Landscape Susceptibility in relation to Energy Generation, Storage and Transmission - SPD

Object

Representation ID: 4342

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

While noting that Table 1 is a summary of the LSS. The table highlights that for all solar farms above 15MW, the susceptibility to development is mostly high with a few medium-high. This seems overly generic and should be considered on a case by case basis. Perhaps this can be reviewed for some ‘farmland areas’ and making it clear this is subjected to individual site assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 4343

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

Alternative wording suggested

Object

Representation ID: 4344

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

Suggested wording recommended. Comments on site size due to BNG.

Object

Representation ID: 4345

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

The capacity threshold at which solar projects are classed as nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) will rise to 100MW from 31 December 2025.

Under potential landscape effects: “As extensive developments, solar arrays may be particularly visible in open landscapes, on slopes, or where overlooked, especially where covering significant areas.” Rephrase/ omit some words. Small-scale solar farm developments are not always “extensive”. Change “significant” to ‘large’.

“Solar PV schemes can take fertile agricultural land out of production for many years.” It is also worth highlighting that solar farms can also retain “productive” farmland through grazing/ other farming practices.

Object

Representation ID: 4346

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

Timeframes of proposed developments are not mentioned and should be considered as part of cumulative assessments. For example, proposed are more likely to be permanent, but proposed solar farms would be over the long-term and reversible.

Object

Representation ID: 4347

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

This section could be expanded to mention green infrastructure as a whole, rather that individual components. There is no mention of connecting existing and proposed landscape features, multi-functionality that proposals can serve, and wider benefits.

Perhaps a refence to BNG can be added too, that proposals should enhance/ reflect landscape character and not be proposed to hit a certain percentage, which may be inappropriate.

There is no mention of using/ encourage the use of recessive colours, which may help to blend/ integrate in proposals to the wider landscape setting.

Object

Representation ID: 4348

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

Field pattern been excluded from consideration in Battery Storage developments and substations (although considered for Solar PV developments). When green infrastructure is an important consideration in siting proposed developments, field patterns should be a factor. Battery Storage should consider being sited within an existing field pattern.

Skylines are omitted from consideration for Solar PV and Battery Storage developments. This should also be considered. Solar farms in more open locations can impact skylines. Skylines near proposed Solar PV and Battery Storage developments usually contain pylons and overhead lines as part of the baseline and should be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 4349

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

Alternative wording recommended.

Object

Representation ID: 4350

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

Suggestions for mapping details.

Object

Representation ID: 4351

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Agent: Mrs Jennifer Gordon

Paragraph 3.3.4 “...development such as a distribution warehouse could potentially result in a significant change to the character of the landscape.” - The word ‘significant’ typically relates to EIA development, so its use in this context is ambiguous. Consider changing “significant” to Large or Major, which either relate to the magnitude of change or the scale of effects.

Paragraph 3.3.12 “...The LCAs are mapped below and at Appendix 1 | Figure 08.” - It would be useful if Appendix 1 can be available as GIS datasets to ensure the LCAs are accurately shown in landscape and visual assessments going forward.