16. Cultural Heritage

16.1.   Introduction

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

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

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

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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

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.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

104. 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.

St Abb’s Kirk, church and monastic remains (Scheduled Monument, SM2975)

Magnitude of Impact

105. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from St Abb's Head (Viewpoint 15) approximately 400 m to the north-west of the Scheduled Monument is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.35).
106. The Proposed Development array area will be located at long distance, between 38.2 km and (approximately) 77 km offshore from the viewpoint 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% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 35 km, 10.7% at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
107. When conditions allow, the towers and rotors of up to 179 wind turbines will be seen above the skyline, with the 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.
108. The Proposed Development wind turbines will appear slightly larger than those of NnG, which are located more inshore; and much larger than those of Seagreen, which are located behind and to the north of the Proposed Development and are likely to be barely perceptible. The towers of a relatively large number of the Proposed Development wind turbines will be visible in their entirety, while many other towers will be largely visible.
109. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 44° of the HFoV, with the combined extent of NnG and Seagreen 1 being approximately 40° HFoV. The Proposed Development will appear to encompass Seagreen 1, while a notable gap will separate it from NnG. In combination, the lateral extent of offshore wind turbine elements will increase to occupy a notable portion (approximately 85° HFoV) of the wider sea view panorama, in which much of the open sea skyline will be retained and will, along with the visible coastline, remain unaffected.
110. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon.
111. The remains at St Abbs have high intrinsic archaeological value as they represent an undisturbed monastic settlement. Such sites are very rare and have the potential to add greatly to our understanding of the development of Christianity in Scotland. The elevated location is naturally defensible and this aids an appreciation of the defended nature of the settlement.
112. The cultural significance of the Scheduled Monument draws little upon its setting and views out to sea do not contribute to its cultural significance. Consequently, it is concluded that the appearance of the Proposed Development in these views will result in no change in its cultural significance or the appreciation thereof.
113. 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

114. St Abb’s Kirk, church and monastic remains 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

115. 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

116. 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.

St Abb’s Lighthouse (Category B Listed Building, LB4103)

Magnitude of Impact

117. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from St Abb's Head (Viewpoint 15) approximately 200 m to the north-west of the lighthouse is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.35a-d).
118. The Proposed Development array area will be located at long distance, between 38.2 km and (approximately) 77 km offshore from the viewpoint 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% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 35 km, 10.7% at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
119. When conditions allow, the towers and rotors of up to 179 wind turbines will be seen above the skyline, with the 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.
120. The Proposed Development wind turbines will appear slightly larger than those of NnG, which are located closer inshore; and much larger than those of Seagreen 1, which are located behind and to the north of the Proposed Development and are likely to be barely perceptible. The towers of a relatively large number of the Proposed Development wind turbines will be visible in their entirety, while many other towers will be largely visible.
121. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 44° of the HFoV, with the combined extent of NnG and Seagreen 1 being approximately 40° HFoV. The Proposed Development will appear to encompass Seagreen 1, while a notable gap will separate it from NnG. In combination, the lateral extent of offshore wind turbine elements will increase to occupy a notable portion (approximately 85° HFoV) of the wider sea view panorama, in which much of the open sea skyline will be retained and will, along with the visible coastline, remain unaffected.
122. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon.
123. The lighthouse has historic interest as an example of its kind, reflecting the development of the chain of lighthouses running up the eastern coast of Scotland. Its unusual design, which sees the lighthouse occupying a location below the cliff top, illustrates the care taken by the Northern Lighthouse Board in placing lighthouses, as it reflects local weather conditions. This position results in the lighthouse having minimal presence in views from onshore. The white-washed buildings and simple form of the lighthouse have a degree of aesthetic value.
124. The setting of the lighthouse contributes to its cultural significance as the elevated location has been chosen to maximise the lighthouse’s visibility from the sea. In short range views, the sea provides a backdrop to the lighthouse and contributes to its aesthetic appreciation.
125. The Proposed Development will not affect the appreciation of the operational lighthouse’s historic functional relationship with cliffs and North Sea or affect views of the lighthouse from the sea. However, when visible, the Proposed Development wind turbines will appear behind the lighthouse in the limited views available. This may be perceived as distracting, detracting from its aesthetic appreciation, depending on the preferences of the viewer. This will occur infrequently and intermittently depending on weather conditions and is considered to represent an adverse impact of low magnitude. This will be direct, long term and reversible.
126. 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 low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

127. St Abb’s Lighthouse is a Category B Listed Building and therefore deemed to be of medium vulnerability, low recoverability and medium value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be Medium.

Significance of the Effect

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

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

129. 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.

Berwick-upon-Tweed Medieval and Post-Medieval Fortifications (List 1015968)

Magnitude of Impact

130. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from Berwick-upon-Tweed’s fortifications (Viewpoint 17) is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.37).
131. The Proposed Development array area will be located at long distance, between 46 km and (approximately) 87 km offshore from the viewpoint 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 20.2% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 45 km,10.7% at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
132. 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.
133. The Proposed Development will introduce offshore wind turbine elements to the view as those within NnG will be screened by landform and tree cover.
134. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines (up to 38° HFoV) will occupy a portion of the wider sea view panorama, in which a larger proportion of the open sea skyline will be retained and the coastline unaffected.
135. Berwick upon Tweed is one of the most outstanding fortified towns of western Europe. Taken together with Berwick Castle and the earlier linear earthwork known as Spades Mire, the defences of Berwick upon Tweed provide a continuous sequence spanning more than 700 years. They provide one of the most complete overviews available anywhere for the understanding of the development of military architecture. Views from and to the defences, in particular Megs Mount bastion and the Saluting Battery which overlook the bridges, contribute to an appreciation of the strength of the defences and their dominance of the crossing. The setting of the fortifications therefore contributes to an appreciation of their historic interest. Views out to the horizon do not contribute to the cultural significance of the fortifications.
136. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon. This will not affect the relationship between the fortifications and the peninsula or the river crossing. The Proposed Development will not affect the fortifications’ cultural significance.
137. 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

138. Berwick-upon-Tweed Medieval and Post-Medieval Fortifications are 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

139. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be negligible as whilst the Proposed Development will be visible from the fringes of Berwick, these views that do not contribute substantively to the fortifications’ cultural significance and hence it will not affect their cultural significance. 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

140. 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.

Lindisfarne Castle (Grade I Listed Building, List 1042306)

Magnitude of Impact

141. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from Viewpoint 19 Holy Island (near Lindisfarne Castle) is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.39). The viewpoint is located a short distance to the east of the castle.
142. The Proposed Development array area will be located at very long distance, between (approximately) 53.7 km and 94 km from the viewpoint 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 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
143. 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.
144. 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. The Proposed Development will introduce offshore wind turbine elements to the view as neither offshore nor onshore wind turbines are evident in the baseline view.
145. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to approximately 18° of the HFoV, which is a narrower portion of the wider sea view panorama, in which most of the open sea skyline will be retained and the coastline remain unaffected. A high number of wind turbines (172) and a relatively high number of blade tips (121 to 150) are theoretically visible, but the most distant wind turbines are unlikely to be visible.
146. The castle’s cultural significance resides primarily in its fabric, deriving from its architectural interest as an example of the work of an important architect complemented by the work of an important garden designer. Its architectural interest and design quality gives a substantial degree of aesthetic value, primarily appreciated from the castle’s immediate surroundings. The castle’s dramatic location complements this and this is appreciated from a wider area on the island. As a local landmark, views of the castle from the mainland also contribute to its cultural significance.
147. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon, viewed as a ‘horizon development’ to Holy Island and the surrounding seascape, rather than being viewed ‘within’ its seascape due to the intervening open sea.
148. Owing to their distance and scale, there is no potential for the Proposed Development wind turbines to distract from the castle in views from its immediate vicinity or otherwise distract from its aesthetic interest. Nor is there potential for them to distract from the castle in views from the mainland (see Viewpoint 20, volume 2, chapter 15, Figure 15.40), as they will be peripheral to views of the castle. The Proposed Development will not therefore affect the castle’s cultural significance. 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

149. Lindisfarne Castle is a Grade I Listed Building 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

150. 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

151. 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.

Lindisfarne Priory (Scheduled Monument, List 1011650)

Magnitude of Impact

152. The scheduling information states “As a rare monument type and one which made a major contribution to the development of Anglo-Saxon England, all pre-Conquest monasteries exhibiting survival of archaeological remains are worthy of protection. In addition to being a rare pre-Conquest monastic site, Lindisfarne Priory is an important example of a small Benedictine house refounded to be a cell of Durham Cathedral. Its standing remains are well-preserved and provide a good illustration of a wide variety of monastic buildings”.
153. The priory’s cultural significance therefore resides primarily in its fabric. However, the island setting also contributes as it adds to the remains’ historic interest and aesthetic value. The priory lies at the fringe of the ZTV. Taking into account the screening effect of the built form and associated trees, the Proposed Development will not be visible from the Priory. Based on the ZTV, there is no potential for views of the priory that contribute to its cultural significance to be affected. 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

154. Lindisfarne Priory 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

155. 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

156. 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.

Bamburgh Castle (Grade I Listed Building, List 128055)

Magnitude of Impact

157. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from Viewpoint 20 Bamburgh Castle is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.40).
158. The Proposed Development array area will be located at very long distance, between 60 km and (approximately) 99.2 km from the viewpoint 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 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
159. 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.
160. 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 the coastal landforms in the view. The Proposed Development wind turbines will introduce offshore wind farm development to the views from the castle.
161. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 29° of the HFoV, which is a narrower portion of the wider 180° sea view panorama, in which a large proportion of the open sea skyline will be retained and the coastline remain unaffected.
162. The castle’s cultural significance resides primarily in its architectural and historic interest as an example of a Medieval castle and the work of CJ Ferguson, a noted architect who specialised in the restoration of Medieval buildings. In addition, it has illustrative value; its great scale and strength underlining the strategic importance of the location. The castle’s imposing form and dramatic location has resulted it in appearing in numerous paintings, including one by Turner.
163. Views from the castle contribute to its illustrative value as they allow an appreciation of its dominance of the surrounding area. The view to Lindisfarne Castle allows an appreciation of the historic links between Bamburgh Castle and Lindisfarne. Views of the castle along the coast are of similar if not greater importance as they allow an appreciation of this aspect and its architectural interest and iconic form.
164. From the castle, the Proposed Development wind turbines will be seen on and beyond the horizon, viewed as a ‘horizon development’ to a large open seascape. Given the distance of the Proposed Development wind turbines from Bamburgh Castle and that they will only be seen in succession with the coast, there is no potential for them to affect the appreciation of the castle’s historic relationship with the coastal strip. The wind turbines will be peripheral in views from the castle to Lindisfarne Castle and, given this and their distance from Bamburgh Castle, there is no potential for them to affect the appreciation of the historic relationship between the two. The wind turbines will not appear in combination with the castle in views from the coastal strip or the sea and hence will not affect the appreciation of its architectural interest, dominance of its surroundings or value as an iconic landmark.
165. 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

166. Bamburgh Castle is a Grade I Listed Building 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

167. 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

168. 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.

Dunnottar Castle (Scheduled Monument, SM986)

Magnitude of Impact

169. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from the mainland adjacent to Dunnottar Castle (Viewpoint A) is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.43).
170. The Proposed Development array area will be located at very long distance, between 61.8 km and (approximately) 104 km from the viewpoint at 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 0% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 60 km, indicating they will very rarely be visible.
171. 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. On the rare occasions that the wind turbines are visible they will 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.
172. 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 Kincardine and Seagreen 1, and the coastal landforms. The Proposed Development will add new offshore wind turbine elements to those at Kincardine and Seagreen 1, and, if visible will be seen beyond the wind turbines of Seagreen 1.
173. The lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 28° of the HFoV. Seagreen 1 occupies approximately 33° HFoV and, if visible, the Proposed Development will be seen beyond Seagreen 1. As such the Proposed Development will not increase the proportion of the horizon occupied by wind turbines. Up to 170 wind turbines are theoretically visible, but given their distance from the castle, most of the wind turbines will never be visible from or in succession with the castle.
174. The castle’s cultural significance resides in its intrinsic value as an example of a Medieval castle with later additions. It has the potential to inform understanding of the development of fortified residences and illustrates the transition from Scottish towers to more English-influenced houses and the relationship between military strength and status, as the castle’s defences include elements that are thought to be primarily for show. The castle occupies a naturally defensive position in a strategic location that allows control of movement along the coastal plain. Its dramatic location and appearance have resulted in its being the subject of numerous artworks and it is an iconic local landmark.
175. The Proposed Development wind turbines may, on rare occasions, be seen in succession with the castle, on and beyond the horizon, beyond Seagreen. They will result in a barely perceptible change in the setting of the castle that has no potential to affect its cultural significance or the appreciation thereof.
176. 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

177. Dunnottar 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

178. 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

179. 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.

Bell Rock Lighthouse (Category A Listed Building, LB45197) and Bell Rock Lighthouse Signal Tower (Category A Listed Building, LB21230)

Magnitude of Impact

180. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from the lighthouse (Viewpoint D) is shown on the wireframe (in volume 2, chapter 15, Figure 15.46) and from the mainland adjacent the signal station (Viewpoint C) is shown in the photomontage in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figure 15.45).
181. The Proposed Development array area will be located between 28.2 km and (approximately) 74 km from the lighthouse and 43 km and (approximately) 91.4 km from the signal station. At such distances, the Proposed Development wind turbines will on the distant seascape skyline, beyond the immediate seascape context. The Proposed Development wind turbines are likely to be intermittently visible, having low contrast with the sky at such long-range and during the majority of prevailing visibility conditions. Met Office visibility data indicates 47.7% visibility frequency at 28 km (i.e. at the lighthouse) and 28.5% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 45 km (i.e. at the signal station) and 10.7% at 50 km and 0% at 60%.
182. 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.
183. 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 similar in vertical scale to similar wind turbines within NnG and Seagreen 1. The Proposed Development will add new offshore wind turbine elements to those at NnG and Seagreen 1.
184. From the lighthouse, the lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 42.6° of the HFoV. Seagreen 1 will occupy 33° and NnG 69°. The Proposed Development will overlap with neither Seagreen nor NnG. There will be a large gap between the Proposed Development and NnG. A sizable proportion of the horizon will therefore be occupied by turbines.
185. From the signal station, the lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 33° of the HFoV. Seagreen 1 will occupy 25° and NnG 45°. From the signal station, the Proposed Development will form a single group with Seagreen 1 occupying a combined 58°. There will be a large gap between the Proposed Development and NnG. A sizable proportion of the horizon will therefore be occupied by turbines.
186. The lighthouse’s cultural significance resides in its architectural and historic interest as the first lighthouse to be built on a half tide rock. Its construction was an extraordinary engineering achievement and the quality of its design and execution is reflected by the tower being almost entirely original after over 200 years of operation. Consequently, it is considered to be one of Robert Stevenson’s finest achievements. In addition, the lighthouse represented a substantial investment to secure shipping and hence has historic interest reflecting a period of great investment in the country’s infrastructure that facilitated economic growth. The signal tower’s special interest derives from its functional relationship with the lighthouse.
187. The lighthouse’s setting on the Bell Rock is key to understanding its function; Bell Rock was a major hazard because it was a near invisible hazard in a major shipping lane. The signal station’s location on the coast and line of sight between it and the lighthouse are important to an appreciation of their functional relationship. General views from the lighthouse and signal station do not contribute to their cultural significance.
188. The Proposed Development wind turbines will not affect the line of sight between the lighthouse and signal station. From the signal station they will not appear behind the lighthouse but will appear off to the left. They will not be seen in views from the lighthouse to the signal station. They will not therefore affect the appreciation of the functional relationship between the two. The lighthouse will remain an isolated feature and its relationship with the shipping lane will remain unchanged. The wind turbines will therefore represent a neutral, long term and reversible change in the setting of the lighthouse and signal station.
189. 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

190. Bell Rock lighthouse and Bell Rock Lighthouse Signal Tower are Category A Listed Buildings 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

191. 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

192. 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.

Isle of May Lighthouses (SM887 & LB2712)

Magnitude of Impact

193. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from the lighthouse (Viewpoint F) is shown on the wireframe (volume 2, chapter 15, Figure 15.43). Predicted views including the Isle of May are also provided in volume 2, chapter 15 (Figures 15.26, 15.28 and 15.48).
194. The Proposed Development array area will be located between 41.5 km and 78 km from the lighthouses at 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 28.5% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 41.5 km and 10.7% at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
195. When conditions allow, the upper towers and rotors of up to 179 wind turbines will be visible 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.
196. 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 similar in vertical scale to similar wind turbines within NnG. The Proposed Development will add new offshore wind turbine elements to those at NnG.
197. From the lighthouses, the lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 37.5° of the HFoV. Seagreen 1 will occupy 25° of the HFoV and NnG 38°. The Proposed Development will for the most part be seen behind NnG and adjacent to Seagreen 1, the visibility of which will be largely restricted to blades. With NnG, the Proposed Development wind turbines will form a single group occupying approximately 51° of the HFoV.
198. The cultural significance of the original lighthouse resides primarily in its historic interest as one of the earliest surviving lighthouses in Britain. This is complemented early records relating to its operation held by the National Library of Scotland and, to a lesser degree its association with Sir Walter Scott and the picturesque fashion in landscape design of the early 19th century. The cultural significance of the second lighthouse lies in its historic interest as an example of the work or Robert Stevenson. It is built in a very similar style to Stevenson’s Bell Rock signal station and this places it into the wider historic context of investment in Scotland’s lighthouses. The proximity of the two lighthouses to each other illustrates developing lighthouse technology. Stevenson’s lighthouse remains a landmark in the Firth of Forth.
199. The Proposed Development wind turbines will not affect the appreciation of the lighthouses elevated position on the Isle of May in a busy shipping lane. Nor will they affect the relationship between the two lighthouses. Owing to their distance from the island and their contrasting colour, there is no potential for them to distract from the silhouetted form of Stevenson’s lighthouse in views from the mainland. The lighthouse will remain an isolated feature. The wind turbines will therefore represent a neutral, long term and reversible change in the setting of the lighthouses.
200. 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

201. As a Scheduled Monument, the 1636 lighthouse is considered to be of national importance and high sensitivity. As a Category B Listed Building, the 1815 lighthouse is considered in isolation to be of regional importance but given its group value with the adjacent Scheduled Monument, it is also considered to be of high sensitivity.

Significance of the Effect

202. 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

203. 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.

Isle of May Priory (SM838)

Magnitude of Impact

204. The predicted view of the Proposed Development from near the priory (Viewpoint F) is shown on the wireframe (volume 2, chapter 15, Figure 15.43).
205. The Proposed Development array area will be located between 41.5 km and 78 km from the priory at 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 28.5% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 41.5 km and 10.7% at 50 km and 0% at 60 km.
206. When conditions allow, the upper towers and rotors of up to 179 wind turbines will be visible 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.
207. 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 similar in vertical scale to similar wind turbines within NnG and Seagreen. The Proposed Development will add new offshore wind turbine elements to those at NnG and Seagreen 1.
208. From the priory, the lateral spread of the Proposed Development wind turbines may occupy up to 37.5° of the HFoV. Seagreen 1 will occupy 25° of the HFoV and NnG 38°. The Proposed Development will for the most part be seen behind NnG and adjacent to Seagreen 1, the visibility of which will be largely restricted to blades. With NnG, the Proposed Development wind turbines will form a single group occupying approximately 51° of the HFoV.
209. The monument’s cultural significance resides primarily in its intrinsic characteristics as one of the best illustrations of the ways in which the ideals of monastic planning might be adopted to meet the needs of a poorly endowed religious community on a marginally viable and relatively inaccessible site. It derives added cultural significance from the fact that it was a site hallowed by its associations with early religious recluses and with early missionary activity in eastern Scotland; its isolated location therefore contributes to an appreciation of its cultural significance and creates a distinct sense of place.
210. The Proposed Development wind turbines will not affect the appreciation of the priory’s isolated location and at distances of in excess of 39 km the wind turbines will not erode any sense of isolation. The Proposed Development wind turbines will therefore represent a neutral, long term and reversible change in the setting of the priory.
211. 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

212. Isle of May Priory 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

213. 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

214. 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.

Impacts (Night-Time) of the Operation and Maintenance of the Proposed Development Upon the Setting of Cultural Heritage Assets

215. CAA guidance requires that 'en-route obstacles' at or above 150 m above ground level are lit with visible lighting to assist their detection by aircraft. As such, there is potential that parts of the Proposed Development may be visible at night, giving rise to the potential for impacts upon the setting of the identified cultural heritage receptors, where their cultural significance relates to night-time visibility. This potential is restricted to the lighthouses. The other receptors are not lit and therefore cannot be experienced at night. Night time views do not therefore contribute to their cultural significance and the Proposed Development’s appearance in such views has no potential to result in adverse an adverse impact.
216. A description of the proposed lighting is found within volume 1, chapter 3. The effect of the Proposed Development at night would result primarily from visible medium intensity (2,000 cd) red coloured aviation light fittings located on the nacelles of the peripheral wind turbines. The following assessment is informed by ZTVs (volume 2, chapter 15, Figure 15.15).

Bell Rock Lighthouse (Category A Listed Building, LB45197)

Magnitude of Impact

217. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be fitted with medium intensity (2,000 cd) red aviation lights. The ZTV indicates that up to 28 such lights will be visible from the lighthouse itself and up to 21 lights will be visible from the mainland in combination with the lighthouse. Given that the lighthouse light is substantially brighter (1,900,000 cd), flashes and is a different colour from the aviation lights there is no potential for the Proposed Development’s lighting to affect an appreciation of its operation.
218. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, intermittent 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

219. Bell Rock Lighthouse is a Category A Listed Building 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

220. 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

221. 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.

Isle of May Lighthouse (LB2712)

Magnitude of Impact

222. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be fitted with medium intensity (2,000 cd) red aviation lights. The ZTV indicates that up to 21 such lights will be visible from the lighthouse itself and up to 21 will be visible from the mainland in combination with the lighthouse. Given that the lighthouse light is substantially brighter and a different colour (white) there is no potential for the Proposed Development’s lighting to affect an appreciation of its operation.
223. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of Receptor

224. The Isle of May lighthouse is a Category B Listed Building considered to be of regional importance. Owing to its group value with its scheduled predecessor (SM887), it is considered 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

225. 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

226. 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.

St Abb’s Lighthouse (Category B Listed Building, LB4103)

Magnitude of Impact

227. The Proposed Development wind turbines will be fitted with medium intensity (2,000 cd) red aviation lights. The predicted night-time view from St Abbs in conditions of excellent visibility is shown in volume 2, chapter 15, Figure 15.3 As the light of the lighthouse is shrouded to prevent its shining inland and its position, which limits visibility from its landward side, there is no potential for the Proposed Development’s lighting to affect an appreciation of its operation.
228. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, intermittent 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

229. St Abb’s Lighthouse is a Category B Listed Building of regional importance and therefore deemed to be of medium vulnerability, low recoverability and medium value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be high sensitivity.

Significance of the Effect

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

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

231. 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.

16.11.2.         Proposed Monitoring

232. No cultural heritage monitoring to test the predictions made within the assessment of likely significant effects on cultural heritage is considered necessary.

16.12.            Cumulative Effects Assessment

16.12. Cumulative Effects Assessment

16.12.1.         Methodology

233. The Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) assesses the impact associated with the Proposed Development together with other relevant plans, projects and activities. Cumulative effects are therefore the combined effect of the Proposed Development in combination with the effects from a number of different projects, on the same receptor or resource. Please see volume 1, chapter 6 for detail on CEA methodology.
234. The projects and plans selected as relevant to the CEA presented within this chapter are based upon the results of a screening exercise (see volume 3, appendix 6.3 of the Offshore EIA Report). Volume 3, appendix 6.4 further provides information regarding how information pertaining to other plans and projects is gained and applied to the assessment. Each project or plan has been considered on a case by case basis for screening in or out of this chapter's assessment based upon data confidence, effect-receptor pathways and the spatial/temporal scales involved.
235. In undertaking the CEA for the Proposed Development, it is important to bear in mind that other projects and plans under consideration will have differing potential for proceeding to an operational stage and hence a differing potential to ultimately contribute to a cumulative impact alongside the Proposed Development. Therefore, a tiered approach has be adopted. This provides a framework for placing relative weight upon the potential for each project/plan to be included in the CEA to ultimately be realised, based upon the project/plan’s current stage of maturity and certainty in the projects’ parameters. The tiered approach which will be utilised within the Proposed Development CEA employs the following tiers:

• tier 1 assessment – Proposed Development (Berwick Bank Wind Farm offshore) with Berwick Bank Wind Farm onshore;
• tier 2 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 1, plus projects which became operational since baseline characterisation, those under construction, those with consent and submitted but not yet determined;
• tier 3 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 2, plus those projects with a Scoping Report; and
• tier 4 assessment – All plans/projects assessed under Tier 3, which are reasonably foreseeable, plus those projects likely to come forward where an Agreement for Lease (AfL) has been granted.
  236. In respect of cultural heritage, Tier 1 projects have been scoped out of the assessment. By dint of their nature and location in relation to the cultural heritage receptors, the onshore export cables and substation have no potential to result in cumulative effects. In respect of Tier 2, only Inch Cape has been considered as NnG, Seagreen 1 and Kincardine have all been considered as part of the baseline. The assessment of cumulative effects has considered the worst-case scenario, which for cultural heritage has been determined with reference to visibility; for Inch Cape the maximum number of wind turbines (72) of maximum tip height (291 m) has been used and, similarly, for Seagreen 1A the maximum number of wind turbines (36) of maximum tip height (285 m) has been used.
  237. The specific projects scoped into the CEA for cultural heritage, are outlined in Table 16.15   Open ▸ and the potential for them to result in cumulative effects is considered. Owing to the specific sensitivities of the cultural heritage receptors considered, only offshore wind farms have been considered.
  238. As described in volume 1, chapter 3, the Applicant is developing an additional export cable grid connection to Blyth, Northumberland (the Cambois connection). Applications for necessary consents (including marine licenses) will be applied for separately. The CEA for the Cambois connection is based on information presented in the Cambois connection Scoping Report (SSER, 2022e), submitted in October 2022. The Cambois connection has been scoped into the CEA for cultural heritage on the basis that Cambois connection will overlap spatially and temporally with the Proposed Development and the project will engage in activities such as cable burial and installation of cable protection which will impact cultural heritage receptors.

Table 16.15: List of Other Developments Considered within the CEA for Cultural Heritage

Figure 16.3:  Cultural Heritage Receptors and Cumulative Schemes

16.12.2.         Cumulative Effects Assessment

174. An assessment of the likely significance of the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development upon cultural heritage receptors arising from each identified impact is given below.

Impacts (Day-Time) of the Operation and Maintenance of the Proposed Development Upon the Setting of Cultural Heritage Assets

Tier 1

Operation and maintenance phase

175. Tier 1 cumulative impacts have been scoped out as there is no potential for the onshore substation and export cables to affect the setting of the cultural heritage receptors.

Tier 2

Operation and maintenance phase

North Berwick Law (Scheduled Monument SM3863)

Magnitude of impact

176. From Berwick Law, Inch Cape wind turbines will theoretically be visible at a distance of at least 52.4 km. They will be seen to the left of NnG (33.1 km) and the Proposed Development (56 km) extending the proportion of the HFoV containing wind turbines from 46° to 60°. Met Office visibility data indicates 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km. They will represent a barely perceptible addition to the monument’s setting, with no potential to result in additional or greater impacts in combination with the Proposed Development.
177. It is concluded that the cumulative magnitude of impact will be negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

178. 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 sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

179. Taking into account the contribution of setting to Berwick Law’s cultural significance and the distance of Inch Cape from the Law, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Development in combination with Inch Cape is considered to be of negligible magnitude and minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

180. 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)

Magnitude of impact

181. From Dunbar Castle, the Inch Cape wind turbines will theoretically be visible at a distance of at least 51.1 km. They will be seen to the left and behind those of NnG (28.1 km) and the Proposed Development 48.1 km) extending the proportion of the HFoV containing wind turbines from 62° to 67°. Met Office visibility data indicates 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km. They will represent a barely perceptible addition to the castle’s setting, with no potential to result in additional or greater impacts in combination with the Proposed Development.
182. It is concluded that the cumulative magnitude of impact will be negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

183. 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 high sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

184. Taking into account the contribution of setting to the castle’s cultural significance, the position of the Inch Cape wind turbines beyond those of NnG and their distance from the castle, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Development in combination with Inch Cape is considered to be of negligible magnitude and minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

185. 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

186. From Fast Castle, the Inch Cape wind turbines will theoretically be seen behind those of NnG at a distance of at least 54.9 km. Met Office visibility data indicates 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km. They will hence represent a barely perceptible addition to the castle’s setting, with no potential to result in additional or greater impacts in combination with the Proposed Development.
187. It is concluded that the cumulative impact will be of low magnitude.

Sensitivity of the receptor

188. 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

189. Taking into account the contribution of setting to the castle’s cultural significance, the position of the Inch Cape wind turbines beyond those of NnG and their distance from the castle, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Development in combination with Inch Cape is considered to be of low magnitude and minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

190. 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

191. From Crosslaw, the Inch Cape wind turbines will theoretically be seen behind those of NnG at a distance of at least 57 km. Met Office visibility data indicates 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km. They will hence represent a barely perceptible addition to the radio/radar station’s setting, with no potential to result in additional or greater impacts in combination with the Proposed Development.
192. It is concluded that the cumulative impact will be of negligible magnitude.

Sensitivity of the receptor

193. 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

194. Taking into account the contribution of setting to the radio/radar station’s cultural significance, the position of the Inch Cape wind turbines beyond those of NnG and their distance from the castle, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Development in combination with Inch Cape is considered to be of negligible magnitude and negligible significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

195. 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.

St Abb’s Kirk, church and monastic remains (Scheduled Monument, SM2975)

Magnitude of impact

196. From St Abb’s Kirk, the Inch Cape wind turbines theoretically will be seen beyond those of NnG at a distance of approximately 56.8 km. Met Office visibility data indicates 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km. Hence, they will represent a barely perceptible addition to the kirk’s setting, with no potential to result in additional or greater impacts in combination with the Proposed Development.
197. It is concluded that the cumulative impact will be of negligible magnitude.

Sensitivity of the receptor

198. St Abb’s Kirk 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

199. Taking into account the degree of change in the kirk’s setting and the position of the Inch Cape wind turbines beyond those of NnG, the cumulative effect is considered to be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

200. 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.

St Abb’s Lighthouse (Category B Listed Building, LB4103)

Magnitude of impact

201. From St Abb’s lighthouse (Viewpoint 15), the Inch Cape wind turbines theoretically will be seen beyond those of NnG at a distance of approximately 56.8 km. Met Office visibility data indicates 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km. Hence, they will represent a barely perceptible addition to the lighthouse’s setting, with no potential to result in additional or greater impacts in combination with the Proposed Development.
202. It is concluded that the cumulative impact will be of negligible magnitude.

Sensitivity of the receptor

203. St Abb’s Lighthouse is a Category B Listed Building and therefore deemed to be of medium vulnerability, low recoverability and medium value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be Medium.

Significance of the effect

204. Taking into account the degree of change in the lighthouse’s setting and the position of the Inch Cape wind turbines beyond those of NnG, the cumulative effect is considered to be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

205. 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.

Berwick-upon-Tweed Fortifications

Magnitude of impact

206. Inch Cape is approximately 73.5 km from Berwick-upon-Tweed. Met Office visibility data indicates 0% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 70 km. There is therefore no potential for cumulative effects.

Lindisfarne Castle (Grade I Listed Building, List 1042306)

Magnitude of impact

207. Inch Cape will not be visible from Lindisfarne Castle. There is therefore no potential for cumulative effects.

Lindisfarne Priory (Scheduled Monument, List 1011650)

Magnitude of impact

208. Inch Cape will not be visible from Lindisfarne Priory. There is therefore no potential for cumulative effects.

Bamburgh Castle (Grade I Listed Building, List 128055)

Magnitude of impact

209. Inch Cape will not be visible from Bamburgh Castle. There is therefore no potential for cumulative effects.

Tantallon Castle (Scheduled Monument, SM13326)

Magnitude of impact

210. From Tantallon Castle, the Inch Cape wind turbines will be seen at a distance of at least 49.5 km. Met Office visibility data indicates 10.7% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 50 km. They will lie partially behind NnG, but will extend the proportion of the HFoV containing wind turbines from approximately 50° to 60°. They will represent a barely perceptible addition to the castle’s setting, with no potential to result in additional or greater impacts in combination with the Proposed Development.
211. It is concluded that the cumulative magnitude of impact will be negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

212. 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.

Significance of the effect

213. Taking into account the contribution of setting to the castle’s cultural significance, the position of the Inch Cape wind turbines beyond those of NnG and their distance from the castle, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Development in combination with Inch Cape is considered to be of negligible magnitude and minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

214. 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.

Dunnottar Castle (Scheduled Monument, SM986)

Magnitude of impact

215. Inch Cape will not be visible from Dunnottar Castle. There is therefore no potential for cumulative effects.

Bell Rock lighthouse (Category A Listed Building, LB45197) and Bell Rock Lighthouse Signal Tower (Category A Listed Building, LB21230)

Magnitude of impact

216. From Bell Rock Lighthouse, the Inch Cape wind turbines will be seen at a distance of approximately 8.1 km. Met Office visibility data indicates 83.8% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 8 km. They will be seen in front of Seagreen 1 (29.7 km), and part of the Proposed Development (28.2 km). Inch Cape will bring turbines substantially closer to the lighthouse and increase the number visible from it, resulting in a greater degree of visual change in its setting. However, there is no additional or greater impact upon the cultural significance of the lighthouse from the combination of the Proposed Development and Inch Cape.
217. From the signal station, the Inch Cape wind turbines will be seen at a distance of approximately 19.5 km. Met Office visibility data indicates 62.3% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 19 km. They will be seen in front of Seagreen 1 (40.4 km), and part of the Proposed Development (43 km). Inch Cape will bring turbines closer to the signal station and increase the number visible from it, resulting in a greater degree of visual change in its setting. However, there is no additional or greater impact upon the cultural significance of the signal station from the combination of the Proposed Development and Inch Cape.
218. The cumulative magnitude of change in the lighthouse and signal station’s cultural significance caused by the Proposed Development in combination with Inch Cape is therefore assessed as negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

219. Bell Rock lighthouse and Bell Rock Lighthouse Signal Tower are Category A Listed Buildings 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

220. Taking into account the contribution of setting to the cultural significance of the Bell Rock Lighthouse and Signal Station, the cumulative effect is considered to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

221. 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.

Isle of May lighthouses (SM887/LB2712)

Magnitude of impact

222. From the Isle of May lighthouses, the Inch Cape wind turbines will be seen at a distance of approximately 34 km. Met Office visibility data indicates 44.5% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 35 km. They will be seen in front of Seagreen 1 (53.8 km), and to the left of NnG (16.4 km) and the Proposed Development (41.5 km). Inch Cape will extend the proportion of the HFoV containing wind turbines from 51° to 75°. However, there is no additional or greater impact upon the cultural significance of the lighthouses from the combination of the Proposed Development and Inch Cape.
223. The cumulative magnitude of impact on the lighthouses’ cultural significance is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

224. As a Scheduled Monument, the 1636 lighthouse is considered to be of national importance and high sensitivity. As a Category B Listed Building, the 1815 lighthouse is considered in isolation to be of regional importance but given its group value with the adjacent Scheduled Monument, it is also considered to be of high sensitivity.

Significance of the effect

225. Taking into account the contribution of setting to the cultural significance of the lighthouses, it is considered that the cumulative effect is of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

226. 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.

Isle of May Priory (SM838)

Magnitude of impact

227. From the Isle of May priory, the Inch Cape wind turbines will be seen at a distance of approximately 34 km. Met Office visibility data indicates 44.5% visibility frequency of the wind turbines at 35 km. They will be seen in front of Seagreen 1 (53.8 km), and to the left of NnG (16.4 km) and the Proposed Development (41.5 km). Inch Cape will extend the proportion of the HFoV containing wind turbines from 51° to 75°. However, there is no additional or greater impact upon the cultural significance of the priory from the combination of the Proposed Development and Inch Cape.
228. The cumulative magnitude of change in the priory’s cultural significance caused by the Proposed Development in combination with Inch Cape is therefore assessed as negligible.
229. The additional cumulative magnitude of change in the lighthouses’ cultural significance caused by the Proposed Development is assessed as negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

230. Isle of May Priory 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

231. Taking into account the contribution of setting to the cultural significance of the priory, it is considered that the cumulative effect is of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

232. 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.

Tier 3

233. Tier 3 developments comprise onshore wind farms. These will not appear in combination with the Proposed Development in seaward views. Consequently, it is considered that there is no potential for them to result in significant cumulative effects and they have not been considered further.

Tier 4

234. Following the considerations in Table 16.15   Open ▸ , Tier 4 cumulative effects have been scoped out owing to the distance of the Tier 4 schemes from the cultural heritage receptors. Given the distance of these projects from the receptors the degree of visual change is likely to be negligible and consequently there is negligible potential for them to affect the setting of the cultural heritage receptors.

Impacts (Night-Time) of the Operation and Maintenance of the Proposed Development Upon the Setting of Cultural Heritage Assets

235. This section only considers those assets that are potentially visible at night and hence is restricted to the three lighthouses assessed.

Bell Rock Lighthouse (Category A Listed Building, LB45197)

Magnitude of impact

236. Inch Cape will increase the number of aviation lights visible from and in combination with the lighthouse. Given that the lighthouse light is substantially brighter (1,900,000 cd), flashes and is a different colour from the aviation lights there is no potential for this to affect an appreciation of its operation.
237. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, intermittent 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

238. Bell Rock Lighthouse is a Category A Listed Building 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

239. Taking into account the contribution of setting to the cultural significance of the Bell Rock Lighthouse, the cumulative effect is considered to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

240. 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.

Isle of May Lighthouse (Category B Listed Building, LB2712)

Magnitude of impact

241. Inch Cape will increase the number of aviation lights visible from and in combination with the lighthouse. Given that the lighthouse light is substantially brighter, flashes and is a different colour from the aviation lights there is no potential for this to affect an appreciation of its operation.
242. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of Receptor

243. The Isle of May lighthouse is a Category B Listed Building considered to be of regional importance. Owing to its group value with its scheduled predecessor (SM887), it is considered 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

244. 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.

Further mitigation and residual effect

245. 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.

St Abb’s Lighthouse (Category B Listed Building, LB4103)

Magnitude of impact

246. Inch Cape will increase the number of aviation lights visible from the lighthouse. These will not appear in combination with the lighthouse light as it is shrouded on its landward side. From the sea the wind farm lighting and lighthouse will only be visible in succession. There is therefore no potential for this to affect an appreciation of its operation.
247. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, intermittent 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

248. St Abb’s Lighthouse is a Category B Listed Building of regional importance and therefore deemed to be of medium vulnerability, low recoverability and medium value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be medium.

Significance of the effect

249. As the increased number of aviation lights visible from the lighthouse will not affect its cultural significance, the cumulative effect is considered to be of negligible adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Further mitigation and residual effect

250. 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.

16.12.3.         Proposed Monitoring

251. No monitoring is proposed.

16.13.            Transboundary Effects

16.13. Transboundary Effects

252. A screening of transboundary impacts has been carried out (volume 3, appendix 6.6) and has identified that there were no likely significant transboundary effects with regard to cultural heritage from the Proposed Development upon the interests of other European Economic Area (EEA) States.

16.14.            Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Likely Significant Effects and Monitoring

16.14. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Likely Significant Effects and Monitoring

253. Information on cultural heritage within the cultural heritage study area was collected through desktop review and where necessary site visits.
254. Table 16.16   Open ▸ presents a summary of the potential impacts, mitigation measures and the conclusion of likely significant effects on cultural heritage in EIA terms. Cumulative effects area summarised in Table 16.17   Open ▸ . The impacts assessed comprise operation and maintenance phase effects relating to the setting of cultural heritage receptors. Overall, it is concluded that there will be negligible or minor effects arising from the Proposed Development during the construction, operation and maintenance or decommissioning phases, which are not significant in EIA terms.
255. Overall, it is concluded that there will be negligible or minor  adverse cumulative effects on the setting of the cultural heritage receptors from the Proposed Development alongside other projects/plans, which are not significant in EIA terms.

Table 16.16: Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 16.17: Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

16.15.            References

16.15. References

Aberdeenshire Council (2017). Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan. Available at: Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2017 - Aberdeenshire Council. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Angus Council (2016). Angus Local Development Plan. Available at: https://www.angus.gov.uk/media/angus_local_development_plan_adopted_september_2016. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

CAA (2016). CAP 764 - CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines (Version 6, February 2016). Available at: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP764%20Issue6%20FINAL%20Feb.pdf. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

East Lothian Council (2018). East Lothian Local Development Plan. Available at: https://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/download/13023/local_development_plan_2018Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Fife Council (2017). Fife Plan. Available at: https://fife-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/fife_ldp/fifeplan_-_adopted_plan_13/adopted_fifeplan. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

HES (2020). Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting. Available at: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and-research/publications/publication/?publicationId=80b7c0a0-584b-4625-b1fd-a60b009c2549. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

HES and SNH (2018). EIA Handbook. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2018-05/Publication%202018%20-%20Environmental%20Impact%20Assessment%20Handbook%20V5.pdf. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Historic England (2021). Commercial Renewable Energy Development and the Historic Environment: Historic England Advice Note 15. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/commercial-renewable-energy-development-historic-environment-advice-note-15/heag302-commercial-renewable-energy-development-historic-environment/. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

IEMA (2021). Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in the UK. Available at: https://ihbc.org.uk/brighton2021/resources/Principles-of-CHIA-V2%5B4%5D.pdf. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Landscape Institute (2013) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3. Routledge.

Landscape Institute (2019) Technical Guidance Note 06/19: Visual Representation of Development Proposals. Available at: https://landscapewpstorage01.blob.core.windows.net/www-landscapeinstitute-org/2019/09/LI_TGN-06-19_Visual_Representation.pdf. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Marine Scotland (2015). Scotland’s National Marine Plan. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-national-marine-plan/. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Marine Scotland (2021). Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm: Scoping Opinion. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/scoping_opinion_7.pdf. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Marine Scotland (2022). Berwick Bank Offshore Wind Farm: Scoping Opinion. Available at: https://marine.gov.scot/sites/default/files/scoping_opinion_8.pdf. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Northumberland Council (2019). Northumberland Draft Local Plan. Available at: https://www.northumberland.gov.uk/Planning/Planning-policy/Plan.aspx. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

RPS (2022a). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Environmental Impact Assessment: Marine Archaeology Technical Report.

RPS (2022b). Marine Archaeology Outline Written Scheme Of Investigation (Including Protocol Of Archaeological Discoveries).

Scottish Borders Council (2016). Scottish Borders Local Development Plan Available at: https://www.scotborders.gov.uk/info/20051/plans_and_guidance/121/local_development_plan. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Scottish Government (2013). Planning Advice Note 1/2013: Environmental Impact Assessment. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-advice-note-1-2013-environmental-impact-assessment/pages/5/. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

Scottish Government (2014). Scottish Planning Policy. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2020/12/scottish-planning-policy/documents/scottish-planning-policy/scottish-planning-policy/govscot%3Adocument/scottish-planning-policy.pdf?forceDownload=true. Accessed on: 02 March 2022.

SSER (2021a). Berwick Bank Wind Farm Offshore Scoping Report.

SSER (2022e). Cambois connection Scoping Report.

SWEL (January 2022). Seagreen S36C Application, Screening Report.

[1] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[2] The maximum design scenario and justification is the same for all potential impacts listed and therefore is not repeated for each individual impact.

[3] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[4] Acts related to Ancient Monuments and HES have been omitted on the basis they do not contain provisions of relevance in the current context.

[5] C = Construction, O = Operation and maintenance, D = Decommissioning