859 

11.20 

D858 

D844 D849 

D850 

D1068 

C164 D950 

D949 

D973 

D972 

C161 

D969 

D1378 

D1220 

D1219 

D1218 

D1217 D1216 

D1215 D1214 

D1213 

D1077 

D1076 

D1075D1074 

D811 

D1072 

D947 

D946 

D965 

D964 

D963 

D962 

D806 

D809 

D810 

D748 

D708 

D639 

D1366 

D1380 D1381 

D1383 

D1189 D1190 

D1191 

D945 

D966 

C152 

D709 

D638 

D706 

D637 

D1339 

D1367 

D1368 

D1370 

D803 

D749 

D636 

11.34 

4.01 

D752 

C193 

D1192D1193 

D1073 

D1071 

D1069 

D1070 

D846D847 

D845 

C145 

D948 

D747 D746 

11.38 

3.61 

3.79 

3.91 

D1195 

D754 

C124 

D1199 

D675 

D676 D677 

D678 

D848 

D673 

D1194 

D978 

D979 

D980 D981 

D940 

D941 

D939 

D944 

D943 

D942 

D951 

D953 

D952 

D961 

D1384 

D1385 

D1386 D1387 

D1388 

D1340 

D1338 

D1343 

D1344 4.332 

D1347 

D1348 D1349 

D1345 

D1352 D1354 

D1350 

D1353 

D1355 

D1346 

D1356 

D1357 D1358 

g0.34,h2.5,d 

D1351 

PO 

9 

PO 

235.0 

D882 D883 

D804 

C143 

C144 

D805 

230.0 

D1371 

D955 D954 

D1423 

D1389 

D1390 

D1391 

D956 

D957 

D958 

D959 

11.46 

3.41 

3.38 

3.52 

11.52 

3.58 

D1078 

D1079 

D1080 

D1082 D1081 

D884 

D712 

D635 

D1373 

D753 

D1198 

D992 6.879 

D960 

C160 

D1372 

D1437 

8 

D833 

C132 

D711 

D713 

D710 

D672 

C137 

D745 

C135 

D679 

D606 

C125 

D1422 

D1427 

D1392 

D1341 

D938 

D834 

D835 

D836 

D837 

D838 

D813 D812 

D633 

D634 

D1197 

D802 

C120 

D1440 

D1442 

D1441 

D671 

D670 

D1412 D1413 

D1417 

D1415 

D1416 

D1087 

D1428 

D1430 

D1196 

C159 D937 

D885 

C136 

D1393 

D629 

D630 

D1424 

D1432 

D1433 D1434 

C138 

D631 

D1394 

D932 

D933 

D895 

D668 

D2001 

D1439 

D1086 

D1085 

D567 

11.69 

D935 

D894 

D890 

D889 

D888 

D642 

D641 

D632 

D1342 

10 

2.248 

D1436 

220.0 

3.80 

D1395 

D1396 

D1397 

D1398 

D1400 D1399 

C128 

D1429 

C123 

D467 

D755 

D628 

D799 

D758 

D667 

11.73 

D800 D801 

D744 

D719 

D720 

D718 

D716 D717 

D714 D715 

D669 

D1431 

D931 

D1414 

D928 

D929 

D1435 

D1438 

D896 

D665 

D664 

D663 

D832 

D829 

C129 

C148 

D814 

D1443 

C197 

D1089 

D1090 

D1088 

D925 

D926D927 

C158 

D934 

D893 

D1421 

D1426 

D1083 

D1418 

D993 

D994 

D995 

D887 

D886 

D666 

D607 

3.22 

3.23 

3.29 

D568 

D1401 

C119 

C172 

C173 

D826 

D798 

D1419 

D1091 

D930 

D757 

C139 

D627 

D626 

D625 

D624 

D756 

D465 

D464 

D463 

11.80 

D1420 

D1425 

D1493 

D1494 

G0.46 H10 D 

C106 

3.16 

D458 

3.26 

3.22 3.22 

3.11 

D1444 

D1445 D1448 

D1446 

D1447 

D1449 

D1458 

D622 

D623 

210.0 

D1457 

G0.32 H8.5 D 

D1094 

38.00m 

C196 

D936 

D831 

D830 

D815 

C127 

D924 

C142 

D604 

D892 

D705 

D825 

D797 

C130 

C94 

D459 

D1461 

D1462 

D1465 

D1464 

D466 

D457 

D1455 

D1456 

C156 

D828 

D643 

C208 

D1093 

D996 


D1466 

D741 

D740 

D704 

D1459 

C146 

C112 

11.89 

3.22 

C140 

D759 

D780 

D1463 

D573 

C92 

C93 

D569 

D562 

C105 

3.17 

D1408 

D1410D1409 

D1406 D1407 

D1405 

D1404 

D1402 

D1403 

D1490 

D793 D792 

D794 

D725 D726 

D723 

C133 

D724 

D721 

D722 

D680 D689 

D621 

D603 

3.36 

D1492 

D1495 

D1450 

C207 

D1095 

C157 

D1092 

D1084 

D827 

D620 

C141 

D1500 

C315 

C155 

D920 

D891 

D816 

D818 D817 

D644 

D645 

G0.49 H9 D 

G0.26 H9 D 

D795 

D791 

D619 D618 

C122 

D563 

D692 

D577 

D824 

D703 

D819 

D790 

D786 

D785 

D696 

D695 

D694 

D693 

D690 

D688 

D602 

C113 

D919 

D917 

D782 

D781 

D561 

D560 

D565 D564 

D566 

C90 

C107 

D462 

D570 

11.92 

11.92 

D1484 

D1496 

C200 

C199 

C198 

C147 

7 

8.657 

15.00m 

Export Cable Corridor 

D1469 D1467 D1468 

D1471 D1470 

D1472 

D1473 D1474 

D1475 D1476 

D743 

D742 

C134 

D738 

D739 

D736 

D734 D735 

D733 

D731 D730 D732 

D728 D729 

D727 

D702D701 

D608 

D580 

C91 

C110 

C97 

D579 

D578 

D460 

C88 

D461 

C87 

C104 

10.54 

10.77 

12.22 12.33 12.23 

12.47 12.54 

11.99 11.75 11.40 10.54 

12.46 

11.81 

11.74 

11.59 

11.11 

10.75 

10.16 

11.73 

D574 

Crops 

C114 

D576 

D449 

12.52 

3.13 

3.17 

3.46 

D685 D686 D687 

D681 

D682 

6 

D683 D684 

D662 

D654 

D655 

9.850 

D661 

D660 

D653 

D659 

D652 

C126 

D656 

D657 

D658 

D691 

D697 

D575 

D572 

D571 

D499 

D500 

D498 

D497 

C96 

D494 

C95 

D470 

D472 

D469 

D471 

D468 

D474 

D473 

C82 

C80 

11.84 

D610 

D609 

D554 

D478 

D477 

C89 

C44 

11.86 

D479 

11.84 

C116 

C72 

D439 

C83 

11.83 

C79 

3.07 

3.09 

3.39 

D605 D601 

200.0 

D1452 

D1451 

D1529 

D1460 

C206 

D796 

D1483 

D1502 D1501 

D1513 

D997 

D918 

D1488 

D1498 

C201 

D1453 

C154 

D897 

D1491 

D1497 

D1526 

C209 

D1527 

D1528 

D1530 

C211 

D1531 

D1532 

D1533 

D1537 

D1454 

D1536 

D870 

D869 

D1411 

D789 

D916 

D823 

C314 

D1535 D1534 

D1538 

D1539 

D820 

D784 

D783 

D1499 

D923 

D922 

D921 

D876 

D874 

D877 

D875 

D737 

D871 

D617 

D1487 

D901 

D868 

C149 

D1482 

D898 

D867 

D647 

D646 

D1485 

D698 

D553 

D559 

D558 

D551 

D552 

D549 

D548 

D503 D502 

D1508 D1507 

D899 

D822 

D788 

D872 

D699 

D700 

D616 

D615 

D475 D476 

D436 

D437 

C210 

C150 

D495 

C81 

D445 

D290 

C220 

D821 

11.73 

D590 

D438 

D1480 

D1593 

D1593 

D1566 D1567 

C40 

3.48 

D595 

C115 

D589 

D557 

D556 

D555 

D493 

D492 

D491 

D490 

D448 

Fallen Fence 

Crops 

3.02 

2.95 

D593D594 

D592 

D591 

D547 

D546D545 

D544 

C99 

D506 

D504 

D501 

C108 

D505 

C71 

D550 

D496 

C41 

C37 

11.65 

D651 

D483 

C75 

C85 

D1486 

7.39 

D598 

D480 

D426 

C73 

8.50 


C109 

D1489 

D1503 

D1504 

D1506 

D1509 

D1510 

D1511 

C205 

D1517 

D1512 

D1523 

D1520 

D1525 

D1599 

D1597 

D1596 

D1598 

D1102 

D1103 

C174 

D1105 D1104 

D1101 

D1100 

C175 

D1099 

D1098 

D1097 

D1096 

D1001 

D1000 D1002 

D999 D998 

D1003 

C167 

PO SV 

D1545 

D1540 

C203 

C202 

D1551 

D1543 

D1541 D1542 

C153 

D915 

D913 

D914 

190.0 

D1477 

23 

3.305 

C166 

D1516 D1515 

D1544 

D1546 

C204 

C165 

D912 

D1004 

D1478 

D1505 

D447 

C38 

D873 

D427 

D451 

D1481 

D1514 

D1590 

C221 

D432 

D444 

D452 

D453 

D434 

D435 

D293 

D597 

11.47 

3.08 

3.10 

C64 

D440 

D441 

Crops 


C74 

11.20 

11.29 

2.87 

3.683.64 

D454 

D455 

D456 

D443 

D442 

C77 D446 

D450 

C39 

D489 

C84 

C43 

C78 

D513 

D512 

D294 

11.43 

11.25 

C98 

D433 

D540 

C69 

D511 

D428 

C51 

D291 

C76 

D425 

C42 

C66 

D488 D487 

D486 

D484 D845 

D482 

D481 

D418 

D419 

D420 

D421 D422 

D423 

C70 

D538 

D539 

D541 

D543 D542 

C100 

D507 

D648 

D508 

D650 

D600 

C117 

D596 

D588 

D528 

D510 

D509 

D612 

D529 

D535 D536 

D537 

C312 

D1630 

D614 

D581 

D649 

D613 

C121 

D1629 

C313 

D587 

D431 

7.57 7.67 7.76 7.56 7.57 

4.72 

5.24 

7.30 

8.44 7.89 

7.47 

7.43 

8.05 

5.54 5.01 4.98 

7.05 

8.05 

5.89 6.68 

C86 

D350 D349 

8.49 

D532 

D533 

C35 

11.07 11.07 10.80 

D286 

D283 D284 

9.48 

D296 

C34 

2.77 


D282 

D370 

D306 

8.75 

C45 

2.74 2.65 

D311 

8.03 

D307 

D314 

D317 

D303 

D302 

D300 

C33 

D279 

D277 

D353 

10.26 9.42 8.59 7.68 6.94 

7.83 

8.63 

2.84 

3.48 

D301 

D280 

C46 

D281 

D340 

D310 

D278 

D276 

C32 

D335 

D308 D309 

6.98 

6.98 

2.66 

2.51 2.68 

D332 

D326 

8.15 

D392 

D391 

D390 

D389 

C58 

D386 D385 

D384 

D383 

D382 

D381 

D380 

D379 

C56 

D368 

D367 

D363 

D362 

D365 

D364 D361 

D366 

D359 D358 

D360 

D348 

D429 

D345 

D346 

C52D352 

D351 

C55 

D325 D323 

C47 

D292 

D534 

D514 

D289 

D288 

D287 

D530 

D523 

C36 

C67 

C68 

D430 

C311 

D582 

D417 

C63 

D321 

D416 

C50 

D313 

D414 

D295 

D315 

D285 

D586 

D424 

D1627 

D1625 

D1626 D1624 

D1605D1606 

D1587 

D1577 

D1578 

D1576 

D1579 

G1.50 H12 CON 

D1575 

D1583 

D1574 

D1580 

D1581 

D1582 

D1573 

D1572 

D1571 

D1569 D1570 

D1568 

C215 

D1182 C189 

D1106 

D1005 D1006 

D902 

D1524 

D1518 

D1181 

D1107 

D1519 

D1522 

D1594 

D1521 

D1607 

D1595 

C222 

D1550 

D1548 

D905 

D900 

C214 

D1547 

D1013 

D1014 

D911 

D910 D909 

C241 

D1588 

D1589 

D1591 D1586 

C212 

D1561 

D1560 

D1559 

D1552 

C188 

D1178 

D903 

180.0 

D1479 

D1110 

D1109 

D1108 

D1007 

D1009 

D904 

D1012 D1011 

11 

5.670 

D1549 

D1562 

D1623 

C217 

D1563 

D1553 

D1554 

D1555 

D1556 

D906 

D1180 D1179 

D1112 

D1111 C187 

D1010 

D1008 

D531 

4 

10.387 

G2 

12.449 

G15 

8.903 

D908 

D347 

D320 

C239 

D599 

D322 

D305 

C242 

D1631 

C118 

D515 

C61 

D415 

D369 

C53 

D378 

C57 

D344 

D343 

D355 

C54 

D354 

D324 

D312 

D1621 

D1601 D1600 

D1602 

D1603 

D1604 

D1113 

D1565 

C213 

D1585 

C232 

C101 

D410 

C62 

D304 

D316 

D525 

D524 

D522 

D520 

D519 

C103 

D1628 

D585 

D583 

D521 

D409 

C60 

D388 

D341 

D342 

D1634 

D1025 

D1021 D1020 

D1022 

D1023 

D1017 D1018 D1019 

D1024 

D1015 

C168 

D1016 

D907 

D1026 

D1172 

D1584 

D1558 

C216 

D1557 

167.3 

170.0 

5 

11.439 

D1639 

D1638 

C219 

D1564 

D1027 

C240 

C237 

C228 

C218 

C226 

D1170 

D1114 

D1115 

D1116 

D1117 

160.0 

D1641 

D1642 

D1643 

D1644 D1645 

D1176 

D1028 

D400 

D1640 

D1615 

C227 

C111 

D377 

D1622 

D1171 

D1173 

D1174 C185 

D584 

D411 

D399 

D1633 C243 

D1618 

D1617 

D517 

D387 

D375 

C233 

C223 

D1118 

D1119 

C169 

D408 

C238 

D1619 

D1175 

D526 

D518 

D398 

D397 

D357 D356 

C236 

G16 

9.144 

160.0 

D527 

C184 

D1647 

D1646 

D1649 

D1648 

D1650 

D1651 

D1652 

D1653 

D1654 

D1655 

D1656 

D1637 

C102 

D407 

D406 

D412 

D413 

D376 

D374 

D372 

D371 

D319 

C48 

D299 

D298 

D297 

D1686 

D1620 

C234 

D516 

C59 

D1632 

D1617 

C231 

D1612 

D1610 

D1177 

D1608 

C186 

C65 

7.49 

2.75 

3.252.84 

D396 

D395 

D394 

D393 

D339 

D1685 

C235 

C225 

C229 

D1613 

D1120 

D1029 

150.0 

C183 

D1133 

D1132 

D337 

D318 

D1636 

D336 

D327 

6.90 

D334 

D197 

D405 

D242 

D331 

C49 

D338 

D373 

D328 

C31 

D1635 

C244 

D1683 

D1684 

D1734 D1735 

D1739 

D1740 D1741 

D1037 

D1611 

D1609 

D1687 

D1038 

D1721 

D196 

6.20 


D1682 

D219 

D238 

D1737 

D1036 

D1733 

D231 

D218 

5.90 

D195 

D198 

D1688 

D217 

2.48 

8.13 

2.44 

3.02 


D200 

D201 

D220 

D216 

D221 

D222 

D230 

D224 

Substation 

D404 

D209 

D206 D203 

D207 D208 

D204 

D205 

D210 

D212 

D211 

C27 

D401 

D403 

D213 

D214 

D402 

D225 

D226 

D227 

D228 

D236 

D240 

D233 

D232 

D239 

D241 

D243 

D252 

D330 

D275 

D202 

D333 

D271 

D1671 

D199 

D272 

D268 

D269 

D194 

D329 

D1672 

D235 

D245 

D246 

D1681 

D1680 

C30 

D234 

D255 

D256 

D257 

D237 

Crops 

2.32 

2.28 

2.55 

2.10 

2.09 

2.11 

2.08 

2.27 

8.13 

2.29 

2.29 


D186 

D187 

D190 

D189 D188 

D184 

D185 

D223 

D244 

D247 

D215 

D249 

D251 

D258 

D254 

D136 

D135 

D134 

D179 

D183 

D273 

D250 

D133 

C23 

D182 

D180 

D154 

D153 

2.393.35 3.36 

D192 

D175 

D137 

C29 

8.59 

D253 

D132 

D259 

D191 

D263 

D264 

D265 

D267 

D266 

C28 

D1689 

D1691 

D248 

D270 

D1690 

D1692 

D1694 

D1695 

D1693 

C249 

C251 

C299 

D1738 

C224 D1614 

C230 

D1169 

D1722 

D1728 

D1030 

C254 

D1166 

D1167 

D1168 

D1125 D1126 

D1124 

D1122 D1123 

D1121 

D1031 

D1165 

C250 

D1724 D1725 

D1727 

D1130 

D1131 

D1129 

D1128 

D1127 

C178 

3 

10.732 

D229 

150.0 

IC 

D1736 

D1723 

D1729 

D1041 

D1040 

D1039 

140.0 

D1657 MK 

22 

2.609 

D1732 

D1035 

D193 

D1674 

C253 

C247 

C252 

D1731 

D1033 

C302 

D1726 

D1024 

D1034 

D1032 

D1673 

D1677 

D1714 

C248 

D1043 

D1675 

D1676 

D1678 

D1679 

D1992 

D1730 

D1696 

D1713 

D1981 

D1045 

D1697 

D1985 

D1984 

D125 

D2000 

C303 

D1991 

8.06 

D274 

9.42 

D181 

D178 

D177 

D176 

D152 

D131 

C246 

D1993 

D155 

D1712 

D1134 

D1135 

D1136 

D1044 

C22 

D142 

D130 

C245 

D1703 

C306 

8.10 

9.60 

D260 

D261 

D143 

D262 

D144 

8.14 

2.30 

3.39 

2.24 

2.21 2.28 

8.138.17 

9.66 

9.77 

8.18 

2.47 

2.94 

7.99 

Substation 


D149 

D141 

D1698 

D1050D1049 

D1048 

D1046 

D1047 

D138 

D127 

D167 

D146 

D1709 

D1710 

D1711 

C301 

D1973 

D1974 

D1975 

D1976 

D1978 

D1979 

C300 

D1958 

D1955 

D1956 

D1953 

D1954 

D1952 

D1977 

D1980 

C296 

D1968 

D1972 

D1967 

D1971 D1970 

D1963 

D1966 

D1965 

D1962 

D1964 

D1961 

D1960 

D1959 

D1957 

D1950 

D1949 

D1951 

C298 

D1947 

C297 

D1946 

140.0 

D1658 D1659 

D1660 

D1661 

D1662 

D1663 

D1164 

C182 

D1664 

D1665 

130.0 

MK 

D1990 

D1989 

C181 

D1706 D1708 

D1999 

D1701 

12 

4.219 

G11 

9.748 

130.0 

C305 

D1982 D1983 

19.00m 

D123 


D171 

D172 

D129 

D1666 

D1667 

D1668 

D1669 

D1670 

D124 

D1699 

D1700 

D1996 


D165 

D140 

D1998 

D148 



9.75 

MK 


D145 

D111 

D110 

D109 

D126 

D147 

C180 

D1140 

D174 

D1702 

C309 

C308 

D166 

D163 

D150 

D128 

D1994 

D1987 

D1986 

D1163 

D173 

C18 

D1139 

D1138 

D1137 

120.0 

D157 

D122 

D105 

C17 

D1716 

D168 

D1720 D1719 

D1144 

D1145 

D1143 

D1141 D1142 

D1146 

D164 

D151 

D112 

C24 

D156 

D162 

C26 

D139 D113 

D108 

D107 

D1715 

D1717 

C293 

D1718 

C310 

D1997 

D1995 

D1931 

C304 

D1927 

D1969 

D1928 

D1948 

D106 

D170 

D104 

D1944 

D1162 D1161 

D1158 

D1704 D1705 

C295 

C307 

2 

9.828 

19.00m 

D1945 

C294 

D114 

D1929 

D1147 

D116 

D1924 

D1160 

D100 

D1159 

D1923 

D1925 

D1157 

D158 

D1926 

D1930 

D102 

D103 

D1907 D1908 

D159 

D1943 

C179 

2.74 

3.00 

9.57 

8.138.18 8.10 8.12 8.18 8.21 

D101 

D169 

C25 

D120 

D161 

C284 

C20 

C280 

D115 

D1909 

D1910D1911 

D1912D1913 

D1914 D1915 

110.0 110.0 

D1916 D1917 

9.66 

D121 

D117 

2.55 

D1920 

D1921 

D1922 

D1938 

D1156 

D1939 

D1148 

2.61 

2.91 

3.23 


C21 

C19 

D118 

D160 

D97 

D98 

D99 

C279 

D1149 

D87 

C292 

D1942 

D1155 

C282 

D1152 

D1151 D1150 

9.62 

8.00 

7.35 7.18 


Fallen Fence 

7.95 

4.57 

7.98 

3.12 

3.23 

Substation 

D88 

D89 

D119 

D1934 

D96 

C291 

D1900 

D1904 D1905 

D1906 

D1903 

D1902 

D85 

D86 

D1901 

D1918 

100.0 100.0 

R40.0m 

D1937 D1936 

D93 

D1941 

D90 

C281 

C283 

D95 

D1919 

D91 

D92 

D1898 

D1896 

21 

3.240 

D1932 

D1933 

D94 

D1153 

D1940 

D1154 

C285 

D1935 13 

4.165 

90.0 90.0 

D79 

D80 

D82 

D83 

D84 

C289 

D1899 

D1897 

D1895 

C286 

G14 

8.074 


7.44 

7.98 

4.80 

7.59 

3.27 

4.92 


D77 

D78 

D67 

D66 

D65 

D48 

D47 

D81 

C13 

D55 

C12 

D56 

2.98 

3.42 

7.71 

MK 


D57 

C11 

C290 

D1863 

D1866 

D1865 

D1868 D1867 

D1892 

D1894 

D1893 

D1891 

D1890 

D1889 

D1888 

D1887 

D1874 

D1873 

D1886 

D1872 

D1885 

D1884 

D1883 

D1882 

D1881 

D1875 

D1864 

D1880 D1879 

D1876 

D1878 D1877 

D1871 D1869 

D1870 G0.32,H10,D 

D1858 

D1856 

C287 

D1842 

D76 

D1823 

D68 

D63 

D49 C9 

D46 

80.0 80.0 

D54 

C10 

C8 

D64 

D1857 

D1859 

D1860 

D1841 

D1822 

C16 

D58 

C288 

D1821 

D61 D62 

D60 

D59 

D51 

D52 

D50 

D45 

C274 

5.21 5.18 

9.56 

D1824 

9.60 

9.54 

9.21 

D72 

9.49 

9.59 

9.56 

9.05 

9.13 

9.41 

1 

9.333 

D53 

D44 

D43 

D22 

D1817 

D1816 

9.13 

D23 

D42 

D75 

70.0 70.0 

9.39 

D1848 

D1846 

2.96 

D1845 

D1844 

D1839 

D1840 

3.12 

3.29 

D1849 

D1850 

D1837 

D69 D70 

D1838 

C316 

D1825 

C275 

D1826 

D1818 

5.14 

D73 

C15 

7.80 

9.53 

D1843 

D1847 

5.26 

7.67 


Substation Platform Level 9.00m A.O.D. 

MK 

Excavation Base Level 8.50m A.O.D. 

10.0m 

Landform Level Varies 

C14 

MK 

D41 

D40 

D39 

D37 

D38 

D24 

MK 

D71 

D21 

MK 

MK 

C7 

C5 

D14 

D16 

D74 

D20 

7.64 


3.46 

D1835 

C317 

5.56 

7.57 

9.51 

2.91 

D1852 

D1853 

D1854 

3.03 D1855 

D1851 

D1815 

D19 

D1820 

D3 

D4 

C272 

D1819 

D13 

D12 D11 

D7 

D15 

C3 

C6 

D8 

C5 

C270 

D25 

D26 

D31 

D32 

D30 

D33 

D29 

D28 

D27 

D35 

D36 

D1834 

14 

D1833 4.052 

D1814 

C276 

8.08 

7.89 

D1862 

C271 

D1806 

6.05 

D1803 

C262 

7.57 

D1861 

15 

5.518 

D1809 

G13 

7.840 

C267 

60.0 60.0 

D34 

ICBT 

D9 

D10 

D2 D1 

D17 

IC 

C2 

D18 

7.93 7.93 

C1 

D5 

8.13 

D1832 

7.63 

4.17 

C269 

D1805 

MK 

50.0 50.0 

D6 

D1802 

6.47 

7.07 

7.17 

7.60 

7.51 

7.95 

4.24 

C268 

D1792 

7.67 

7.99 7.98 

9.38 

C278 

D1813 

D1791 

PO 

IC 

D1793 

7.13 

D1836 

C277 

C264 


MK 

4.17 

D1804 

C259 

7.86 

9.30 

7.95 

9.49 

9.61 

9.63 

7.39 

8.10 

8.06 

9.61 

9.67 

3.08 

3.42 

4.31 

4.34 

8.01 

Crops 

2.94 

C273 

D1831 

D1829 

D1830 

D1808 

D1794 

D1786 

ER 

2.0m 

D1812 D1811 

D1788 

D1790 

C265 

7.97 

9.76 

9.66 

C263 

C261 

16 

7.986 

BT 

PEG 

6.0m 

PEG 

MK 

MK 


8.25 

8.22 

8.08 

D1810 

D1801 

G6 

9.825 

40.0 40.0 

C258 


D1828 

D1827 

D1798 

C260 

7.82 

8.748.73 8.73 

8.30 7.938.04 8.15 8.49 

8.75 8.63 8.76 

8.66 8.62 8.18 

8.27 

8.56 

8.19 

8.49 

8.94 

8.55 

9.21 

D1788 

8.24 

C266 

3.09 3.23 

D1799 

10.66 

8.09 

7.88 8.02 8.17 8.37 8.56 8.748.78 8.76 8.75 8.75 8.65 8.62 8.33 8.06 7.78 7.73 7.59 

8.33 

8.34 

10.69 

8.82 

8.47 

3.99 

8.04 8.39 8.59 8.75 

C257 



D1807 

G10 

8.358 

2.0m 

MK 


D1780 

D1784 

10.74 

3.58 

1052 

3.712 

MK 

MK 

MK 

30.0 30.0 

3.84 

D1789 

MK 

10.69 

8.65 

D1800 

8.41 

8.84 

D1785 

D1774 

PO 

6.13 

8.65 

D1781 

D1771 

10.68 

8.80 

8.93 

D1796 

6.37 

D1795 

8.94 

6.17 

10.66 10.68 10.79 10.91 

8.98 

10.80 

5.87 

8.80 

8.70 

9.03 

8.95 

6.87 

3.47 

20 

3.613 

3.73 

3.87 


D1782 

D1764 

D1783 

D1779 

D1777 

D1776 

C256 

T1 

10.678 

20.0 

D1775 

D1757 

D1772 

D1770 

D1758 

8.83 

8.98 

8.90 

3.90 

6.82 

D1773 

7.52 

10.81 

6.48 7.13 

D1778 

D1769 

D1768 

9.119.25 9.41 9.54 

8.91 

8.98 

8.87 

9.14 

10.94 

8.91 

8.01 

8.95 

8.76 

10.89 

8.34 

8.89 

8.76 

3.64 

3.70 

3.87 

10.92 

8.90 

9.53 

4.04 

8.12 

7.42 7.71 

7.87 

D1767 

D1766 

D1765 

D1763 

IC 

D1762 

C255 

D1761 

D1760 

8.46 

8.25 8.74 

D1759 

D1753 

8.70 

D1756 

D1755 

D1747 

D1752 

D1754 

D1750 

D1749 

8.85 

D1748 

D1746 

D1745 

D1744 

10.0 10.0 

8.87 

Crops 

D1751 

D1743 D1742 

8.92 

9.01 

8.77 

8.69 

9.18 

3.74 3.86 

3.80 

3.88 



9.34 

9.23 

4.26 

8.98 

9.14 

9.01 

9.18 

9.27 

8.50 

8.63 

4.33 

9.14 

9.64 

4.00 

4.44 

9.28 

8.21 

7.947.64 

8.35 8.25 

8.55 

8.27 


0.0 0.0 

MK 

MK 

MK 


MK 

8.34 

4.10 

4.18 

4.57 

7.94 

4.65 

7.75 

8.01 


7.63 

4.77 

7.92 

4.40 

7.88 

4.34 4.48 


7.47 


7.87 

7.75 

7.32 

7.30 

4.84 

4.84 


7.28 

7.72 

7.62 

7.21 

7.05 

6.36 

7.256.95 6.64 6.03 

7.39 

5.75 5.38 5.12 4.89 4.74 

7.59 

7.47 

4.67 

5.02 

4.91 5.47 

4.77 

5.22 

6.00 

5.08 7.29 5.29 

5.82 6.46 6.81 6.21 

7.44 

4.91 

4.85 

6.98 


7.21 

7.45 

6.76 

6.37 

6.02 

5.69 

6.56 

6.22 

5.87 

5.11 

6.70 6.35 5.68 5.36 5.08 4.95 4.74 

6.07 

6.34 

5.94 

5.59 

5.31 

5.09 

4.93 

Crops 

6.63 

MK 

6.90 

7.10 


5.02 

5.57 

PO 

5.29 

5.38 

4.78 

WM 

5.17 

4.98 

4.68 

WM 

4.74 

4.98 

4.62 

4.70 

IC 

4.93 


G1 

4.861 

4.58 

4.89 

4.80 

IC 

5.54 

4.93 

4.63 

4.85 

4.65 

5.02 

5.01 

5.11 

IC 

5.38 

1.8m Fence 

4.97 

6.37 

PO 

WM 

4.70 

7.00 



7.24 

PO 

BH 

7.23 

7.04 

7.41 

7.35 

IC 

7.57 

4.73 

7.07 

7.79 

7.60 7.78 

7.22 


7.43 

7.97 8.25 

8.04 

7.71 


8.15 

8.33 

7.95 

8.30 

7.93 

8.22 

7.98 

8.33 

4.91 


8.58 

8.27 

8.25 

1.8m Fence 

PEG G7 

9.076 

8.13 

7.84 

7.67 

PO 

Unable to access area due to fence 

7.46 

7.25 

7.15 

6.66 

1.8m Fence 

6.40 

6.27 

MK 

MK 

MK 

MK 

5.80 

5.52 

5.43 

5.10 

4.96 

4.56 

4.44 

4.45 

3.85 

4.03 

4.07 

NOTES: 

1. Do not scale this drawing. 

2. All dimensions are in metres unless stated otherwise. 

3. Landform slopes facing the onshore substation are to be 1 in 3 subject to geotechnical confirmation. Landform 

slopes facing away from the onshore substation are to be 1 in 10. 

4. All earthworks associated with the access road are offset 2m from the edge of the carriageway to allow space 

for infiltration swales adjacent to the road and at a gradient of 1 in 3. 

5. The bulk earthwork calculations do not include for a topsoil strip across the site. However, assuming a topsoil 

depth of 300mm the volume generated across the site would be approximately 9730m 3 . 

KEY: 

Drawing Issue Status 

Date of 1st Issue 

Drawing Number 

Existing NGET Cables 

Existing tree to be removed 

Existing major contour - 0.5m intervals 

Existing minor contour - 0.1m intervals 

Proposed major contour - 0.5m intervals 

Proposed minor contour - 0.1m intervals 

Extent of additional earthworks required for access road to tie into 8.0m substation level 

Additional tree to be removed to enable access road to tie into 8.0m substation level 

A Sealing end compound layout and earthworks amended MJP 19.10.11 DTH 

Mark Revision Drawn Date Chkd 

SCALING NOTE: Do not scale from this drawing. If in doubt, ask. 

UTILITIES NOTE: The position of any existing public or private sewers, utility services, plant or apparatus shown on this 

drawing is believed to be correct, but no warranty to this is expressed or implied. Other such plant or apparatus may also 

be present but not shown. The Contractor is therefore advised to undertake his own investigation where the presence of 

any existing sewers, services, plant or apparatus may affect his operations. 

GALLOPER WIND FARM 

ONSHORE SUBSTATION WORKS 

PROPOSED OVERALL SITE EARTHWORKS 

VARYING LANDFORM HEIGHT AND SLOPES 

Client 

A1 Scale 

21.09.2011 

1:1000 

F O R I N F O R M A T I O N 

Drawn by 

Checked by 

MJP 

DTH 

Revision 

25456/003/101 A 

Offices throughout the UK, 

continental Europe, Africa and Asia 

www.peterbrett.com 

© Peter Brett Associates LLP 

READING 

Tel: 0118 950 0761 Fax: 0118 959 7498 

File Location: j:\25456 galloper wind farm\003 - earthworks and drainage\cad\dwgs\25456_003_101.dwg

2842_LVIA 



Appendix 5. Figure SSA/SX/001 Rev 01 from NPS EN-6 

(Department for Energy and Climate Change, July 

2011)

Sizewell 

Nominator map of site 

Annexes to the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6) 

261

2842_LVIA 



Appendix 6. 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. 2 

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. 2 

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. 2 

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. 

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

2842_LVIA 



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. 

2 

Mitigation. Measures, including any process, activity or design to avoid, 

reduce, remedy or compensate for adverse landscape and visual effects 

of a development project. 2 

Receptor. Physical landscape resource, special interest or viewer group 

that will experience an effect. 2 

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). 2 

Visual envelope. Extent of potential visibility to or from a specific area 

or feature. 2 

Zone of visual influence. Area within which a proposed development 

may have an influence or effect on visual amenity.

2842_LVIA 



Appendix 7. References 

1) The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 

Second Edition, Landscape Institute with the Institute of 

Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002 

2) Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and 

Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and The Countryside 

Agency, 2002 

3) Visual representation of Windfarms – Good Practice Guidance, 

Scottish Natural Heritage, March 2007 

4) Countryside Character Map of England, Countryside Agency, 

1999. 

5) Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment (Suffolk County 

Council 2008, updated 2011) 

6) Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 

Management Plan Actions 2008-2013 (2008) Suffolk Coast and 

Heaths AONB Partnership 

7) Sizewell Estate Integrated Land Management Plan, December 

2006 

8) Sizewell Estate Landscape Management Plan, May 1996 

9) The Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB - Landscape Guidelines 

10) Suffolk Coast and Heaths Landscape Assessment 1993 

11) Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000 

12) Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable 

Development. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 31 January 

2005. 

13) PPS7 Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in 

Rural Areas. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, August 2004.

2842_LVIA 



14) Consultation paper on a new Planning Policy Statement: 

Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment. Department 

for Communities and Local Government, March 2010. 

15) Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). 

Department of Energy & Climate Change, July 2011. 

16) National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure 

(EN-3). Department of Energy & Climate Change, July 2011. 

17) East of England Plan. Government Office for the East of England, 

2008). 

18) Suffolk Coastal Local Plan. Suffolk Coastal District Council, 

February 2001. 

19) Strategic Siting Assessment for the Development of New Nuclear 

Power Stations in the UK. Site Nomination Report for: Sizewell. 

EDF Energy 30.03.09 

20) Appraisal of Sustainability of the revised draft Nuclear National 

Policy Statement (Appendix 1 & 2 to the Main Report. Planning 

For New Energy Infrastructure. Department for Energy and 

Climate Change, October 2010.) 

21) National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6). 

(Volumes I and II. Planning for new energy infrastructure. 

Department for Energy and Climate Change, July 2011)

Path: X:\JOBS\2890 Greater Gabbard - LVIA for new Onshore Substation\8gis\Projects\Revision F\2890_0001_Site Location and Policy Context2.mxd 

North 

0 1,500m 

3.5km 

3km 

2km 

1km 

L E G E N D 

I I I * I I 

F Substation and cable corridor boundaries updated PB 19/10/11 

E L eg end am ended PB 21/09/11 

D Substation and cable corridor boundaries updated PB 19/08/11 

C Substation and cable connections am ended PB 25/05/11 

B L eg end am ended PB 18/05/11 

A Heritag e desig nations rem oved 

Substation layout am ended 

W W 01/04/11 

RE V . D E SCRI PTI O N APP.D ATE 

PRO JE CT TI TL E 


D RAW I N G TI TL E 

F ig ure 01: 

Site L ocation & Policy Contex t 

I SSU E D BY 

D W G .N O 

D ATE 21/09/2011 

SCAL E @A3 1:30,000 

STATU S 

Oxford 

2890/01F 

F I N AL 

G alloper W ind F arm proposed substation site area 

1, 2, 3 & 3.5km Radius around proposed G alloper 

W ind F arm proposed substation site area. 

G alloper W ind F arm proposed 


Conservation Area 

Scheduled Ancient M onum ents 

L isted Building 

Suffolk Heritag e Coast 

Suffolk Coasts and Heaths 

Area of O utstanding N atural Beauty 

Special L andscape Area 

(desig nated in Suffolk Coastal D istrict) 

Suffolk Coastal Path 

N o dim ensions are to be scaled from this drawing . 

All dim ensions are to be checked on site. 

Area m easurem ents for indicative purposes only. 

D RAW N D L 

CHE CK E D PB 

APPRO V E D W W 

This m ap is reproduced from O rdnance Survey m aterial with the perm ission of 

O rdnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her M ajesty's Stationary O ffice 

© Crown Copyrig ht. U nauthorised reproduction infring es Crown copyrig ht and 

m ay lead to prosecution or civil proceeding s. 

L icence num ber 0100031673 [2009] 

Sources: O rdnance Survey, D E F RA, N atural E ng land, 

E ng lish Heritag e & Suffolk Coastal D istrict Council. 

T 01865 887050 

© L D A D esig n Consulting L L P. Q uality Assured to BS E N I SO 9001 : 2000

Path: X:\JO BS\2890 Greater Gabbard - L V I A for new O nshore Substation\8g is\Projects\R evision F\2890_0002_L andscape_character.m x d 

North 

0 1,500m 

3.5km 

3km 

2km 

1km 

L EGEN D 





B L eg end am ended PB 18/05/11 

A Substation lay out am ended 

W W 01/04/11 

REV . D ESCRI PTI O N APP.D ATE 

PRO JECT TI TL E 



Fig ure 02: 

L andscape Character 

I SSU ED BY 

D W G.N O 

D ATE 21/09/2011 

SCAL E@A3 1:30,000 

STATU S 

© L D A D es 

Oxford T 01865 887050 

2890/02F 

FI N AL 

Galloper W ind Farm proposed substation site area 

1, 2, 3 & 3.5km Radius around proposed Galloper 

W ind Farm proposed substation site area 

Galloper W ind Farm proposed 


Suffolk Landscape Character Types 2008, updated 2011 

Ancient Estate Clay lands 

Coastal D unes and Shing le Ridg es 

Coastal L evels 


Rolling Estate Clay lands 

U rban 

D R AW N D L 

CHECK ED PB 

APPRO V ED W W 



Area m easurem ents for indicative purposes only . 


O rdnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her M ajesty 's Stationary O ffice 

© Crown Copy rig ht. U nauthorised reproduction infring es Crown copy rig ht and 



D ig ital Terrain m apping - ©GeoPerspectives [2009] 

Sources: O rdnance Survey , Suffolk Coastal D istrict Council & GeoPerspectives

Path: X:\JO BS\2890 Greater Gabbard - L V I A for new O nshore Substation\8g is\Projects\Revision F \2890_0004_Topog rapy _and_viewpoints.m x d 

North 

V P08 

0 1,500m 

V P01 

V P07 

3.5km 

3km 

2km 

1km 

V P05 

V P02 

V P06 

V P03 

V P04 

L E GE N D 





B V iewpoints am ended PB 18/05/11 

A Substation lay out am ended 

W W 04/01/11 





I SSU E D BY 

D W G.N O 

D ATE 21/09/2011 

SCAL E @A3 1:30,000 

STATU S 

Oxford T 01865 887050 

2890/04F 

F I N AL 

Galloper W ind F arm proposed substation site area 

1, 2, 3 & 3.5km Radius around proposed Galloper 

W ind F arm proposed substation site area 

Galloper W ind F arm proposed 


V iewpoint (V P) 

Elevation (meters above AOD) 

26 - 28 

24 - 26 

22 - 24 

20 - 22 

18 - 20 

16 - 18 

14 - 16 

12 - 14 

F ig ure 04: 

Topog raphy and V iewpoints 

D RAW N D L 

CHE CK E D PB 






O rdnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her M ajesty 's Stationary O ffice 

© Crown Copy rig ht. U nauthorised reproduction infring es Crown copy rig ht and 




10 - 12 

08 - 10 

06 - 08 

04 - 06 

02 - 04 

0 - 02 

Sea L evel 

Sources: O rdnance Survey , Suffolk Coastal D istrict Council & GeoPerspectives 


Path: X:\JOBS\2890 Greater Gabbard - LVIA for new Onshore Substation\8gis\Projects\Revision F\2890_0005_ResProps.mxd 

North 

0 500m 

Residential property within 1km 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Crownlands Co tag e 

N orth Co tag e 

The M ooring s 

O cean Co tag e 

Gap House 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 -11 

48 

V ulcan Arm s 

The Siding s 

Corner House 

Crown L odg e 

10 11 

47 

1-2 Com m on F arm Co tag es 

12 

32 

9 

12 

13 

14 -15 

16 

17 -18 

33 

34 35 

1 

13 

The Studio 

W rayfield 

16 

1-2 K eepers Co tag es 

Reckham L odg e 

1-2 W hite Co tag es 

14 

15 

36 37 38 

39 40 41 

19 

20 

21 -22 

23 -24 

25 

Caroline Co tag e 

W est V iew 

1-2 Pebble Co tag es 

1-2 I vy Co tag es 

Tim ber Top 

1km 

26 -29 

30- 31 

32 

33 

34 -35 

30 31 

1-4 Coast Guard Co tag es 

1-2 Rosery Co tag es 

The W ilderness 

Barley Rise 

3-4 Crown F arm Co tag es 

17 18 

19 20 

42 

43 

44 

45 

44 

45 

21 22 

23 24 

46 

7 

W hy W orry 

Hom e F arm 

42 

6 

36-41 1-6 Halfway Co tag e 

W oodbine Co tag e 

Hom e F arm Bung alow 

25 

46 

47 

48 

2 

3 4 

43 5 8 

26 27 

28 29 

Garden Co tag e 

Com m on F arm 

158 K ing Georg es Avenue 

L E GE N D 

Long Distance Paths 

D Substation and cable corridor boundaries updatedPB 19/10/11 

C Public rig hts of way added PB 31/08/11 

B Substation and cable corridor boundaries updatedPB 19/08/11 

A Substation and cable connections am ended PB 25/05/11 





F ig ure 05: 

Residential Properties and Public Rig hts of W ay 

I SSU E D BY 

D W G.N O 

D ATE 21/09/2011 

SCAL E @A3 1:10,000 

STATU S 

Galloper W ind F arm proposed substation site area 

1km Radius around Galloper W ind F arm 

proposed substation site area 

Galloper W ind F arm proposed 


Residential property 

Suffolk Coast Path 

Sandling s W alk 

Suffolk County Council Definitive 

Rights of Way (ROW) 

F ootpaths 

Bridleways 

Byways 

Oxford 

2890/05D 

F I N AL 

T 01865 887050 

D RAW N D L 

CHE CK E D PB 




Area m easurem ents for indicative purposes only. 


O rdnance Survey on behalf of the controller of Her M ajesty's Stationary O ffice 

© Crown Copyrig ht. U nauthorised reproduction infring es Crown copyrig ht and 

m ay lead to prosecution or civil proceeding s. L icence num ber 0100031673 [2009] 

Sources: O rdnance Survey & Suffolk Coastal D istrict Council. 

D efinitive RO W dig itised by L D A D esig n from m aps supplied by Suffolk County 

Council / Suffolk Coastal M aps (3rd edition) 2009. 

L ong D istance Paths dig itised by L D A D esig n from O S M apping . 


Path: X:\J O BS\2890 Greater Gabbard - L V I A for new O nshore Substation\8g is\Projects\R evision G\2890_0009_ZT V _y ear_one.m x d 

North 

0 1,500 m 

3.5km 

3.0km 

2.0km 

1.0km 

This draw ing is based upon com puter g enerated ZTV studies run on 

a D ig ital Surface m odel. The D ig ital Surface m odel w as created using 

terrain data derived from Aerial Photog raphy w hich includes landform , 

w oodlands, setlem ents and m ajor hedg erow s. D ue to its resolution, 

the surface m odel does not take into account every localised feature 

such as w als, sm all hedg erow s or m ature trees and therefore only 

g ives an im pression of the ex tent of visibility . 

The ZTV includes an adjustm ent that allow s for the Curvature and 

2 

L ig ht Refraction of the E arth and has a 5m resolution. 

L E GE N D 




I SSU E D BY 

D W G.N O 

D AT E 09/11/2011 

SCAL E @A3 1:30,000 

STATU S 

O x ford T 01865 887050 

2890/09C 

F I N AL 

Galoper W ind F arm proposed substation site area 

1, 2, 3 & 3.5km Radius around Galloper 


Galoper W ind F arm proposed 


Proposed 12m hig h g antries 

Greater Gabbard Substation (constructed) 

O nly proposed g antries visible 

(m odeled to 13m heig ht 

(w est g antry 21.3m AO D , east g antry 20.3m AO D ) 

O nly proposed substation visible 

(m odeled to various heig hts up to 14m (23m AO D ) 

Proposed substation and g antries visible 

C Gantry heig ht revised, (ZT V rerun) PB 09/11/11 

B Substation and cable corridor boundaries updated PB 19/10/11 

A L andscape m itig ation am ended (ZTV rerun) PB 21/09/11 

RE V . D E SCR I PT I O N APP.D AT E 

F ig ure 06: 

Zone of Theoretical V isibility – Year 1 

D R AW N D L 

CHE CK E D PB 


N o dim ensions are to be scaled from this draw ing . 



This m ap is reproduced from O rdnance Survey m aterial w ith the perm ission of 

O rdnance Survey on behalf of the contro ler of Her M ajesty 's Stationary O ffice 

© Crow n Copy rig ht. U nauthorised reproduction infring es Crow n copy rig ht and 




Sources: O rdnance Survey & GeoPerspectives 


Path: X:\J O BS\2890 Greater Gabbard - L V I A for new O nshore Substation\8g is\Projects\R evision G\2890_0010_ZT V _y ear_15.m x d 

North 

0 1,500m 

3.5km 

3.0km 

2.0km 

1.0km 

This draw ing is based upon com puter g enerated ZTV studies run on 

a D ig ital Surface m odel. The D ig ital Surface m odel w as created using 

terrain data derived from Aerial Photog raphy w hich includes landform , 

w oodlands, setlem ents and m ajor hedg erow s. D ue to its resolution, 

the surface m odel does not take into account every localised feature 

such as w als, sm all hedg erow s or m ature trees and therefore only 

g ives an im pression of the ex tent of visibility . 

The ZTV includes an adjustm ent that allow s for the Curvature and 

2 

L ig ht Refraction of the E arth and has a 5m resolution. 

L E GE N D 




I SSU E D BY 

D W G.N O 

D AT E 

SCAL E @A3 1:30,000 

STATU S 

O x ford T 01865 887050 

2890/10C 

09/11/2011 

F I N AL 

Galoper W ind F arm proposed substation site area 

1, 2, 3 & 3.5km Radius around Galloper 


Proposed 12m hig h g antries 

O nly proposed substation visible 

(m odeled to various heig hts up to 14m (23m AO D ) 

D R AW N D L 

CHE CK E D PB 


N o dim ensions are to be scaled from this draw ing . 



This m ap is reproduced from O rdnance Survey m aterial w ith the perm ission of 

O rdnance Survey on behalf of the contro ler of Her M ajesty 's Stationary O ffice 

© Crow n Copy rig ht. U nauthorised reproduction infring es Crow n copy rig ht and 



D i 

Galoper W ind F arm proposed 


Greater Gabbard Substation (constructed) 

O nly proposed g antries visible 

(m odeled to 13m heig ht 

(w est g antry 21.3m AO D , east g antry 20.3m AO D ) 

Proposed substation and g antries visible 

C Gantry heig ht revised, (ZT V rerun) PB 09/11/11 

B Substation and cable corridor boundaries updated PB 19/10/11 

A L andscape m itig ation am ended (ZTV rerun) PB 21/09/11 

RE V . D E SCR I PT I O N APP.D AT E 

F ig ure 07: 

Zone of Theoretical V isibility – Year 15 

Sources: O rdnance Survey & GeoPerspectives 


X/JOBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_WF-Rochdale_Sept11.indd 

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. 

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. 

E 

11m high 

(20m AOD) 

13m high 

(22m AOD) 

8m high 

(17m AOD) 

*17m high 

(26m AOD) 

14m high 

(23m AOD) 

*11m high 

(20m AOD) 

SE 

S 

Viewpoint Information 

Grid Reference: 

Elevation (AOD): 

Viewer Height: 

Viewing Distance: 

Angle (width): 

Camera & Lens: 

Photo date / time: 

Distance to substation: 

1.6m 

300mm 

Location Plan - 1:25,000 scale 

Digital SLR, 50mm 


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 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

14.56m 

933m 

19/09/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

645683, 263208 

135 ˚, Substation occupies - 15 ˚ 

26/01/2010 14.15 

DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 1: Residential Properties and 

Public Right of Way north-west of site 

Development Envelope 

DRAWN 

2890/WF_DE/01 RevA 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 

© LDA Design Consulting LLP. Quality Assured to BS EN ISO 9001 : 2000



Existing view 

Gantry (shown as actual 

potential structure) 

SE 


11m high 

(20m AOD) 

14m high 

(23m AOD) 

8m high 

(17m AOD) 

*17m high 

(26m AOD) 

S 

*11m high 

(20m AOD) 

SW 









1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

6.89m 

Distance to substation: 130m 

19/09/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

646630, 262990 


27/01/2010 13.45 

DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 2: Public Right of Way north of 

the site 


DRAWN 


CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 



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. 

Existing view 


SW W NW 










1.6m 

300mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

FINAL 

647483, 262977 

8.65m 


27/01/2010 09.50 

511m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 3: Sizewell Beach car park 


841mm x 297mm 

DRAWN 


CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 

SW 


*11m high 

(20m AOD) 

W 

*17m high 

(26m AOD) 

14m high 

(23m AOD) 

8m high 

(17m AOD) 

5m high 

(14m AOD) 

13m high 

(22m AOD) 



11m high 

(20m AOD) 

NW 









1.6m 

300mm 








PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

3.69m 

19/09/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

647304, 262662 


26/01/2010 12.40 

DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 4: Sizewell Gap Road 


DRAWN 


CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 

*11m high 

(20m AOD) 

NW N NE 


*17m high 

(26m AOD) 

14m high 

(23m AOD) 

13m high 

(22m AOD) 











1.6m 

300mm 








PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

646767, 262507 

6.27m 


26/01/2010 13.50 

DRAWING TITLE 



DRAWN 


CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 

NW 


*11m high 

(20m AOD) 

8m high 

(17m AOD) 

14m high 

(23m AOD) 

*17m high 

(26m AOD) 

13m high 

(22m AOD) 

N 



NE 










1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

9.50m 

19/09/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

646780, 262003 


03/05/2011 10.10 

694m 

DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 6: Public Right of Way south 

of site 


DRAWN 


CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 


NE E SE 










1.6m 

300mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

FINAL 

645873, 262507 

14.54m 


27/01/2010 13.10 

688m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 7: Road junction between King 



841mm x 297mm 

DRAWN 


CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 



Existing view 

NE 



E 

SE 










1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

643418, 263817 

26.35m 


03/05/2011 12.50 

3.26km 

DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 8: Abbey Lane 


DRAWN 


CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 


X/JOBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_WF-Detailed_Sept11.indd 

Wireframe View 

Existing view 


E 

SE 

S 










1.6m 

300mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

FINAL 

645683, 263208 

14.56m 


26/01/2010 14.15 

933m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 



Illustrative Layout 

841mm x 297mm 

2890/WF_IL/01 RevA 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 

SE 


S 

SW 









1.6m 

300mm 








DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

FINAL 

646630, 262990 

6.89m 


27/01/2010 13.45 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 


the site 


841mm x 297mm 


DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 


SW W NW 









1.6m 

300mm 








DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

FINAL 

647483, 262977 

8.65m 


27/01/2010 09.50 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 3: Sizewell Beach car park 


841mm x 297mm 


DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 

SW 


W 

NW 









1.6m 

300mm 








DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

FINAL 

647304, 262662 

3.69m 


26/01/2010 12.40 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 



841mm x 297mm 


DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 


X/jOBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_Wf-Detailed_Sept11.indd 


Existing view 

NW N NE 










1.6m 

300mm 








DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

fIGURE 

19/09/2011 

fINAL 

646767, 262507 

6.27m 


26/01/2010 13.50 

PROjECT TITLE 

Galloper Wind Farm SubStation 

DRAWING TITLE 



841mm x 297mm 

2890/Wf_IL/05 RevA 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 

NW 


N 

NE 










1.6m 

300mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

FINAL 

646780, 262003 

9.50m 


03/05/2011 10.10 

694m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 


of site 


841mm x 297mm 


DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 


NE E SE 









1.6m 

300mm 








DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

FINAL 

645873, 262507 

14.54m 


27/01/2010 13.10 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 7: Road junction between King 



841mm x 297mm 


DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 




Existing view 

NE 


E 

SE 









1.6m 

300mm 

Distance to substation: 3.26km 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

19/09/2011 

FINAL 

643418, 263817 

26.35m 


03/05/2011 12.50 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 8: Abbey Lane 


841mm x 297mm 


DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 


X/JOBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-Worst_Case_Oct11.indd 

Photomontage view: 

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. 

This may be different to the locations shown on other photomontage Figures 2890/PM/02B/YR1, 2890/PM/04B/YR1 and 2890/PM/05B/YR1. 

The three dimensional model of the substation and gantries is indicative and is not based on an accurate design. 










1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

10/10/2011 

FINAL 

645683, 263208 

14.56m 


26/01/2010 14.15 

933m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 



Photomontage – Year 1 

841mm x 297mm 

2890/PM/01B/YR1 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SG 

SD 

PB 
















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

10/10/2011 

FINAL 

646630, 262990 

6.89m 


27/01/2010 13.45 

130m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 


the site 


841mm x 297mm 

2890/PM/02B/YR1 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SG 

SD 

PB 




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. 












1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

10/10/2011 

FINAL 

647304, 262662 

3.69m 


26/01/2010 12.40 

289m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 



841mm x 297mm 

2890/PM/04B/YR1 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SG 

SD 

PB 
















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

646767, 262507 

6.27m 

PROJECT TITLE 


1189mm x 297mm 

FINAL 


26/01/2010 13.50 

206m 

DRAWING TITLE 



10/10/2011 

2890/PM/05B/YR1 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SG 

SD 

PB 
















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

10/10/2011 

FINAL 

645683, 263208 

14.56m 


26/01/2010 14.15 

933m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 




841mm x 297mm 

2890/PM/01B/YR15 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SG 

SD 

PB 
















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

10/10/2011 

FINAL 

646630, 262990 

6.89m 


27/01/2010 13.45 

130m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 


the site 


841mm x 297mm 

2890/PM/02B/YR15 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SG 

SD 

PB 
















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

10/10/2011 

FINAL 

647304, 262662 

3.69m 


26/01/2010 12.40 

289m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 



841mm x 297mm 

2890/PM/04B/YR15 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SG 

SD 

PB 
















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

646767, 262507 

6.27m 

PROJECT TITLE 


1189mm x 297mm 

FINAL 


26/01/2010 13.50 

206m 

DRAWING TITLE 



10/10/2011 

2890/PM/05B/YR15 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SG 

SD 

PB 


X/JOBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_WF-Rochdale_Oct11.indd 

Existing view 


E 

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. 

11m high 

(20m AOD) 

13m high 

(22m AOD) 

8m high 

(17m AOD) 

*17m high 

(26m AOD) 

14m high 

(23m AOD) 

*11m high 

(20m AOD) 

SE 

S 










1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

14.56m 

933m 

06/10/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

645683, 263208 


26/01/2010 14.15 

DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 1: Residential Properties & 

PROW north-west of site 

Development Envelope with Additional 

Mitigation Area 

2890/WF_DE_AM/01 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 



Existing view 

SW 





*11m high 

(20m AOD) 

W 

*17m high 

(26m AOD) 

14m high 

(23m AOD) 

8m high 

(17m AOD) 

5m high 

(14m AOD) 

13m high 

(22m AOD) 



11m high 

(20m AOD) 

NW 










1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

3.69m 

289m 

06/10/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

647304, 262662 


26/01/2010 12.40 

DRAWING TITLE 




2890/WF_DE_AM/04 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 



Existing view 

*11m high 

(20m AOD) 

NW N NE 


*17m high 

(26m AOD) 




14m high 

(23m AOD) 

13m high 

(22m AOD) 












1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

06/10/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

646767, 262507 

6.27m 


26/01/2010 13.50 

206m 

DRAWING TITLE 




2890/WF_DE_AM/05 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 



Existing view 

NW 





*11m high 

(20m AOD) 

8m high 

(17m AOD) 

14m high 

(23m AOD) 

*17m high 

(26m AOD) 

13m high 

(22m AOD) 

N 



NE 










1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

9.50m 

06/10/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

646780, 262003 


03/05/2011 10.10 

694m 

DRAWING TITLE 


of site 



2890/WF_DE_AM/06 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 





Existing view 


E 

SE 

S 










1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

06/10/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

645683, 263208 

14.56m 


26/01/2010 14.15 

933m 

DRAWING TITLE 

Viewpoint 1: Residential Properties & 

PROW north-west of site 

Illustrative Layout with Additional 


2890/WF_IL_AM/01 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 



Existing view 

SW 




W 

NW 










1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

06/10/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

647304, 262662 

3.69m 


26/01/2010 12.40 

289m 

DRAWING TITLE 




2890/WF_IL_AM/04 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 



Existing view 

NW N NE 













1.6m 

300mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

06/10/2011 

FINAL 

646767, 262507 

6.27m 


26/01/2010 13.50 

206m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 



Mitigation Area. 

841mm x 297mm 

2890/WF_IL_AM/05 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 



Existing view 

NW 




N 

NE 










1.6m 

300mm 







PROJECT TITLE 


DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

06/10/2011 

841mm x 297mm 

FINAL 

646780, 262003 

9.50m 


03/05/2011 10.10 

694m 

DRAWING TITLE 


of site 


Mitigation Area. 

2890/WF_IL_AM/06 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

SD 

SD 

PB 


X/JOBS/2890_Greater Gabbard/6docs/2890_PM-AM_Worst_Case_Oct11.indd 



This may be different to the locations shown on other photomontage Figures 2890/PM_AM/04B/YR1 and 2890/PM_AM/05B/YR1. 












1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

12/10/2011 

FINAL 

645683, 263208 

14.56m 


26/01/2010 14.15 

933m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 



Photomontage with Additional Mitigation 

Area – Year 1 

841mm x 297mm 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

2890/PM_AM/01B/YR1 

SG 

SD 

PB 

















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

12/10/2011 

FINAL 

647304, 262662 

3.69m 


26/01/2010 12.40 

289m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 




841mm x 297mm 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

2890/PM_AM/04B/YR1 

SG 

SD 

PB 

















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

646767, 262507 

6.27m 

PROJECT TITLE 


1189mm x 297mm 

FINAL 


26/01/2010 13.50 

206m 

DRAWING TITLE 




12/10/2011 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

2890/PM_AM/05B/YR1 

SG 

SD 

PB 

















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

12/10/2011 

FINAL 

645683, 263208 

14.56m 


26/01/2010 14.15 

933m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 





841mm x 297mm 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

2890/PM_AM/01B/YR15 

SG 

SD 

PB 

















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

12/10/2011 

FINAL 

647304, 262662 

3.69m 


26/01/2010 12.40 

289m 

PROJECT TITLE 


DRAWING TITLE 




841mm x 297mm 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

2890/PM_AM/04B/YR15 

SG 

SD 

PB 

















1.6m 

435mm 







DATE 

PAPER 

STATUS 

FIGURE 

646767, 262507 

6.27m 

PROJECT TITLE 


1189mm x 297mm 

FINAL 


26/01/2010 13.50 

206m 

DRAWING TITLE 




12/10/2011 

DRAWN 

CHECKED 

APPROVED 

2890/PM_AM/05B/YR15 

SG 

SD 

PB 


GALLOPER WIND FARM ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 

TECHNICAL APPENDIX 20.B 

SEASCAPE, LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL CHARACTER – SEASCAPE VISUAL 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

2842_SLVIA 


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 

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 


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 


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 


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 

2 

Table 1: WTG range considered for GWF 

WTG detail 107m rotor 120m rotor 164m rotor 

Typical MW 

rating 

Minimum 

clearance above 

MHWS 

Maximum No. 

WTG in array 

3 - 3.6MW 3.6 - 4MW 6 - 7MW 

22m 22m 22m 

140 140 72 

Hub height 79.5m 86m 120m 

Maximum tip 

height 

135m 146m 195m 

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 northeasterly 

to south-westerly direction forming an extension to the GGOWF.

2842_SLVIA 

3 

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 

4 

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 

5 

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 

6 

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 

7 

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 

8 

� 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 

9 

Table 2: Consultation with Suffolk Coastal District Council and 

Natural England in 2009 


Consultation 



(SCDC) 

Natural England 

(NE) 

4 th November 

2009 

21 st December 

2009 

4 th November 

2009 

17 th 

November 

2009 

7 th December 

2009 

15 th December 

2009 

21 st 

December 

2009 

21 st 

December 

2009 

Type of 

Consultation 

Letter enclosing 

methodology, 


Purpose of 

Consultation 

Seeking agreement 

on study area, 

methodology, 

viewpoints and 

cumulative sites 

Email from SCDC Agreement to the 

consultation 

Letter enclosing 

methodology, 


Seeking agreement 

on study area, 

methodology, 



Email from NE Questions 

concerning the 

above 

Email to NE Response to 

questions 


above 

Email from NE Further questions 

Email to NE Response to 

questions 


above 

Email from NE Agreement to the 

consultation 

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 

10 

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 


Consultation 



Suffolk County 

Council (SCC) 

Type of 

Consultation 


enclosing 

viewpoints, ZTV and 



from SCDC 

Purpose of 

Consultation 

Agreement of 



Agreement to 

consultation 

12 th May 2011 Emails from SCDC Clarification of date 



2011. Confirmation 

of cumulative sites. 


enclosing 



Agreement of 




consultation 

12 th May 2011 Emails from SCC Clarification of date 



2011. Confirmation 

of cumulative sites.

2842_SLVIA 

11 


Consultation 

Natural England 6 th and 9 th 

May 2011 

Type of 

Consultation 

Letter sent by email 

enclosing 



Purpose of 

Consultation 

Agreement of 



12 th May 2011 Email to NE To agree seascape 

character 

assessment method 

12 th May 2011 Email from NE Agreement on 

seascape character 

assessment method 

16 th 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 

12 

� 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 

13 

3.0 Landscape and Seascape Policy Context 


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 

14 

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 

15 

3.2. Landscape Designations 


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: 


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 

16 

(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. 


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 

17 


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. 


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 

18 

Registered Historic Parks and Gardens of Glemham Hall and Campsey Ashe 

Park. 


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 

19 

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. 


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 

Designations 

Distance from 

the nearest 

WTG 

Sensitivity to type of 

change 

Suffolk Coast AONB 29.5km High 

Suffolk Heritage Coast 28.9km High-Medium 

Special Landscape Areas 34.8km Low

2842_SLVIA 

20 

4.0 Landscape and Seascape Character 


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 


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 

21 

� 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: 


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. 


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 

22 

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. 


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. 


WTG. 


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 

23 


4.2.17. The key characteristics of this landscape character type include areas of lowlying, 

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. 


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. 


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 

24 

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. 


WTG. 


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. 


WTG. 


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 

25 

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. 


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 


farm, outwith its area, is Low.

2842_SLVIA 

26 


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. 


nearest WTG. 


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 



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 

27 


nearest WTG. 


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 


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. 


nearest WTG. 


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 



farm, outwith its area, is Low.

2842_SLVIA 

28 

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. 


nearest WTG. 


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 


offshore development. It is considered, therefore, that the sensitivity of the 

Valley Meadowlands to the type of change proposed by the offshore wind 


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. 


nearest WTG.

2842_SLVIA 

29 


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 




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 

the nearest 

WTG 

Ancient Estate Claylands 36.3km Low 

Coastal Dunes & Shingle 

Ridges 


change 

29.4km High-Medium 

Coastal Levels 29.9km Low 

Estate Sandlands 32.4km Low 

Open Coastal Fens 39.7km Low

2842_SLVIA 

30 

Landscape Character Distance from 

the nearest 

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 


Introduction 


change 

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 

31 

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 

32 

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 

33 

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 

34 

Aldeburgh Bay Regional Seascape Unit 


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. 


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. 


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 

35 

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. 


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 

36 

Hollesley Bay Regional Seascape Unit 


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. 


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. 


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 

37 

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. 


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. 


4.3.27. The components of this seascape remain largely intact and are generally wellmaintained. 

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 

38 

Felixstowe/Deben Estuary Regional Seascape Unit 


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. 


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. 


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 

39 

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. 


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. 


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 

40 

Stour and Orwell Estuaries Regional Seascape Unit 


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. 


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. 


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 

41 


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. 


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 

42 

5.0 The Existing Visual Environment 


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 

43 

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 

44 

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 

Nos. 

GGOWF In 

construction 

London Array I 

Offshore 

London Array II 

Offshore 

In 

construction 

Blade tip 

height 

140 131.5m 0.72km 

175 175m 

Consented 166 175m 

Approximate 

distance from 

nearest GWF 

turbine 

17.9km southwest 

(I and II treated as 

one site) 

Thanet Offshore Operational 100 115m 37.5km southwest 

Gunfleet Sands I 

and II Offshore 

Gunfleet Sands 

Extension 

Cumulative ZTV studies 

Operational 48 129m 41.5km southwest 

In planning 2 180m 48.8km 

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 

45 

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 

46 

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 

47 

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 

48 

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 

49 

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

layout assessed. 

Viewpoint 1 - Orford Castle 


Distance and Direction from GWF 33.0km to the northwest 

Distance and Direction from the 

GGOWF 


London Array Wind Farms 


Gunfleet Sands Wind Farms 



42.2km to the northeast 

Main Receptor Visitors/Tourists 

Designations Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB 

Landscape Character Type 

Heritage Coast 

Scheduled Monument 

Grade I Listed Building 


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 

50 

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 

GGOWF 




29.1km to the north

2842_SLVIA 

51 




Receptor Residents/Tourists 

Designations Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, 


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 

52 


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 




GGOWF 






Designations 


Regional Seascape Unit Aldeburgh Bay 

Existing View 

Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB, 


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 

53 

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. 


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 




GGOWF 


Receptor Residents/Road Users

2842_SLVIA 

54 

Designations 



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. 


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 

55 

Viewpoint 5 - Orford Ness near the Lighthouse 




GGOWF 






38.5km north 

42.4km northeast 

Receptor Visitors/Tourists 

Designations 



Landscape Character Type Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges 

Regional Seascape Unit 

Existing View 

On the boundary between the 

Aldeburgh Bay and the Hollesley Bay 

seascape units. 

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 

56 

views across the ancient shingle heaths towards the large, dense, steel 

building used for world broadcasting and the associated finer, ethereallooking 

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. 


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 




GGOWF 







33.5km to the northeast 

Receptor Visitors/Tourists/Residents 

Designations 



Landscape Character Type Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges 

Regional Seascape Unit Hollesley Bay

2842_SLVIA 

57 

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. 


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 




GGOWF 








Receptor Visitors/Tourists

2842_SLVIA 

58 


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. 


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 

59 

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 


Distance and Direction from GWF 42.4 km to the northwest 


GGOWF 



Designations Suffolk Coast and Heaths AONB 


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 

60 

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. 


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 

61 

Table 8: Existing Viewpoint Sensitivity 

Viewpoint Grid 

reference 


Orford Castle 

Viewpoint 2 - 

Old 

Felixstowe 

Seafront 

Viewpoint 3 - 

Aldeburgh 

Seafront 

Viewpoint 4 - 

North of 

Alderton 

Viewpoint 5 - 

Orford Ness 

near 

Lighthouse 

Viewpoint 6 - 

Shingle Street 

near Martello 

Tower 

Viewpoint 7- 

View from the 

cliff top, The 

Naze 


The 

Promenade, 

Southwold 

641930, 

249864 

632380, 

236252 

646633, 

256935 

634464, 

242117 

645003, 

248868 

636605, 

242533 

626532 

223456 

650978, 

276154 

Distance and 

direction from 

nearest GWF 

turbine 

33.0km to the 

northwest 


31.6km to the 

northwest 


29.8km to the 

northwest 


Receptor 

groups 

Visitors/ 

Tourists 

Residents 

/ Tourists 

Residents 

/ Tourists 

Residents 

/ Road 

users 

Visitors/ 

Tourists 

Visitors/ 

Tourists/ 

Residents 

42.8km to the west Visitors / 

Tourists 

42.3km to the 

northwest 

Residents 

/ Tourists 


type of 

change 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High 

High

2842_SLVIA 

62 

6.0 Landscape and Seascape Effects 


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 

63 

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. 


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 

64 

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. 


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 

65 

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 

66 

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 

67 

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 

68 

Table 9: Operational effects on Designated Landscapes, the Historic 

Environment & PROW 

Landscape 

Designations 

Suffolk Coast 

AONB 

Suffolk 

Heritage 

Coast 

Special 

Landscape 

Areas 

Historic 

Environ- 

ment 

Historic Env’t 

associated 

with Coastal 

Areas 

Historic Env’t 

associated 

with Inland 

Areas 

Distance 

from the 

nearest 

WTG 


type of 

change 

Magnitude 

of 

Operational 

Effect 

Significance of 

Operational 

Effect 

29.5km High Negligible Negligible 

28.9km High-Medium Negligible Negligible 

34.8km Low Negligible Negligible 

Distance 

from the 

nearest 

WTG 


type of 

change 

29.8km High/High- 

Medium 

Magnitude 

of 

Operational 

Effect on 

views 

Low- 

Negligible 


Operational 

Effect on views 

(worst case) 

Minor 

31km Low Negligible Negligible

2842_SLVIA 

69 

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 lowerlying 

landscape character types of the Coastal Levels and the Rolling Estate 

Sandlands. Viewpoint 1 lies within the Estate Sandlands, albeit on a manmade 

elevated landform within Orford Castle.

2842_SLVIA 

70 

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 

71 

Table 10: Operational Effects on Landscape Character Types 

Landscape 

Character 

Ancient 

Estate 

Claylands 

Coastal Dunes 

& Shingle 

Ridges 


type of change 

Magnitude of 

Operational 

Effect 


Operational 

Effect 

Low Negligible Negligible 

High-Medium Negligible Negligible 

Coastal Levels Low Negligible Negligible 

Estate 

Sandlands 

Open Coastal 

Fens 

Plateau Estate 

Farmlands 

Rolling Estate 

Claylands 

Rolling Estate 

Sandlands 

Saltmarsh 

Intertidal 

Flats 

Valley 

Meadowlands 

Valley 

Meadows & 

Fens 








Low Negligible Negligible

2842_SLVIA 

72 

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 


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 

73 

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 

74 

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 


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 


west of the nearest GWF WTG. The unit is characterised by a broadly lowlying, 

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 

75 

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 

Seascape Unit 

Walberswick to 

Thorpe Ness 

Sensitivity 

to type of 

change 

High to 

Medium 

Aldeburgh Bay High to 

Medium 

Hollesley Bay High to 

Medium 

Felixstowe/Deben 

Estuary 

Stour and Orwell 

Estuaries 

Medium to 

Low 

Magnitude 

of 

Operational 

Effect 

Low to 

Negligible 

Low to 

Negligible 

Low to 

Negligible 


Operational Effect 

Minor 

Minor 

Minor 


Medium Negligible Negligible

2842_SLVIA 

76 

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 

77 

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 

78 

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. 


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 


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 

79 


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 


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. 


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 

80 

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 


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. 


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 

81 

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 


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. 


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 

82 

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 


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. 


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 

83 

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 


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 

84 


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 


Table 12: Appraisal of Magnitude and Significance of Effect on 

Representative Viewpoints. 

Viewpoint 


Orford Castle 

Viewpoint 2 -Old 

Felixstowe 

Seafront 

Viewpoint 3 - 

Aldeburgh 

Seafront 

Viewpoint 4 - 

North of 

Alderton 


rype of 

change 

Magnitude of 

Operational 

Effect 


Operational 

Effect 

High Negligible Negligible 

High 


High Low to Negligible Minor 

Medium Negligible Negligible

2842_SLVIA 

85 

Viewpoint 

Viewpoint 5 - 

Orford Ness near 

Lighthouse 

Viewpoint 6 - 

Shingle Street 

near Martello 

Tower 

Viewpoint 7- 

View from the 

cliff top, The 

Naze 


The Promenade, 

Southwold 


rype of 

change 

Magnitude of 

Operational 

Effect 

High Low to Negligible Minor 


Operational 

Effect 




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 

86 

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 


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 

87 

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 

88 

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 

89 

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 

90 

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 

91 

8.0 Cumulative Effects 


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 

92 

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 

93 

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 

94 

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 

95 

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 

96 

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. 


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 

97 

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 


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. 


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 

98 

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 

99 

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 




GGOWF 






Designations 


Regional Seascape Unit Aldeburgh Bay 


Heritage Coast

2842_SLVIA 

100 

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 

101 

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 

102 

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 nighttime 

visibility from land.

2842_SLVIA 

103 

10.0 Summary and Conclusion 


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 

104 

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 


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 

105 

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 

106 


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 

107 

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. 


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 

108 

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 

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 


� 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


EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


Location 


• 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 

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. 



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 

20 th 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 20 th 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. 


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. 



EP/Edit1/1.10.10 

Coastal Dunes & Shingle Ridges 


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. 


• 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. 


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 



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. 


• 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. 



EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


Location 


• Flat marshland adjacent to the coast or estuaries 

• Marine alluvium soils 

• Sinuous and complex mediaeval dyke networks 

• Uniform 19 th 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 

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. 



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. 


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. 


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 20 th 

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 18 th and 19 th 

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 



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. 


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. 


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. 



EP/Edit1/1.10.10 



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. 


• 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. 


Conserve the setting of this landscape 

The construction of new buildings on the coastal slope, or changes of land use, can 



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. 

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 coastal levels. 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 Saltmarsh and Intertidal Flats and the beach 

(Coastal Dunes and Shingle Ridges), have some capacity to accommodate largescale 

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 



EP/Edit1/1.10.10 

the issues raised by increased visitor numbers. 


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. 



EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


Location 


• 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 18 th & 19 th 

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 

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 



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. 


All the parts of this landscape type consist of flat or very gently rolling plateaux of freelydraining 

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. 


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 18 th and 19 th 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 17 th 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 18 th 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 19 th and 

early 20 th centuries became nationally famous for their shooting, often attracting royalty to 

their shooting parties. 



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 18 th and early 19 th 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 20 th 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 betterwatered 

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 6 th and 7 th 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 20 th 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 



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 19 th 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. 

. 


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 18 th and 19 th 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 19 th 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. 



EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


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. 



EP/Edit1/1.10.10 



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. 


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 


The character of the landscape is largely made up of C18 th and C19 th 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 


designated sites for the protection of these species. Furthermore, much of the coastal part of 


Natural Beauty. 


• 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 



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 



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. C19 th (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 



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 


considerable contribution to mitigating their impact. The plantations, shelterbelts, and 

tree lines found throughout this landscape provide opportunities to design locally 







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. 


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. 



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 



change to landscape character. 










Visual impact of cropping and production, and land use changes 


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. 



EP/Edit1/1.10.10 






• Extend the cover of heathland paying particular attention to areas of commercial 


• Develop opportunities for locally distinctive species such as the rare Brecks plants. 

• Protect distinctive geomorphology such as patterned ground. 


16 Guidance Note Rolling Estate Sandlands 

EP/Edit1/1.10.10 



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 C18 th and C19 th 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 18 th and early 19 th 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 


designated sites for the protection of these species. Furthermore, most of the coastal part of 


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. 


• 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. 



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. 


Valley side landscapes have historically been a focus for settlement. However, largescale 

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 



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 



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 



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 


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. 






• Restore and maintain landscape parklands and their features. 


16 Rolling Estate Sandlands 

EP/Edit1/02.08.10 


Location 


• 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 

• 19 th C 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 

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 



EP/Edit1/02.08.10 

• along the north side of the Orwell Estuary from Felixstowe to the margins of 

Ipswich. 


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. 


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 18 th 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 18 th century overlooking the Orwell Estuary: Orwell Park and Broke 

Hall, the latter having a landscape designed by Humphry Repton (Red Book of c.1792). 



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 7 th century by St Botolph 

and destroyed by Viking raiders in the late 9 th 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 19 th century air of symmetry and planning, contrasting with the more vernacular timberframed 

buildings of the clayland areas to the south. The Tudor white bricks of Hengrave 

Hall are an early precursor of the strong 19 th century fashion for white bricks, with 

production sites in the valley at Flempton and Culford. 

Red brick 19 th 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. 


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. 


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. 


2842_SLVIA 

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 

Between Points 

Vertical Error Horizontal 

Error 

Landform Profile 10m +/- 1.8m +/- 1m 

Landform 

Panorama 

50m +/- 5m +/- 3m 

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

Galloper Wind Farm Project - National Infrastructure Planning

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?