7.3.7. Proposed Approach to the Environmental Impact AssessmentProposed Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment

  1. The aviation, military and communications aspects of the EIA process will follow the methodology set out in section 4; supported by desktop studies and assessments, including radar LoS modelling, that will identify and examine civil and military aviation receptors. Studies will also be undertaken in parallel with engagement meetings with specific aviation stakeholders, expected to be an iterative process in some instances, to provide a detailed understanding of potential impacts.
  2. The primary source of aviation related data to be used during desktop studies in support of the aviation, military and communications EIA is the UK IAIP (NATS, 2022) and Mil AIP (MOD,2022). Both documents contain details on airspace and en-route procedures as well as charts and other air navigation information. The aviation industry and the provision of Air Navigation Services (ANS) (including radar services) are regulated through extensive legislation; however, the main mechanism for regulating the relationship between aviation and offshore wind is through the consenting system. The documents in paragraph 551, as a minimum, have been and will be reconsidered during the aviation, military and communications EIA process.
  3. Design assumptions used to inform assessments will be clearly identified in the project description, considering worst case parameters specifically for civil and military aviation receptors.

7.3.8. Potential Cumulative EffectsPotential Cumulative Effects

  1. The cumulative effects assessment will consider the potential impacts in combination with other offshore wind farms and associated aviation activities. Potential cumulative effects on aviation, military and communications from the Array in combination with other offshore wind farm developments will be assessed through engagement with the relevant aviation stakeholders.
  2. There is a potential for increased radar interference (clutter) to PSRs and ADRs in combination with other offshore wind farms; a technical mitigation solution may need to be investigated if the potential for likely significant effects is identified.
  3. There is a potential for an increase in low level air traffic, particularly helicopter support operations to the Array and other offshore developments in the area below 2,000 ft amsl. Therefore, engagement with the MOD DIO, who safeguard military infrastructure, and offshore helicopter operators (at Aberdeen Airport) will be required.

7.3.9. Potential Transboundary ImpactsPotential Transboundary Impacts

  1. The Array is completely within the Scottish FIR and due to the localised nature, in aviation terms, of any potential impacts, transboundary impacts are unlikely to occur and therefore this impact will not be considered in the Array EIA Report.

7.3.10. Scoping Questions to ConsulteesScoping Questions to Consultees

  • Do you agree that the existing data available to describe the aviation, military and communications baseline remains sufficient to describe the baseline environment in relation to the Array?
  • Do you agree that the embedded mitigation described provides a suitable means for managing and mitigating the potential effects of the Array on the aviation, military and communications receptors?
  • Do you agree that the aviation, military and communications study area has been correctly identified, if not what corrections would you suggest?
  • Have all the potential impacts resulting from the Array been identified for civil and military aviation receptors?
  • Are you content that the lighting (and charting) requirements pertaining to the fitment of aviation lighting of the wind turbines are sufficient to provide situational awareness to aircrew?
  • Do you agree with the impacts scoped out in Table 7.11   Open ▸ ?

7.3.11. Next StepsNext Steps

  1. Engagement will be required with aviation stakeholders. Engagement, as outlined in section 4.3.4, has commenced, and is expected to be an iterative process, allowing for any concerns that are raised to be considered in the Array design. Specific aviation, military and communications engagement will take place with the following during the EIA phase:
  • NATS including Aberdeen Radar (impacts on PSR).
  • MOD DIO (impacts to ADR and creation of an obstruction).
  • MCA (impact to airborne SAR operations).
  • Aberdeen oil and Gas helicopter operators (creation of an obstruction).
  1. The Applicant are also engaging collaboratively with other developers as an industry, with relevant aviation stakeholders, to facilitate development of a nationwide enduring radar solution. The conclusions of these discussions will be considered within the Array EIA Report.

7.4. Marine ArchaeologyMarine Archaeology

7.4.1. IntroductionIntroduction

  1. This section of this Scoping Report presents the relevant marine archaeology considerations of the Array and considers the scope of the assessment on marine archaeology from the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of the Array.

7.4.2. Study AreaStudy Area

  1. The marine archaeology study area encompasses the site boundary, as well as a 2 km buffer surrounding the site boundary to provide a wider context with regard to marine archaeology and to identify marine archaeology receptors which could be subject to indirect effects ( Figure 7.7   Open ▸ ).

7.4.3. Baseline EnvironmentBaseline Environment

  1. This section provides a summary of the baseline environment within the Array, with further detail provided in Appendix 11.
  2. A geophysical survey was undertaken across the whole area comprising the site boundary between March and July 2022. The data was collected to the appropriate specification in order to achieve the following interpretation requirements (as per Wessex Archaeology for The Crown Estate (TCE) (2021)):
  • magnetometer: identification of contacts > 5 nT (phase 1A), and >10 nT (phase 1b);
  • Sidescan sonar (SSS): ensonfication of contacts > 0.5 m;
  • Sub-Bottom Profiler (SBP): penetration 5 m to 10 m; and
  • Multibeam Echosounder (MBES): ensonification of contacts < 1.0 m.
  1. All data were collected and referenced relative to the WGS84 datum and UTM30N projection, which is the standard coordinate system and map projection for offshore use (Wessex Archaeology for TCE (2021). Archaeological features within the 2 km buffer will be identified from desk based sources.
  2. Appendix 11, Apx Table 11.2   Open ▸ presents the details of the survey specification of the offshore geophysical survey. A summary of the archaeological features of the site boundary is provided below.

                        Submerged prehistoric archaeology

  1. No prehistoric archaeological material has been recorded within the site boundary to date and it is unlikely that any archaeological material from the Palaeolithic and/or Mesolithic periods will survive within the site boundary due to the effects of repeated glaciations, marine transgressions and associated fluvial activity. It is unlikely that these will be present, however, further assessment of archaeological data will be included within a standalone Marine Archaeology Technical Report which will be produced to inform a robust mitigation strategy (see paragraph 593 for more information).

Figure 7.7:
Marine Archaeology Study Area

Figure 7.7: Marine Archaeology Study Area

 

                        Maritime and aviation archaeology

  1. There are no Historic Marine Protected Areas (HMPAs) or designated sites recorded within the limits of the site boundary, and no wrecks or obstructions lie within the site boundary or marine archaeology study area as recorded by the UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) ( Figure 7.8   Open ▸ ).
  2. A total of four recorded losses attributed to coordinates within the marine archaeology study area are held by Historic Environment Scotland (HES): Svein Jarl (Canmore ID: 314131), Titan (Canmore ID: 328826), Duva (Canmore ID: 313790), and Scottish Queen (Canmore ID: 313238) (Canmore, 2022; see Appendix 11, Apx. Table 11.4). It should be noted that as these are recorded losses, not confirmed wrecks, these may not be present within the site boundary. Further assessment of archaeological data will be included within a standalone Marine Archaeology Technical Report to clarify presence or absence of these wrecks.
  3. Two wrecks were recorded during the initial geophysical survey (Ocean Infinity, 2022a); however, these are not recorded by the UKHO. One wreck (named as ‘Contact S_NM_B_0001’ within the geophysical survey report (Ocean Infinity, 2022a)) has been entered into the Canmore National Records of the Historic Environment (NRHE) database with ID number: 372595. The second wreck will be entered in to the NRHE database in the future. These wrecks are detailed in a gazetteer in Appendix 11 (Apx. Table 11.4). These wrecks may relate to the NRHE records noted in paragraph 587, however, this is not confirmed at present. The data from the initial geophysical survey will be further assessed by a marine archaeology specialist and results presented within a standalone Marine Archaeology Technical Report. Further details are presented in paragraph 593.


Figure 7.8:
Position of UKHO Records in the Vicinity of the Site Boundary

Figure 7.8: Position of UKHO Records in the Vicinity of the Site Boundary

 

7.4.4. Potential Array ImpactsPotential Array Impacts

  1. Potential impacts on marine archaeology which may occur during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Array in the absence of designed in measures have been identified in Table 7.12   Open ▸ .

 

Table 7.12:
Potential Impacts Identified for Marine Archaeology in the Absence of Designed In Measures

Table 7.12: Potential Impacts Identified for Marine Archaeology in the Absence of Designed In Measures

 

7.4.5. Designed In MeasuresDesigned In Measures

  1. The following designed in measures, and how these can reduce potential for impact have been considered in the identification of potential impacts associated with the Array assessment:
  • The implementation of AEZs around sites identified as having a known important archaeological potential to mitigate the potential impacts from offshore infrastructure. The size of the AEZ will be evidence-based and established using the precautionary principle to ensure that it is of sufficient size (likely to be 50 – 100 m buffer) to protect the site from the nature of impact (Wessex Archaeology, 2007; Wessex Archaeology for TCE, 2021).
  • Archaeological input into specifications for and analysis of future preconstruction geophysical surveys.
  • Archaeologists to be consulted in the preparation of any preconstruction Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) or diver surveys and in monitoring/checking of data, if appropriate based upon the findings of the archaeological assessment of geophysical survey data.
  • All anomalies of possible archaeological potential will be reviewed against the final layout and design. If they are likely to be impacted, these anomalies would undergo further archaeological investigation. Should these anomalies prove to be of archaeological importance then future AEZs may be implemented following consultation with HES.
  • Archaeological input into specifications for and analysis of future preconstruction geotechnical surveys, including the presence of a geoarchaeologist on board the survey vessel and a provision for sampling, analysis and reporting of recovered cores, if required. The results of all geoarchaeological investigations to be complied in a final report which includes a sediment deposit model.
  • Commitment to preparation and agreement on an Offshore Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) and Protocol of Archaeological Discoveries (PAD), similar to that set out by TCE (2014), prior to any interaction with the seabed.
  • Archaeologists to be consulted in advance of pre-construction site preparation activities and, if appropriate, to carry out watching briefs of such work. The requirement for watching briefs is determined during the lifecycle of the project. If previously unknown discoveries of archaeological significance are made, an archaeologist may be required on-board to monitor and provide on-site advice of how best to avoid/record/preserve discoveries of archaeological significance.
  • Micro-siting of wind turbine foundation mooring and anchoring systems, Offshore Substation Platform (OSP) foundations, and inter-array cabling to avoid known wrecks.
  • Mitigation of unavoidable direct impacts on known sites of archaeological importance. Options include i) preservation by record, ii) stabilisation and iii) detailed analysis and safeguarding of otherwise comparable sites elsewhere.

7.4.6. Potential Impacts After the Implementation of Designed In MeasuresPotential Impacts After the Implementation of Designed In Measures

  1. Considering the marine archaeology baseline information presented within section 7.4.3 and Appendix 11, the proposed designed in measures, and the project description presented in section 2, it is proposed that all impacts are to be scoped out of the assessment for marine archaeology. Table 7.13   Open ▸ presents these impacts alongside a justification for scoping them out.

 

Table 7.13:
Impacts Proposed to be Scoped Out of the Array Assessment for Marine Archaeology

Table 7.13: Impacts Proposed to be Scoped Out of the Array Assessment for Marine Archaeology

 

7.4.7. Proposed Approach to the Environmental Impact AssessmentProposed Approach to the Environmental Impact Assessment

  1. A Marine Archaeology Technical Report will be prepared to characterise the baseline conditions for the Array, which will be used in the Outline WSI and PAD. These documents will be prepared and submitted alongside the Array EIA Report, with the Outline WSI and PAD updated post-consent. As noted in Table 7.13   Open ▸ , the Outline WSI and PAD form the basis of the proposal to scope marine archaeology out of the Array EIA Report as their application within the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Array will ensure that any impacts to marine archaeology receptors will be mitigated to a non-significant level in EIA terms.
  2. If agreement to scope out marine archaeology from the Array EIA Report is not reached, the Array EIA chapter will follow the methodology set out in section 4 of this Scoping Report.
  3. Specific to the marine archaeology, the following guidance documents and legislation will also be considered:
  • Protection of Military Remains Act 1986;
  • Ancient Monuments and Areas Act 1979;
  • Merchant Shipping Act 1995;
  • Marine Policy Statement 2011;
  • Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2020);
  • Scottish NMP (Scottish Government, 2015);
  • Designation Policy and Selection Guidance (HES, 2020);
  • Code of Conduct (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014);
  • COWRIE Historic Environment Guidance for the Offshore Renewable Energy Sector (Wessex Archaeology, 2007);
  • Offshore Renewables protocol for Archaeological Discoveries (TCE, 2014);
  • Offshore Geotechnical Investigations and Historic Environment Analysis: Guidance for the Renewable Energy Sector (Gribble and Leather, 2010);
  • Archaeological Written Schemes of Investigation for Offshore Wind Farm Projects (Wessex Archaeology for TCE, 2021); and
  • Code of Practice for Seabed Development (Joint Nautical Archaeology Policy Committee (JNAPC), 2006).

                        Marine Archaeology Technical Report

  1. The Marine Archaeology Technical Report will be submitted as part of the Array EIA Report and will include a description of the baseline conditions of the site boundary with regard to marine archaeology, which will be supplemented by an assessment of the site-specific geophysical survey. The methodology to be followed for these activities is set out below.
Baseline characterisation
  1. The Marine Archaeology Technical Report will include a detailed desktop review of marine archaeology which will be prepared using existing studies and datasets (additional to those presented in this Scoping Report) from the following primary sources:
  • records of UKHO wrecks and obstructions;
  • Historic Environment Records (HERs) and NRHE data provided by HES and local councils; and
  • records of HMPAs held by Historic Environment Scotland in their online Historic Environment Portal.
  1. The Applicant has requested HERs and NRHE data from HES and local authority archaeologists at the time of writing, which will provide additional detail of the archaeological potential within the site boundary and Array for the Marine Archaeology Technical Report. In addition, the geophysical anomalies identified during the geophysical survey will be further discussed and assessed within the Marine Archaeology Technical Report.
  2. The general distribution of known wreck sites and geophysical anomalies with archaeological potential will be identified by plotting the baseline data. Information drawn from secondary sources may be used qualitatively to gain an understanding of the likelihood of unknown and unrecorded maritime archaeological sites.
Geophysical data assessment
  1. A qualified and experienced maritime archaeologist with a background in geophysical and hydrographic data acquisition, processing and interpretation will undertake the archaeological review of the Array geophysical data (see section 7.4.3 and Appendix 11), comprising an initial review of the data (including magnetometer, SSS, SBP and MBES), to gain an understanding of the geological and topographic make-up of the Array and any marine archaeology that is visible on the seabed. This assessment will inform the Marine Archaeology Technical Report and Outline WSI and PAD.
  2. The primary use of SBP and MBES, outside of seabed and paleo-landscape characterisation, is in the corroboration of contacts identified in the SSS and magnetometer data. Therefore, SBP and MBES data will be used alongside the magnetometer data to corroborate all identified contacts of potential anthropogenic origin to assess for archaeological potential.
  3. The criteria outlined in Table 7.14   Open ▸ will be used to assign the archaeological potential to each identified contact.

 

Table 7.14:
Criteria for the Assessment of Archaeological Potential to be applied within the Marine Archaeology Technical Report

Table 7.14: Criteria for the Assessment of Archaeological Potential to be applied within the Marine Archaeology Technical Report

 

7.4.8. Potential Cumulative EffectsPotential Cumulative Effects

  1. It is currently understood that no potential cumulative impacts will occur as a result of the Array during the construction, operation and maintenance, or decommissioning phases as the application of designed in measures will be sufficient in reducing any potential cumulative impacts. In addition, it is anticipated that other parts of the Ossian project (i.e. the Proposed offshore export cable corridor(s) and Proposed onshore export cable corridor(s)) would implement these designed in measures which would mitigate impacts and potential cumulative impacts, therefore, it is unlikely there will be any significant cumulative impacts between the Ossian projects. Therefore, this will not be considered further within the Array EIA Report.

7.4.9. Potential Transboundary ImpactsPotential Transboundary Impacts

  1. Appendix 3 presents the transboundary impacts screening which has been carried out for the Array. There will be no pathway for impacts beyond the 2 km marine archaeology study area and, therefore, no potential for significant transboundary effects with regard to marine archaeology from the Array upon the interests of EEA states. Therefore, it is proposed that this will not be considered further within the Array EIA Report.

7.4.10. Scoping Questions to ConsulteesScoping Questions to Consultees

  • Do you agree with the marine archaeology study area as defined e.g. the site boundary and a wider search area encompassing 2 km from the limits of the site boundary?
  • Do you agree that the designed in measures described are suitable for managing and mitigating the potential effects of the site boundary on the marine archaeology receptors?
  • Do you agree that it is appropriate to scope out those impacts proposed to be scoped out, and that the assessment of marine archaeology receptors should be scoped out of the Array EIA Report?

7.4.11. Next StepsNext Steps

  1. As Marine Archaeology is proposed to be scoped out of the Array EIA Report, the next step will be to reach agreement on this with the stakeholders via consultation. An outline WSI, PAD, and Marine Archaeology Technical Report will be developed for the Array and will be submitted to stakeholders for further discussion and agreement. The over-arching next steps are outlined in section 4.3.4.

7.5. Seascape, Landscape and Visual ResourcesSeascape, Landscape and Visual Resources

7.5.1. IntroductionIntroduction

  1. This section of this Scoping Report identifies the elements of the seascape, landscape and visual environment relevant to the Array, and considers the scope of assessment on the seascape, landscape and visual environment from the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of the Array.
  2. Seascape, landscape and visual impact assessment (SLVIA) considers effects on:
  • seascape/landscape as a resource in its own right (caused by changes to its constituent elements, its specific aesthetic or perceptual qualities and/or its character); and
  • views and visual amenity as experienced by people (caused by changes in the appearance of the seascape/landscape).
  1. This section also considers the potential for the Array to affect the setting of onshore cultural heritage features.

7.5.2. Study AreaStudy Area

  1. The SLVIA study area is defined as a radius around the site boundary, within which the Array will be developed. Published guidance suggests a study area of 45 km radius for wind turbines over 150 m in overall height (Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), 2017). A typical radius of 50 km has been adopted for offshore developments with wind turbines around 200 m to blade tip (e.g. Neart na Gaoithe (Mainstream Renewable Power, 2012)). A ‘ready reckoner’ of potential visual effects related to wind turbine size (White et al., 2019) suggests a very approximate ratio of 1:133 between wind turbine height and distance at which low magnitude of impact might be detected. For a proposed maximum blade tip height of 399 m above Low Astronomical Tide (LAT), this would indicate a SLVIA study area radius of at least 52.5 km.
  2. More recently, SLVIA study areas of greater than 50 km have been advised by stakeholders (Marine Scotland, 2021), and up to 70 km has been adopted (RWE Renewables, 2022), in recognition of the maximum heights of wind turbines increasing to over 300 m. This Scoping Report therefore considers a SLVIA study area of 70 km radius, though with consideration of selected potentially sensitive receptors that are beyond this distance. Potentially sensitive receptors beyond 70 km are identified within this section based on professional judgement. Figure 7.9   Open ▸ shows the site boundary in the context of a 70 km SLVIA study area.

Figure 7.9:
SLVIA Study Area

Figure 7.9: SLVIA Study Area

7.5.3. Baseline EnvironmentBaseline Environment

  1. The site boundary is located approximately 80 km from the closest point on the coast, at Souter Head to the south of Aberdeen. The SLVIA study area includes a section of the North Sea. The closest land is the Aberdeenshire coast around Aberdeen, which is around 10 km to 15 km to the north-west of the SLVIA study area boundary. The SLVIA study area boundary is around 50 km from the coast of East Lothian to the south-west. The baseline of the SLVIA study area and its wider context is discussed below in terms of offshore seascape, coastal character, and visual amenity. This section also considers the value attached to the identified receptors. Data sources are noted in the reference list at the end of this section.

                        Offshore seascape baseline

  1. The whole of the 70 km SLVIA study area comprises open sea, remote from the coastline. The Kincardine Offshore Wind Farm is within the area, and in the south-west the Seagreen Offshore Wind Farm is currently under construction. Oil and gas infrastructure is generally further offshore, in the east of the SLVIA study area. Within this area, there is shipping and fishing activity, with large vessels being a common sight closer to Aberdeen Harbour in particular.
  2. There is no published characterisation of offshore seascape character in Scotland. As such there are no key characteristics for the majority of the SLVIA study area. The southern part of the SLVIA study area extends into English waters and is covered by a Seascape Character Assessment published by the MMO. The SLVIA study area overlaps with three marine character areas (MCAs). Key characteristics for these MCAs are set out in MMO (2018) and summarised below.
  • MCA 25 Farne Deeps, an area of deeper water south of Berwick Bank, focused on trenches that drop to 108 m depth. Used for military practice as well as shipping and recreational sailing.
  • MCA 26 Berwick Bank, shallower waters associated with Berwick Bank, which extends into Scottish waters. A remote area in the east, within the SLVIA study area. More limited shipping activity.
  • MCA 28 Swallow Hole Plain, an extensive distant offshore area of open waters over a deep plain with deeper troughs. Busy shipping routes and large numbers of fishing boats, as well as recreational sailing yachts.
  1. There are no designations within the offshore environment that are relevant to SLVIA, either in Scottish or English waters. The value of the offshore seascape is therefore considered to be low.

                        Coastal character baseline

  1. The closest coast is between Cove Bay and Aberdeen, around 80 km from the Array, and is 10 km outside the SLVIA study area. This section of coastline is relatively elevated, with rocky cliffs of 30 m to 40 m in height. The land above the cliffs is generally developed, including the settlement of Cove Bay and industrial estates. There are also recreational interests along this coast, and the main railway between Aberdeen and Edinburgh.
  2. To the south, the coastline is further from the SLVIA study area, and remains elevated beyond Stonehaven. To the north of Aberdeen, the coast is very low-lying, with the Aberdeen Bay Offshore Wind Farm being a key feature. Further north the distance between the SLVIA study area continues to increase, particularly beyond Buchan Ness near Peterhead. 
  3. Rather than defining offshore marine character areas, as in English waters, Nature Scot has adopted coastal character assessment as its preferred approach (SNH, 2012). This defines coastal character areas (CCA) which are influenced by landward and seaward context. There is no national dataset of CCAs, but some of the above coastline has been characterised to inform other SLVIA studies. The area north of Collieston is described in the Hywind Scotland SLVIA (Statoil, 2015), while the coast south of Aberdeen is described in a study prepared for three east coast wind farms (FTOWDG, 2011). Key characteristics from these previous studies are summarised below, alongside high level key characteristics for Aberdeen Bay which lies between the two previously described areas.
  • Peterhead: generally developed coast between the Ugie Water and Boddam, with promontories providing shelter. Large buildings and chimneys are prominent features (Statoil, 2015).
  • Collieston to Boddam: indented rocky coastline north and south of the gentle curving beach at Bay of Cruden. Steep cliffs, skerries, caves, and natural arches which contrast with the sweeping bay and dunes at Cruden Bay. Farmland and dispersed settlement between the three main settlements. Slains Castle is a prominent feature (Statoil, 2015).
  • Aberdeen Bay: long open sweep of sand, backed by dune systems. Estuaries of the Don and Ythan, and the more developed Dee. Recreational interests including golf links. More developed further south, with urban influences south of the Don. Aberdeen Bay offshore wind farm is a prominent feature. 
  • Nigg Bay: Sandy cove with enclosing headlands, close to urban development and modern infrastructure, as well as historic buildings (FTOWDG, 2011). More recently, construction of Aberdeen Harbour Expansion in the bay.
  • Greg Ness to Cove Bay: rocky coast, low cliffs and narrow strip of agricultural hinterland to the east of the Dundee to Aberdeen railway. Local industrial areas nearby (FTOWDG, 2011).
  • Cove Bay to Milton Ness: predominantly rocky shore backed by cliffs or steep slopes giving way to agricultural hinterland. Small coves and shingle beaches. Larger settlements including Stonehaven, and smaller fishing villages (FTOWDG, 2011).
  1. There are no nationally designated landscapes along this coast. The Aberdeenshire coast, either side of Aberdeen, is locally designated as a Special Landscape Area (SLA), recognising its scenic qualities (Aberdeenshire Council, 2017). The aspects and features for which these areas are designated include “panoramic views out to sea from cliff tops and open beaches”, and also “panoramic views out to sea from headlands and beaches and important views along the coast”. The value of the coastal character areas is therefore considered to be medium, based on the local or regional importance indicated by SLA designation.
  2. Onshore landscape character, away from the coast, is unlikely to be affected by development at the distance offshore of the Array area due to very limited visibility (see Figure 7.11   Open ▸ to Figure 7.14   Open ▸ ), and the reduced importance of sea views in non-coastal landscapes. Landscape character types and areas have therefore not been reviewed.