Guidance - Strategic Environmental Assessment: Landscape Considerations

In SEA it is not possible or appropriate to assess landscape change in the same level of detail as that which would apply in respect of an Environmental Impact Statement for a project. Nevertheless, SEA should aim to identify the potential broad changes in characteristics of the landscape including:

• land form;
• land use and land cover, including water, woodlands and agriculture;
• relationships between land form and land use;
• field pattern and boundaries; especially cumulative impacts on these features
• buildings and structures in the landscape including roads and other infrastructure;
• urban landscape / settlement pattern and
• our experience of the landscape’s qualities that do not have a physical manifestation, such as openness, scale, colour, texture, visual diversity, line, pattern, movement, sound, solitude, naturalness, historical and / or cultural   associations.

The level of detail which can be incorporated will depend on the level at which the plan is pitched. For example, a high level national policy may only be able to reflect nationally significant landscape trends, such as the erosion of the total area of wild land in Scotland, whilst a Local Development Plan SEA could explore locally important features in more detail.

Table 1 below summarises the scope for landscape change in respect of the sectors listed in Section 5(3) of the Act and Article 3(2) of the Directive. The list is not exhaustive but can be used as an aide memoire to consider the nature scale and location of changes likely to be promoted, stimulated or controlled by the plan. See also the NatureScot Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook version 5 – 2018. 

Strategic environmental assessment stages

Screening

This stage of the SEA determines whether any particular plan would be likely to have a significant effect on the environment. Schedule 2 (of the 2005 Act) sets out criteria that help to determine whether, in this context, the effects of a plan are likely to be significant. The screening of a plan should address the following considerations when determining whether it would be likely to have a significant effect on the landscape.

a) Are the environmental problems in the plan area related directly or indirectly to its landscape? If so, does the plan make a significant contribution to resolving those problems or does it significantly exacerbate them?

b) What is the magnitude and spatial extent of effects on the landscape, including the geographical area likely to be affected?

c) What is the magnitude and spatial extent of effects on people’s enjoyment of the   landscape, including the number of people likely to be affected in the context of their sensitivity to change in the landscape?

d) What is the value of the landscape likely to be affected and its vulnerability to change due to its special natural characteristics or cultural heritage (e.g. wildness)?

e) What are the effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised local, regional, national, EC or international protection status?

f) What is the probability / likelihood or risk of these effects on the landscape occurring and being significant if they occurred?

Table 2 below expands on these points and provides a simplified and general ‘checklist’ for helping to screen landscape issues in the screening stage of SEA.

For further guidance on the screening process, see also Scottish Government Strategic Environmental Assessment: guidance.

Scoping the SEA and the Scoping Report

As part of the consultation process on the scoping stage, NatureScot looks to the scoping report to:

• Ensure that landscape is either included in the SEA process or a full and transparent justification for its exclusion (scoping out) is made;
• Outline the environmental baseline for landscape in the plan area and how it may change in absence of implementation of the plan. Where this cannot be provided at scoping stage, details on the sources of information that will be used in the assessment must be given;
• Identify other relevant plans which may interact with the subject plan including any relevant wider objectives for landscape;
• Set out how effects on the landscape will be assessed, if appropriate, against environmental objectives and, where relevant, the criteria and checklists derived   
• from those objectives (see paragraph 43);
• Prescribe the level of detail that will be applied to the SEA process showing that it is appropriate to the scale of the plan and the nature, scale and extent of the potential effects; and
• Summarise the likely significant effects on the landscape to allow SNH to check that all relevant changes will be anticipated. This could include identifying trends such as encroachment or loss of particular landscape character types or local areas where change has been concentrated.

These points are clarified in the following sections.

Scoping in/out landscape effects

Many plans will generate landscape impacts, and where that is the case, NatureScot expects landscape to be ‘scoped in’ to the SEA process. Where there is doubt as to whether landscape effects would be significant, it is better to proceed with at least a preliminary assessment, allowing the process of SEA itself to determine whether the effects on landscape are significant. Landscape should only be scoped out of the assessment at the scoping stage where the potential changes to landscape fall clearly below the tests indicated in Table 2 above.

Environmental baseline and predictions

NatureScot would expect to see the Scottish Landscape Character Types Map and Descriptions used as the appropriate environmental baseline data for landscape in SEA. For spatial plans it would be beneficial to include the mapped data, possibly adapted or simplified to suit the scale of the assessed plan programme or strategy. For topic or policy based plans or strategies, the relevant LCA information is likely to be the forces for change or descriptions rather than the mapped details. 

Where more detailed Landscape Character Assessment work has been undertaken locally, this too should be included in the environmental baseline where it reflects the scale and level of detail of the plan. 

The Scoping Report should not merely reiterate the findings in the Landscape Character Assessment, or just report that this is the document that will be used. Rather, NatureScot would like to see Scoping Reports explain how Landscape Character Assessment will be used to analyse to the changes to the landscape that are likely to be brought about by the plan. Environmental reports should focus on the outcomes from analysis of the information, and consideration of how it can inform the actual assessment of effects, avoiding excessive description or detail.

Where appropriate, the landscape baseline information should also include:

• Designations e.g. National Scenic Areas, local landscape designations, National,   
• Regional and Country Parks;
• Other significant outdoor recreation resources, e.g. Long Distance Routes
• Areas valued for their wild land character;
• Parks and open spaces of recreational amenity or wildlife value;
• Green belts;
• Green corridors or wedges of green land important because they penetrate or  separate urban areas;
• Important open areas which contribute to the distinctive setting, identity or back   drop of settlements; and
• Landscape capacity studies.

How the landscape may be changing or would change in the absence of the plan. 

Again, the Landscape Character Assessment will often be the starting point for identifying changes and trends in the landscape and how the landscape may change in the absence of the implementation of the plan. Information on how Scotland’s landscapes evolved and pressures for change in the landscape was included in most of the 1990s Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) reports. These “Background Chapters” are regarded as helpful by many users, they have been revised and added to the revised LCA dataset - Landscape Character Assessment in Scotland – Landscape Evolution and Influences.

It may be necessary for the responsible authority to review pressures for change in the landscape and consider whether new changes need to be added, especially in relation to the subject plan. Not all pressures for change will be relevant to all plans and the assessment should concentrate on those most applicable to the changes likely to arise as a result of the implementation of the plan, or those which the plan may be able to help to promote, stimulate or control.

Interaction with other qualifying plans and programmes

The UK is a signatory to the European Landscape Convention. Accordingly, requirements of the Convention need to be reflected in all relevant plans. Like the policies of NatureScot and other bodies, the Convention establishes an all-landscapes approach and the importance of including people in decisions affecting landscape. 

This will require the responsible authority to identify, collate and consider the wider policy framework for landscape with which the emerging plan is likely to interact. In order to keep this task a manageable one, bearing in mind that landscape is only one of several environmental issues, it will be necessary to apply a rigorous and focused approach to the identification and examination of other qualifying plans and programmes. For other plans and programmes to be relevant there should be a clear link in the hierarchy of policy framework, whereby either:

• the proposed plan helps to deliver the landscape objectives of a higher tier plan; or
• the proposed plan provides an explicit framework for landscape policy that lower tier plans will implement; or
• the other qualifying plans interact at the same level in the policy framework as the subject plan but aim to implement policy in different ways or through different mechanisms.

Table 3 above is an indicative list of plans and programmes, which may be potentially relevant and interact with the plan being assessed. The indicative list should be seen only as a starting point, which will change over time and will need to be adapted to the type, scope and geographical area of the plan being assessed. A diagram in the Scoping Report and the Environmental Report showing the inter-relationship of the other plans and the relative positions in the policy framework can be helpful. Figure 2 (below) illustrates the process of drawing down landscape conservation objectives from international, EU and national policy, feeding in landscape objectives from other, more local policies and generating the specific objectives for a qualifying plan, from which the SEA tests are drawn. It also shows how the landscape character assessment is an integral part of the process of SEA.

SEA tests are drawn. It also shows how the landscape character assessment is an integral part of the process of SEA.

Defining landscape objectives, indicators, and checklists

This is likely to be a critical element within the scoping stage, and of the overall process of SEA. It is the setting of the environmental ‘objectives’ and subsequent ‘tests’ against which the emerging plan will be assessed. This task is therefore central to the effectiveness of the SEA process. It may be necessary to refine the objectives as the SEA progresses. The objectives can be tailored to reflect the priorities and challenges within the area covered by the plan, by building in information gathered during the baseline and contextual analysis. This in turn can help to focus the assessment findings.

As explained elsewhere, the environmental objectives are adopted from international, and national policy frameworks and by definition, tend to be broad in nature. However, setting environmental objectives is still considered to be a valid approach but needs to be tailored for more local landscape policy frameworks. An appropriate environmental objective for landscape could be:

• To protect, enhance and – where appropriate – restore landscape character, local distinctiveness and scenic value. 

An environmental criterion that would help to test this broad policy objective against the international, and national policy framework could be:

• Is the aim / policy / proposal likely to significantly help to protect, enhance or restore, or is it likely to significantly damage or diminish landscape character, local distinctiveness or scenic value or the enjoyment or understanding of the landscape?

This general and wide-ranging criterion will still be applicable to higher tier plans and programmes, and also to the assessment of the overall aims or strategy of a more detailed level plan, where the assessment is relatively coarsely grained. However, for more detailed analysis of policies and proposals, especially in lower tier plans and programmes, it will be appropriate to break down the different elements of the criterion and apply a finer grained test of the plan’s provisions. This more detailed approach should not lead to over-elaborate assessment or to the landscape assessment being out of proportion to other assessment criteria in the SEA, which deal with effects of similar proportions to those on the landscape.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment: guidance suggests one approach to undertaking SEA is through objectives and indicators. Within landscape some generic objective and indicators which could be applied to most of the sector plans might include:

NatureScot supports SEA methodology where the total number of assessment criteria is carefully managed. Many criteria result in a large number of assessment interactions between criteria and individual policies or proposals in the plan, thus increasing significantly the time input and cost of the assessment. Whilst this may result in more rigorous and thorough assessment, a balance needs to be struck between resources available and effective assessment. Good practice suggests that about 8-16 criteria is sufficient for the majority of plans. Accordingly, it is critical that the landscape criteria are carefully selected to be as effective in testing the plan as possible, whilst recognising that the other 11 environmental issues listed in Schedule 3(6) of the Act will need their assessment criteria too.

It will also be necessary for an appropriate level of skill to be available to undertake the assessment. The broader the criteria and the higher the tier of the plan, the more likely it is that specific landscape expertise will not be essential. The information in Landscape Character Assessments should be a sufficient basis for informed judgement. However, the further down the plan hierarchy and the more detailed the assessment criteria, the more likely it will be that a landscape specialist will need to be part of the assessment team.

Consequently, it is recommended that the assessment of landscape effects is undertaken in stages as follows:

• For very broad scale, national or regional, plans; and to the overall aims or strategies of more detailed plans, use a single assessment criterion. For example:
• Is the plan / programme / aim / strategy unlikely to have a significant effect on landscape, or are the effects likely to be consistent with protection, enhancement, or restoration and sustainable management of landscape character, local distinctiveness and scenic value and the enjoyment or understanding of the landscape? See Worked Example 1 below.

To test all the general policies in a plan for their potential effects on landscape, apply a checklist of no more than three landscape criteria. The three suggested criteria are:

• Are the effects of the implementation of the policy likely to be consistent with the protection, enhancement or restoration of landscape character and local  distinctiveness (as described in a landscape character assessment)?
• Are the effects of the implementation of the policy likely to be consistent with the   protection, conservation and sustainable management of the special qualities of (list relevant to the area of the plan) the X World Heritage Site, the X National Park, the X and X National Scenic Areas, the X and X Special Landscape Areas? – Are any opportunities to enhance landscape character and distinctiveness or people’s understanding and enjoyment of the landscape recognised and promoted in the policy?

Many will have no likely effect on landscape at all, and it will be possible to quickly complete all three criteria with a ‘no effect’ responses (see for example, the Worked Example 2 and Table 6 below). Others will require more careful analysis.

For more specific policies and explicit proposals for change, a closer examination of their implications for landscape objectives will be necessary and a number of criteria may need to be applied, via a checklist. The importance of locally specific landscape objectives and criteria cannot be over-emphasised. The Landscape Character Assessment should be used to narrow down the criteria and to make them locally relevant and effective. A suggested checklist for specific policies and explicit proposals for change could take the following form:

• Is the proposal located in a designated landscape or its setting, where setting is    important?
• Would the proposal be consistent with the protection, enhancement, or   restoration and sustainable management of the designated landscape?
• In which landscape character type(s) is the proposal located?
• Are there guidelines for the type of change proposed?
• If ‘yes’ is the proposal consistent with the guidelines or, if implemented in accordance with the plan, can the proposal be made to be consistent with the guidelines?
• If ‘no’ in the assessor’s judgement, is the proposal likely to be implemented in a way that would not adversely affect the key characteristics of the relevant landscape character type(s) as set out in the landscape character assessment?
• If negative effects on a designated landscape or on landscape character and distinctiveness are likely, can the proposal be modified to ensure consistency with   the guidelines – e.g. by adding design criteria, by relocation or by reduction in scale?
• Would the proposal be consistent with policies to protect green belts; green   corridors or wedges of green land important because they penetrate or separate    urban areas; and important open areas which contribute to the distinctive setting, identity or backdrop of settlements?
• Would the proposals be consistent with policies to enhance promote or maintain    people’s enjoyment and understanding of the landscape.

See Worked Example 7 below. Worked examples of the assessment of a plan’s strategy, a plan’s general policies and a specific, but hypothetical, proposal are provided towards the end of this guidance.

Level of detail for landscape assessment

The level of detail of the assessment should always be appropriate to the scale of the plan and the likelihood, nature, scale and location of significant effects on the landscape. The smaller the plan area and the more detailed the provisions of the plan, the more detailed should be the assessment of the effects on the landscape. Site specific proposals will not be likely to be at a scale suitable for SEA.

Effects on the landscape

NatureScot will expect a Scoping Report to include at least a summary or broad outline of the key landscape changes anticipated as a result of the plan, which may be significant in the context of the plan and which will be subject to assessment. The outline need not be detailed, it could take the form set out in Table 1 above and should be sufficient to re-assure NatureScot that all relevant landscape changes are likely to be assessed.

Assessing effects on the landscape

Introduction

Schedule 3 of the 2005 Act, and Annex 2 of the Directive, require that the assessment must include an analysis of:

• Short, medium and long-term effects;
• Permanent and temporary effects;
• Positive and negative effects; and
• Secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects.

Short term effects on landscape (for example, those lasting less than a year or so) are less relevant to SEA than project EIA. They may also be more difficult to identify at a strategic scale. Consequently, the SEA is likely to concentrate on medium and longer-term effects, and permanent change to landscape.

Positive landscape effects should be identified as well as negative effects. It is important to bear in mind that SEA can be an important mechanism for identifying and promoting ways in which plans and programmes could enhance landscape character and distinctiveness. Where such opportunities are identified they should be flagged up in the SEA process, so that the plan can be improved.

Assessing cumulative and synergistic effects on landscape

Landscape is vulnerable to the cumulative effects of a number of changes over time. Individual developments considered cumulatively as part of a development plan could change the character of the open space around or between settlements. Cumulative landscape and visual impact assessment is increasingly used in project EIA and reported in environmental impact statements. However, SEA should be able to identify and evaluate whether areas are likely to experience particular concentrations of landscape effects as a result of a plan. Cumulative effects on the landscape can arise in a number of ways:

• As a result of the interaction between plans, for example, two adjacent local development plans where housing allocations could combine to produce significant landscape effects.
• Similarly, proposals for improving transport links in a remote rural area coupled with changes in woodland type and cover as a result of a forestry strategy could have impacts on landscape character and sense of wildness or tranquillity.
• As a result of a combination of policies or proposals within a plan interacting to produce significant effects, for example, proposals for renewable energy development, coupled with proposals for developing the electricity grid infrastructure.

Secondary effects might result for example, from a proposal to reduce travel time to work which encourages development close to population centres which may place more pressure on landscape settings of towns and villages, or on greenbelts.

Synergistic effects (where two or more factors act together, potentially causing a greater level of change than from cumulative effects) are less relevant to landscape assessment in this context. Nevertheless, it is likely that any such effects on landscape would be assessed via cumulative impact assessment to the extent that would be necessary in SEA. 

Scottish Government Strategic Environmental Assessment: guidance 3. Step By Step Guidance deals specifically with cumulative, synergistic and secondary effects. It defines them, outlines a methodological approach and provides references to other sources of information. Further research and evolution of practical methodologies is required in this field. It is likely to be related to advancing techniques in assessing landscape sensitivity and capacity. In the meantime, if an assessment team is concerned that there may be scope for cumulative effects on landscape as a result of the implementation of a plan, they should discuss this with NatureScot and may need to record any difficulties, including lack of technical expertise, in accordance with the requirements of Section 14 and Schedule 3 of the 2005 Act.

For further guidance on assessing cumulative and synergistic effects in plans and programmes, see also Planning Advice Note 1/2010 Strategic Environmental Assessment of Development Plans.

Assessing options and reasonable alternatives

As a plan evolves it is important that the effects on landscape of the various options or alternatives that may be considered are assessed. When choosing preferred options or alternatives landscape should be given the same weight as other effects on the environment. Input from landscape specialists may be required to make the assessment defensible and robust. This may be particularly relevant for plans affecting valued or sensitive landscapes.

Schedule 3 of the 2005 Act requires Environmental Reports to include an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with. This explanation should include a description and assessment of significance of the effects on the landscape of the alternatives examined alongside the other SEA topic areas.

Assessing the range of policies in the plan - policy gap analysis

Checking that the plan has not overlooked any issues is an important step in the SEA process because it helps to ensure that all relevant policies for landscape (and other environmental) conservation issues are included. This will reduce the likelihood of important environmental protection and enhancement issues being overlooked during implementation of the plan.

Assessing the aims, policies and proposals of plans and programmes

The following section illustrates the approach to selecting the environmental objectives and criteria, with some worked examples. This includes how the objectives, policies and proposals of a plan may be assessed for their landscape effects. 

Reporting the significance of effects

The use of assessment matrices is almost universal – but is not essential. A matrix allows for the systematic, manageable and easily interpreted presentation of the many interactions between the assessment objectives and criteria and the likely effects on the landscape of a plan’s objectives, policies and proposals. Many Environmental Reports have published and presented the findings of the assessment of effects on landscape by way of:

• a short assessment table or matrix in terms of the assessment of the effects of the plan’s aims and strategy on landscape and other environmental issues, similar   to Table 5 below; and / or
• a detailed assessment matrix including representation of the effects of the plan’s policies on landscape, similar to Table 6 below; and / or
• a matrix, or checklist of criteria, against which the plan’s more detailed proposals have been checked and the outcome in respect of each proposal, similar to Table 7 below.

For further guidance on assessing the aims, strategy, policies and proposals in plans and programmes, see also Planning Advice Note 1/2010 Strategic Environmental Assessment of Development Plans.

Mitigation

Mitigation is an essential consideration in SEA. Where adverse effects have been identified it is important to suggest ways in which you can avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate for them. Residual effects from mitigation measures also need to be assessed. For example, for major infrastructure programmes a mitigation measure might be to carry out woodland planting to help integrate the development with its surroundings. It is important that any negative as well as positive landscape impacts associated with this are assessed. The strategic nature of this process needs to be borne in mind so that mitigation measures are realistic at that level.

Monitoring

Sections 14 and 18 of the 2005 Act require the responsible authority to make provision for the monitoring of the significant environmental effects of the implementation of the plan. The monitoring should be designed to identify any unforeseen adverse effects at an early stage and to undertake appropriate remedial action. References to other guidance in respect of monitoring techniques, the selection of indicators, information requirements and timescales are considered further below.

In terms of the landscape, monitoring needs to concentrate on the effects of the implementation of the plan, rather than general changes to the landscape, many of which may be caused by factors which have no relation to the plan. Thus, most development plans will need to concentrate on changes brought about by land use change and built development provided for, or stimulated, or controlled by the plan. Conversely, an agricultural plan should concentrate on changes to the landscape caused by changes in the type of agriculture, changes to cropping patterns, grazing regimes or intensification of agriculture resulting from the plan.

Ideally, monitoring indicators (and related targets) should be linked, directly or indirectly, to the landscape objectives and criteria where these have been used in the assessment process. This will help to ensure that monitoring remains focused on the effects and effectiveness of the plan in relation to landscape planning objectives. Thus, where relevant, there may need to be three monitoring indicators related to the three criteria suggested in paragraph 51 related to:

• Objectives for landscape character and distinctiveness;
• The protection, conservation and sustainable management of designated landscapes;
• Enhancement of landscape character and distinctiveness and people’s understanding and enjoyment of landscape.

Examples of possible indicators for monitoring plans related to forestry, transport and energy are set out in Table 4 below. These are only illustrative and would need adaptation, especially where they can be tailored to better fit local landscape issues and pressures for change and the information currently available.

Worked Examples for Assessment Stage

Worked example 1

Assessing the overall aim or strategy of a plan

The example used here is that of a recently adopted local plan. Its strategy comprised almost 20 key strategic objectives of which ten are selected here for illustrative purposes. 

The landscape criterion used is that suggested earlier in this guidance:

Is each element of the strategy unlikely to have a significant effect on landscape, or are the effects likely to be consistent with protection, enhancement, or restoration and sustainable management of landscape character, local distinctiveness and scenic value and the enjoyment or understanding of the landscape?

The table illustrates that the strategic objectives in the Local Plan are largely compatible with the landscape criterion. Where there are qualified comments the plan authors should consider amendments to the plan, for example, by adding caveats or landscape protection or management policies. They may also need to be followed up in the Post Adoption Statement.

Worked example 2

Assessing general policies in a plan

By way of illustration of the assessment of general policies in a plan, a recently adopted Local Plan includes the following policies. Each is assessed in the following matrix for its effects on landscape using the three recommended criteria suggested earlier in paragraph 51:

• Objectives for landscape character and distinctiveness;
• The protection, conservation and subsequent management of designated landscapes; and
• Enhancement of landscape character and distinctiveness and people’s understanding and enjoyment of landscape.

Policy ENV 13

New woodlands for community use, and planting for bio-fuels will be supported, where there is landscape and design integration, biodiversity enhancement and multiuse benefits including, where appropriate, public recreational access, particularly near to communities.

Policy ENV 21

The council will protect the six Areas of Special Landscape Control shown on the proposals map from intrusive development in order to retain their landscape character. The council will promote opportunities to enhance the six Areas of Special Landscape Control and their accessibility to the public for recreational and educational purposes in a manner that does not undermine their landscape character and biodiversity value.

Policy EM 11

Outwith settlement boundaries or employment areas, proposals for industrial or business uses will be permitted on the edge of settlements, defined as having a conterminous boundary with the settlement boundary (which are shown on the proposals map), if all the following criteria are met:

a) the character, scale and location of the proposals are compatible with landscape settings in terms of design, position and materials;

b) proposals respect areas of natural, built and archaeological importance;

c) proposals are not sited in a designated landscape area or countryside belt as identified in Chapter 3;

d) there is a lack of development opportunities within the settlement;

e) applicants can demonstrate that the use/re-use of vacant or derelict land and buildings is not practical;

f) traffic generated would not create an unacceptable adverse impact on road safety or amenity; and

g) proposals would not harm the amenity of nearby residents or other land uses. 

Policy HOU 1

The sites listed in Appendix 6.1, and shown on the proposals map, are identified as housing sites which contribute to meeting the housing requirements over the local plan period, and the longer term.

Policy TC 7

Retail, commercial leisure, offices and higher density housing will be encouraged in, and on the edge of, Bxxxxxxx town centre. Retail and leisure proposals outwith the town centre, that would prejudice its status as a district centre, will be resisted. The council will work with the other key agencies and landowners in the town centre to promote a re-development strategy that looks to make best use of existing underused sites in and around the existing town centre, and which aims to integrate the major new housing development site at Wxxxxxxxx, and improve local accessibility and circulation.

Worked example 3

Assessing specific policies and explicit proposals for change

By way of example, the Fife Landscape Character Assessment (1998) is used to illustrate how a specific housing proposal on the edge of a settlement (west of Dunfermline) may be assessed. It is located in the Lowland Hills and Valleys landscape character type. It is further assumed the (hypothetical) proposal is an option for a large-scale housing allocation in the Local Development Plan on rising land close to the edge of the settlement.