North Norfolk District Council
Conservation, Design and Landscape
MEMORANDUM
To:
Geoff Lyon, Team Leader, Enforcement & Special Cases
Ref:
PF/13/0960
From:
Cathy Batchelar, Landscape Officer
Date:
Sep 30th 2013
Re: Installation of 3.6mw solar development & associated
infrastructure, Pond Farm, Bodham
The proposed site is within a large arable field situated 2km south east of Bodham village
and 800m south of West Beckham. The site is situated on the high plateau making up Cromer
Ridge which forms one of the highest points in North Norfolk. The field slopes downwards from
south to north with the highest point in the south-west at 96m AOD and the lowest in the northwest corner at 89m.
From a landscape perspective, the main areas for consideration arising from a development of
this nature are the effect on the landscape character and visual impact.
A Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (dated 1st August 2013) (LVIA) has been carried out
by The Landscape Partnership as part of the submitted information. I am satisfied that it has
been prepared in accordance with the latest accepted methodology (Guidelines for Landscape
& Visual Assessment, 3rd edition, 2013, Landscape Institute & IEMA).
Landscape Impact
The site lies centrally within the Tributary Farmland landscape character Type as defined in the
North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment (SPD June 2009). The broad characteristics
of this Type are an open character with long uninterrupted views, a sense of height gained from
the extensive high domed plateau, arable land use and rolling topography punctuated by
woodland and hedge field boundaries. The site is located within the TF3 sub-area where
dispersed settlement and loss of field boundaries are typical features. The LVIA concludes that
the development would have a Moderate Adverse Significance of Effect on TF3 in Year 1,
reduced to Minor Beneficial in Year 10. I would agree that this would be the case once the
landscape mitigation has established and field boundaries are restored. The effect on the
whole Tributary Farmland Type is assessed as Minor Adverse in Year 1 reducing over time to
No Change and on the neighbouring Wooded with Parkland (WP5) Landscape Type as No
Change and this is a fair assessment.
The change of land use will undoubtedly have a bearing on the landscape character. The
introduction of multiple built structures set in uniform rows, together with the inverter stations,
security fencing and CCTV cameras make up a large scale development that will not be in
keeping with the pastoral nature of this traditional rural landscape. Although forming a large
geometric element in the landscape, the development is however relatively low level with the
tallest elements being 3m. In this regard substantial boundary landscape proposals have the
potential to form mitigation that is effective in reducing the negative visual and landscape
effects.
The LVIA states in 12.2 that within the local vicinity of the site the small copses and hedge
boundaries together with the local landform significantly limit views of the site and the influence
1
that the development would have on the local landscape character. I would concur with this
assessment and the conclusion that the landscape has a high to moderate capacity to
accommodate this type of development, subject to appropriate location and mitigation to ensure
successful integration into the existing landscape.
The field is currently used for mixed production of cereals/sugar beet and oil seed rape grown in
rotation. The Genatec Planning Statement classifies the agricultural land as Grade 3 and this
has subsequently been qualified in more detail by the submission of an Agricultural Land,
Classification Report, dated 17/9/2013 by David Will. This report concludes that the land is
mainly Grade 3b with some parts being Grade 4. In accordance with the NPPF, the land does
not therefore constitute ‘the best and most versatile agricultural land’. While the loss of land for
agricultural production for 25 years is an issue for consideration, this must be balanced with the
need for farm diversification to support rural economies, along with the fact that the land can be
readily reverted at the end of the period of operation.
Visual Impact
Given the high and open nature of the site the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI), as defined in
Figure 7 of the Genatec LVIA Figures, is relatively contained by virtue of the surrounding
undulating topography and vegetation cover.
The visual impact would be greatest from Osier Lane along the northern boundary of the site
which is part of the Sustrans Regional Cycle Route 30. This is confirmed by the LVIA
assessment at Viewpoints 4, 5, 6 & 7 where a Major Adverse Significance of Effect is predicted
in Year 1. Due to the aspect of the field it is the support frame at the back of the panels that will
be most visible from Osier Lane. However with the proposed mitigation designed specifically to
reduce this effect and to reinforce traditional field boundaries I agree that this effect would, for
the most part, be considerably reduced by Year 10.
Mitigation
Due to the relatively low level of the development, the proposed mitigation will in time be
effective in forming a partial screen of the solar array. The planting proposals are appropriate in
terms of design and species selection and will integrate and reinforce the local landscape
character in line with the recommendations contained in the North Norfolk Landscape Character
Assessment.
However, there is one area that I believe requires more substantial planting than that proposed.
This is along the north eastern boundary where there is an isolated decline in the landform.
The proposed new hedge will not screen the views of the panels rising up the field for residents
of the properties to the North East of the site. In this area another woodland copse such as
Planting Note 2 on the Site Layout Plan should be included to provide more height and become
a more effective screen for these receptors. This can be agreed through submission of an
amended Site Layout Plan or incorporated into a Landscape condition as part of planning
consent.
No proposal is included to enrich the soil under the panels with a species rich grassland mix.
This is recommended in the Ecology Report as a measure to enhance the biodiversity of the
site and should be included.
An Ecological Buffer Zone is referred to in the LVIA text (7.1) but there is no detail of what this
may consist of or how it will be achieved. This should form a component of more detailed
landscape specifications.
Landscape Management
The submitted Landscape Management Plan is appropriate apart from the lack of certainty with
regard to the management of the grassed pasture and buffer zone. More detail is required.
2
Security
Notwithstanding the security details submitted I am of the opinion that there may be alternative
security measures available that are more appropriate for this rural setting
The proposed 2.2m high security steel post and wire fencing around the entire boundary along
with the 15 CCTV cameras mounted on 3.5m poles will be prominent elements of the scheme
that jar with the rural landscape context and are more familiar in an urban setting. A more
sensitive security solution such as timber post and wire with integrated CCTV, such as used in
similar schemes in the district would be more suitable. This can be achieved by way of a
condition imposed on security elements of the scheme.
The proposed access off New Road is an appropriate location. Planting proposals are suitable
following construction but should include for removal of the work compound area and
reinstatement of the ground conditions.
Impact on Heritage Assets
There are no listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, conservation areas or registered
historic landscapes that would be adversely affected by this development. The Historic
Environment Service has been consulted with regard to archaeological impact.
Impact on Ecology
The Ecological Report prepared by Wild Frontier Ecology, dated March 2013 has been carried
out to accepted guidelines and comprised a Desk Study and Phase One Habitat Survey. The
Survey concluded that the development would have ‘no significant impacts on valued ecological
interests’ and in my opinion this is a fair assessment.
The mitigation measures put forward in Section 6 of the Report are proportionate and in line
with the landscape proposals.
Cumulative Assessment
The LVIA did not include assessment of the potential cumulative effect of a recently approved
10 mw solar farm at East Beckham covering 25ha (PF/13/0772). The site lies 1.8km north of
the Pond Farm development. By virtue of the rolling landform and vegetation I am of the
opinion that there will be no inter-visibility between the two sites and in this regard the
cumulative effect will be negligible. However, there will undoubtedly be some perceived change
in the local landscape character which should be a consideration.
The LVIA has considered the cumulative effect of the development with Planning App
PF/11/0983, a single wind turbine which is currently subject to a Statutory Challenge. This is
sited within the same field as the solar array and although very different in nature, when viewed
together will cause a significant change in the local landscape character.
The combined visibility (i.e. when both developments can be viewed simultaneously) will be
most severe from Osier Lane to the north of the site of the solar array. The landscape mitigation
proposed for both developments will reduce this effect, but only to a small extent and not as
much as is suggested in Section 11 and Section 12.9 – 12.13 of the LVIA.
Conclusion
Although large in scale and introducing new elements into the rural landscape, this
development, by virtue of the proposed landscape mitigation combined with natural screening
afforded by surrounding landform and existing vegetation, will not have a significant effect on
the landscape character.
The proposal is therefore acceptable under Core Strategy Policy EN 2.
3
Conditions
Should this application go forward for planning consent, conditions with regard to the following
elements of the scheme should be included: landscape specifications, timing of planting,
replacement planting, landscape management, security measures, lighting, ecological
mitigation measures.
Cathy Batchelar
Landscape Officer
4