TVIA Methodology Annex EDP 2

Annex EDP 2 TVIA Methodology

Introduction

• A2.1 The methodology adopted for TVIA is set out below. The assessment used to determine the effects of urban development proposals is based on two key areas, which contribute to the perception and understanding of ‘townscape’:

•  Townscape Character: Impacts upon discrete character areas comprising features with a particular quality or merit; and
•  Visual Context: Impacts upon the visual amenity of the site, in terms of both shortrange and long-range views.

• A2.2 The term ‘townscape’ is simply a derivation of ‘landscape’; that being the whole of our external environment. Landscape assessment is concerned with the changes in the physical landscape in terms of elements/features that may give rise to changes in the character of the landscape.
• A2.3 A distinction has been drawn for expediency as the implications of development, redevelopment or renovation of urban sites offer a different suite of issues for consideration to those in more rural or isolated locations. The trend towards awareness of the specific requirements of townscape assessment throughout the landscape profession, reflects the increasing emphasis and recognition attached to the urban environment. Key qualities of urban projects may include:

•  Urban design within an existing urban setting. The established townscape is often dominated by built form of different scales and uses. There is therefore, greater propensity to explore the more particular issues of architectural merit, particularly when considering the functionality of the public realm;
•  Very high densities of viewers within extended publicly accessible and residential areas. Although of no lesser importance, Public Rights of Way and Access Land do not reflect adequately public views and a broader interpretation of visual amenity is therefore required;
•  A greater overlap between recognised cultural/built heritage values and townscape character. Conservation areas and listed buildings (whether individual of in groups) often reflect enduring historical heritage manifest in the townscape; and
•  Strategic or locally important views. Whether through effective town planning, influential architecture or historical accident, modern perceptions of heritage value recognise special and memorable vistas that have survived (or even improved) in

today’s towns and cities. Such views may inform the perceptions of urban identity and are often referred to in contemporary planning documents.

• A2.4 Urban sites are often deemed to be less sensitive and capable of greater capacity for change. However, urban studies are important even in townscapes of poor condition with no special interest as such areas may be highly valued locally. For example, the site may have industrial features that have defined the character of the area for an extended period or simply been accessible to local people for recreational/amenity purposes under current circumstances. In other instances, built heritage may be comprehensively recognised through conservation areas, listed buildings and other statutory and non-statutory designations.
• A2.5 This methodology has been developed by The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP) primarily for the purposes of this assessment. The methodology is, however, capable of useful application to a greater variety of projects reflecting as it does, a structured and common-sense approach to landscape and visual issues in planning.
• A2.6 This methodology refers to:

•  Part 1, key national guidance;
•  Part 2, the assessment process and the reciprocal nature of iterative design; and
•  Part 3, the tabulated assessment criteria and descriptions.

Part 1: Key National Guidance

• A2.7 The principal source of guidance is contained within the 3rd Edition of the ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (the LI Guidelines), developed by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment in direct response to the requirements of the EIA Regulations for use by landscape professionals and other interested parties. They are consequently drawn on extensively by EDP in this methodology and also in approaching the assessment of specific development proposals.
• A2.8 The guidelines are non-specific to development types and the onus is clearly placed on the assessor to ensure that the approach adopted is adequate to address the issues associated with the subject development. As no specific published ‘best practice’ guidance on townscape character assessment exists, it is expected that this methodology will go some way towards providing greater clarity for urban based projects.
• A2.9 In the assessment of visual sensitivity, account is also taken of the guidance provided by English Heritage in the document ‘Seeing History in the View’ published in May 2011.

• A2.10 Further useful landscape assessment guidance is contained in Section 3 (Part 5) of Volume 11 of the ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’1 (the DMRB).

Part 2: Environmental Assessment Process and Assessment Criteria

• A2.11 The assessment process aims to be objective and quantify impacts as accurately as is possible. However, it is recognised that subjective judgment is necessary and appropriate, if based upon training and experience and supported by clear evidence, reasoned argument and informed opinion. Whilst changes to a view can be factually defined, the evaluation of townscape character and visual impacts requires qualitative judgments to be made. The conclusions of assessment therefore combine objective measurement with informed professional interpretation.
• A2.12 Thorough assessment set out in clearly defined terms is therefore essential to ensure that the assessment process and conclusions drawn are transparent and capable of analysis and constructive criticism, so as to inform debate and decision making. It is intended that this methodology provides helpful background to the main assessment.
• A2.13 Whilst this methodology goes some way to defining the criteria and terminology used in the classification of sensitivity, magnitude and level of effect, conclusions regarding classification of townscape units and views may not immediately correspond to the descriptions given under these headings. This is because such classifications are multifactorial and reflect a large number of townscape and visual dynamics. For example, a character area may contain features and elements in a degraded condition but which, when read together, result in a strong and unified character over an extensive area. In such cases, it is necessary to make a reasoned judgement regarding the definition that best fits the particular situation.
• A2.14 The principles of good design and contemporary planning legislation require development to respond positively to the existing townscape and designations. It is therefore implicit in environmental assessment that the findings of the baseline study and townscape and visual assessment consistently serve to inform and enhance the design of the subject development. This iterative and reciprocal process belies the spirit of the EIA Directive and is advocated in most guidance including the Landscape Institute guidelines.

Assessment Stages

• A2.15 The assessment employs the following stages.

Stage 1 Review of the Proposed Development and Existing Design Documentation

• A2.16 During this phase, we review the scheme proposals, meet and consult with relevant Local Planning Authority representatives and members of the multidisciplinary consultant team.

• 1 Published by the Highways Agency in 1994

Stage 2 Baseline Study

• A2.17 EDP’s work combines a desktop baseline analysis of relevant literature and field appraisal to analyse townscape character areas, and to define and describe views within the study area. This process, in combination with a review of relevant policy, will enable the identification of townscape sensitivities and particular interests (including designations) requiring special consideration. The following topics are completed more or less simultaneously during this stage to provide a depiction of the present (and future) state of the townscape in the absence of the proposal.
• A2.18 A description of the townscape based on:

•  Review of available Isle of Man mapping data;
•  Topographic digital data and Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) analysis;
•  Field appraisal;
•  Review of designations, Development Plan documents, and associated guidance; and
•  Review of Townscape Character Appraisals and Landscape Character Assessments.

• A2.19 The purpose of baseline studies is to record and analyse the existing townscape features, characteristics, the way in which the townscape is experienced and the value or importance of the townscape and visual resource in the study area. The third edition of the GLVIA sets out guidance in relation to (the landscape) baseline at paragraph 5.3:

“Baseline studies for assessing landscape effects require a mix of desk study and field work to identify and record the character of the landscape and the elements, features and aesthetic and perceptual factors which contribute to it. They should also deal with the value attached to the landscape (see paragraph 5.19). The methods used should be appropriate to the context into which the development proposal will be introduced and in line with current guidance and terminology”.

• A2.20 As set out above, it is also a requirement of the baseline stage to establish the value of the landscape receptors identified:

“As part of the baseline description the value of the potentially affected landscape should be established. This means 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. Considering value at the baseline stage will inform later judgements about the significance of effects. Value can apply to areas of landscape as a whole, or to the individual elements, features and aesthetic or perceptual dimensions which contribute to the character of the landscape…”.

• A2.21 Further characterisation of the townscape and identification of townscape units capable of further assessment. If existing landscape/townscape character assessment documentation is unavailable, outdated or of insufficient detail to permit proper

• assessment of the application site, further subdivision and characterisation will be required to identify townscape units, which fully describe the character of the proposed development site and its setting.
• A2.22 Identification of townscape receptors2 with the potential to be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed development. These areas, largely identified from the characterisation studies, will form the basis of assessment and may be subject to consultation with the planning authority. Townscape receptors typically include:

•  Townscape/Landscape Character Areas;
•  Designated areas and townscape features;
•  Public open space;
•  Transport routes;
•  Distinct land use areas; and
•  The site.

• A2.23 Once identified, a subjective professional analysis of all available information is made to interpret townscape quality or condition for each receptor based on the following definitions in Table EDP A2.1 below:

Table EDP A2.1: Quality Definitions for Townscape Condition

High

Townscape area or setting of feature with some diversity, but where elements combine well to produce a clear, distinct and integrated character over most areas. Where the man-made, historic and natural elements are harmonious and in good condition. Where there are few detractors and high scenic quality.

Medium

Townscape area or setting of feature with a diversity of elements that combine to produce a recognisable but inconsistent character. Where the man-made, historic and natural elements are generally balanced and in fair condition. Where there are some detractors but overall, a pleasant scenic quality.

Low

Townscape area or setting of feature where the general mixture of elements result in an indistinct and ambiguous character. Where the man-made, historic and natural elements are evidently discordant and in a degraded condition. Where there are several detractors and poor scenic quality.

• 2 LI Guidelines, paragraph 6.13.

Very high	Townscape area or setting of feature where elements combine to produce a strong, bold and unified character over an extensive area. Where the man-made, historic and natural elements are unquestionably harmonious and in superior condition. Where there are virtually no detractors and stunning scenic quality.
High	Townscape area or setting of feature with some diversity, but where elements combine well to produce a clear, distinct and integrated character over most areas. Where the man-made, historic and natural elements are harmonious and in good condition. Where there are few detractors and high scenic quality.
Medium	Townscape area or setting of feature with a diversity of elements that combine to produce a recognisable but inconsistent character. Where the man-made, historic and natural elements are generally balanced and in fair condition. Where there are some detractors but overall, a pleasant scenic quality.
Low	Townscape area or setting of feature where the general mixture of elements result in an indistinct and ambiguous character. Where the man-made, historic and natural elements are evidently discordant and in a degraded condition. Where there are several detractors and poor scenic quality.

Very low	Townscape area or setting of feature with highly incongruous and conflicting elements that result in a forgettable or unremarkable character over an extensive area. Where the man-made, historic and natural elements show evidence of decay or environmental degradation. Where there are many detractors and very poor scenic quality.

• A2.24 Sensitivity can then be ascribed in relation to these receptors, which vary in their capacity to accommodate different forms of development. It is therefore noted that sensitivity cannot be considered in isolation from the characteristics and nature of the proposed development3. An assessment of townscape sensitivity to a particular type of change is therefore not truly part of the baseline but may be presented as such within a baseline report for expediency.
• A2.25 Criteria and definitions for defining townscape sensitivity are found below in Part 4 of this methodology.
• A2.26 Identification of visual receptors encompasses consideration of the ZTV, the extent of visibility and identifying representative views for the purposes of describing visual amenity and subsequently, visual assessment.
• A2.27 The ZTV is the area within which a proposed development may have an influence or effect on visual amenity and is identified from the entirety of the area from which the development is visible. Consideration of the ZTV is, however, often limited for good reason for the purposes of assessment in relation to distance, enclosure and to reflect areas of particular townscape sensitivity. EDP commonly uses computer generated simulations to determine the likely ZTV for which a separate methodology can be provided4. This landscape analysis tool can be helpful in determining the potential extent of views and an indication towards further visual analysis and field work.
• A2.28 Visual receptors typically include:

•  Key viewpoints and views of and from designated landscapes;
•  Local and visiting users of recreational landscapes, footpaths, bridges, bridleways and cycle routes;
•  Residents;
•  Workers; and
•  Users of motorised transport routes.

• A2.29 A selection of views (particularly where the proposed development is likely to be widely visible) is identified to represent main landscape and visual receptors within the ZTV. Justification for that selection is recorded and may be subject to consultation with the local

• 3 LI Guidelines, paragraph 2.28.
• 4 Digitally derived Visual Envelope and Zone of Theoretical Visibility Methodology

planning authority. Once agreed, viewpoints are described and recorded photographically with reference to designations, viewpoint context, distance from site and photographic conditions.

• A2.30 The sensitivity of a receptor may be presented within a baseline report (based on a degree of prior knowledge about the physical parameters of the proposed development). GLVIA3 states that “information on the value attached to different environmental resource” is required as part of the baseline. The visual sensitivity of the visual receptor is identified along a continuous and relative scale determined in relation to factors such as:

•  The quality and sensitivity of the townscape in that location;
•  The activities of the viewer;
•  Numbers of viewers;
•  Distance and visibility in relation to the proposed development; and
•  The nature of the proposed development.

• A2.31 Criteria and definitions for defining visual sensitivity are found below in Part 4 of this methodology.

Stage 3 Assessment of Effects

• A2.32 Once the townscape and visual baseline has been established, an assessment of likely changes to the existing townscape character and visual context, as a result of the proposed development, can be made.
• A2.33 The likely physical (visible) aspects of the development life cycle are identified, upon which the assessment will be made. Criteria for considering the magnitude of the resulting townscape and visual effects can then be established (descriptive criteria used as the basis for identifying effects can be found below in Part 4 of this Methodology).

Stage 4 Mitigation

• A2.34 Examples of primary mitigation that has become integrated through the design process may be identified in the description of the development. Detailed information regarding the reasoning behind the design process (and its response to townscape and visual sensitivities) should be presented in the DAS5.
• A2.35 Secondary mitigation measures, developed directly in response to high level effects identified through the townscape and visual assessment process, are described at this

• 5 As required by the Town and Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006 and further defined in advice from the Commission for Architecture and Built Environment (CABE) “Design and Access Statements – How to Write, Read and Use Them”.

stage and may include agreed prescriptions adopted in order to avoid, reduce and off set adverse effects (and to enhance beneficial effects where possible).

Stage 5 Residential Effects

• A2.36 In the final analysis, an evaluation of residual townscape and visual impacts following the combined mitigation strategy is made for the purposes of identifying high level environmental impacts.

Part 3: Assessment Criteria and Descriptions

• A2.37 This section contains the following tables:

•  Table EDP A2.2: Townscape sensitivity criteria;
•  Table EDP A2.3: Magnitude of townscape effect criteria;
•  Table EDP A2.4: Level of townscape effect criteria;
•  Table EDP A2.5: Visual sensitivity criteria;
•  Table EDP A2.6: Magnitude of visual effect criteria;
•  Table EDP A2.7: Level of visual effect criteria; and
•  Table EDP A2.8: Matrix for Townscape and Visual Effects.

• A2.38 The following descriptions are used as the basis for determining townscape sensitivity assessment criteria in the knowledge of the nature of the proposed development:

• Table EDP A2.2: Townscape Sensitivity Criteria

High

Na regionally recognised townscape of high quality and particularly distinctive character. Susceptible to physical disturbance which may permanently change townscape elements.

Medium

Locally designated or recognised (value expressed through consensus) townscape of medium quality with some distinguishing features. Some townscape resilience and capacity due to diversity of character.

Low

Locally recognised but undesignated townscape of low quality. Partially degraded and transient in nature with no features of recognised value. Tolerant of some change and capable of repair or enhancement.

Slight

Unrecognised townscape of very low quality. Potentially tolerant of substantial change without loss of valued elements and capable of accommodating much needed restorative measures.

Very high	Internationally recognised townscape of exceptional quality with a large number of memorable townscape features deemed to be worthy of conservation in current state. Extremely susceptible to minor physical disturbance which may permanently damage townscape elements.
High	Na regionally recognised townscape of high quality and particularly distinctive character. Susceptible to physical disturbance which may permanently change townscape elements.
Medium	Locally designated or recognised (value expressed through consensus) townscape of medium quality with some distinguishing features. Some townscape resilience and capacity due to diversity of character.
Low	Locally recognised but undesignated townscape of low quality. Partially degraded and transient in nature with no features of recognised value. Tolerant of some change and capable of repair or enhancement.
Slight	Unrecognised townscape of very low quality. Potentially tolerant of substantial change without loss of valued elements and capable of accommodating much needed restorative measures.

A2.39 Criteria for determining magnitude of effect for townscape impacts are derived from theproportion of the area or townscape features affected by the proposed development,context and setting, and the duration of the effect:

Very High	Stark, unavoidable and permanent change (deterioration or improvement) to townscape character and features. Proposed development in complete contrast to existing landform, scale and pattern of development.
High	Obvious, long term and vivid changes (deterioration or improvement) to townscape character and features. Very noticeable within vicinity due to introduction of prominent elements or effects over an extensive area.
Medium	Partial change (deterioration or improvement) to townscape character and features. Proposed development will be reasonably noticeable within the vicinity due to differences with existing landform, scale and pattern of development.
Low	Slight or temporary alteration of townscape character and features. Not readily noticeable within vicinity and therefore does not greatly influence character of surrounding area.
None	Proposed development not noticeable or resulting in a virtually imperceptible change in townscape character.

Severe adverse	The proposed development would result in effects which would irrevocably harm or seriously diminish the value of townscape character, features, and their settings. Proposals of such conflict with the existing topography, grain, pattern of the townscape, so as to be incapable of mitigation.
Major adverse	The proposed development would result in effects which would substantially damage the quality of existing townscape character, features, and their settings. Such effects would be incapable of full mitigation and would degrade the integrity of a high-quality townscape.
Moderate adverse	The proposed development would result in effects which would have a perceptibly adverse impact on townscape character, features, and their settings. Proposals are out of scale with the existing topography, grain, scale and pattern of the townscape.
Minor adverse	The proposed development would result in effects which temporarily damages or does not logically complement the existing topography, grain, scale and pattern of the townscape so as to constitute an unsympathetic outcome.
Neutral	The proposed development would complement existing townscape quality and character so as to maintain the overall status quo.
Minor beneficial	The proposed development would result in effects which would complement townscape quality character. Proposals would enable moderate and/or short-term restoration of degraded townscape character, features, and their settings.
Moderate beneficial	The proposed development would result in effects which would appreciably restore and/or enhance existing townscape character, features, and their settings. Such effects may be capable of further mitigation so as to maximise the benefits of the proposal.

• Table EDP A2.3: Magnitude of Townscape Effect Criteria

High

Obvious, long term and vivid changes (deterioration or improvement) to townscape character and features. Very noticeable within vicinity due to introduction of prominent elements or effects over an extensive area.

Medium

Partial change (deterioration or improvement) to townscape character and features. Proposed development will be reasonably noticeable within the vicinity due to differences with existing landform, scale and pattern of development.

Low

Slight or temporary alteration of townscape character and features. Not readily noticeable within vicinity and therefore does not greatly influence character of surrounding area.

None

Proposed development not noticeable or resulting in a virtually imperceptible change in townscape character.

A2.40 The sensitivity of a townscape receptor and the magnitude of change enable a qualitativeassessment of the level of effect to be determined:

EDP Table A2.4: Level of Townscape Effect Criteria

Major adverse

The proposed development would result in effects which would substantially damage the quality of existing townscape character, features, and their settings. Such effects would be incapable of full mitigation and would degrade the integrity of a high-quality townscape.

Moderate adverse

The proposed development would result in effects which would have a perceptibly adverse impact on townscape character, features, and their settings. Proposals are out of scale with the existing topography, grain, scale and pattern of the townscape.

Minor adverse

The proposed development would result in effects which temporarily damages or does not logically complement the existing topography, grain, scale and pattern of the townscape so as to constitute an unsympathetic outcome.

Neutral

The proposed development would complement existing townscape quality and character so as to maintain the overall status quo.

Minor beneficial

The proposed development would result in effects which would complement townscape quality character. Proposals would enable moderate and/or shortterm restoration of degraded townscape character, features, and their settings.

Moderate beneficial

The proposed development would result in effects which would appreciably restore and/or enhance existing townscape character, features, and their settings. Such effects may be capable of further mitigation so as to maximise the benefits of the proposal.

Major beneficial<br><br>

The proposed development would result in effects which would substantially improve the quality of townscape character, features, and their settings. Fundamentally improve on previous condition through the introduction of integrated features and streetscape design, which would result in a more harmonious and distinctive townscape character. Such effects may be capable of further mitigation so as to maximise the benefits of the proposal.

Negligible

No discernible change to the existing townscape character, features, and their settings.

A2.41 The following definitions will be used as the basis for determining visual sensitivityassessment criteria in the knowledge of the nature of the proposed development:

• Table EDP A2.5: Visual Sensitivity Criteria

High

Important static (including residential) or well visited open views with orientation in the direction of the development site. Views from or within the setting of a Grade II* listed building or within the setting of nationally or internationally designated townscape. e.g. Focussed views from a well-used footpath or cycleway within a highquality townscape setting.

Medium

Sites where numerous individuals may enjoy views including visitors. Views in the direction of the development site within the setting of a Grade II listed building. May have local townscape designation or lie within the setting of a locally recognised feature. e.g. Open views from public open space where the viewer is usually involved in recreational activity and therefore not wholly focussed on the townscape around them.

Low

Every day and ordinary views in the direction of the development site enjoyed by some local people but rarely visitors. Partially interrupted and/or distant views from undesignated residential areas. e.g. Commonplace and/or partially interrupted views from retail/commercial or light industrial areas. May include views from moving vehicles or other motorised transport routes.

Very Low

Transient and unimportant views in the direction of the development site, rarely utilised by individuals in that location. Poor quality townscapes not obviously recognised as a local interest or covered by local townscape designation. e.g. Unspecified and/ or sporadic views from and within the setting of industrial or derelict areas. May include views from fast moving vehicles or busy transport corridors.

Very High	Important and highly utilised views from within nationally or internationally designated townscapes or adjoining townscape with focal point or orientation in the direction of the development site. Views from or within the setting of a Grade I listed building. e.g. Exceptional and iconic views from townscape features of recognised historic importance. Widely visited sites important for tourism and urban identity.
High	Important static (including residential) or well visited open views with orientation in the direction of the development site. Views from or within the setting of a Grade II* listed building or within the setting of nationally or internationally designated townscape. e.g. Focussed views from a well-used footpath or cycleway within a high-quality townscape setting.
Medium	Sites where numerous individuals may enjoy views including visitors. Views in the direction of the development site within the setting of a Grade II listed building. May have local townscape designation or lie within the setting of a locally recognised feature. e.g. Open views from public open space where the viewer is usually involved in recreational activity and therefore not wholly focussed on the townscape around them.
Low	Every day and ordinary views in the direction of the development site enjoyed by some local people but rarely visitors. Partially interrupted and/or distant views from undesignated residential areas. e.g. Commonplace and/or partially interrupted views from retail/commercial or light industrial areas. May include views from moving vehicles or other motorised transport routes.
Very Low	Transient and unimportant views in the direction of the development site, rarely utilised by individuals in that location. Poor quality townscapes not obviously recognised as a local interest or covered by local townscape designation. e.g. Unspecified and/ or sporadic views from and within the setting of industrial or derelict areas. May include views from fast moving vehicles or busy transport corridors.

A2.42 Criteria for determining magnitude of effect for visual impacts are derived from the scaleof change in the view, the congruity of that change, the proportion of the view affected bythe proposed development, and the duration of the effect:

Very High	The proposed development becomes the single or collectively dominant new feature in the scene, with a forceful influence on townscape character and in the perception of other recognised features (which generally become subordinate).
High	The proposed development becomes an important and immediately obvious new feature within the urban scene; may affect and change townscape character.
Medium	The proposed development is visible and identifiable within the view; readily detected by the majority of viewers.
Low	The proposed development constitutes a minor feature in the view, within which it is neither framed nor prominent and therefore not readily noticeable.
None	Nothing or very little of the development or associated work or activity is discernible.

Severe adverse	The proposed development would result in invasive and clearly incongruous visual effects which would permanently result in the loss of, or disrupt, key views from (or of) an important sensitive receptor.
Major adverse	The proposed development would result in a substantial deterioration in, or loss of, the existing view. Detrimental visual effects incapable of full mitigation.
Moderate adverse	The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a conspicuous or temporary deterioration in the existing view.
Minor adverse	The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a perceptible and temporary deterioration in the existing view. Capable of sufficient mitigation to ensure amelioration of adverse impacts.
Neutral	The proposed development would result in a situation analogous to the current situation. No clear adverse or beneficial impacts resulting from visual effects.
Minor beneficial	The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a perceptible and temporary improvement in the existing view.
Moderate beneficial	The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a conspicuous or temporary improvement in the existing view.
Major beneficial	The proposed development would result in a substantial improvement to the existing view and positively influence the character of the receiving townscape feature.
Negligible	No discernible change to the existing view.

• Table EDP A2.6: Magnitude of Visual Effect Criteria

High

The proposed development becomes an important and immediately obvious new feature within the urban scene; may affect and change townscape character.

Medium

The proposed development is visible and identifiable within the view; readily detected by the majority of viewers.

Low

The proposed development constitutes a minor feature in the view, within which it is neither framed nor prominent and therefore not readily noticeable.

None

Nothing or very little of the development or associated work or activity is discernible.

A2.43 The sensitivity of a view and the magnitude of change enable a qualitative assessment of the level of effect to be determined:

• Table EDP A2.7: Level of Visual Effect Criteria

Major adverse

The proposed development would result in a substantial deterioration in, or loss of, the existing view. Detrimental visual effects incapable of full mitigation.

Moderate adverse

The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a conspicuous or temporary deterioration in the existing view.

Minor adverse

The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a perceptible and temporary deterioration in the existing view. Capable of sufficient mitigation to ensure amelioration of adverse impacts.

Neutral

The proposed development would result in a situation analogous to the current situation. No clear adverse or beneficial impacts resulting from visual effects.

Minor beneficial The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a perceptible and temporary improvement in the existing view. Moderate beneficial The proposed development would result in visual effects that constitute a conspicuous or temporary improvement in the existing view. Major beneficial

The proposed development would result in a substantial improvement to the existing view and positively influence the character of the receiving townscape feature.

Negligible

No discernible change to the existing view.

A2.44 In order to consider the likely level of any effect, the sensitivity of each receptor is combinedwith the predicted magnitude of change to determine the level of effect, with referencealso made to the geographical extent, duration and reversibility of the effect within theassessment. Having taken such a wide range of factors into account when assessing

sensitivity and magnitude at each receptor, the level of effect can be derived by combining the sensitivity and magnitude in accordance with the matrix in Table EDP A2.8.

Overall	Overall Magnitude of Change
Sensitivity	Very High	High	Medium	Low	Very Low
Very High	Substantial	Major	Major/-Moderate	Moderate	Moderate/-Minor
High	Major	Major/-Moderate	Moderate	Moderate/-Minor	Minor
Medium	Major/-Moderate	Moderate	Moderate/-Minor	Minor	Minor/-Negligible
Low	Moderate	Moderate/-Minor	Minor	Minor/-Negligible	Negligible
Very Low	Moderate/-Minor	Minor	Minor/-Negligible	Negligible	Negligible/-None

• Table EDP A2.8: Matrix for Townscape and Visual Effects

Overall Sensitivity<br><br>	Overall Magnitude of Change	Overall Magnitude of Change	Overall Magnitude of Change	Overall Magnitude of Change	Overall Magnitude of Change
Overall Sensitivity<br><br>	Very High	High	Medium	Low	Very Low
Very High	Substantial	Major	Major/Moderate<br><br>	Moderate	Moderate/Minor<br><br>
High	Major	Major/Moderate<br><br>	Moderate	Moderate/Minor<br><br>	Minor
Medium	Major/Moderate<br><br>	Moderate	Moderate/Minor<br><br>	Minor	Minor/Negligible<br><br>
Low	Moderate	Moderate/Minor<br><br>	Minor	Minor/Negligible<br><br>	Negligible
Very Low	Moderate/Minor<br><br>	Minor	Minor/Negligible<br><br>	Negligible	Negligible/None<br><br>