The Big Visual Debate – 8th July 2008

Read How It Effects You

Many thanks to all our many members that turned up at Sir James Smith’s Community School on Tuesday evening for the debate and the DVD showing on wind farm visuals that highlighted exactly what is wrong with the current photomontages used within the developers Environmental Statements (ES).

ES are public consultation documents; they are an integral part of a legal planning application. The primary purpose of the visuals within is to provide the public and members of planning committees with a proper sense of size and scale. At present this is sadly lacking in wind farm application ES. As turbines are getting ever higher this matter requires the utmost attention; wind farm applications have for too long relied upon a distortion of the visuals.

It was a great shame that none of the invited representatives from the wind farm companies came as they always insist that they listen and indeed invite local public participation in the planning process. These companies are obviously frightened of true participation especially when they know that what they are showing to the public in their ES is blatantly misleading.

“How are local communities being misled?” I hear you ask. Well the answer to that lies in the photographic format that has now been adopted by the wind farm industry that is wide-angle narrow panoramic strips. There are two main problems with this format: they make the landscape look much further away than it is in reality, and the vertical scale of the landscape appears to be reduced. This therefore appears to reduce the visual impact of the turbines themselves.

The production of the photomontage visualisations should be guided by the principle of providing the public and planning committee members with the most realistic impression of the proposed development in terms of scale and distance not how can we best deceive the public.

Now some good news: the Council after much haranguing from STINC have made both Delabole and Otterham send in revised photomontages, after finally agreeing that the photographs were of poor quality and did not meet the specified viewing distance as required under the guidance. However they have still not insisted on the developer supplying an additional set of single frame images as is also required under the SNH Guidance. We will ardently pursue this issue with NCDC to ensure that the new montages conform to Best Practice Guidance.

All we wish to see is for CCC and NCDC to make the developers adhere to the guidance that they state they are following in their ES and supply single frame 50mm focal length images in either A3 or A4, so as to give a realistic impression of the impact.

The advantages of the single frame image are many:

• this type of image needs no critical viewing distance; they can be viewed at a normal and comfortable reading distance
• they do not suffer from distortion when viewed on a computer screen or are projected onto a screen
• they can be easily printed off at A4 size on a home printer and taken to the viewpoint.

You can actually see the turbines within the photograph – something the developers do their best to resist doing. Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Guidance (this guidance is used throughout England and is aimed specifically at wind turbine development and purely covers visual impact assessment) is clear that single frame images using a standard 50 mm lens comply with best practice. I cannot stress enough the importance of the developer being made to use single frame images within the ES. Of course the developers do not wish to as they know the public will then see the true scale of the development.

The flow chart below taken from SNH Guidance 2006 clearly shows that to illustrate predicted visual impacts to a wide audience (the public) single frame photomontage should be used. What you see is what you get with single frame images, unlike the misleading panoramic images, which distort the true view and underestimate visual impact.

Photomontage selection flow chart

We must get CCC and NCDC to understand the importance of the developers complying with best practice guidance. After all, the visual impact of a wind farm is a key planning consideration, and the only way that the visual impact can be judged is by studying accurate 50mm single frame images.

In summing up STINC recommendations are as follows:

• The developers of the current schemes are requested to supply an additional set of single frame 50mm photomontages in full A4 format as required by “Best Practice” and that these images be issued on CD-ROM.
• That these images are then uploaded onto the local authorities websites so that the public can easily download them, print them of and take to the viewpoint.
• That there is public notification of these changes.
• That no decision be taken on these current applications until this has been carried out.
• That all future applicants are requested to include an additional set of 50mm single frame photomontages within the ES and that these are the images posted on the websites and supplied on CD-ROMs. These can then be easily understood and used by the public.

The Interesting Stuff

For people with a really keen interest in this subject printed below is part of our planning rebuttal for the wind farm at Titch Barrow that pulls apart the developers current visuals (it’s all interesting stuff).

“Following independent computer analysis on the developer’s medium range photomontages, the images appear to under-represent by a factor of up to three. There are also problems with image distortion amongst other things. For a scheme of only four turbines where the visual resource and key components can easily be contained in a single photographic frame, it is our view that the applicant should have adopted this approach. None of the photomontages demonstrate the true characteristics of a 50mm lens.

STINC requests an adjournment of the planning process, on this development until it has had fair time to employ its own independent chartered landscape architect and visualisation consultants.

Following independent expert advice STINC request that the applicant for the above application provides amended and additional photomontages. The applicant has failed to comply with SNH Guidance even though the Environmental Statement cites SNH Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practice Guidance (2005), it has also failed to comply with University of Newcastle, 2002,’Visual Assessment of Windfarms: Best Practice’, and The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual impact Assessment (LI-IEMA).

1 Amended photomontages

SNH Guidance is clear “that while an image height of approximately 200mm is recommended, an image height over 130mm is considered acceptable.” (Page 75- para.129). Images at 130mm or below will make the turbines look further away and smaller than they would be in reality.

STINC requests that the applicant supplies amended photomontages that comply with SNH Guidance with regard to image height.

2 Additional photomontages

The independent expert advice concluded that the panoramic A3 photomontages could not be viewed correctly on a computer screen as a viewing distance can only relate to a fixed image size. Due to different viewing software, different loading characteristics and different monitor sizes, this is not possible. This problem is compounded by the fact that the images should only be viewed on a curved plane and will therefore appear seriously distorted when viewed on a flat computer screen.

Owing to the cost of purchasing the printed full Environmental Statement, in reality most people will view the images from a CD-ROM purchased from the applicant, or from photomontages mounted on display boards in exhibitions by the applicant. The application of a viewing distance, which is the sole justification for the panoramic images, is therefore meaningless, and the images as viewed by the public will have a powerful under-representation of the true visual impact.

A focal length of 50mm in the 35mm format can only be achieved by a 50mm lens. The images as viewed on a computer screen do not have the technical characteristics of a 50mm lens, which has a horizontal angle of view of 39 degrees, so the claim by the developers that the images have a focal length of 50mm is again meaningless as the horizontal angle of view of the images in the Environmental Statement is 70 degrees which is characteristic of a 24mm wide angle lens. The images, when viewed on a computer screen or viewed by projection are therefore highly misleading.

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment- Appendix 9- Guidelines on photomontage and CAD clearly states that….’if a practitioner wishes to use an alternative focal length, then a 50mm photograph of the same view should be provided for comparison’.

The University of Newcastle Report 2002- 7.10 (conclusion) states that ‘a full image size of A4 or even A3 for a single frame picture, giving an image height of approximately 20cm is required to give a realistic impression of reality’.

Furthermore, SNH Guidance is clear (Fig 37 page 120) that to illustrate predicted visual impacts to a wide audience single frame photomontages should be used, provided that the key characteristics of the visual resource can be incorporated in a field of view of 39 degrees or less, which is the field of view of a “standard” 50mm lens.

STINC requests that the applicant supplies an additional set of photomontages based upon 50mm single frame images printed full page A3 which is the developers chosen format, in order to comply with SNH Guidance. A full set of 50mm single frame images, shown full screen, should also be supplied in electronic form. After all, the visual impact of a wind farm is a key consideration in any planning decision, and the only way that the visual impact can be judged is by studying accurate photomontages.

3 Photomontages of associated infrastructure

Paragraph 219 of the SNH Guidance is clear that “Windfarm proposals include elements other than wind turbines, typically including tracks, borrow pits, cabling and a substation. Additionally, a windfarm development may be both directly and indirectly responsible for vegetation and land use change. If these elements are likely to result in significant impacts, either individually and/ or collectively, they should be included in photomontages if possible.”

STINC considers that these features may well result in significant impacts and request that the applicant prepares additional photomontages, which demonstrate these likely visual impacts.

4 Misleading visuals

This proposal will cause visual confusion within the fixed elements of the landscape, due to the scale of the turbines. Titch Barrow is one of the highest points along our coastal region. The development will appear to make the landform visually unstable, especially views from the AONB and parts of the SW Coast Path. Fig 6.9 photomontage P- Rough Tor, Bodmin Moor is a clear example of this even though the photomontage diminishes the landscape and makes the turbines seem further back. The day is dull, overcast, the photomontage show large amounts of foreground, all contrary to SNH Guidelines. The distance is 7.2km, however the eye is still drawn directly to the turbines, as they break the skyline. Imagine them on a clear day and in reality.

The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual impact Assessment (LI-IEMA) states in paragraph (3.4) under the Legislative Framework for EIA; “EIA is a means of systematically drawing together an assessment of a project’s likely significant environmental effects. This helps to ensure that the importance of the predicted effects and the scope for reducing them are properly understood by the public and the relevant ‘competent authority’ before it makes its decision”.

STINC considers that in terms of the way the images are depicted, the visuals are not properly understood by the public, and are therefore misleading. In terms of public perception, there is a gross underestimation of the visual impact this development will cause to the North Cornwall landscape. STINC further requests that the application goes out for reconsultation once the amended and additional images have been received from the applicant, as any decisions made based upon the previous images may be flawed due to being based on incorrect information.”

If you have read this and feel that you would like to contribute to this debate or have input into the STINC campaign to free North Cornwall of further wind farm development then please leave comments below. (click on the word comments at the top of this post)

Colin Caudery