Special Landscape Qualities – guidance on assessment effects

NatureScot Scotland’s Nature Agency Buid­heann Nàdair na h‑Alba

LOCH LOMOND & THE TROSSACHS NATION­AL PARK

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ùgh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies — Guid­ance on assess­ing effects

Janu­ary 2025

Back­ground This guid­ance sets out how to assess effects on the Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies (SLQs) of Scotland’s Nation­al Scen­ic Areas (NSAs) and Nation­al Parks. It has been pre­pared by NatureScot, the Cairngorm Nation­al Park Author­ity (CNPA) and the Loch Lomond and Trossachs Nation­al Park Author­ity (LLT­NPA).

Con­tents Scope………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies (SLQs)………………………………………………………………….4 Using this guidance…………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Assess­ment process…………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Step 1 — Review and describe the proposal…………………………………………………………5 Step 2 — Identi­fy the SLQs that may be affected by the proposal………………………….5 Step 3 — Assess­ment of effects on SLQs and design objectives…………………………….7 Step 4 — Sum­mary of sig­ni­fic­ant effects on SLQs……………………………………………….10 Annex 1 — Check­list for assess­ment of effects on Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies (SLQS)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Glossary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….i

2

Scope 1 This guid­ance applies to Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies (SLQs) iden­ti­fied for Nation­al Scen­ic Areas (NSA) and Nation­al Parks in Scot­land. These are highly val­ued areas that rep­res­ent the country’s finest land­scapes. The import­ance of their SLQs is reflec­ted in nation­al plan­ning policy and legislation.

2 An assess­ment of effects on SLQs is car­ried out where a pro­posed devel­op­ment or oth­er land use change (referred to as ​‘pro­pos­al’ from now on) is likely to res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant adverse effects on one or more SLQs with­in a NSA or Nation­al Park. Land­scapes will con­tin­ue to evolve and change needs to be man­aged care­fully to ensure the SLQs are con­served and enhanced so they can be enjoyed by future generations.

3 The scope of the assess­ment should be dis­cussed and agreed with the rel­ev­ant decision-mak­ing author­ity and/​or con­sul­tee. They will ulti­mately require suf­fi­cient inform­a­tion with­in the SLQ assess­ment to inform their judge­ment on wheth­er a pro­pos­al would meet or be con­trary to rel­ev­ant policy tests, includ­ing those set out at a nation­al level and the Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plans (NPPP). Judge­ment of wheth­er a pro­pos­al meets these policy tests will be made by the decision-maker.

4 All NSAs and Nation­al Parks are recog­nised by their des­ig­na­tion as being of high value and all parts con­trib­ute to the value of the des­ig­na­tion. The sus­cept­ib­il­ity of the SLQs to dif­fer­ent pro­pos­als will vary, so the assess­ment of effects needs to focus on the spe­cif­ic aspects of SLQs which are sens­it­ive to the par­tic­u­lar type of change being proposed.

5 In some instances, pro­pos­als out­side NSAs or Nation­al Parks may res­ult in sig­ni­fic­ant effects on their SLQs and these pro­pos­als will require a SLQ assess­ment. The study area for the assess­ment should not extend bey­ond the bound­ary of the des­ig­na­tion. The dis­tance of the pro­pos­al from the bound­ary will be a use­ful con­sid­er­a­tion, but this should not be used as a proxy for the pre­dicted mag­nitude of change or sig­ni­fic­ance of effects, as it is the effects on the SLQs and where these qual­it­ies are exper­i­enced that are important.

6 The detail required for an assess­ment will dif­fer accord­ing to cir­cum­stances, includ­ing the nature and scale of the pro­pos­al. The SLQ assess­ment should there­fore be tailored to reflect the loc­a­tion, scale and type of pro­pos­al and the poten­tial sig­ni­fic­ance of effects arising. Con­sulta­tion with the rel­ev­ant decision- mak­ing author­ity and/​or con­sul­tees espe­cially dur­ing the early stages of an assess­ment (at pre-applic­a­tion and scop­ing) is encour­aged. Top­ics to dis­cuss and agree include wheth­er an assess­ment is neces­sary (and, if so, how it relates to oth­er assess­ment meth­od­o­lo­gies), scop­ing of which SLQs are likely to be included in the assess­ment, defin­i­tion of the study area, and selec­tion of assess­ment viewpoints.

7 It is import­ant that the find­ings of oth­er assess­ment pro­cesses com­ple­ment and do not duplic­ate each oth­er (which could lead to a double count­ing of some effects, see para­graph 14 for more detail). Land­scape and Visu­al Impact Assess­ment (LVIA) dif­fers from a SLQ assess­ment as it assesses the effects on 3

land­scape char­ac­ter and visu­al amen­ity. If a pro­pos­al requires a LVIA, the SLQ assess­ment can be an addi­tion­al sec­tion with­in the LVIA. If there is no need for a LVIA, a SLQ assess­ment will be a stand-alone assessment.

8 This guid­ance has been pre­pared to assist people in three ways: • by describ­ing the sequence of steps to fol­low in a SLQ assess­ment • by demon­strat­ing how the SLQs can be used to influ­ence the sit­ing and design of a pro­pos­al • by explain­ing why and how this inform­a­tion is required to inform judge­ments on effects in rela­tion to plan­ning and land use policies.

The steps which need to be taken to assess the effects of a pro­pos­al on the Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies are set out in this guid­ance, with a check­list provided in Annex 1. Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies (SLQs) 9 SLQs are defined as the char­ac­ter­ist­ics that make a des­ig­nated land­scape spe­cial in terms of land­scape and scenery, both indi­vidu­ally or com­bined. They are qual­it­ies that are per­ceived and exper­i­enced by people, affect­ing the sense of place.

10 Reports detail­ing the SLQs for each of the NSAs and both the Cairngorms and the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs Nation­al Parks were pub­lished in 2010 and are avail­able on NatureScots web­site. The reports vary in their detail, and some describe SLQs gen­er­ic­ally across the area while oth­ers dis­tin­guish SLQs geo­graph­ic­ally. All the SLQs iden­ti­fied and described with­in the reports are important.

11 NSAs that lie wholly with­in Nation­al Parks are sub­sumed with­in them. There­fore in Nation­al Parks, SLQ assess­ments will only use the Nation­al Park SLQ descriptions.

Using this guid­ance 12 This tech­nic­al guid­ance describes the approach to take when assess­ing the effects of a pro­pos­al on the SLQs of a NSA or Nation­al Park.

13 The SLQ assess­ment will usu­ally be car­ried out by a Chartered Land­scape Archi­tect, although oth­er suit­ably qual­i­fied and exper­i­enced land­scape, plan­ning or oth­er envir­on­ment­al professional(s) may be able to under­take the process.

14 A SLQ assess­ment is likely to draw on baseline inform­a­tion that forms part of a landscape/​sea­scape char­ac­ter assess­ment, LVIA or Wild Land Area (WLA) descrip­tions but it should not duplic­ate inform­a­tion with­in any of these. This is because it spe­cific­ally con­cerns the SLQs of a NSA or Nation­al Park, not the wider range of land­scape and visu­al sens­it­iv­it­ies that may be affected by a pro­pos­al. 4

Assess­ment pro­cess 15 The fol­low­ing sec­tion sets out the four steps of the assess­ment pro­cess. A Check­list cov­er­ing these steps is included as Annex 1 to this guid­ance, includ­ing mark­ers for what needs to be pro­duced by the end of each step. These four steps are: Step 1 – Review and describe the pro­pos­al Step 2 — Identi­fy the SLQs that may be affected by the pro­pos­al Step 3 – Assess­ment of effects on SLQs and design object­ives Step 4 – Sum­mary of sig­ni­fic­ant effects on SLQs

16 The assess­ment should: • focus on likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects on rel­ev­ant SLQs • be pro­por­tion­ate to the scale and nature of the pro­pos­al • provide a clear explan­a­tion of the reas­on­ing under­pin­ning judge­ments so they can be understood

Step 1 — Review and describe the pro­pos­al 17 The aim in this step is to gain a full under­stand­ing of the nature of the pro­pos­al and draw out rel­ev­ant inform­a­tion to inform the SLQ assess­ment. Where pos­sible, dir­ect ref­er­ence should be made to the pro­ject descrip­tion with­in the applic­a­tion, Envir­on­ment­al Impact Assess­ment Report (EIAR), LVIA or related doc­u­ments to avoid duplic­a­tion of mater­i­al. The draw­ing-out and sum­mar­ising of just the key com­pon­ents rel­ev­ant to poten­tial effects on the SLQs will help to focus the assessment.

18 Aspects to con­sider include the design of all the com­pon­ents of the pro­pos­al (includ­ing asso­ci­ated ele­ments such as access routes, bor­row pits, light­ing, drain­age and plant­ing) as well as its loc­a­tion and sit­ing. This can include its scale and extent, col­ours, and mater­i­als. Refer­ring to rel­ev­ant sup­port­ing mater­i­al, e.g. design state­ment and/​or visu­al­isa­tions and Zone of The­or­et­ic­al Vis­ib­il­ity (ZTV) maps will enable the full effects on the SLQs to be assessed in Step 3, as well as the scope for design, mit­ig­a­tion and enhance­ment options.

Step 2 — Identi­fy the SLQs that may be affected by the pro­pos­al 19 This stage estab­lishes the scope of the assess­ment includ­ing the extent of the study area and the spe­cif­ic SLQs likely to be sens­it­ive to the proposal.

Step 2a: Refer to rel­ev­ant inform­a­tion 20 Ref­er­ence should be made to rel­ev­ant inform­a­tion which may under­pin the SLQs includ­ing: • the SLQ descrip­tions • the land­scape and coastal char­ac­ter­ist­ics (informed by Scot­tish Land­scape Char­ac­ter Assess­ment and Coastal Char­ac­ter Assess­ment, Nation­al Park 5

• land­scape char­ac­ter areas or sea­scape char­ac­ter assess­ments where avail­able) and visu­al amen­ity • wild­ness and wild land attrib­utes and qual­it­ies, informed by wild­ness map­ping and WLA descrip­tions where avail­able • sites of his­tor­ic sig­ni­fic­ance in terms of how they con­trib­ute to SLQs

Step 2b: Site vis­it and identi­fy key SLQs 21 SLQs should be con­sidered in rela­tion to the site loc­a­tion and the pro­pos­al, and informed by site vis­its, map data and dis­cus­sion with con­sul­tees as appro­pri­ate. While some of the inform­a­tion required can be obtained from a desk study review of exist­ing inform­a­tion, site vis­its are essen­tial to provide both a robust under­stand­ing of the nature and extent of rel­ev­ant SLQs and assess of pre­dicted effects on these. SLQs also need to be assessed on site to fully under­stand how indi­vidu­al or groups of SLQs come togeth­er and are expressed and exper­i­enced (includ­ing while mov­ing through the land­scape along dis­tinct routes and from key locations).

22 Iden­ti­fic­a­tion of SLQs will include review of the key land­scape char­ac­ter, coastal char­ac­ter­ist­ics, visu­al amen­ity and wild­ness attrib­utes and responses. Although some of this inform­a­tion may be avail­able in pub­lished reports, addi­tion­al inform­a­tion is likely to need to be gathered through site assess­ment to provide a full under­stand­ing of the SLQs most rel­ev­ant to the pro­pos­al. It is emphas­ised that, when refer­ring to land­scape char­ac­ter, it is the key land­scape char­ac­ter­ist­ics that need to be drawn out in rela­tion to SLQs, not indi­vidu­al land­scape char­ac­ter types or areas (which would be assessed as part of a LVIA).

23 Assess­ment points which rep­res­ent the range of loc­a­tions from where the rel­ev­ant SLQs are exper­i­enced should be iden­ti­fied and selec­ted. Loc­a­tions could include, for example: hill tops and land­marks, along access routes, glens or the coast, or across a river or water­shed. Some LVIA rep­res­ent­at­ive view­points may be suit­able to double-up for SLQ assess­ment, but they will not neces­sar­ily rep­res­ent the best loc­a­tions to assess SLQs (for example, because of being selec­ted for their extent of vis­ib­il­ity rather than exper­i­ence of SLQs). These assess­ment points may require visu­al­isa­tions (such as wire­lines and pho­tomont­ages) to inform the assessment.

Step 2c: Identi­fy the study area 24 The study area should relate to the loc­a­tion and type of the pro­pos­al and an ini­tial pre­dic­tion of likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects. It may be a part or the whole of the NSA or Nation­al Park, but won’t extend bey­ond the des­ig­na­tion bound­ary. Field­work should be used to define the study area and then this should be mapped to show its bound­ary, loc­a­tion of all ele­ments of the pro­pos­al and the assess­ment points. The study area should be agreed with the rel­ev­ant decision-mak­ing author­ity and/​or con­sul­tee as it may be dif­fer­ent to the study area for a LVIA for the same pro­pos­al. This is because the SLQ assess­ment relates spe­cific­ally to the SLQs and how these are exper­i­enced, and not the wider land­scape char­ac­ter­ist­ics or visu­al amen­ity. 6

Step 2^d: Assess the sens­it­iv­ity of the key SLQs to the pro­pos­al 25 Assess­ing the sens­it­iv­ity of the SLQs is required to under­stand how they may be affected by the spe­cif­ic nature and com­pon­ents of the pro­pos­al. The basis for these judge­ments must be clear and linked back to evid­ence developed dur­ing Step 2. Assign­ing simple levels of sens­it­iv­ity such as low, medi­um or high will be useful.

26 SLQs can be con­sidered indi­vidu­ally or grouped. Where the SLQs inter­act with each oth­er, con­trib­ut­ing to the exper­i­ence of these with­in the study area, they are best assessed and repor­ted togeth­er as a group. Some SLQs may have a def­in­ite phys­ic­al loc­a­tion, such as a ​‘named’ view or a set­tle­ment, where­as oth­ers incor­por­ate great­er per­cep­tu­al responses, includ­ing sense of his­tory or place. Oth­er SLQs recur and are exper­i­enced togeth­er, such as mature pine woods with­in an incised glen. Anoth­er example of a SLQ group­ing would be an SLQ which recog­nises mature spe­ci­men trees con­trib­ut­ing to wider diversity and the rich mosa­ic of a farm­land SLQ along a strath. A brief jus­ti­fic­a­tion for why SLQs are grouped should be giv­en. It may be use­ful to agree these group­ings with the rel­ev­ant decision-mak­ing author­ity and/​or con­sul­tee dur­ing the pre-applic­a­tion process.

27 At the end of Step 2 only those SLQs which are con­sidered to be sens­it­ive to the pro­pos­al and are likely to be sig­ni­fic­antly affected by it are taken for­ward to the next stage of assess­ment (Step 3). This is so the scope of the assess­ment is pro­por­tion­ate and focuses on what is most important.

Step 2^e: Con­sult rel­ev­ant organ­isa­tions 28 It will be use­ful at this point to share the find­ings of Step 2 with the rel­ev­ant decision-mak­ing author­ity and/​or consultees.

Step 3 — Assess­ment of effects on SLQs and design object­ives 29 The assess­ment steps sug­gest a lin­ear sequence, but the pro­cess of assess­ment is iter­at­ive. It is expec­ted that the assessor will move back and forth through the steps, con­sid­er­ing design altern­at­ives, poten­tial effects, mit­ig­a­tion to reduce effects, and so on until a solu­tion is found which max­im­ises pos­it­ive effects and min­im­ises adverse effects on the SLQs.

Step 3a: Design object­ives in dir­ect response to SLQs 30 SLQ design object­ives should be developed which dir­ectly respond to and where pos­sible enhance the SLQs, to build on but not duplic­ate those iden­ti­fied for the pro­ject as a whole. These object­ives will provide the basis for pro­pos­als to max­im­ise pos­it­ive effects on SLQs and min­im­ise neg­at­ive effects with­in the con­straints of the pro­pos­al. There can be mul­tiple poten­tial design options for any spe­cif­ic pro­pos­al, there­fore estab­lish­ing clear design and enhance­ment object­ives provides the basis on which options can be reviewed meth­od­ic­ally. The record­ing of this pro­cess also helps people to under­stand the approach and reas­on­ing for the final design pro­pos­al, includ­ing the rel­at­ive bal­ance of SLQ design and enhance­ment object­ives togeth­er with oth­er pro­ject object­ives. Some 7

examples of design object­ives developed in dir­ect response to SLQs are shown in the table below.

Table 1: Examples of design object­ives in dir­ect response to SLQs SLQ Views along dis­tinct glens, their land­scape pat­tern emphas­ised, and space con­tained by simple back­drop of adja­cent hills Enclos­ure, intric­acy, diversity and dis­tinct pat­tern of light with­in nat­ive wood­land The spa­tial con­tain­ment of loc­al hills and / or dis­tinct­ive loc­al build­ings cre­ate ​‘gate­way’ fea­tures Suc­cess­ive lay­ers of land­form hori­zons seen reced­ing over far dis­tances Dark, rur­al skies Sequence of SLQs exper­i­enced through jour­neys, e.g. from low­lands to high­lands, from developed coast to undeveloped coast, and between set­tle­ments and open coun­tryside Wild­ness, dis­play­ing an absence of human arte­facts His­tor­ic build­ings cre­ate prom­in­ent land­marks and con­vey sense of his­tory and place Example design object­ive The pro­pos­al should be with­in either the glens or back­drop hills but should avoid spread­ing across both and thus erod­ing the dis­tinc­tion between these Ensure design (extent, dens­ity and spe­cies) and tailored man­age­ment of new wood­land reflects SLQ of exist­ing wood­land even if slightly dif­fer­ent in some aspects, eg spe­cies The pro­pos­al should avoid obscur­ing or dis­tract­ing from the gate­way fea­tures or its scale seem­ing to dimin­ish the focal import­ance of this / these The pro­pos­al should not inter­rupt views over the suc­cess­ive hori­zons, nor seem to dimin­ish the per­ceived extent of the land­scape by its pos­i­tion or scale in rela­tion to the vis­ible lay­ers Light­ing should be designed to avoid illu­min­a­tion of dark skies or the cre­ation of point light fea­tures that are incon­gru­ous or dis­tract from the exper­i­ence of dark skies The pro­pos­al should reflect dis­tinc­tion of SLQs when trav­el­ling through land­scape, eg avoid­ing intro­duc­tion of uni­fy­ing fea­ture or char­ac­ter­ist­ic such as road­side devel­op­ment, con­sist­ent land cov­er or repe­ti­tion that has col­lect­ive effects such as houses or wind farms Reduce the influ­ence of devel­op­ment on the wild­ness attrib­utes exper­i­enced, eg sit­ing the struc­ture closer to settled ele­ments and at lower elev­a­tion, also redu­cing prom­in­ence. The pro­pos­al should avoid seem­ing to intrude upon the space around the his­tor­ic build­ing (visu­ally, spa­tially and by dis­turb­ance) and should com­ple­ment the scale and mater­i­als 8

Step 3b: Assess­ment of effects on SLQS 31 This step requires assess­ment of the pre­dicted effects of all the key com­pon­ents of the pro­pos­al (includ­ing embed­ded primary (embed­ded) mit­ig­a­tion, and cumu­lat­ive effects). This includes an assess­ment of the mag­nitude of change, includ­ing the scale and extent of effects, their revers­ib­il­ity, and their dur­a­tion. Overly quant­it­at­ive or for­mu­laic approaches are to be avoided because the inten­tion is that SLQ assess­ment takes a more descript­ive, qual­it­at­ive approach that focuses on SLQs and their exper­i­ence. Non­ethe­less, levels of mag­nitude may be use­ful, e.g. low, medi­um and high if these are clearly defined.

32 Both land­scape char­ac­ter and visu­al amen­ity influ­ence SLQs. This means that the assess­ment needs to con­sider both these aspects, but these do not need be assessed and repor­ted sep­ar­ately. The focus and value of the SLQ assess­ment is to draw out how land­scape and visu­al aspects com­bine as SLQs, and how these are exper­i­enced and val­ued by people in a NSA or Nation­al Park.

33 ZTVs, visu­al­isa­tions, wire­lines and/​or pho­tomont­ages may inform the assess­ment of effects on SLQs. ​‘Vis­ib­il­ity’ refers to some­thing being seen, but being vis­ible doesn’t neces­sar­ily mean that a land­scape change will have a not­able effect on SLQs as it depends on what can be seen and how this relates to its con­text and how it is viewed.

34 When assess­ing effects on SLQs, it is use­ful to dis­tin­guish between the fol­low­ing: • Vis­ib­il­ity of the pro­pos­al. • Night time and sea­son­al effects. • How the pro­pos­al would be seen in rela­tion to the SLQs and affect them. For example, in some cases, a pro­pos­al may inter­rupt views across open moor­lands or moun­tains or intro­duce a dis­trac­tion to a dis­tinct loc­al land­mark where­as, in oth­er cases, a pro­pos­al may be prom­in­ent as an isol­ated fea­ture but not affect views to hill hori­zons or per­cep­tion of tran­quil­lity. • Effects of the pro­pos­al which would alter the bal­ance of the SLQs exper­i­enced (ie they don’t just affect the views of people but change these in a way that would be sig­ni­fic­ant). For example, an extens­ive new wood­land pro­posed to cov­er the glen floor, glen sides and open hill sum­mits may change exist­ing SLQs if derived from the com­bin­a­tion of a rich mosa­ic of wood­land on the glen sides, open farmed glen floor and open hill sum­mits. • Poten­tial cumu­lat­ive effects with oth­er pro­pos­als for example con­trib­ut­ing to incre­ment­al effects on SLQs.

35 This dis­tinc­tion high­lights the import­ance of care­fully select­ing assess­ment points to gath­er a rep­res­ent­at­ive range of poten­tial effects on SLQs.

36 Assess­ing the com­bin­a­tion of indi­vidu­al effects on dif­fer­ent SLQs can be chal­len­ging. Pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment is required to con­sider the poten­tial range of influ­ences on SLQs, for example bal­an­cing those that are numer­ous or affect extens­ive areas with those that occur singly or affect small areas. The key require­ment is to assess the effects, doc­u­ment these in a meth­od­ic­al and 9

trans­par­ent man­ner, and then assess those that are sig­ni­fic­ant. This high­lights that simple con­clu­sions on sig­ni­fic­ance can­not be drawn dir­ectly from the num­bers, pro­por­tions, or area of SLQs affected by a pro­pos­al, nor maps such as ZTVs just over­lain on NSA or Nation­al Park maps.

Step 3c: Fur­ther mit­ig­a­tion, design amend­ment and final assess­ment of resid­ual effects 37 When poten­tial sig­ni­fic­ant effects on SLQs are iden­ti­fied, fur­ther mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures (known as sec­ond­ary meas­ures) should be con­sidered. While it is recog­nised that scope for fur­ther mit­ig­a­tion may vary with the scale of devel­op­ment, the fol­low­ing ques­tions should frame this con­sid­er­a­tion: • Is there poten­tial for fur­ther mit­ig­a­tion to avoid or reduce pre­dicted adverse sig­ni­fic­ant effects on the SLQ(s) and their exper­i­ence (as part of the iter­at­ive pro­cess) for example, through re-sit­ing, design modi­fic­a­tions or man­age­ment? • What are real­ist­ic times­cales for mit­ig­a­tion to become effect­ive in redu­cing effects on SLQ(s) for example the length of time for nat­ive wood­land to achieve matur­ity and res­tor­a­tion of land cov­er dis­turb­ance? • What is the cer­tainty that mit­ig­a­tion will become effect­ive? • Has the pro­pos­al met the design object­ive and is there poten­tial for enhance­ment that bene­fits SLQs?

38 After all mit­ig­a­tion and enhance­ment meas­ures have been incor­por­ated, a final assess­ment of resid­ual effects on SLQs is required (recog­nising the high value of NSAs and Nation­al Parks) based on: • The sens­it­iv­ity of the SLQ(s) • The mag­nitude of effects • Pre­dicted resid­ual effects on the SLQ(s)

39 Hav­ing con­sidered the factors described above, an assess­ment of over­all sig­ni­fic­ance of resid­ual effects on the SLQs or group(s) of SLQs can be made. For trans­par­ency, all effects need to be defined with dir­ect ref­er­ence to the SLQs, and the con­sequences on these such as their enhance­ment, remov­al, erosion, change or retention.

Step 4 — Sum­mary of sig­ni­fic­ant effects on SLQs 40 This step draws togeth­er all the strands of the SLQ assess­ment to present the pre­dicted sig­ni­fic­ant resid­ual effects on indi­vidu­al and grouped SLQs. This will provide evid­ence to inform judge­ments made by decision-makers. This step needs not be lengthy and should not repeat inform­a­tion provided else­where but should cov­er the fol­low­ing issues as rel­ev­ant: • The rel­ev­ant SLQs, i.e. those for which likely sig­ni­fic­ant effects are pre­dicted, both indi­vidu­al and grouped. 10

• The nature and mag­nitude of effects on rel­ev­ant SLQs. • The loc­a­tion, extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of effects on the SLQs, for example wheth­er these are loc­al­ised, extens­ive, isol­ated or repeated and how these are encountered. This should also con­sider dif­fer­ent effects dur­ing day and night and the sea­sons. (Assess­ing extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of effects is not simply about the per­cent­age of the study area affected but the influ­ence of the extent and dis­tri­bu­tion of effects on how the SLQs with­in the study area are exper­i­enced.) • The nature and pat­tern of effects on the SLQs in rela­tion to both the extent of the SLQ and the wider NSA or Nation­al Park. • An indic­a­tion of the range of people who will exper­i­ence the effects on the SLQS. • How the final pro­pos­al reduces adverse effects on the SLQs through design and mit­ig­a­tion or enhance­ment meas­ures. Where rel­ev­ant, how it meets the design object­ives. • Poten­tial cumu­lat­ive effects with oth­er pro­pos­als over time, for example con­trib­ut­ing to incre­ment­al effects on SLQs.

41 Fol­low­ing com­ple­tion of the assess­ment of effects on SLQs, the find­ings will inform the advice of those apprais­ing a pro­pos­al such as a Plan­ning Author­ity, Nation­al Park Author­ity (NPA) and/​or NatureScot. This will also inform their judge­ment on wheth­er a pro­pos­al would meet or be con­trary to rel­ev­ant policy tests.

42 The Check­list provided in Annex 1 to this guid­ance should be used to ensure all the steps of the assess­ment have been fol­lowed and suf­fi­cient inform­a­tion is provided.

11

Annex 1 — Check­list for assess­ment of effects on Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies (SLQs) This Check­list includes the steps which need to be taken to assess the effects of a pro­pos­al on Spe­cial Land­scape Qual­it­ies (SLQ). Refer to the main guid­ance, includ­ing appen­dices for more detailed information.

Step 1 Review and describe the pro­pos­al Review and describe the pro­pos­al (includ­ing asso­ci­ated ele­ments such as access tracks, bor­row pits, light­ing, drain­age and plant­ing), focus­ing on aspects rel­ev­ant to poten­tial effects on the SLQs. Refer to rel­ev­ant sup­port­ing mater­i­al, e.g. design state­ment, Envir­on­ment­al Impact Assess­ment Report (EIAR), Land­scape and Visu­al Impact Assessment/​Appraisal (LVIA/LVA) and/​or visu­al­isa­tions and Zone of The­or­et­ic­al Vis­ib­il­ity (ZTV) maps.

By the end of Step 1 you should have: • A sum­mary of the pro­pos­al that focuses on aspects rel­ev­ant to the SLQs Step 2 Identi­fy the SLQs that may be affected by the pro­pos­al Step 2a Refer to rel­ev­ant inform­a­tion Refer to the SLQ report for the Nation­al Scen­ic Area or Nation­al Park and the SLQ descrip­tions (plus SLQ maps if avail­able). Refer to oth­er land­scape mater­i­al which may provide more inform­a­tion or con­text for the SLQs. This may include: • Land­scape Char­ac­ter Assess­ment • Coastal Char­ac­ter Assess­ment • Wild Land Area descrip­tion • Sites of his­tor­ic sig­ni­fic­ance descriptions

Step 2b Site vis­it and identi­fy key SLQs Identi­fy on site the likely key SLQs that are rel­ev­ant to and might be affected by the proposal.

Con­sider how the indi­vidu­al key SLQs come togeth­er and are exper­i­enced by people. Con­sider how the SLQs are exper­i­enced from dif­fer­ent parts of the NSA/ Nation­al Park, includ­ing whilst mov­ing through the area and from key loc­a­tions (for example arrival, exit or cross­ing points, hill tops, or pub­lic attrac­tions). 1

Identi­fy assess­ment points/​routes for assess­ing poten­tial effects on the key SLQs. Con­sider from where the pro­pos­al would be vis­ible in rela­tion to the SLQs iden­ti­fied above. Step 2c Identi­fy the study area Identi­fy the area over which the pro­pos­al is likely to have effects on the key SLQs. Pro­duce a map of the study area show­ing its bound­ary, loc­a­tion of all ele­ments of the pro­pos­al and the assess­ment points. Step 2^d Assess the sens­it­iv­ity of the key SLQs to the pro­pos­al Assess the sens­it­iv­ity of the key SLQs iden­ti­fied (step 2b) to the pro­pos­al with­in the study area (step 2c). Con­sider wheth­er SLQs may be grouped based on being exper­i­enced togeth­er and hav­ing sim­il­ar sens­it­iv­ity to the pro­pos­al. If SLQ are grouped, explain the reas­ons behind each of these groups. Step 2^e Con­sult rel­ev­ant organ­isa­tions Dis­cuss and agree key SLQs and pro­posed study area with rel­ev­ant decision-mak­ing author­ity and/​or consultees.

By the end of Step 2 you should have: • A sum­mary of the key SLQs, any group­ings of these and their sens­it­iv­ity • A map of the study area show­ing its bound­ary, loc­a­tion of all ele­ments of the pro­pos­al and assess­ment points • Sum­mary of decision-maker and/​or con­sul­tees’ responses and how these have/​will be con­sidered and addressed Step 3 Assess­ment of effects on SLQs and design object­ives Step 3a Design object­ives in dir­ect response to SLQs Identi­fy design object­ives in dir­ect response to the key SLQs iden­ti­fied in Step 2 and the pro­pos­al (examples in Table 1 of the main guid­ance doc­u­ment). Con­sider how the pro­posed design may con­serve and enhance the SLQS. 2

Step 3b Assess­ment of effects on SLQs Assess the effects of all ele­ments of the pro­pos­al on the key SLQs (includ­ing cumu­lat­ive effects and primary (embed­ded) mit­ig­a­tion). Assess the sig­ni­fic­ance of these effects (assign­ing defined levels if use­ful). Step 3c Fur­ther mit­ig­a­tion, design amend­ment and final assess­ment of resid­ual effects Identi­fy if any fur­ther mitigation/​enhance­ment meas­ures could be imple­men­ted to avoid, min­im­ise and/​or com­pensate for any pre­dicted sig­ni­fic­ant effects on key SLQs. Make changes to the design of the pro­pos­al as a con­sequence. Assess the sig­ni­fic­ance of resid­ual effects of the pro­pos­al on the key SLQs after all mit­ig­a­tion has been incorporated

By the end of Step 3 you should have: • Iden­ti­fied design object­ives in rela­tion to rel­ev­ant SLQs • Assessed effects and mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures to reduce pre­dicted sig­ni­fic­ant effects • Assessed resid­ual sig­ni­fic­ant effects on key SLQs with­in the study area and assessed how the pro­pos­al will con­serve and enhance the SLQs Step 4 Sum­mary of sig­ni­fic­ant effects on SLQs Based on the ana­lys­is in Steps 2 – 3, draw out the type, loc­a­tion, extent, pat­tern, dur­a­tion, per­man­ence and level of sig­ni­fic­ant effects on the key SLQs (indi­vidu­al and grouped) in rela­tion to the extent of the SLQs and the study area.

By the end of Step 4 you should have: • A sum­mary of sig­ni­fic­ant effects on key SLQs with­in the study area 3

Gloss­ary The fol­low­ing gloss­ary describes key terms adop­ted by this guid­ance. Where pos­sible, these have been repro­duced from the Guidelines for Land­scape and Visu­al Impact Assess­ment (GLVIA) pro­duced by the Land­scape Insti­tute and IEMA (3^rd edi­tion, 2013) or oth­er pub­lic­a­tions, as noted by an aster­isk and ref­er­enced at the end.

Term Descrip­tion Baseline The envir­on­ment­al con­di­tions against which any future changes can be meas­ured or pre­dicted and assessed.1 Char­ac­ter­ist­ics Ele­ments, or com­bin­a­tions of ele­ments, which make a con­tri­bu­tion to dis­tinct­ive land­scape char­ac­ter.1 Devel­op­ment Any pro­pos­al that res­ults in a change to the land­scape and/​or visu­al envir­on­ment.1 Effect The change res­ult­ing from an impact (with­in LVIA).1 Impact The action being taken (with­in LVIA).1 Land­scape An area, as per­ceived by people whose char­ac­ter is the res­ult of the action and inter­ac­tion of nat­ur­al and/​or human factors.2 Land­scape and A tool used to identi­fy and assess the likely sig­ni­fic­ance of Visu­al Impact the effects of change res­ult­ing from devel­op­ment both on Assess­ment the land­scape as an envir­on­ment­al resource in its own right (LVIA) and on people’s views and visu­al amen­ity.1 Land­scape A dis­tinct, recog­nis­able and con­sist­ent pat­tern of ele­ments char­ac­ter in the land­scape that makes one land­scape dif­fer­ent from anoth­er (rather than bet­ter or worse).1 Land­scape The pro­cess of identi­fy­ing and describ­ing vari­ation in the Char­ac­ter char­ac­ter of the land­scape, and using this inform­a­tion to Assess­ment assist in man­aging change in the land­scape. It seeks to (LCA) identi­fy and explain the unique com­bin­a­tion of ele­ments and fea­tures that make land­scapes dis­tinct­ive. The pro­cess res­ults in the pro­duc­tion of a Land­scape Char­ac­ter Assess­ment.1 Land­scape These are dis­tinct types of land­scape that are rel­at­ively Char­ac­ter Types homo­gen­eous in char­ac­ter. They are gen­er­ic in nature in (LCT) that they may occur in dif­fer­ent areas in dif­fer­ent parts of the coun­try, but wherever they occur they share broadly sim­il­ar com­bin­a­tions of char­ac­ter­ist­ics, includ­ing those that are per­cep­tu­al.1 i

Land­scape effect Effects on the land­scape as a resource in its own right1 Land­scape value The rel­at­ive value that is attached to dif­fer­ent land­scapes by soci­ety. A land­scape may be val­ued by dif­fer­ent stake­hold­ers for a whole vari­ety of reas­ons.1 Mag­nitude (of A term that com­bines judge­ments about the size and scale effect) of the effect, the extent of the area over which it occurs, wheth­er it is revers­ible or irre­vers­ible and wheth­er it is short or long term in dur­a­tion.1 Mit­ig­a­tion Meas­ures which are pro­posed to pre­vent, reduce and where pos­sible off­set any sig­ni­fic­ant adverse effects (to avoid, reduce or if pos­sible rem­edy iden­ti­fied effects). Depend­ing on when these are incor­por­ated these can be known as primary (embed­ded) or sec­ond­ary mit­ig­a­tion. Primary meas­ures are developed through the iter­at­ive design pro­cess, which have become integ­rated or embed­ded into the pro­ject design’, where­as sec­ond­ary meas­ures are ​‘designed to address any resid­ual adverse effects remain­ing after primary meas­ures and stand­ard con­struc­tion prac­tices have been incor­por­ated into the scheme’.1 Per­cep­tion Com­bines the sens­ory (that we receive through our senses) with the cog­nit­ive (our know­ledge and under­stand­ing gained from many sources and exper­i­ences).1 Primary Fol­low­ing this kind of mit­ig­a­tion is dis­tin­guished as primary mit­ig­a­tion meas­ures: ​‘developed through the iter­at­ive design pro­cess, which have become integ­rated or embed­ded into the pro­ject design’.1 Sec­ond­ary Designed to address any resid­ual adverse effects mit­ig­a­tion remain­ing after primary meas­ures and stand­ard con­struc­tion prac­tices have been incor­por­ated into the scheme or pro­pos­al.1 Sens­it­iv­ity (of A term applied to spe­cif­ic recept­ors, comb­ing judge­ments land­scape or of the sus­cept­ib­il­ity of the recept­or to the spe­cif­ic type of visu­al resource) change or devel­op­ment pro­posed and the value related to that recept­or.1 Sig­ni­fic­ance (of A meas­ure of the import­ance or grav­ity of the effect) envir­on­ment­al effect, defined by sig­ni­fic­ance cri­ter­ia spe­cif­ic to the envir­on­ment­al topic.*1 Spe­cial Spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies are defined as the land­scape char­ac­ter­ist­ics that indi­vidu­ally, or com­bined, make a des­ig­nated land­scape spe­cial in terms of land­scape and ii

qual­it­ies and scenery.5 Ref­er­ences have been made in dif­fer­ent spe­cial qual­it­ies guid­ance and policy doc­u­ments to ​‘spe­cial qual­it­ies’ or ​‘spe­cial land­scape qual­it­ies’ but, for the pur­pose of this guid­ance, these are taken to mean the same. Sus­cept­ib­il­ity The abil­ity of a defined land­scape, or visu­al recept­or, or spe­cial land­scape qual­ity to accom­mod­ate the pro­posed devel­op­ment without undue con­sequences for the main­ten­ance of the baseline situ­ation and/​or the achieve­ment of land­scape plan­ning policies and strategies.1 Value The rel­at­ive value that is attached to dif­fer­ent land­scapes by soci­ety, bear­ing in mind that a land­scape may be val­ued by dif­fer­ent stake­hold­ers for a whole vari­ety of reas­ons. Nation­ally val­ued land­scapes are recog­nised by the des­ig­na­tions of Nation­al Parks and Nation­al Scen­ic Areas, which have a form­al stat­utory basis.1 View­point View­points refer to spe­cif­ic places from which a view is gained. Rep­res­ent­at­ive view­points are iden­ti­fied dur­ing LVIA to rep­res­ent the views of visu­al recept­ors for which baseline con­di­tions and pre­dicted effects of a pro­pos­al are assessed. An assess­ment of effects on SLQs may be informed by assess­ment from LVIA rep­res­ent­at­ive view­points but it will also be informed by assess­ment from oth­er ​‘vant­age points’ which act as sample points for assess­ment of effects on spe­cif­ic SLQs or com­bin­a­tions of SLQS. Vis­ib­il­ity This refers to an abil­ity to see or for some­thing to be seen. The nature of vis­ib­il­ity refers to what can be seen, whilst the extent of vis­ib­il­ity refers to from where some­thing can be seen. Import­antly, although vis­ib­il­ity influ­ences visu­al effects, there is not a dir­ect cor­rel­a­tion between these. Visu­al amen­ity The over­all pleas­ant­ness of the views people enjoy of their sur­round­ings, which provides an attract­ive visu­al set­ting or back­drop for the enjoy­ment of activ­it­ies of the people liv­ing, work­ing, recre­at­ing, vis­it­ing or trav­el­ling through an area.1 Visu­al effect Effect on spe­cif­ic views and on the gen­er­al visu­al amen­ity exper­i­enced by people.*1 Visu­al­isa­tion An image such as a com­puter sim­u­la­tion, pho­tomont­age, sketch or draw­ing that illus­trates the appear­ance of an ele­ment or com­pos­i­tion. Wild Land Area Extens­ive areas where the qual­ity of wild­ness (see below) is best expressed. Unin­hab­ited and often rel­at­ively iii

inac­cess­ible coun­tryside where the influ­ence of human activ­ity on the char­ac­ter and qual­ity of the envir­on­ment has been min­im­al. Wild Land Assess­ment pro­cess fol­low­ing guid­ance pub­lished by Assess­ment NatureScot which assess the effects of a pro­posed devel­op­ment or land­scape change on the phys­ic­al attrib­utes and per­cep­tu­al responses which con­trib­ute to the qual­it­ies of Wild Land Areas. Wild­ness Exper­i­enced as a con­tinuum, by people res­ult­ing from the pres­ence of the phys­ic­al attrib­utes of: per­cep­tion of nat­ur­al­ness, a lack of mod­ern arte­facts little evid­ence of con­tem­por­ary land use, a rugged or phys­ic­ally chal­len­ging land­form, and remote­ness and/​or inac­cess­ib­il­ity. These res­ult in per­cep­tions of a sense of sanc­tu­ary or solitude, risk, or a sense of awe or anxi­ety, arrest­ing and inspir­ing qual­it­ies, and ful­fil­ment from phys­ic­al challenge.*4 Wireline/​wire­line A com­puter-gen­er­ated visu­al­isa­tion which rep­res­ents the dia­gram view from a spe­cif­ic place of the land­form, based on a Digit­al Ter­rain Mod­el. This is typ­ic­ally illus­trated as a line draw­ing (some­times form­ing a frame­work). It may also show oth­er land­scape ele­ments in defined loc­a­tions and to a defined scale and form. Wire­line dia­grams are often used as the found­a­tion for a rendered pho­tomont­age. Zone of A map (usu­ally pro­duced digit­ally) show­ing areas of land The­or­et­ic­al from where a devel­op­ment is or would be the­or­et­ic­ally Vis­ib­il­ity (ZTV) visible.

1Taken from Land­scape Insti­tute and IEMA (2013) Guidelines for Land­scape and Visu­al Impact Assess­ment. 3^rd ed. Abing­don, Rout­ledge. 2 Taken from Coun­cil of Europe, 2000 European Land­scape Con­ven­tion. European Treaty Series No. 176. Florence, Coun­cil of Europe. 3 Taken from SNH (2001) Land­scape Policy Frame­work: Policy State­ment No ⁰⁵⁄₀₁. Redgor­ton, Scot­tish Nat­ur­al Her­it­age. 4 Taken from SNH (2002) Wild­ness in Scotland’s Coun­tryside: A Policy State­ment. Redgor­ton, Scot­tish Nat­ur­al Her­it­age. *5 Taken from SNH (2008) Guid­ance for identi­fy­ing the spe­cial qual­it­ies of Scotland’s Nation­al Scen­ic Areas. Redgor­ton, Scot­tish Nat­ur­al Heritage.

iv