Landscape & Visual

Introduction

This chapter describes the methodology followed for the landscape and visual impact assessment of the A75 Springholm and Crocketford Improvements (hereafter referred to as “the proposed scheme”) improvement strategies. This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) LA 104 – Environmental assessment and monitoring (revision 1) and DMRB LA 107 – Landscape and visual effects (revision 2) (hereafter referred to as “DMRB LA 104” and “DMRB LA 107” respectively) and other relevant standards and guidance set out within this chapter.

Legislative and Policy Framework

This section provides a list of relevant legislation, planning policies and landscape designations at DMRB Stage 1.

National Planning Framework 4

The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) was adopted in February 2023. The Framework sets out the Scottish Ministers’ policies and proposals for the development and use of land in Scotland and details the long-term spatial strategy, spatial principles, priority actions and National Developments up to 2045.

  • The vision set out in NPF4 is to plan future places in Scotland in line with six overarching spatial principles. These principles will play a key role in delivering on the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Scotland’s national outcomes. By applying these spatial principles, Scotland’s national spatial strategy will support the planning and delivery of sustainable, liveable and productive places. NPF4 identifies regional spatial priorities for five broad regions of Scotland which will inform the preparation of regional spatial strategies (RSS) and Local Development Plans (LDPs) by planning authorities.
  • NPF4 [IP6] [NC7] policies 4 (Natural Places), 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees), 7 (Historic Assets and Places), 8 (Green Belts), and 14 (Design, Quality, and Place) collectively reflect the Scottish Government’s ambitions and vision for landscape-impacting developments.
  • The policies aim to protect, restore, and enhance Scotland’s natural assets through sustainable management and nature-based solutions, ensuring the protection and expansion of forests, woodlands, and trees. Development proposals that enhance woodland cover are supported, while those causing significant ecological harm are opposed unless they provide substantial public benefits with compensatory planting. Historic environment assets are to be safeguarded and revitalised to support cultural identity and economic value, promoting their sustainable reuse. Additionally, a design-led approach is advocated to create high-quality, sustainable, and adaptable places that enhance the well-being and distinctiveness of communities.

Dumfries and Galloway Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2)

Dumfries and Galloway Local Development Plan 2 was adopted in October 2019. The plan covers all of Dumfries and Galloway, and “provides the planning framework guiding the future use and development of land in towns, villages and the rural area. It also provides an indication of where development, including regeneration, should happen and where it should not.”

Policy OP1: Development Considerations

Policy OP1 outlines the specific considerations development will be assessed against where relevant to the scale, nature and location of the proposal (…).

“a) General Amenity: (…) compatible with the character and amenity of the area and should not conflict with nearby land uses.

“c) Landscape: Development proposals should respect, protect and/or enhance the regions’ rich landscape character, and scenic qualities, including features and sites identified for their landscape qualities or wild land character” as identified on NatureScot Landscape Character Type Map 2019. Any development proposals should also “reflect the scale and local distinctiveness of the landscape”.

“f) Sustainability: (…) limit the impacts of climate change, support resilience, and promote sustainable development by: (…).

  • integrating with existing infrastructure where possible.
  • avoiding areas of significant flood risk.
  • using sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).
  • supporting reduction in carbon emissions through: (…) passive aspects of design including consideration of location, layout, orientation, massing, materials, detailed design, topography, and vegetation (…).

Historic Environment Policies:

  • Policy HE2: Conservation Areas.

“The Council will support development within or adjacent to a conservation area that preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area and is consistent with any relevant conservation area appraisal and management plan (…).

Natural Environment Policies:

  • Policy NE6: Sites of National Importance for Biodiversity and Geodiversity.
  • Policy NE7: Forestry and Woodland.

“The following policy will apply to those woodland/forestry felling, planting and replanting proposals which do not require planning permission but where the Council acts as a consultee to Forestry Commission Scotland” (Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS)).

“Proposals should seek to ensure that ancient and semi-natural woodlands and other woodlands with high nature conservation value are protected and enhanced.”

  • Policy NE8: Trees and Development.

“The Council will support proposals that: promote additional tree planting; protect and enhance ancient woodland sites; maintain trees, woodlands (in particular ancient and semi-natural woodlands), and hedgerows (…) and require developers to incorporate, wherever feasible, the existing woodland resource into their schemes; show how existing trees will be appropriately protected during the construction period.

“If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that it is not possible to retain the woodland resource then an appropriate replacement planting scheme will be required to be agreed by the council. Any such replacement planting scheme should (…) be located within the site.”

“Where the works to a protected tree or trees forms part of a development proposal, the applicant should also demonstrate that: The benefits (…) will outweigh the loss or potential harm caused by the works (…); the development has been designed and located in order to minimise potential adverse impacts on the protected tree or trees.”

Community Services and Facilities:

  • Policy CF2: Green Networks.

“Proposals that add to and/or enhance green networks or connections to them will be supported.”

  • Policy CF3: Open Space.

“Within settlements, there will be a presumption against the development of open space identified for protection on the inset maps. Supplementary guidance for the protection of open space in villages has been prepared. Development of open space for a purpose unrelated to use as open space will not be allowed unless: the open space can best be retained and enhanced through the redevelopment of a small part of the site; or an adequate and acceptable replacement for the open space lost as a result of the development can be provided and/or paid for by the applicant in an equally convenient and accessible location within the locality; and alternative sites have been considered and no other appropriate site can be identified.

Assessment Methodology

Overview

The methodology used in this assessment follows the standards set out in DMRB LA 104 and DMRB LA 107, in addition, the methodology also follows the principles set out in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Third Edition .

The landscape and visual impact assessment comprises a proportionate high-level assessment to identify potential likely significant effects on landscape character and elements, and visual receptors that may be affected by the construction and operation phases of the proposed scheme. Effects that are unlikely to be significant are not detailed but are summarised concisely within the landscape and visual impact assessment. Given that the assessment looks at improvement strategies with no specific route alignments developed at this stage, the assessment is qualitative, identifying potential significant effects. The assessment does not attempt to determine detailed levels of effect significance. The assessment of whether effects are potentially significant relies upon common sense, familiarity with similar schemes, experience and professional judgement, supported by reasoned argument.

Assessment of Landscape Effects

A desktop review has been undertaken as part of the assessment for this DMRB Stage 1 Environmental Appraisal Report (EAR) to identify national and local landscape designations and key characteristics of the landscape from published landscape character assessments. In addition, a preliminary site survey has been carried out to gather additional data on the local characteristics of the landscape.

Assessment of Visual Effects

For this DMRB Stage 1 EAR, a landscape walkover survey was undertaken in March 2025 to identify potential local visual receptors along with a high-level qualitative desktop review of potential effects based on their position in relation to the improvement strategies.

Data Sources

For this DMRB Stage 1 EAR, data was gathered from:

Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

The landscape and visual assessment described in this chapter is a high-level consideration of the improvement strategies, to support further route refinement and identification.

While elements of the proposed scheme within the improvement strategies would potentially be visible in long-range views from some locations beyond the study area, potential impacts on visual receptors and landscape beyond a distance of approximately 2km are not taken into consideration within this report.

To present the worst-case scenario, this assessment focuses on potential impacts predicted during construction and in the winter year of opening without the benefit of any mitigation measures. Landscape mitigation measures will be developed when detailed landscape and visual assessment of the preferred route option is undertaken at DMRB Stage 3.

Limitations

This landscape and visual assessment is only based on material available at the time of writing and as such it is subject to the following limitations:

  • The assessment is based upon a high-level review following an assessment of environmental constraints and published material available at the time.
  • The assessment undertaken is qualitative and intended to identify where there is potential for significant effects to occur to help differentiate between improvement strategies. No evaluation of receptor sensitivity, magnitude of change or significance of effects is undertaken.
  • The route alignment design and construction methodology are not sufficiently developed to provide details regarding the extent and nature of effects. Therefore, at DMRB Stage 1 assumptions are based on professional judgement.
  • The DMRB Stage 1 EAR is a desktop review with a site visit undertaken in March 2025 to verify its accuracy.

Study Area

The study area comprises an area extending 2km from the DMRB Stage 1 Assessment Corridor which represents the outer limit of the improvement strategies and is shown in Figures 7-1 to 7-3. The study area covers locations from where there is potentially a view towards the proposed scheme that could be influenced by the proposed works and resulting changes, and the full extent of any Landscape Character Types (LCT) likely to be affected within the 2km buffer. The topography within the study area is gently undulating with minor variations formed by small hills and ridges. There is a moderate rise in landform to the north and south allowing for some longer-range views across the area. The study area will be refined through the assessment process to ensure that all significant landscape and visual effects are identified.

The baseline conditions describe the context of the study area based on a review of data across approximately 2km from the DMRB Stage 1 Assessment Corridor.

Baseline Conditions

The landscape and visual baseline conditions have been described for the current year (2025), following a desktop review of published sources of information and field survey work in March 2025. Baseline conditions have been informed by aerial photographs and OS data, collating information on topography, surface water features, landcover, land use, landscape pattern and the locations of potential visual receptors.

Landscape and Landscape Related Designations within and close to the 2km Study Area

The following sub-sections detail the statutory designations that are located within the 2km study area or are located within close proximity.

National Scenic Areas (NSA)

There is no NSA within the study area. The Nith Estuary NSA is located approximately 3.5km south of the study area but it is unlikely that any of the improvement strategies would have a significant effect on it.

Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

The following are located within the study area:

  • Milton Loch SSSI
  • Torrs Moss SSSI

Conservation Areas

The following is located within the study area:

Kirkpatrick Durham Conservation Area

Garden and Designed Landscapes (GDL)

There are no GDLs within the study area. Threave Gardens are located approximately 1.5km SW of the study area but it is unlikely the improvement strategies would have a significant effect on it.

Scheduled Monuments (SM)

The following are all located within the study area:

  • East Hill Farmhouse, Stone Circle
  • Green Island, Milton Loch, Fort
  • Meikle Cairn, Minnydow, Cairn
  • Doon of Urr, Doon Hill, Mote of Doon
  • Ernespie, Castle Douglas, Remains of Stone Circle
  • Motte of Urr, Motte

Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI)

There are numerous scattered areas of AWI, located within the study area and within improvement strategies. Most of these are of plantation origin with some semi-natural.

Local Landscape Character (LLA)

The eastern end of the study area is partially within the Terregles Ridge designated LLA.

  • “Terregles ridge contains and forms the western setting to Dumfries, separating the Nith Valley from the contrasting drumlin landscapes stretching west to Castle Douglas.
  • The ridge is dissected by the Old Water and other tributaries of the Nith to create a very diverse landscape of transitional uplands and steep sided valleys concentrated within a small area.
  • It is criss-crossed by lanes serving scattered farms and hamlets and traversed by major through routes. It is readily accessible from the adjacent well populated lowlands and forms part of the setting to Dumfries and the Drumlin Pastures to the west.
  • (…)the three contrasting landscape types exhibits its own internal diversity. The Upland Fringe has an attractive knolly topography with areas of enclosed improved pastures and rough grazing, interspersed with gorse knolls and scattered woodlands, whilst the Foothills have a wilder landscape of open heather moorland, bracken and rock outcrops. The Intimate Pastoral Valleys include the valley floor pastures and arable lands of the Cluden which are flanked by a mosaic of grasslands, heather, bracken, native woodlands and plantation forestry, as well as the wild moorland landscape of Glenkiln reservoir with its sculptures, and the steep sided wooded lower Cairn valley.”

Landscape Context

The study area extends across five LCTs namely Upland Fringe, Pastoral Valley, Foothills, Drumlin Pastures and Narrow Wooded River Valley. The prevalent LCT within the study area is Drumlin Pastures which is characterised by a gently rolling landform with distinctive rounded hills and hollows. These rounded hills are usually topped with gorse and other scrubby vegetation. The landscape is dominated with pastoral farmland, delineated with hedgerows, ditches, walls and trees. Scattered farmsteads and settlements mostly occupying the higher ground. The Narrow Wooded River Valley LCT follows the course of the Urr Water, cutting across the Drumlin Pastures in the southern part of the study area. The high ground of the northern fringes of the study area overlaps areas of Foothills and Upland Fringe LCTs separated by a small area of Pastoral Valley LCT, and which partially overlap with the Terregles Ridge LLA.

The Terregles Ridge LLA does not overlap with any of the improvement strategies so would not be directly affected but as it occupies higher ground there are likely to be views from it towards Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 which end at the Drummore Roundabout approximately 600m away from the designation boundary.

The topography of the study area is undulating lowlands and hills with higher elevations to the north and south of the study area. The lowlands are interspersed with shallow valleys with a network of watercourses and water bodies. The largest water bodies within the study area are Auchenreoch Loch, Milton Loch and Lochrutton Loch. The largest watercourse within the study area is the Urr Water. The landscape is characterised by an irregular patchwork of field/agricultural land defined by differing boundaries including trees, hedgerows, ditches and dry-stone walls. Interspersed between the field network are numerous small, scattered woodland areas of both conifer plantation and broadleaf species.

The main settlements within the study area include the villages of Crocketford, Springholm, Kirkpatrick Durham, Haugh of Urr and the town of Castle Douglas. Most of these settlements aside from Castle Douglas intersect with improvement strategies. Additionally, there are numerous smaller settlements and individual dwellings scattered across the study area.

Various core paths are present within the study area along with the National Cycle Network (NCN) 7 cycle route which follows the Old Military Road through the study area from south-west to north-east, roughly in parallel with the A75.

Potential Receptors

Visual Receptors

The potential visual receptors within the study area are grouped into viewer type and listed in the sub-sections below.

Residents

Residential properties in Castle Douglas, Springholm, Crocketford, Kirkpatrick Durham, Haugh of Urr, Old Bridge of Urr, Lochfoot, Brae, Clarebrand, Hardgate, Milton and number of scattered residential properties within study area.

Road Users

B795, B794, A712, Old Military Road and sections of the A75 to be de-trunked as part of the proposed scheme.

Walkers and Cyclists

Core paths and NCN7.

Visitors

Galloway Tourist Route.

Workers

Farms, Commercial properties, Shops and Offices.

Public and Transient

The Inn on the Loch, Galloway Arms Hotel, Brandedleys Caravan Park and other holiday rentals within the study area.

Pupils, Visitors and Workers

Springholm Primary School, Springholm Nursery, Hardgate Primary School, Lochrutton Primary School, Shawhead Primary School, Castle Douglas High School and Castle Douglas Primary School.

Landscape Receptors

The potential landscape receptors within the study area are grouped by type and listed in the sub-sections below.

Landscape Character Types (LCT)

LCT 169 Drumlin Pastures, LCT 175 Foothills, LCT161 Pastoral Valley, LCT 172 Upland Fringe and LCT 160 Narrow Wooded Valley.

Local Landscape Area (LLA)

Terregles Ridge

Conservation Area

Kirkpatrick Durham Conservation Area

Biosphere Reserves

Galloway and Ayrshire Biosphere Reserve

Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI)

Milton Loch SSSI and Torrs Moss SSSI

Scheduled Monuments (SM)

There are six SM within the study area.

Ancient Woodlands

There are numerous areas of Ancient Woodland within the study area with the largest concentrations close to the north-east boundary of the DMRB Stage 1 Assessment Corridor, north-west and south-east of Auchenreoch Loch and in clusters along the Urr Water valley.

Watercourses

There are a number of rivers and inland waterbodies within the study area including:

  • The Urr Water and its tributaries
  • Auchenreoch Loch
  • Milton Loch
  • Lochrutton Loch
  • Various minor watercourses and small lochs
Hills

Several hills and undulating landform in the study area:

  • Improvement Strategy 1: Tarbreoch, Knockwalloch, Crocketford Hill and Hill Head.
  • Improvement Strategy 2: Knockwalloch, Crocketford Hill and Drum (nr Bettyknowes Plantation).
  • Improvement Strategy 3: Slopes of Shot Hill.
  • Improvement Strategy 4: Shot Hill.
  • Improvement Strategy 5: Barfil Hill, Cairny Hill, Longshot Hill, Shenrick Hill and Tan Hill.

Improvement Strategy 6: Barnbackle Hill, Mill Hill, Burnfell Hill, Fell Hill (nr Black Plantation), Horse Hill (nr Crofthead), Park Hill, Red Brae and Tarbreoch Hill.

Tree Preservation Order (TPO)

No data available at time of writing of the report.

Potential Impacts

Construction Phase Impacts

Activities likely to cause impacts on both landscape and visual receptors during construction include (but not limited to) the following:

  • Movement of construction plant.
  • Earthworks operations.
  • Removal of existing screening vegetation.
  • Construction compounds.
  • Establishment and use of haul roads for construction traffic.
  • Temporary lighting needed for the works.
  • Creation and maintenance of stockpiled soils and materials.
  • Demolition operations.
  • Diversion of watercourses.

Operational Phase Impacts

Scheme elements with the potential to cause impacts on both landscape and visual receptors during operation include (but may not be limited to) the following:

  • Alterations to landscape character.
  • Visual impacts and reduced tranquillity (through movement, noise and light pollution from vehicles on the new section of road.
  • Loss of screening vegetation increasing visibility of traffic.
  • Introduction of new/revised signage.
  • Changes to landform, pattern and land use.
  • Introduction of new/revised roads and structures.
  • Loss or damage to landscape features.
  • Severance/diversion of watercourses and drainage patterns.

Design, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

Mitigation Measures

In order to mitigate landscape and visual effects as far as reasonably practicable, mitigation will be considered and incorporated where possible during all iteration of the road design. As the assessment is in a preliminary phase it is not possible to identify specific mitigation measures for each improvement strategy. The following have been identified as potential mitigation measures:

  • Existing landform and topography – the naturally undulating character of the landscape provides a natural screening effect.
  • Native hedgerows and dry-stone walls – characteristic of the Drumlin pastures LCA and existing landscape pattern.
  • Tree planting – ‘pockets’ of tree planting are characteristic of the landscape. Careful selection of new planting will have a residual mitigation on visibility of the proposed scheme. Tree planting will compensate for any removal of screening removal and connect fractured habitat corridors.
  • Refinement of the horizontal and vertical alignment of the route and the position of the junctions to reduce the impacts of the proposed scheme on views, landform, vegetation, field pattern and landscape features.
  • Selection of native plant material of local provenance.
  • Enhancing the natural habitat of local wildlife by planting with appropriate species diversity.

Enhancement Measures

No specific enhancement measures were identified at this stage. As the proposed scheme progresses, the assessment will look to identify opportunities for enhancement, and this will be reported in future DMRB stages. Wherever possible, potential landscape improvement opportunities will aim to provide high quality biodiversity enhancement.

Assessment of Likely Significant Effects

Construction Phase

Construction activities are likely to have a significant effect for all improvement strategies due to the rural location of the proposed scheme. Works would include the construction of permanent elements such as realigned carriageway, improvements to side roads, any structures and culverts, and associated earthworks. Temporary elements such as haul roads, temporary storage areas and compounds, and associated changes to the existing landform, although these elements would be expected to be reinstated as part of the works. Construction operations would likely cause changes to the landform in addition to removal of existing screening vegetation which would likely increase road prominence in the landscape.

Landscape/Townscape Receptors

The following sub-sections provide a summary of the potential significant effects on landscape/townscape receptors during construction phase.

Terregles Ridge LLA

None of the improvement strategies would directly and adversely affect the landscape of Terregles Ridge. Potential (indirect) non-significant effects on views from the LLA towards construction in Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 west of Drummore Roundabout.

Landscape Character Types and Townscape

Potential receptors identified include:

  • LCT 169 Drumlin Pastures
  • LCT 161 Pastoral Valley
  • LCT 172 Upland Fringe
  • LCT 160 Narrow Wooded Valley
  • LCT 175 Foothills
  • Townscape of Springholm and Crocketford

Changes that would have an impact on landscape character includes removal of trees and, severance of boundary features including hedges and drystone walls, exposed earthworks and alteration to natural landform and introduction of construction traffic affecting the tranquillity of the rural landscape.

None of the improvement strategies would directly affect LCT 161, LCT 172 and LCT 175 (all of which lie to the north of Improvement Strategy 1). However, Improvement Strategy 1 runs close to the boundary of the Foothills – Dumfries and Galloway LCT and has the potential to result in indirect effects (on views).

Improvement Strategies 1, and 6 would have the most significant effects on the Drumlin Pastures LCT (LCT 169) due their length, earthworks required to construct the road and new structures and established vegetation loss. Improvement Strategy 2 would also have significant effects on LCT 169, but to a lesser degree than the longer Improvement Strategies 1 and 6.

Improvement Strategy 3 would be likely to have the least significant adverse effect as much of the route follows the existing A75 corridor.

Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 would cross the Urr Water Valley offline potentially significantly affecting the Narrow Wooded Valley LCT (LCT 160). Improvement Strategy 5 would also cut through LCT 160 but would be likely to have lesser impact as it would be on or close to the line of the existing A75 at and south of the Urr Water Crossing.

Improvement Strategy 2 would merge with the existing A75 close the northern edge of LCT before the Urr Water crossing so would have a lesser effect than Improvement Strategy 5. Improvement Strategies 3 and 4 would have no direct effect on LCT 160.

Improvements Strategies 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 would all result in beneficial effects along the existing A75 corridor within the settlements of Springholm and Crocketford.

Improvement Strategy 3 would potentially require the demolition of buildings along the A75 corridor within Springholm and Crocketford, which, along with increased severance caused by carriageway widening would be likely to have significant adverse effects on the townscape of the two settlements.

Kirkpatrick Durham Conservation Area

The proposed scheme is unlikely to have a significant direct effect on the Conservation Area but the temporary adverse effects during construction in Improvement Strategies 1 and 2 would be likely.

Galloway and Ayrshire Biosphere Reserve

All improvement strategies are unlikely to have a significant effect on the Biosphere Reserve. The likely effects include a change of rural landscape character and severance of habitat/wildlife corridors and greenspaces.

Improvement Strategies 1, 2 and 5 would likely have the most impact due to improvement strategy length. Improvement Strategy 4 is shorter than Improvement Strategies 1,2 and 5 and therefore is likely to have less of an impact on the Biosphere Reserve. Improvement Strategy 3 would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the rural landscape character within the Biosphere Reserve as the route follows the existing A75 alignment. Improvement Strategy 6 is mostly outside the Biosphere Reserve boundary.

Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI)

Improvement Strategies 1, 2 and 3 may have a significant effect on some areas of AWI, depending on the route alignment.

Improvement Strategies 4, 5 and 6 would not have a direct adverse effect on AWI areas.

Other Trees, Hedges and Boundary Features

All improvement strategies would require removal of other trees, hedgerows and boundary features such as dry-stone walls. Improvement Strategies 1, 2, and 6 would be likely to have the most adverse effect, due to their length and rural location. Likely effects would include changes to landscape pattern, rural landscape character and severance to habitat corridors and green networks to accommodate temporary access and storage compounds for construction sites.

Improvement Strategy 3 would be likely to have the least significant effect as much of the proposed improvement strategy follows the existing A75.

Improvement Strategy 4 would have a greater effect than Improvement Strategy 3 and lesser effect than the other options.

Improvement Strategy 5 would have a more significant effect on trees, hedges and boundary features than Improvement Strategies 3 and 4 due to its greater length and rural location. However, its effects would be less significant than those of Improvement Strategy 1 ,2 and 6.

Hills

All improvement strategies would require significant earthworks associated with cuttings and embankments to the surrounding hills and undulating landform.

Improvement Strategy 1 would have direct adverse effects on hill at Knockwarley Plantation, Tarbreoch Hill, Knockwalloch Hill Crocketford Hill, Hillhead Braeand Drum and Hanging Brae.

Improvement Strategy 2 would have a direct adverse effect on Moat Hill, Knockwalloch Hill, Crocketford Hill, Hillhead Brea and Drum.

Improvement Strategy 4 would have a direct adverse effect on Shot Hill.

Improvement Strategy 5 would have a direct adverse effect on Barfil Hill, Cairny Hill, Longshot Hill, Shenrick Hill and the lower slopes of Tan Hill.

Improvement Strategy 6 would have a direct adverse effect on Barnbackle Hill, Round Hill of Newark, East Hill, Hawthorn Hill, Drumwhin, Knowlie, Cairn Hill and Corse Hill.

Improvement Strategies 1, 2 and 6 would be likely to have the most significant effects on the landform due to their location and length. Improvement Strategy 3 would have the least significant effects on the landform as much of the proposed improvement strategy follows the existing A75, with minimal earthworks likely to be required. Improvement Strategies 4 and 5 would be likely to have to greater impact than Improvement Strategy 3, but less than the other options.

Watercourses, Waterbodies and Blue-Green Infrastructure

All improvement strategies cross various minor watercourses.

Improvement Strategies 1, 5 and 6 would cross Urr Water potentially resulting in significant temporary effects

Construction in Improvement Strategy 3 would potentially have a temporary adverse effects on the setting of Auchenreoch Loch.

Visual Receptors

The following sub-sections provide a summary of the potential significant effects on visual receptors during construction phase.

Residents

Potential receptors were identified at the following locations:

  • Springholm
  • Crocketford
  • Clarebrand
  • Haugh of Urr
  • Old Bridge of Urr
  • Kirkpatrick Durham
  • Lochfoot
  • Brae
  • Milton
  • Hardgate

Improvement Strategy 1 would likely have an adverse effect on residents of Brae, Kirkpatrick Durham, Old Bridge of Urr, Clarebrand and individual properties near alignment. Residents of Crocketford and Springholm would experience a beneficial effect.

Improvement Strategy 2 would likely have an adverse effect on residents of Brae, Kirkpatrick Durham and individual properties near the alignment. Residents of Crocketford and Springholm would likely experience a beneficial effect.

Improvement Strategy 3 would likely have a significant adverse effect to residents of Crocketford, Springholm and individual properties near the alignment.

Improvement Strategy 4 would likely have a significant adverse effect on residents of Crocketford, Springholm and individual properties near the alignment.

Improvement Strategy 5 would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on be residents of Crocketford, Springholm, Hardgate and individual properties near the alignment.

Improvement Strategy 6 would have a significant adverse effect on residents of Haugh of Urr, Hardgate, Milton and Lochfoot.

Improvement Strategies 1, 2 and 6 would likely have the most significant adverse effects due to their location on higher ground and proximity to settlements and dwellings. Improvement Strategy 6 would be highly visible to residents of Hardgate and Haugh of Urr. The length of each improvement strategy would also have a higher adverse effect on the rural character of the landscape.

Improvement Strategy 3 would have the most significant visual effects on properties along the A75 corridor within Crocketford and Springholm as a result of carriageway widening, including potential demolition of properties alongside the existing A75, which would potentially open up views to the widening works from neighbouring areas. As it is the shortest route and much of it is on the line of the existing A75, this improvement strategy would have the least visual effects on rural receptors outwith Springholm and Crocketford.

Road Users

Users of roads intersecting and adjacent to the improvement strategies would be likely to have full or partial views of the temporary works. Likely effects include altered traffic flows within and around study area affecting the rural character. This is across all improvement strategies. Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 would be likely to have the greatest effect due to length of route, followed by Improvement Strategies 2 and 5. Improvement Strategies 2 and 3 would have the least effect, although demolition of properties in Springholm and Crocketford which may be required for Improvement Strategy 3 has the potential to result in adverse effects on views experienced from the A75.

Recreation Users

Potential receptors include users of core footpaths and NCN7.

Users of core footpaths would be likely to experience full or partial views of construction works. Visibility is likely from all improvement strategies.

Users of the NCN7 would be likely to experience significant effects on views of works associated to Improvement Strategy 6.

Likely effects include removal of screening vegetation, increased traffic from road diversions that would affect the rural character of the area.

The most significant effects would likely result from the Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 as they cover the greatest total area, followed by Improvement Strategies 2 and 5. Improvement Strategies 3 and 4 would have the least effect.

Visitors and Tourists

Users of the Galloway Tourist Route (A711) are unlikely to experience any significant effects. Visitors/Tourists would likely experience full or partial views of all improvement strategies. Likely adverse effects include increased traffic and removal of screening vegetation that would affect the rural character. Visitors/Tourists at Brandedleys Caravan Park would likely experience significant adverse effect from construction in Improvement Strategy 4 (likely to have the most significant effect passing through the rural landscape at close range) and Improvement Strategy 5. Views from parts of the caravan park would also be gained of construction in Improvement Strategies 1 and 2.

Workers

Workers, in particular those associated with farming/agriculture, are likely to experience significant adverse visual effects from the introduction of construction works into the rural landscape. The most significant effects experienced in rural locations would be likely to result from the Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 as they have the greatest total area, followed by Improvement Strategies 2 and 5. Improvement Strategies 3 and 4 have the least effect on workers in rural locations. However, demolition of properties in Springholm and Crocketford which may be required for Improvement Strategy 3 would result in adverse effects on views from workplaces within the two settlements.

Operation Phase

All improvement strategies are likely to have a significant effect on receptors during the operational phase due to the rural location of the proposed scheme. Such effects would arise from a permanent change to landform and pattern due to a new alignment of the existing A75 corridor. A new alignment will result in new road infrastructure, signage and lighting, affecting the rural character and views of the landscape, in addition to changes in traffic flow through the study area. Proposed mitigation measures will likely have a residual effect on landscape and visual receptors.

Landscape/Townscape Receptors

The follow sub-sections provide a summary of the likley significant effects on the landscape/townscape receptors during operational phase.

Terregles Ridge LLA

Potential (indirect) effects on views from the LLA towards Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 approximately 600m west of Drummore Roundabout. Other improvement strategies are unlikely to have any notable effect on views due to distance.

Landscape Character Types and Townscape

Potential receptors identified include:

  • LCT 169 Drumlin Pastures
  • LCT 175 Foothills
  • LCT 161 Pastoral Valey
  • LCT 172 Upland Fringe
  • LCT 160 Narrow Wooded Valley
  • Townscape of Springholm and Crocketford

Adverse effects would likely result from changes in landform and landscape pattern synonymous with the LCT and loss of important elements including tree cover, hedgerows and drystone walls. These effects would arise from new infrastructure, alignment and associated works such as embankments and cuttings to accommodate new road layout. This is likely across all improvement strategies.

The most significant effects on the rural landscape would be likely to result Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 as they have the greatest total area, followed by Improvement Strategies 2 and 5. Improvement Strategies 3 and 4 have the least effect.

Improvements Strategies 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 would all result in beneficial effects along the existing A75 corridor within the settlement of Springholm and Crocketford.

Improvement Strategy 3 may require the demolition of buildings along the A75 corridor within Springholm and Crocketford, which, along with increased severance caused by carriageway widening would have significant adverse effects on the townscape of the two settlements.

Kirkpatrick Durham Conservation Area

Potential effects on the rural landscape setting of the Conservation Area due to views of Improvement Strategies 1 and 2 introducing new infrastructure, traffic and change in landform and landscape pattern closer to the Conservation Area.

Galloway and Ayrshire Biosphere Reserve

Improvement Strategies 1, 2 and 5 are in majority located within the Galloway and Ayrshire Biosphere Reserve and would be likely to have the most significant effects due to their length and locations.

Improvement Strategy 4 is almost entirely located within the Biosphere Reserve, but effects would likely to be less significant than those for Improvement Strategies 1,2 and 5 due to this option partially following the existing A75 corridor.

Improvement Strategies 3 and 6 would be likely to have the least significant effects. Improvement Strategy 3 would be seen within the existing A75 corridor and Improvement Strategy 6 cross the biosphere reserve in a small section north-east from Haugh of Urr.

Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI)

Improvement Strategies 1 and 2 are likely to have the most significant direct effects due to the three areas of AWI being located within these improvement strategies.

Improvement Strategies 3,4,5 and 6 would neither directly or significantly affect areas of AWI.

Other Trees, Hedges and Boundary Features

Due to their length, Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 would be likely to have the greatest adverse impact on the landscape pattern, caused by alteration and potential removal of hedgerows, dry stone walls and other boundary features. Improvement Strategies 3 and 4 would have the least significant impact on these features as these routes are the shortest and affect fewer boundaries.

Removal of these boundary features is likely to have an adverse effect on the landscape pattern and character, and result in the severance of habitat corridors and green networks.

Hills

All improvement strategies would result in a permanent alteration to landform in the surrounding topography due to the installation of earthworks and cuttings.

Improvement Strategy 1 would likely result in significant alterations in landform to Knockwarley Plantation, Tarbreoch Hill, Knockwalloch Hill Crocketford Hill, Hillhead Brae and Drum and Hanging Brae, including the topography nearby. The changes to topography are likely to impact the setting of the rural landscape to the North.

Improvement Strategy 2 would likely result in significant alterations to the landforms of Moat Hill, Knockwalloch Hill, Crocketford Hill, Hillhead Brea and Drum, including the topography nearby.

Improvement Strategy 4 would likely result in a permanent adverse alteration to Shot Hill.

Improvement Strategy 5 would likely result in significant and permanent alterations in landform to Barfil Hill, Cairny Hill, Longshot Hill, Shenrick Hill and the lower slopes of Tan Hill, and surrounding slopes and undulations. The permanent alterations in the topography would likely have an adverse effect on the rural character of the landscape to the South.

Improvement Strategy 6 would likely result in the most significant effects resulting from permanent alterations in landform to Barnbackle Hill, Round Hill of Newark, East Hill, Hawthorn Hill, Drumwhin, Knowlie, Cairn Hill and Corse Hill, and surrounding slopes and undulations. The changes in landform would likely have an adverse impact to the rural landscape setting exacerbated by the elevated position of this improvement strategy.

Permanent alteration to the landform caused by Improvement Strategies 1 and 5 would likely have the second most significant adverse impact due to the hilly terrain, elevation and route length. This is followed by Improvement Strategy 2 with Improvement Strategies 3 and 4 causing the least significant impact.

Watercourses, Waterbodies and Blue-Green infrastructure

All improvement strategies cross various minor watercourses potentially severing blue-green infrastructure, impacting local valley landforms and requiring new structures. Improvement Strategies 1, 5 and 6 cross the Urr Water. Improvement Strategy 3 would adversely affect the setting of Auchenreoch Loch. Improvement Strategy 4 would be likely to have the least adverse effects and Improvement Strategy 6 the greatest.

Visual Receptors

The follow sub-sections provide a summary of the potential significant effects on the visual receptors during operational phase.

Residential Properties

Potential receptors were identified at the following locations:

  • Springholm
  • Crocketford
  • Clarebrand
  • Haugh of Urr
  • Old Bridge of Urr
  • Kirkpatrick Durham
  • Lochfoot
  • Brae
  • Milton
  • Hardgate
  • Numerous scattered farmsteads and private houses

All improvement strategies apart from (online) Improvement Strategy 3 would have a beneficial visual effect on views from properties in Springholm and Crocketford which currently overlook the A75 through diverting traffic to an offline route.

Improvement Strategy 1 would have adverse effects on residents of Crocketford with rural views to the north, Brae, Kirkpatrick Durham, Old Bridge of Urr, Clarebrand and individual properties near alignment.

Improvement Strategy 2 would likely have adverse effects to residents of Brae, Kirkpatrick Durham and individual properties near alignment.

Improvement Strategy 3 would be likely to have significant adverse effects on residents of Crocketford, Springholm along the existing A75 corridor due to widening of the carriageway and potential demolition of properties, potentially opening up views to the road from neighbouring areas.

Improvement Strategy 4 would likely have an adverse effect on east facing rural views experienced by residents of Crocketford, Springholm and individual properties near the alignment.

Improvement Strategy 5 would likely have a significant adverse effect to rural views experienced by residents in southern parts of Crocketford, in Springholm on the east side of the existing A75, Hardgate and individual properties near the alignment.

Improvement Strategy 6 would have a significant adverse effect to residents of Haugh of Urr, Hardgate, Milton, Lochfoot and individual properties near the alignment.

Improvement Strategy 6 would be likely to have the most significant adverse effects due to its elevated position, proximity to settlements and length. Although Improvement Strategies 1, 2 and 5 do not pass through settlements, they are close in proximity and likely to adversely impact views of the rural landscape. Improvement Strategy 1 is the longest route, and likely to be visible to many individual properties and settlements.

Improvement Strategy 3 would be likely to have the greatest adverse visual effects on residents of Springholm and Crocketford but the least impact on views from other settlements and scattered rural residential properties.

Road Users

Likely effects on views to the A75 experienced from local roads and new views from offline A75 routes to the surrounding landscape. The greatest impacts on views from local roads are likely to be associated with the longer improvement strategies (Improvement Strategies 1 and 6) with the least impacts resulting from Improvement Strategies 3 and 4. There would likely be benefits for road users on Improvement Strategies 1, 2, 5 and 6 as new views of the rural landscape would likely be experienced.

Recreation Users

Potential receptors include users of core footpaths and NCN7.

Users of core footpaths and NCN7 Likely significant effects would result from changes to alignment, landform and screening vegetation. Scale of visibility will be dependent on improvement strategy. Users of core footpaths are likely to be significantly affected across all improvement strategies. Users of the NCN7 would be likely experience significant adverse effects from Improvement Strategy 6. Improvement Strategies 1-5 are unlikely to have any effect on the NCN7 due to screening from the natural topography.

The most significant effects for core path users would be likely to result from Improvement Strategies 1, 2, 5 and 6 due to changes in landform, the visual prominence of the new routes and their intersection/ crossing with core paths. Improvement Strategies 3 and 4 are likely to have the least effect on core footpath users due to minimal change from existing A75 alignment.

Visitors/Tourists

Visitors are likely to experience an increase or decrease in visibility from a new alignment and changes to landform depending on the improvement strategy. Visitors/tourists to Brandedleys Caravan Park would experience a significant adverse effect from Improvement Strategy 4. Improvement Strategies 1, 2 and 6 would likely have the most beneficial effect for visitors and tourists as views to the surrounding rural landscape would be gained. This beneficial effect would also be gained from Improvement Strategy 5 but to less extent due to a lower elevation in the landscape and proximity to the settlements of Crocketford and Springholm. Visitors to Springholm and Crocketford are likely to experience adverse visual effects as a result of the carriageway widening, potential demolition of properties along the A75 corridor and alterations to townscape required for Improvement Strategy 3.

Workers

Workers, in particular those associated with farming/agriculture, are likely to experience adverse visual effects. The most significant effects would be likely to result from Improvement Strategies 1 and 6 as they would have the greatest effect on workers in rural areas, followed by Improvement Strategies 2 and 5. Improvement Strategies 3 and 4 have the least effect on workers in rural areas, however, Improvement Strategy 3 would be likely to have significant effects on views experienced from workplaces within Springholm and Crocketford.

Proposed Scope of Future Assessment

A scoping exercise will be undertaken at DMRB Stage 2 to determine which aspects of the landscape and visual receptors would be scoped in for further assessment. The next stage of assessment will align with DMRB LA 104 and DMRB LA 107 and other relevant guidance. A comparative assessment of the proposed route options during construction and operational phases will be undertaken at DMRB Stage 2.

The recommended methodology for the DMRB Stage 2 assessment is to further review baseline conditions, particularly those which effect the proposed route options. This will involve further review of relevant LCAs and policy, in addition to using OS and topographical information. Further site surveys will be required to identify visual and landscape receptors in relation to the existing baseline conditions.

Summary

All six improvement strategies have been assessed with regards to their potential impacts on landscape and visual receptors. Each improvement strategy presents differing levels of potential impact to landscape and visual receptors. All improvement strategies would result in changes to the rural landscape character and views from residential properties, active travel routes, local roads and other locations within the surrounding landscape.

Improvement Strategy 6 is the second longest and would likely have the most significant adverse effect to landscape and visual receptors south of the existing A75. Significant effects would result from permanent changes to the landform on high ground including several hills, impacts on the landscape pattern, severance and loss of woodland (including native woodlands), habitat corridors and green networks (including along the Urr Water and various minor watercourses) together with the introduction of the new road infrastructure and traffic into the rural landscape. There is also potential for indirect effects (on views) of this improvement strategy from Terregles LLA. The length of the improvement strategy, its elevated position in the landscape and its proximity to numerous individual properties and several settlements, most notably Hardgate and Haugh of Urr, would be likely to result in significant visual effects. Parts of this improvement strategy run close to NCN7 so would likely have adverse visual effects on cyclists. This improvement strategy would result in beneficial landscape and visual effects along the existing A75 route resulting from reductions in traffic including improved townscape and visual amenity within Springholm and Crocketford.

Similar in length to Improvement Strategy 6, Improvement Strategy 1 would also be likely to have a significant adverse effect on both landscape and visual receptors. Significant effects would result from permanent changes to the landform and pattern on high ground with several hills and surrounding topography permanently altered, impacts on the landscape pattern, severance and loss of woodland (including AWI), habitat corridors, green networks (including along the Urr Water and various minor watercourses) and boundary features including drystone walls together with the introduction of the new road infrastructure and traffic into the rural landscape. This improvement strategy would result in loss and severance of AWI woodlands and likely impacts on undulating landform north of Auchenreoch Loch. There is also potential for indirect effects (on views) of this option from Terregles LLA. The length of the improvement strategy, its partly elevated position in the landscape proximity to settlements including Brae, Kirkpatrick Durham, Old Bridge of Urr, Clarebrand, Crocketford and numerous individual properties to the north of the existing A75 would be likely to result in significant visual effects. The rural setting north of Auchenreoch Loch would be affected, with the visual receptors at The Inn on the Loch impacted, though there would be benefits on the south side of the loch from reduced traffic on the existing A75. This improvement strategy would result in beneficial landscape and visual effects along the existing A75 route including improved townscape and visual amenity within Springholm and Crocketford.

Improvement Strategy 2 would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on both landscape and visual receptors. Significant effects would result from permanent changes to the landform and pattern on high ground with several hills and surrounding topography permanently altered, impacts on the landscape pattern, severance and loss of woodland (including AWI), habitat corridors, green networks and boundary features. The central section of this improvement strategy, which follows the same route as Improvement Strategy 1, would result in loss and severance of AWI woodlands and likely impacts on undulating landform north of Auchenreoch Loch. Residents of Kirkpatrick Durham, Brae and north facing properties in Crocketford and rural properties would be likely to experience adverse visual effects. The rural landscape north of Auchenreoch Loch would be affected, with the visual receptors at The Inn on the Loch impacted, though there would be benefits on the south side of the loch from reduced traffic on the existing A75. This improvement strategy would result in beneficial landscape and visual effects along the existing A75 route including improved townscape and visual amenity within Springholm and Crocketford.

Improvement Strategy 5 is considered likely to have broadly similar overall levels of landscape and visual effects to Improvement Strategy 2, but with the most significant landscape and visual effects likely to result from the route crossing high ground of Barfil Hill, Cairny Hill, Longshot Hill and the northern slopes of Tan Hill. This improvement strategy would also result in changes to the landscape pattern and severance and loss of woodland, habitat corridors, green networks and boundary features. Visual receptors in Springholm, Crocketford and Hardgate as well as rural properties would likely be affected by views of this improvement strategy. The reduction/ removal of traffic on the existing A75 alongside Auchenreoch Loch would improve the landscape setting of the loch and enhance visual amenity. This improvement strategy would result in beneficial landscape and visual effects along the existing A75 route including improved townscape and visual amenity within Springholm and Crocketford.

Improvement Strategy 4 is considerably shorter than Improvement Strategies 1,2, 5 and 6 and closer to the existing A75. This improvement strategy, which follows the lower valley slopes and valley floor avoiding hills and AWI woodland, and severing a relatively small number of field boundary features/ green corridors would have less significant adverse landscape effects than Improvement Strategies 1,2,5 and 6, while providing improved townscape and visual amenity in the bypassed settlements of Springholm and Crocketford. However, it would potentially affect the landscape setting of a group of listed buildings at Newbank Mill. The reduction/ removal of traffic on the existing A75 alongside Auchenreoch Loch would improve the landscape setting of the loch and enhance visual amenity. There is the potential for significant effects on rural views currently experienced from residential properties in Springholm, Crocketford and Brandedleys Holiday Park.

Improvement Strategy 3 is online and would therefore result in the least adverse effects on the rural landscape and visual effects on rural properties but would have significant adverse effects on the townscape and visual amenity within Springholm and Crocketford. Visual effects on residents, workers and visitors in the two villages during construction are likely to be significant, as a result of widening and potential demolition of properties along the existing A75. During operation, visual effects are likely to significantly worse than those currently experienced, due to road widening and removal of existing screening features, including buildings which currently screen the existing A75 from neighbouring areas, particularly as space for mitigation measures would be limited.

Improvement Strategy 3 would be likely to have the least adverse effects on the rural landscape and least visual effects on scattered rural properties of all the improvement strategies but the most significant effects on the townscape and visual receptors along the existing A75 within Springholm and Crocketford. Of the remaining (offline) improvement strategies, Improvement Strategy 4 would be likely to have the least adverse landscape and visual effects, followed by Improvement Strategies 2 and 5, then Improvement Strategy 1 and Improvement Strategy 6 likely to have the greatest adverse effects.