CARYS’ NOTE DECEMBER – POINT 2

2] The whole area of the evaluation of residual impacts after mitigation is clearly a difficult one where practice various quite widely. The current guidance gets around the problem by using examples, included in the appendix, of different approaches. Are we going to be more prescriptive and, if so, what exactly are we going to prescribe. This is of course relates it to the difficult issue of how we define sensitive receptors for both landscape and visual impacts and the extent to which we do or do not wish to link this to the definitions emerging in the new LCA guidance [second draft recently submitted and revised Topic Paper on sensitivity and capacity now in almost complete draft form]. Carys: see separate note on this [below].
During the conference call, there was a range of discussion but the general feeling was that there does not need to be a great deal of difficulty in dealing with this.

We could see how, with a crude scheme coming as an ‘end state’ development to the landscape professional, she/he might have to assess the scheme as a ‘bald’ development in an already prescribed location and form and she/he might then ‘apply’ landscape and visual assessment with the objective of avoiding and/or mitigating adverse effects – hence you could have a ‘before mitigation’ and then an ‘after mitigation’ assessment with the latter constituting a ‘residual effects’ assessment.

However this seems to fly in the face of what we are seeking to encourage which is the application of L&VIA as a design tool such that avoidance/mitigation is built into the process from site selection through layout/form considerations etc so that the actual assessment would be of the proposal which would have ‘landscape and visual requirements/design etc’ already integrated within its compass. As such, the iterative planning/design/assessment process would culminate in an assessment which should ideally be an assessment of ‘residual’ effects rather than a two stage process with landscape coming as an afterthought.

We feel that the definition of receptors is really a matter of identifying the various potential viewers (classifying their visual sensitivity) and landscape aspects (character, key characteristics, attributes etc) and we don’t see this as a necessarily difficult matter.

Hence:

Know thy visual amenity and landscape baseline.... and what is important within it..... i.e. the relevant ‘receptors’.....

Know thy development at its various stages (ideally from the gleam in the progenitor’s eye through to its final integrated form).... applying L&VIA as part of the scheme evolution process....

Identify the various effects (outcomes) arising from the impact (i.e. the placemen of the development into the host environment) and....

Assess the significance of the identified effects...... these then would be the residual effects because avoidance/amelioration would have already been included within the ;planning/design process....

14.12.2010