Berwick-upon-Tweed Fortifications

Magnitude of impact

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. It is concluded that the cumulative magnitude of impact will be negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. The cumulative magnitude of impact on the lighthouses’ cultural significance is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. The additional cumulative magnitude of change in the lighthouses’ cultural significance caused by the Proposed Development is assessed as negligible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. 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

  1. No monitoring is proposed.

16.13. Transboundary Effects

  1. 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

  1. Information on cultural heritage within the cultural heritage study area was collected through desktop review and where necessary site visits.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 16.16: Summary of Likely Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

 

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

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

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