16. Cultural Heritage

16.1. Introduction

1. This chapter of the Offshore EIA Report presents the assessment of the likely significant effect (as per the “EIA Regulations”) on the environment of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm offshore infrastructure which is the subject of this application (hereafter referred to as “the Proposed Development”) on the setting of cultural heritage assets. Specifically, this chapter considers the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development seaward of Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases.
2. Likely significant effect is a term used in both the “EIA Regulations” and the Habitat Regulations. Reference to likely significant effect in this Offshore EIA Report refers to “likely significant effect” as used by the “EIA Regulations”. This Offshore EIA Report is accompanied by a Report to Inform Appropriate Assessment (RIAA) which uses the term as defined by the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) Regulations.
3. This chapter also assesses the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on onshore receptors (landward of MHWS) during the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases.
4. The assessment presented is informed by data regarding visibility and utilises the description of visual change presented in volume 2, chapter 15, and visual representations (photomontages) as shown in volume 3, appendix 15.2.
5. This chapter summarises information contained within volume 3, appendix 16.1.

16.2. Purpose of this Chapter

6. The primary purpose of the Offshore EIA Report is outlined in volume 1, chapter 1. It is intended that the Offshore EIA Report will provide the Scottish Ministers, statutory and non-statutory stakeholders, with sufficient information to determine the likely significant effects of the Proposed Development on the receiving environment.
7. In particular, this Cultural Heritage Offshore EIA Report chapter:

• presents the existing environmental baseline established from desk studies, site visits and consultation with stakeholders;
• identifies any assumptions and limitations encountered in compiling the environmental information;
• presents the likely environmental impacts on onshore cultural heritage assets as a result of changes in their setting arising from the Proposed Development and reaches a conclusion on the likely significant effects on onshore cultural heritage assets, based on the information gathered and the analysis and assessments undertaken; and
• highlights any necessary monitoring and/or mitigation measures which are recommended to prevent, minimise, reduce or offset the likely significant adverse environmental effects of the Proposed Development on cultural heritage.
  8. Following consultation, the potential effects of the Proposed Development upon the physical fabric of marine archaeological and paleoenvironmental assets have been scoped out of the EIA. Such potential effects are addressed in a Marine Archaeology Technical Report and Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), presented as part of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (volume 4, appendix 22).

16.3. Study Area

9. The Proposed Development array area is located offshore in the outer Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay region of the North Sea, approximately 47.6 km east of the East Lothian, 37.8 km from the Scottish Borders coastline (St. Abb’s Head), 40.5 km from the Angus coastline at Red Head and 41.7 km from the Fife coast at Fife Ness.
10. The cultural heritage study area for the Proposed Development is illustrated in Figure 16.1   Open ▸ . There is no discipline specific guidance on appropriate cultural heritage study areas. Consequently, the cultural heritage study area is based on that developed for the Seascape and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (SLVIA), which has been defined through consideration of the blade tip Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV).
11. As reported in the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report (SSER, 2021a), the cultural heritage study area for the Proposed Development applied at Scoping extended 60 km from the Proposed Development array area (as it was prior to subsequent boundary refinements). Following updates to the Project’s boundary (announced in June 2022) and to align with the study area developed for the Seascape, Landscape and Visual Assessment (SLVIA) (volume 2, chapter 15) the cultural heritage study area has been updated and extends 60 km from the new boundary. Consequently, the extent of the study area haves been reduced. This modification had the potential to affect scoping outcomes for two receptors; both were identified at Scoping in 2021, but now lie immediately outside the cultural heritage study area. These receptors have been included in the EIA notwithstanding. The refinement of the cultural heritage study area is therefore considered to have had no material bearing on scoping for cultural heritage receptors.
12. Consideration of the blade tip ZTV shows that beyond 60 km the extent of visibility will be very restricted. Furthermore:

• At distances over 60 km, the lateral (or horizontal) spread of the Proposed Development will also occupy a small portion of available views and the apparent height (or ‘vertical angle’) of the wind turbines would also appear very small, therefore significant visual effects are unlikely to arise at greater than this distance, even if the wind turbines are theoretically visible.
• The influence of earth curvature begins to limit the apparent height and visual influence of the wind turbines visible at long distances (such as over 60 km), as the lower parts of the wind turbines would be partially hidden behind the apparent horizon, leaving only the upper parts visible above the skyline.
• The variation of weather conditions influencing visibility off the coast has also informed the SLVIA study area. Based on understanding of Met Office data, visibility beyond 60 km is likely to be very infrequent.
  13. Given the above, it is evident that there is negligible potential for the Proposed Development to alter the setting of cultural heritage assets that are more than 60 km from the Proposed Development array area in such a way that their cultural significance might be adversely affected. As such, there is negligible potential for significant effects to occur outside the cultural heritage study area. Guidance directs that the EIA process should focus on significant environmental effects (Scottish Government, 2013) and consequently, 60 km represents an appropriate outer limit to the cultural heritage study area.
  14. The cultural heritage study area has been discussed through the scoping process with Marine Scotland – Licensing Operations Team (MS-LOT), East Lothian Council (ELC), Scottish Borders Council (SBC), Fife Council and Northumberland County Council. As outlined in volume 3, appendix 16.1, additional assets requested in response to Scoping have also been considered.

Figure 16.1: Cultural Heritage Study Area Which Extends 60 km from the Proposed Development Boundary

16.4. Policy and Legislative Context

15. Policy and legislation on renewable energy infrastructure is presented in volume 1, chapter 2 of the Offshore EIA Report. Policy and legislation specifically in relation to cultural heritage, is contained in a large number of documents. A summary of the legislative provisions relevant to cultural heritage is provided in Table 16.1   Open ▸ , with other relevant policy provisions set out in Table 16.2   Open ▸ . These are summarised here with further detail presented in volume 3, appendix 16.1.
16. Relevant local planning policies are contained within the relevant Local Development Plans, including Aberdeenshire Council (2017), Angus Council (2016), East Lothian Council (2018), Fife Council (2017), Scottish Borders Council (2016) and Northumberland Council (2019).

Table 16.1: Summary of Legislation of Relevance to Cultural Heritage

Table 16.2: Summary of National Planning Policy Relevant to Cultural Heritage Receptors

Table 16.3: Summary of Policy Relevant to Cultural Heritage

16.5. Consultation

17. A summary of the key issues raised during consultation activities undertaken to date specific to cultural heritage is presented in Table 16.4   Open ▸ below, together with how these issues have been considered in the production of this Cultural Heritage EIA Report chapter. Further detail is presented within volume 1, chapter 5.

Table 16.4: Summary of Key Consultation of Relevance to Cultural Heritage

16.6. Methodology to Inform Baseline

16.6.1.              Desktop Study

18. Information on cultural heritage within the cultural heritage study area was collected through a detailed desktop review of existing studies and datasets. These are summarised in Table 16.5   Open ▸ .

Table 16.5: Summary of Key Desktop Reports

16.6.2.              Identification of Designated Sites

19. All designated sites within the cultural heritage study area and qualifying interest features that could be affected by the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Proposed Development were identified using the two-step process described below:

• Step 1: All designated sites of international, national and local importance within the cultural heritage study area were identified using a number of sources. These sources comprised HES and Historic England datasets.
• Step 2: Using the above information and expert judgement, sites were included for further consideration if:

-            their cultural significance drew heavily upon visual relationships with the seascape and they were of sufficient sensitivity for there to be some potential for significant effects; or

-            consultees requested that they are included.

16.6.3.              Site-Specific Surveys

20. To inform the Cultural Heritage Offshore EIA Report chapter, site-specific surveys were undertaken. A summary of the surveys undertaken to inform the cultural heritage assessment of effects are outlined in Table 16.6   Open ▸ .

Table 16.6: Summary of Site-Specific Survey Data

16.7. Baseline Environment

16.7.1.              Overview of Baseline Environment

21. The closest designated cultural heritage asset to the Proposed Development array area is the Bell Rock lighthouse (LB45197). This is a Category A Listed Building and is approximately 28.1 km to the north-east of the Proposed Development array area and approximately 18 km from the Angus coast. Designated heritage assets are summarised in Table 16.7   Open ▸ and the locations of those that are nationally important are shown in Figure 16.2   Open ▸ . Other designated assets are not illustrated.

Table 16.7: Summary of Designated Heritage Assets by Distance within the Cultural Heritage Study Area

22. The cultural heritage study area takes in the fertile coastal plains of south-east Scotland and Northumberland areas that have seen relatively intensive human activity through all periods of history. This results in a landscape with substantial and appreciable ‘time depth’ and the above designated heritage assets include Prehistoric settlements, burial cairns and hillforts, Medieval castles, forts and religious sites, Post-Medieval and Modern fortifications, industrial sites, designed landscapes, infrastructure and houses. In addition to these visible assets there are a large number of archaeological sites that have been effaced and survive only as subsurface remains.
23. Views to the sea are often available from many of the above designated heritage assets and in many instances, there are visual relationships between these assets and the sea that contribute positively to their cultural significance. These relationships may be functional, designed, fortuitous, or a combination of these.
24. Owing to the history of intensive activity, the setting of assets on the coastal plain and in the Lammermuirs, at the fringe of the cultural heritage study area, inevitably contains Modern features, including Torness power station, Dunbar cement works, wind farms, pylons, forestry, agricultural sheds, modern housing and infrastructure, seen at close range or in the middle distance. Consequently, whilst numerous assets in the cultural heritage study area have strong visual relationships with the sea, very few are sensitive to distant change. These are considered in the following section (see paragraph 25).
25. Cultural heritage assets have been identified as receptors where there is a known visual relationship with the sea that contributes to their cultural significance and which may be considered sensitive to distant change or where they have been raised by consultees in the 2020 Berwick Bank Wind Farm Scoping Opinion (Marine Scotland, 2021) or scoping for the Proposed Development (Marine Scotland, 2022). These are listed in Table 16.8   Open ▸ and appear on Figure 16.2   Open ▸ .

Table 16.8: Heritage Assets Considered as Potential Receptors

16.7.2.              Future Baseline Scenario

26. The EIA Regulations ((The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017; The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 and The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017)), require that a “a description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment (baseline scenario) and an outline of the likely evolution thereof without development as far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort, on the basis of the availability of environmental information and scientific knowledge” is included within the Offshore EIA Report.
27. In the event that the Proposed Development does not come forward, an assessment of the future baseline conditions has been carried out and is described within this section.
28. The setting of the cultural heritage receptors considered by this assessment is subject to ongoing change as a result of development, land use and potentially climate change. Changes as a result of development and to a lesser degree land use will be controlled by relevant legislation and policy, such that adverse change will be minimised. Such change will include offshore wind farm developments. In the vicinity of the cultural heritage study area, the Kincardine offshore floating wind farm is operational to the north and the Seagreen 1 and NnG offshore wind farms are under construction in the Firths of Forth and Tay, both of which are expected to be fully operational in 2023. As these latter developments will be visible in the very near future, they are considered to form a part of the baseline environment. Further offshore wind development will be introduced by the consented Inch Cape wind farm, construction work upon which has yet to commence.
29. Seagreen was granted consent for 150 wind turbines split between two subprojects, Seagreen 1 (114 wind turbines) and Seagreen 1A Project (36 wind turbines), utilising different grid connections. Seagreen Wind Energy Ltd have submitted a screening request for a s36c variation in respect of Seagreen 1A. Consequently, Seagreen 1A is not expected to be constructed before the Proposed Development. Seagreen 1A is not therefore considered to form part of the baseline and is considered in the assessment of cumulative effects (section 16.12).
30. It has been assumed that the baseline condition of the cultural heritage receptors themselves will remain unchanged. However, climate change and extreme weather conditions are likely to accelerate the degradation of those receptors that are not actively maintained.

16.7.3.              Data Limitations and Assumptions

31. Owing to restrictions associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, access to some receptors was restricted. However, it is not considered that this has affected the baseline such that it might compromise the certainty of the EIA.
32. The assessment of effects is based on assumptions regarding visibility and visualisations detailed in volume 2, chapter 15.
33. Cultural heritage assessments of effects are based on clear visibility and hence a realistic maximum design scenario.

Figure 16.2: Cultural Heritage Receptors and ZTV

16.8. Key Parameters for Assessment

16.8.1.              Maximum Design Scenario

34. The maximum design scenarios identified in Table 16.9   Open ▸ have been selected as those having the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. These scenarios have been selected from the details provided in volume 1, chapter 3 of the Offshore EIA Report. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Design Envelope (PDE) (e.g. different infrastructure layout), to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.
35. The cultural heritage assessment is informed by volume 3, appendix 16.1.

Table 16.9: Maximum Design Scenario Considered for Each Impact as Part of the Assessment of Likely Significant Effects on Cultural Heritage

16.8.2.              Impacts Scoped out of the Assessment

36. On the basis of the baseline environment and the project description outlined in volume 1, chapter 3 of the Offshore EIA Report, a number of impacts are proposed to be scoped out of the assessment for cultural heritage. These have been agreed with key stakeholders through consultation. The exception to this are Category B and C Listed Buildings, which were raised by the ELC scoping response (February 2022). The reasoning for scoping out these receptors is presented in Table 16.10   Open ▸ .
37. These impacts are outlined, together with a justification for scoping them out, in Table 16.10   Open ▸ .

Table 16.10: Impacts Scoped Out of the Assessment for Cultural Heritage (Tick Confirms the Impact is Scoped Out)

16.9. Methodology for Assessment of Effects

16.9.1.              Overview

38. The cultural heritage assessment of effects has followed the methodology set out in volume 1, chapter 6 of the Offshore EIA Report. Specific to the cultural heritage EIA, the following guidance documents have also been considered:

• HES and SNH (2018) - EIA Handbook – Appendix 1;
• HES (2020) - Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting;
• Historic England (2021) - Commercial Renewable Energy Development and the Historic Environment: Historic England Advice Note 15; and
• Institute of Environmental Management of Assessment (IEMA) (2021) - Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in the UK.
  39. In addition, the cultural heritage assessment of effects has considered the legislative framework as defined by:
• Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (Scotland) 1997[4]; and
• Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

16.9.2.              Criteria for Assessment of Effects

40. The process for determining the significance of effects is a two stage process that involves defining the magnitude of the potential impacts and the sensitivity of the receptors. This section describes the criteria applied in this chapter to assign values to the magnitude of potential impacts and the sensitivity of the receptors. The terms used to define magnitude and sensitivity are based on those which are described in further detail in volume 1, chapter 6 of the Offshore EIA Report.
41. The criteria for defining magnitude in this chapter are outlined in Table 16.11   Open ▸ . In determining magnitude within this chapter, each assessment considered the spatial extent, duration, frequency and reversibility of impact and these are outlined within the magnitude section of each assessment of effect (e.g. a duration of hours or days would be considered for most receptors to be of short term duration, which is likely to result in a low magnitude of impact).

Table 16.11: Definition of Terms Relating to the Magnitude of an Impact

42. The guideline criteria for defining sensitivity in this chapter are outlined in Table 16.12   Open ▸ .

Table 16.12: Definition of Terms Relating to the Sensitivity of the Receptor

43. The likely significance of the effect upon cultural heritage assets is determined by correlating the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the receptor. The particular method employed for this assessment is presented in Table 16.13   Open ▸ .
44. In cases where a range is suggested for the significance of effect, there remains the possibility that this may span the significance threshold (i.e. the range is given as minor to moderate). In such cases the final significance conclusion is based upon the author’s professional judgement as to which outcome delineates the most likely effect, with an explanation as to why this is the case. Where professional judgement is applied to quantify final significance from a range, the assessment will set out the factors that result in the final assessment of significance. These factors may include the likelihood that an effect will occur, data certainty and relevant information about the wider environmental context.
45. For the purposes of this assessment:

• a level of residual effect of moderate or more will be considered a ‘significant’ effect in terms of the EIA Regulations; and
• a level of residual effect of minor or less will be considered ‘not significant’ in terms of the EIA Regulations.
  46. Effects of moderate significance or above are therefore considered important in the decision-making process, whilst effects of minor significance or less warrant little, if any, weight in the decision making process.

Table 16.13: Matrix Used for the Assessment of the Significance of the Effect

16.10. Measures Adopted as part of the Proposed Development

47. As part of the project design process, a number of measures have been proposed to reduce the potential for impacts on cultural heritage (see Table 16.14   Open ▸ ). All potential impacts relate to visibility and hence the designed in measures presented here relate to the Proposed Development’s visibility. As there is a commitment to implementing these measures, they are considered inherently part of the design of the Proposed Development and have therefore been considered in the assessment presented in section 16.11 (i.e. the determination of magnitude and therefore significance assumes implementation of these measures). These measures are considered standard industry practice for this type of development.

Table 16.14: Designed In Measures Adopted as Part of the Proposed Development

16.11. Assessment of Significance

48. The potential effects arising from the operation and maintenance phase of the Proposed Development are listed in Table 16.9   Open ▸ , along with the maximum design scenario against which each impact has been assessed. An assessment of the likely significance of the effects of the Proposed Development on cultural heritage receptors caused by each identified impact is given below.

Impacts Upon the Setting of Onshore Cultural Heritage Assets

North Berwick Law (Scheduled Monument, SM3863)

Magnitude of Impact

49. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from Viewpoint 7 North Berwick Law is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.27).
50. The Proposed Development array area will be located at very long distance, between 56 km and (approximately) 91.8 km from the viewpoint at its closest and most distant points. At such distances, the Proposed Development wind turbines will be in the far distance on the seascape horizon, beyond the immediate seascape context. The Proposed Development wind turbines are likely to be intermittently and infrequently visible, having low contrast with the sky at such long range and during the majority of prevailing visibility conditions; Met Office visibility data indicates only 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km and 0% at 60 km. Met Office data do not record visibility beyond 60 km.
51. When conditions allow, the upper towers and rotors of up to 179 wind turbines will be seen above the skyline, with the lower parts of the towers and semi-submersible platforms hidden by the intervening horizon. Even during these ‘maximum’ visibility periods, the wind turbines will still likely be viewed as being recessive, due to the low contrast and visual acuity of the eye to distinguish shapes and details of wind turbines at such distance.
52. Due to the elevation of the viewpoint, the vertical height/apparent scale of the Proposed Development wind turbines will be greater than at other viewpoints, but still relatively small, due to their long distance offshore and the larger scale of the seascape in the view. The vertical appearance of the wind turbines may contrast with the horizontal emphasis of the sea skyline, but the wind turbines will appear smaller in vertical scale than islands within the Firth of Forth, and hills inland of the nearby opposing coastlines. The Proposed Development will introduce new offshore wind turbine elements beyond those within NnG.
53. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to up to 29° of the Horizontal Field of View (HFoV), which is a relatively narrow portion of the wider sea view panorama, in which much of open sea skyline and coastline will be retained and remain unaffected.
54. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon, viewed as a ‘horizon development’ and clearly separated from the mainland coast, headlands and islands by intervening seascape. The Proposed Development wind turbines will appear behind and extend across a greater portion of the view than those of NnG.
55. The Scheduled Monument has intrinsic value owing to its archaeological potential; the North Berwick Law has a long history of occupation starting in the Prehistoric period and has seen minimal modern disturbance, and as an example of a Prehistoric hillfort. The signal station and observation post also have intrinsic value as examples of their kind and together illustrate the importance of the law as a viewpoint and Britain’s responses to threats of invasion. Views from the law over the surrounding area allow an appreciation of the fort’s situation in highly defensible location in an area of highly cultivable land, whilst views over the sea are important to an understanding of the signal station and observation post’s function. Views along the coastline contribute to an appreciation of the signal station’s function. More generally views to prominent historically significant features such as the Bass Rock, the Isle of May and Tantallon Castle allow an appreciation of the time-depth of the landscape. The law’s prominence is likely to have been significant in the Prehistoric period and hence general views contribute to its cultural significance.
56. While the Proposed Development wind turbines will increase the level of artificial elements in the view, they are sufficiently distant and recessive in these views that there is no potential for them to interfere with the appreciation of the views over the sea that the signal station and observation post were built with reference. Nor is there potential for them to distract from historically significant features in the landscape, as these are substantially closer and much more clearly visible. The Proposed Development will not affect views of the Law. It is concluded that the Proposed Development will result in no change in its cultural significance or the appreciation thereof.
57. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

58. North Berwick Law is a Scheduled Monument of national importance and therefore deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability and high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be high.

Significance of the Effect

59. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

60. No cultural heritage mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in Table 16.14   Open ▸ ) is not significant in EIA terms.

Tantallon Castle (Scheduled Monument, SM13326)

Magnitude of Impact

61. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from Viewpoint 8 Tantallon Castle is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.28).
62. The Proposed Development array area will be located at very long distance, between 52 km and (approximately) 88 km from the viewpoint to its closest and most distant points. At such long distance, the Proposed Development wind turbines will be in the far distance on the seascape horizon, beyond the immediate seascape context. The Proposed Development wind turbines are likely to be intermittently and infrequently visible, having low contrast with the sky at such long-range and during the majority of prevailing visibility conditions. Met Office visibility data indicates only 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
63. When conditions allow, the upper towers and rotors of up to 179 wind turbines will be seen above the skyline, with the lower parts of the towers and semi-submersible platforms hidden by the intervening horizon. Even during these ‘maximum’ visibility periods, the wind turbines will still likely be viewed as being recessive, due to the low contrast and visual acuity of the eye to distinguish shapes and details of wind turbines at such distance.
64. The vertical height/apparent scale of the Proposed Development wind turbines will be relatively small, due to their long distance offshore and the large scale of the seascape in the view. The vertical appearance of the wind turbines may contrast with the horizontal emphasis of the sea skyline, but the wind turbines will be smaller in vertical scale than many of the other features in the view, including similar wind turbines within NnG, and the coastal landforms and islands. The Proposed Development will add new offshore wind turbine elements to those at NnG and Seagreen, visibility of the latter being limited to it blade tips.
65. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 31° of the HFoV, with the extent of NnG being approximately 25° HFoV. The Proposed Development will overlap with NnG and their combined extent (approximately 45° HFoV) represents a narrower portion of the wider sea view panorama.
66. The castle’s cultural significance resides in its intrinsic value as the last great curtain-walled castle built in Scotland and is a remarkably intact example of a Medieval castle. It has the potential to contribute greatly to the understanding of the development of late Medieval fortified residences and expressions of status, whilst the later artillery defences may inform understanding of the development of artillery and siege warfare in the 17th century. This intrinsic value is augmented by its visual relationships with the Bass Rock, where there was a contemporary castle, as this places the castle into the context of the Medieval landscape. In addition, the combination of the red castle and white-capped Bass Rock creates a distinctive sense of place. This and the castle’s dramatic clifftop location have led to the castle appearing in many paintings, including works by Turner and Nasmyth.
67. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon, behind much of NnG. They will be seen at the very limit of views from the castle and will not affect the view to the Bass Rock. Theoretically it will be possible to see the wind turbines in combination with the castle from the car park area, but in practice it is likely to be difficult to achieve such views owing to hedges and local topography. Where such views are achieved the castle will remain the dominant feature owing to the colour of the wind turbines and their distance from the viewer. It is concluded that there is no potential for them to detract from the appreciation of the castle historic and aesthetic relationship with its setting.
68. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

69. Tantallon Castle is a Scheduled Monument of national importance and therefore deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability and high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be high sensitivity.

Significance of the Effect

70. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

71. No cultural heritage mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in Table 16.14   Open ▸ ) is not significant in EIA terms.

Dunbar Castle (Scheduled Monument, SM766)

72. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from Viewpoint 10 Dunbar, which is on the clifftop path approximately 200m to the south-west of the castle, is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.30).
73. The Proposed Development array area will be located at very long distance, between 48.4 km and (approximately) 85.2 km from the castle to its closest and most distant points. At such distances, the Proposed Development wind turbines will be in the far distance on the seascape horizon, beyond the immediate seascape context. The Proposed Development wind turbines are likely to be intermittently and infrequently visible, having low contrast with the sky at such long range and during the majority of prevailing visibility conditions. Met Office visibility data indicates only 20.2% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 45 km, 10.7% at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
74. When conditions allow, the upper towers and rotors of up to 179 wind turbines will be seen above the skyline, with the lower parts of the towers and semi-submersible platforms hidden by the intervening horizon. Even during these ‘maximum’ visibility periods, the wind turbines are still likely to be viewed as being recessive, due to the low contrast and visual acuity of the eye to distinguish shapes and details of wind turbines at such distance. During these infrequent periods of excellent visibility,
75. The vertical height/apparent scale of the Proposed Development wind turbines will be relatively small, due to their long distance offshore and the large scale of the seascape in the view. The vertical appearance of the wind turbines may contrast with the horizontal emphasis of the sea skyline, but the new offshore wind turbines will appear smaller in vertical scale than those of NnG, with which it overlaps. Wind turbines within Seagreen 1 lie almost entirely below the horizon and will be imperceptible.
76. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to approximately 39° of the HFoV, with NnG occupying approximately 28° HFoV. The combined extent of both wind farms (approximately 55° HFoV) will occupy a narrower portion of the wider sea view panorama, in which much of the open sea skyline and coastline will be retained and remain unaffected.
77. The Proposed Development and NnG wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon and may be viewed as a single ‘horizon development’ to a large open seascape, rather than being viewed ‘within’ its seascape, clearly separated from the mainland coast, headlands and islands by areas of intervening seascape.
78. The Scheduled Monument has intrinsic value owing to its potential as a source of archaeological data; the ruins of the final castle overlie those of the previous castle and there is likely to be evidence of Early Medieval and Prehistoric activity underlying this. The castle illustrates the origins of Dunbar, underlining its importance as a harbour between Berwick and Edinburgh, and forms a picturesque element in the harbour. Views of the castle in the context of the harbour and from the cliff top path contribute to its aesthetic appreciation and historic relationship with the sea.
79. While the Proposed Development wind turbines will increase the level of artificial elements visible in seaward views from the clifftop path, they will be peripheral to views of the castle. They are sufficiently distant and recessive in these views that there is no potential for them to distract form the castle to adversely affect its aesthetic appreciation or the appreciation of its historic relationship with the sea. The Proposed Development wind turbines will not be visible from the harbour. It is concluded that the Proposed Development will result in no change in the castle’s cultural significance or the appreciation thereof.
80. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

81. Dunbar Castle is a Scheduled Monument of national importance and therefore deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability and high value. The receptor is therefore considered to be of high sensitivity.

Significance of the Effect

82. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

83. No cultural heritage mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in Table 16.14   Open ▸ ) is not significant in EIA terms.

Fast Castle (Scheduled Monument, SM4328)

Magnitude of Impact

84. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from Viewpoint 13 Fast Castle is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.33).
85. The Proposed Development array area will be located approximately 40 km and 78 km from the castle to its closest and most distant points. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be in the far distance on the seascape horizon, beyond the immediate seascape context. The Proposed Development wind turbines are likely to be intermittently and infrequently visible, having low contrast with the sky at such long range and during the majority of prevailing visibility conditions. Met Office visibility data indicates only 36.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 35 km, 10.7% at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
86. When conditions allow, the upper towers and rotors of up to 179 wind turbines will be seen above the skyline, with the lower parts of the towers and semi-submersible platforms hidden by the intervening horizon. Even during these ‘maximum’ visibility periods, the wind turbines will still likely be viewed as being recessive, due to the low contrast and visual acuity of the eye to distinguish shapes and details of wind turbines at such distance.
87. The Proposed Development wind turbines will appear slightly larger than those of NnG, owing to the size of the former, but will appear much smaller than the coastal landform.
88. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 49° of the HFoV, with NnG occupying approximately 19° HFoV. A noticeable gap will separate the two wind farms such that their combined extent (approximately 81° HFoV) will be a notable portion of the wider sea view panorama, in which much of open sea skyline and coastline will be retained and remain unaffected.
89. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon, viewed as a ‘horizon development’ to a large open seascape.
90. The castle’s setting contributes to its cultural significance as the topography is key to its siting; the position is impregnable. Its isolation and dramatic character also tie in with its place in literature and art and contribute to the experience of the visitor and create a distinct sense of place; though it may be noted that the unmaintained castle’s contribution to this is diminishing.
91. The Proposed Development wind turbines may be perceived as incongruous with the expected experience of the castle’s romantic, isolated sense of place. This will occur infrequently and intermittently depending on weather conditions. This is considered to represent an adverse impact of low magnitude. This will be direct, long term and reversible.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

92. Fast Castle is a Scheduled Monument of national importance and therefore deemed to be of high vulnerability, low recoverability and high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be high.

Significance of the Effect

93. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. Taking into account the infrequent occurrence of the impact and that the NnG wind turbines form a part of the castle’s baseline setting, the effect is considered to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

94. No cultural heritage mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of further mitigation (beyond the designed in measures outlined in Table 16.14   Open ▸ ) is not significant in EIA terms.

Crosslaw Radar/Radio Station (Non-designated heritage asset, NT86NE 35 and NT86NW 75 & 139)

Magnitude of Impact

95. No visualisation is presented in respect of this receptor as it comprises disparate buildings with varying degrees of predicted intervisibility with the Proposed Development wind turbines. Viewpoints 13 (Figure 15.33) and 14 (Figure 15.34) are nearby and have clear views towards the Proposed Development. They therefore provide suitable proxies to provide an indication of the scale of the Proposed Development wind turbines in views from the vicinity of the asset.
96. The Proposed Development array area will be located at approximately between 43 km and 81 km from the nearest element of the radar station to its closest and most distant points. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be in the far distance on the distant seascape skyline, beyond the immediate seascape context. The Proposed Development wind turbines are likely to be intermittently and infrequently visible, having low contrast with the sky at such long range and during the majority of prevailing visibility conditions. Met Office visibility data indicates only 28.5% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 45 km, 10.7% at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
97. When conditions allow, the upper towers and rotors of up to 179 wind turbines will be seen above the skyline, with the lower parts of the towers and semi-submersible platforms hidden by the intervening horizon. Even during these ‘maximum’ visibility periods, the wind turbines will still likely be viewed as being recessive, due to the low contrast and visual acuity of the eye to distinguish shapes and details of wind turbines at such distance.
98. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 46° of the HFoV, with NnG occupying approximately 18° HFoV. A noticeable gap will separate the two wind farms such that their combined extent (approximately 72° HFoV) will be a notable portion of the wider sea view panorama, in which much of open sea skyline and coastline will be retained and remain unaffected. In these views, the Proposed Development wind turbines will appear slightly larger than those of NnG, owing to the size of the former, but will appear much smaller than the agricultural landscape in the foreground.
99. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon, viewed as a ‘horizon development’ to a large open seascape.
100. The radio/radar station’s setting makes a limited contribution to its cultural significance; the view to the sea from the northernmost elements (NT86NW 75 & 139), whilst not functionally linked to its operation allows an appreciation of its having been placed in proximity to the North Sea to allow the earliest possible detection of approaching threats.
101. The Proposed Development wind turbines will not adversely affect the appreciation of the intended relationship between the facility and the sea. Indeed, by providing a positive indicator of range, they may facilitate the appreciation of the reasoning behind the facility’s siting. This will occur infrequently and intermittently depending on weather conditions. This is considered to represent an adverse impact of negligible magnitude. This will be direct, long term and reversible.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

102. Crosslaw Radio/Radar Station is a non-designated heritage asset. Whilst semi derelict, it is considered to be a relatively rare and unmodified example. For the purposes of this assessment, it is therefore considered to be of national importance and of high vulnerability, low recoverability and high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be high.

Significance of the Effect

103. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. Taking into account the infrequent occurrence of the impact and that the NnG wind turbines form a part of the facility’s baseline setting, the effect is considered to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.