Draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines - July 2010

the existing character of the landscape and its features. Some landscapes are more
sensitive to wind farms than others. Understanding the existing physical and visible
attributes of the landscape are important factors in determining the extent to which
its character may be impacted upon by a wind farm development. The rigour of
assessment should be consistent despite the size and extent of the wind farm
proposal.
• Landscape significance impacts
Depending on the jurisdiction and their relevant planning controls, it may not be
feasible to propose a wind farm in a location that will impact upon existing and/or
designated significant landscapes. The likelihood that landscape significance has
been properly and recently assessed will depend on the location. The absence of
statutory landscape protection may not necessarily mean that the landscape lacks
significance, in which case the proponent may be required to undertake a
significance assessment. The statement of significance should be sufficiently rigorous
to clearly outline which aspects of significance (if any) a wind farm would impact on.
• Impacts on viewsheds and views
Visual impacts of a wind farm proposal need to be considered, in part at least, in
relation to viewsheds and views. Views can take a number of forms, including
panoramas, prospects, point-to-point and so on. Viewpoints – the location of the
viewer – can be static or dynamic (an example of the latter is a tourist drive). A
viewshed is defined as the area of land visible from a point, or series of points – in
other words, the ‘seen’ area. Identification of important views is fundamental when
considering the impact of a wind farm on a landscape. The locations from which
these views are accessed are also important. Viewing locations from which the
proposed wind farm is likely to be visible range from designated viewing platforms to
the more incidental public use locations (such as roads and settlements). In some
cases, close-to-viewer mitigation works, such as screening of a view, may resolve
identified site level viewing impacts. In most other cases, the siting or layout of a wind
farm may need to be adjusted to reach an acceptable level of impact.
• Impacts on community values
The impact of a wind farm on a landscape is not necessarily just visual – other ‘values’
can be affected. Community values and perception of landscape may include
associations, memories, knowledge and experiences or other cultural or natural
values. Therefore landscape professionals tend to use the term ‘landscape values’
when considering the impacts of development on a landscape. However for the
purpose of clarification in these Guidelines, scenic, character and visual values are
sometimes used interchangeably for 'landscape values'. The central component is
working with communities to understand their values of the landscape.
Values are held by individuals and communities, and some values reside
predominantly in the subjective territory of human perceptions. Therefore a thorough
assessment of landscape character and significance, and of the impacts of a wind
farm proposal on landscape character, has to include direct community input.
Partly this is a question of working with the community in the local area affected by
the wind farm proposal. The aim is first to understand the various types of communities
of interest that may exist in relation to the landscape, then to understand the values
and respond to them. For example, local people often have strong attachment to the
outlook from a particular viewpoint, and this knowledge should inform choice of
viewpoints for visual modelling.
Valued landscapes also exist for communities at national and regional level. Examples
would be features of national significance such as Uluru or state and/or regional
significance such as Victoria’s Twelve Apostles. Values at this level need to be
considered. Relevant techniques are referred to in the sections on Landscape
Significance in the Appendix.
Page 70 Draft National Wind Farm Development Guidelines – 2 July 2010