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

16.12.1.         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.