1. Introduction and summary

1.1. Background

1. Berwick Bank Wind Farm Limited (the ‘Applicant’) submitted an application for planning permission in principle (PPP) for Berwick Bank Wind Farm onshore transmission works (OnTW) (the ‘Proposed Development’) in March 2023, supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment which was reported in an EIA Report (the ‘Onshore EIA Report’).

2. Following the submission of the PPP application, the Applicant has been notified of the submission of a Section 36 (S36) application for the proposed Branxton Energy Storage System (the ‘Branxton BESS Project’) to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU00004659) on land in the vicinity of the Proposed Development.

3. Following consultation with ELC it was agreed that an additional cumulative effects assessment (CEA) would be provided in support of the Proposed Development’s PPP application to account for potential cumulative effects with the Branxton BESS Project. This EIA Report Addendum incorporates the requested additional CEA and should be read in conjunction with the cumulative effects sections of the technical chapters (Chapters 6 to 14) within Volume 1 of the Onshore EIA Report.

4. The Applicant has also undertaken further work to address consultation responses following the submission of the PPP application. As some of this work necessitates the updating of Environmental Information pertinent to the EIA, the information has been provided in the EIA Report Addendum alongside the CEA in support of the application. A summary of the additional information provided alongside the CEA, as well as reason for its inclusion and an overview of outcomes, is provided in Table 1.1 below.

Table 1.1 Summary of Updated Sections

5. It should be noted that there are no changes to the Proposed Development as outlined within the application. The information set out below is intended to be read in conjunction with the Onshore EIA Report. Reference will be made to EIA Report chapters, associated technical appendices and figures where the originals remain applicable. Where any information in the Onshore EIA Report is superseded by the information presented in this EIA Addendum, this is made clear.

6. Section 2 provides the additional CEA. Section 3 updates made to the Environmental Information pertinent to the EIA assessment incorporating Flood Risk, Ecology, Biodiversity Net Gain and Landscape Mitigation.

2. Cumulative Effects Assessment

2.1. Methodology

7. The CEA reported in this Addendum takes into account the potential cumulative impacts of the Proposed Development together with the Branxton BESS Project. Cumulative effects are therefore the combined effect of the Proposed Development in combination with the effects from the Branxton BESS Project, on the same receptor or resource. Refer to Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report for detail on CEA methodology.

8. The Branxton BESS Project has been screened in for cumulative effects assessment in relation to landscape and visual, ecology, ornithology, cultural heritage, socio-economics and land use, tourism and recreation based upon data confidence, effect-receptor pathways and the spatial/temporal scales involved. Those topics screened out of the CEA, together with justification, are presented in Table 2.1 Open ▸ .

Table 2.1 Topics Screened in and out of the Cumulative Effects Assessment with the Branxton BESS Project

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

2.2. Landscape and visual

10. The landscape and visual effects of the Proposed Development are included in Volume 1, Chapter 6 of the Onshore EIA Report which includes a cumulative effects assessment. The purpose of this Addendum section is to update the cumulative effects assessment to include the Branxton BESS Project within the assessment of cumulative effects.

11. The CEA reported in the Onshore EIA Report was split into Tier 1 and Tier 2 assessments. The Tier 1 assessment considered the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development with the offshore elements of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm. There is therefore no need to update the Tier 1 assessment in this Addendum.

12. This section of the Addendum replaces the Tier 2 cumulative assessment found within Volume 1, Chapter 6 of the Onshore EIA Report. Figure 6.13, Volume 2 of the Onshore EIA Report has also been updated as part of this Addendum which illustrates the locations of cumulative developments included within the Tier 2 cumulative assessment (Figure A6.13).

2.2.2. Updated Tier 2 Cumulative Assessment

13. As described in the cumulative methodology, within Section 6.9.2 of Chapter 6, Volume 1 of the EIA Report a preliminary assessment has been undertaken of the shortlisted Tier 2 cumulative projects based on professional judgement, assessment rationale and guidance relevant to landscape and visual impacts. The preliminary cumulative assessment in Table 2.2 below has determined that the application stage SPEN Eastern Link Project, SPEN Branxton Grid Substation and SPEN Branxton BESS Project developments have the potential to give rise to significant cumulative effects as a result of the addition of the Proposed Development and consequently require detailed assessment.

14. The cumulative effects presented and assessed in this Addendum have been selected from the details provided in Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report as well as the information available on other projects and plans, to inform a ‘maximum design scenario’. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Design Envelope, to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.

Table 2.2 Updated Shortlist of Tier 2 Cumulative Projects

2.2.3. Cumulative Development Description

Branxton Grid Substation

15. The proposal for the Branxton Grid Substation incorporates a 400kV gas insulated switchgear (GIS) building in close proximity to the existing cable sealing end compounds at Branxton and Thornton Bridge. The Proposed Development onshore cable corridor would join this substation, as would the Eastern Link project. The Branxton Grid Substation proposal whilst close to the existing cable sealing end compounds at Branxton and Thornton Bridge would increase the influence of electricity infrastructure to neighbouring fields at a higher elevation and would involve large scale earthworks in its creation. Should it be consented, it is anticipated that the Branxton Grid Substation construction would take place over 2 years (2023 to 2025) and begin operation by the end of 2026.

Eastern Link

16. The proposal for the Eastern Link project includes 176 km of marine cabling to link East Lothian with County Durham to aid the distribution of green energy between Scotland and England. The Eastern Link marine cable would make landfall south of Torness Power Station, on the coast east of Linkshead. The onshore cable corridor would then travel east to Old Branxton, joining the Branxton Grid Substation south of Thornton Law. From this point the Eastern Link cable corridor would follow broadly the same route as the onshore cable corridor of the Proposed Development before branching north-east to the proposed converter station, close to the Dunbar ERF on the northern side of the A1 trunk road. The proposed converter station would constitute two, large-scale buildings enclosing the necessary ‘stepping down’ electrical infrastructure. The site has been selected due to its existing industrial environment. Should it be consented, the Eastern Link project is anticipated to start construction during 2024 and begin operation during 2027. The Proposed Development is expected to begin construction during 2025 and begin operation 40 months later, meaning there is the potential for both cable corridors to be under construction within the LVIA study area at the same time.

Branxton BESS Project

17. The proposed Branxton BESS Project comprises a grid services complex of battery storage modules, other associated ancillary electrical infrastructure, access roads, sympathetically coloured security fencing and security gates (both 3 m in height). Groundworks to create a completely flat and levelled surface are not anticipated, and the facility, particularly the battery storage modules, will accord with the changing level of the existing local topography. The development will include planting that will provide screening from key visual receptors and enhance biodiversity. The electrical export capacity of the facility is expected to be exceed 50 MW but is to be confirmed. Should it be consented, construction of the Branxton BESS Project is anticipated to occur over a 12-month period, with an operational lifespan of 40 years.

2.2.4. Receptors Considered in Detail within the Tier 2 Cumulative Assessment

18. An assessment description of the likely significance of cumulative effects of the Proposed Development upon landscape and visual receptors is given below. In order to establish which landscape and visual receptors have the potential for significant cumulative effects, each of the receptors considered to have potential for significant effects against the existing baseline are reconsidered in the preliminary assessment in Table 2.3 Open ▸ below to establish which require a detailed cumulative assessment (highlighted grey).

Table 2.3 LVIA Receptors in Relation to Tier 2 Cumulative Assessment

2.2.5. Tier 2 Detailed Cumulative Assessment

19. Detailed baseline descriptions and sensitivity assessments have been provided in Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 6.11.4 (Landscape Character Assessment) and 6.11.6 Visual Effects Assessment of Onshore EIA Report. To avoid duplication of reporting, these assessments are referenced for each receptor included below. Potential construction and operational cumulative effects as a result of the onshore substation are assessed and reported together to avoid a similar repetition of reporting.

2.2.6. LCT 277: Coastal Margins – Lothians

Baseline and sensitivity

20. Please refer to Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 6.11.5 (Detailed Landscape Character Assessment) of the Onshore EIA Report. The LCT is deemed to be of medium value and medium susceptibility and the sensitivity of the receptor considered to be medium.

Magnitude of change

21. The Eastern Link cable corridor could be under construction within this LCT within the same time period as the Proposed Development, with a shared stretch of cabling construction activity between Branxton and the onshore substation. While the processes involved in excavating land, storing material and installing cabling are not considered to be wholly out of context with the agricultural practices that are a key character of the LCT, the construction of both developments simultaneously would increase the presence of this development type for a short period of time. The introduction of the Eastern Link converter station to the cumulative context would, in itself, increase the presence of industrial built form within this LCT, however, it is located in an area of the LCT that is already characterised by industrial developments including the operation quarry at Dunbar Cement Plant, Dunbar Energy Recovery Facility and Dunbar Landfill. The Eastern Link development would therefore slightly increase the industrial backdrop of development already experienced within this LCT.

22. Construction of the Branxton BESS Project may occur within the same time period as that of the Proposed Development. Simultaneous construction of both developments would increase the presence of construction activity within the area for a short period of time. The introduction of the Branxton BESS Project to the cumulative context would increase the presence of industrial built form within an area of this LCT that is already characterised by industrial development. Within this context, the increase in industrial structures or elements within the LCT arising from the Branxton BESS Project would be slight.

23. It is considered that the addition of the Proposed Development to a scenario that includes the Eastern Link and Branxton BESS Project would increase the amount of industrial development within this LCT, however, there would be minimal cumulative interaction between these developments due to the physical and visual separation afforded by a combination of distance from the larger built parts of these developments, intervening topography and other landscape elements such as the A1 road corridor embankments. Furthermore, the presence of the Branxton BESS Project and Eastern Link developments in this scenario further strengthens the developed baseline of this LCT when combined with the existing industrial context of the coastal landscape. This has a moderating effect when considering the addition of the Proposed Development as it would introduce development that is not entirely uncharacteristic.

24. Taking all of this into account, the cumulative magnitude of change is considered to be medium-low during construction and low during year 1 and in year 15.

Significance of the cumulative effect

25. The cumulative effect would be moderate-minor and not significant during construction reducing to minor and not significant during year 1 and year 15. Construction effects are direct, adverse, reversible and temporary. Operational effects are direct, adverse and permanent.

2.2.7. LCT 269: Upland Fringes – Lothians

Sensitivity of the receptor

26. Please refer to Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 6.11.5 (Detailed Landscape Character Assessment) of the EIA Report. The LCT is deemed to be of medium-high value and medium-low susceptibility and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium.

Magnitude of change

27. The Branxton Grid substation would increase the presence of electricity infrastructure within a localised part of the LCT that is already characterised by this kind of development. In itself, the effect of the Branxton Grid substation upon the key characteristics of this LCT are considered to be limited by its location and the containing influence of surrounding topography. Cumulative interaction between the Branxton Grid substation and the Proposed Development substation would also be limited by the same topographical and locational characteristics. The Proposed Development onshore cabling works would have limited influence on the characteristics of this LCT as described in Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 6.11.3 of the EIA Report, and the cumulative interaction is also considered to be minimal and short term.

28. The Branxton BESS Project would further increase the presence of electricity infrastructure largely within the neighbouring LCT 277, within an area that is already characterised by similar development, including Torness Power Station, overhead power lines, the East Coast Main Line and A1 trunk road. The influence of the Branxton BESS Project would extend across areas near Branxton and Innerwick, and the eastern faces of Thornton Hill and Blackcastle Hill. In itself, the effect of the Branxton BESS Project on the key characteristics of this LCT 269 would be limited to its visual presence in coastal views, overlooking the lowlands adjoining this LCT. The existing influence of industrial and electrical development within the context of the Coastal Margins LCT 277; the containment by surrounding topography; and the visual separation from the Proposed Development would limit the cumulative interaction between the Branxton BESS Project and the Proposed Development onshore substation.

29. From the western edges of this LCT within the eastern Lammermuirs, both the Branxton Grid substation and Branxton BESS Project would be viewed from an elevated position, however, a degree of separation exists in these views between these developments and the onshore substation element of the Proposed Development such that cumulative interaction is minimal when considering the key characteristics overall. The Proposed Development would also be experienced in distant views within the context of other existing industrial and electrical development already present within the Coastal Margins LCT 277. When combined with the presence of the Branxton BESS Project and Eastern Link developments in this scenario, the additional effect of the Proposed Development is moderated as it would introduce development that is not entirely uncharacteristic.

30. Taking all of this into account, it is considered that the addition of the Proposed Development to a scenario that includes the Eastern Link and Branxton BESS Project would result in a cumulative magnitude of change of low during construction, year 1 and in year 15.

Significance of the cumulative effect

31. The cumulative effect is considered to be minor and not significant in EIA terms during construction, year 1 and in year 15. Construction effects are direct, adverse, reversible and temporary. Operational effects are direct, adverse and permanent.

2.2.8. Viewpoint 3: John Muir Link, Skateraw Harbour

Sensitivity of the receptor

32. Please refer to Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 6.11.7 (Detailed Visual Effects Assessment) of the Onshore EIA Report. The viewpoint is deemed to be of high value and medium susceptibility and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium-high.

Magnitude of change

33. The Eastern Link converter station would be partially visible from this location. The screening influence of intervening restored landform, at Dunbar Landfill, mature woodland and Skateraw Farm restricts potential views, however, the upper parts of the development would be visible above the intervening trees. The Eastern Link cable corridor would be screened from view by the Proposed Development with limited opportunities for it and the onshore cable corridor to be viewed in combination. The Eastern Link Convertor Station would occupy a different part of panorama than the Proposed Development onshore substation and their locations would be further separated by the mature trees within the intervening landscape that appear to form a break in the view.

34. The addition of the Proposed Development to a scenario that includes the Eastern Link development would therefore have minimal cumulative interaction given the visual separation and limited visibility of the Eastern Link development. The cumulative magnitude of change is therefore considered to be low during construction, year 1 and in year 15.

Significance of the cumulative effect

35. The cumulative effect is considered to be moderate-minor and not significant in EIA terms during construction, year 1 and in year 15. Construction effects are direct, adverse, reversible and temporary. Operational effects are direct, adverse and permanent.

2.2.9. Viewpoint 4: Minor Road Near Thornton

Sensitivity of the receptor

36. Please refer to Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 6.11.7 (Detailed Visual Effects Assessment) of the Onshore EIA Report. The viewpoint is deemed to be of high value and medium susceptibility and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium-high.

Magnitude of change

37. The Branxton BESS Project would be partially visible when looking south east from this location. Screening by landform and hedgerow within the farmland cover would limit visibility of the facility to it uppermost parts, against a backdrop of the easternmost Lammermuir Hills. The Branxton BESS Project, Proposed Development onshore substation and Eastern Link Convertor Station would occupy different parts of the panorama and would not be viewed simultaneously. There would be limited visibility of the facility in combination with the cumulative developments.

38. To the north-west, the Proposed Development would screen the Eastern Link cable corridor. Landform and mature trees within the intervening landscape would restrict visibility of the onshore cable corridor and Eastern Link cable corridor.

39. Minimal cumulative interaction would occur due to the addition of the Proposed Development to a scenario that includes the Branxton BESS Project and Eastern Link development. This is due to the visual separation arising from the spatial arrangement of these developments and limited visibility of the cumulative developments. The cumulative magnitude of change is therefore considered to be low during construction, year 1 and in year 15.

Significance of the cumulative effect

40. The cumulative effect is considered to be moderate-minor and not significant in EIA terms during construction, year 1 and in year 15. Construction effects are direct, adverse, reversible and temporary. Operational effects are direct, adverse and permanent.

2.2.10. Viewpoint 6: Blackcastle Hill

Sensitivity of the receptor

41. Please refer to Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 6.11.7 (Detailed Visual Effects Assessment) of the Onshore EIA Report. The viewpoint is deemed to be of medium-high value and medium susceptibility. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium-high.

Magnitude of change

42. The introduction of the Eastern Link converter station to the cumulative context would increase the presence of industrial built form within an area that is already characterised by industrial developments including the operation quarry at Dunbar Cement Plant, Dunbar ERF and Dunbar Landfill. The converter station would slightly increase the presence of industrial development within successive views to the north-west. The cumulative interaction between the converter station and the Proposed Development would however be marginal due to the context of existing industrial development in proximity to the converter station site, distance from the view and the visual separation of these sites is also evident from this viewpoint. Construction of the cable corridor for the Eastern Link would be visible across the central portion of the lower lying landscape in the view, including the connection point to the Convertor Station on the Coastal Margins. The construction activities associated with the Eastern Link cabling works would be viewed in close context to the Proposed Development cable corridor for a short distance south of the onshore substation.

43. The introduction of the Branxton BESS Project to the cumulative context would further increase the presence of industrial built form, however, the Branxton BESS Project would appear more peripheral to the view, beyond the broad plateau of the hilltop in the foreground. As construction activities for the Branxton BESS Project, Eastern Link and the Proposed Development may occur within a similar time period, they may be visible at the same time. While the processes involved in excavating and storing land and installing the onshore cable corridor are not considered to be wholly out of context with the agricultural land use, the construction of these developments simultaneously would increase the presence of this development type for a short period of time.

44. When considering the addition of the Proposed Development onshore substation to a scenario that includes the Eastern Link Convertor Station and Branxton BESS Project minimal cumulative interaction is predicted given the visual separation and existing industrial backdrop. When considering the addition of the Proposed Development to a scenario that includes the Eastern Link and Branxton BESS Project cabling works there is potential for the effect of construction activities to be visible in more areas than that of either development on its own and also potentially more intensive within the same time period. These construction activities are however still considered to be short term and temporary and for the most part similar in scale to other agricultural practices seen from this viewpoint throughout the year. Taking all of this into account, the overall cumulative interaction is considered to be minimal resulting in a low magnitude of change during construction, year 1 and in year 15.

Significance of the cumulative effect

45. The cumulative effect would be moderate-minor and not significant in EIA terms during construction, year 1 and year 15. Construction effects are direct, adverse, reversible and temporary. Operational effects are direct, adverse and permanent.

2.2.11. A1 trunk road

Sensitivity of the receptor

46. Please refer to Volume 1, Chapter 6, Section 6.11.7 (Detailed Visual Effects Assessment) of the Onshore EIA Report. Viewpoint 1 is representative of receptors using this road, who are deemed to place a medium value on the view and who are of medium susceptibility. The receptor sensitivity is considered to be medium.

Magnitude of change

47. Theoretically, the Branxton BESS Project would be intermittently visible from sections of the road within the study area with more constant visibility from the stretch of road between the overpass crossing the ECML, to the north; and the junction with road to Bilsdean, to the south. Whilst set further back from the A1, due to its elevated location, visibility of the Branxton Grid Substation is potentially similar in extent, however, the intervening screening elements such as localised topography, small woods and field boundary vegetation restrict clear views towards it. Theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development extends from the bridge over the Dry Burn to Thorntonloch Bridge, to the north and south, respectively. Whether northbound or southbound, receptors using the road would periodically see these developments where screening by topography and intervening smaller landscape elements allows. Due to their close proximity to the road, the Proposed Development and the Branxton BESS Project would be glimpsed between landform and roadside tree planting. These glimpses would be relatively close range and would mainly occur as receptors approach and pass each of these developments in turn.

48. When considering the addition of the Proposed Development to a cumulative scenario that includes the Branxton BESS Project the perceived level of electricity infrastructure along the road within the study area would increase. This would be particularly notable for southbound receptors west of the Proposed Development, where the Proposed Development will appear directly ahead from the A1. For northbound receptors, intervening trees would initially screen the Proposed Development, which would gradually come into view as the road turns west. It would lie just to the side of the view with the greater focus of Torness Power Station on the opposite side of the road. The Branxton BESS Project be more peripheral to the direction of travel for both northbound and southbound receptors. It would also be less visible due to intermittent screening provided by intervening woods and field boundary vegetation.

49. The existing influence of Torness Power Station; the spatial separation of the Proposed Development and cumulative developments; and their very limited simultaneous visibility, would limit their sequential visual impact resulting in two separate and short sections of the road having brief glimpses of these developments within differing landscape and topographical contexts. Maturation of mitigation planting would moderate the adverse nature of the cumulative effect to a slight degree. It is considered that, taken in sequence, the magnitude of change to views from the A1 would be noticeable but not definitive.

50. The cumulative magnitude of change is considered to be medium during construction, year 1 and in year 15.

Significance of the cumulative effect

51. The cumulative effect is considered to be moderate and not significant in EIA terms during construction, year 1 and in year 15. Construction effects are direct, adverse, reversible and temporary. Operational effects are direct, adverse and permanent.

2.2.12. Summary and conclusions

52. This Addendum provides an updated cumulative effects assessment (CEA) to be read alongside Volume 1, Chapter 6 of the Onshore EIA Report. The key change between this Addendum and the CEA provided within Volume 1, Chapter 6 of the Onshore EIA Report is the inclusion of the Branxton BESS Project within the assessment of cumulative effects. This report therefore replaces the Tier 2 cumulative assessment found within Chapter 6. Volume 2, Figure 6.3 has also been updated as part of this Addendum which illustrates the locations of cumulative developments included within the Tier 2 cumulative assessment and this Addendum.

53. Of these cumulative developments, Branxton Grid Substation, Branxton BESS Project and Eastern Link have been considered in detail in a Tier 2 cumulative assessment (application scenario). None of the key landscape and visual receptors are assessed as having significant cumulative effects as a result of other developments in the study area. Where cumulative developments are visible from key landscape and visual receptors, they would have limited cumulative interaction with the Proposed Development or the cumulative effect would be minimal, short term and temporary, substantially limiting their cumulative influence when considering the additional effect of the Proposed Development. Additionally, when experienced in sequence (by receptors using the A1 trunk road), the cumulative effect of the Proposed Development and cumulative developments is assessed as being not significant.

2.3. Ecology

A total of four projects and plans were initially selected as relevant to the CEA and presented within the ecology chapter (Volume 1, Chapter 7 of the Onshore EIA Report) based upon the results of a screening exercise (see Volume 4, Appendix 2.4 of the Onshore EIA Report). This Addendum updates the CEA in relation to ecology to include the Branxton BESS Project.

55. Each project or plan was considered on a case-by-case basis for screening in or out of the ecology chapter’s assessment based upon data confidence, effect-receptor pathways and the spatial/temporal scales involved.

56. The specific projects scoped into the CEA for ecology are described below and outlined in Table 2.4 Open ▸ .

2.3.1. Developments Scoped into Assessment

57. Crystal Rig IV wind farm (Planning application ref: 18/00004/SGC) lies 7.9 km south-west of the site in upland areas, comprising a combination of moorland and forestry habitats. Though the site is upland areas within significantly different habitats from lowland farmland and there is a significant distance between the two developments, the results of the baseline species and habitat surveys overlap with those of the Proposed Development. Due to the overlap in ecology receptors assessed within the EIA and the Proposed Development, including designated sites, this development is scoped into the CEA.

58. A planning application for a cable route and sub-station which overlaps the site (SPEN Eastern Link- Branxton Grid Substation, 21/01569/PM) is currently withdrawn but expected to be resubmitted in the near future. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (including otter and badger survey) and bat surveys were completed in 2021. A similar range of species and habitats were recorded during the ecology surveys and the withdrawn EIA report scoped out all designated sites and species except bats. The predicted impacts on bats were concluded to be minor and not significant during construction, operation and cumulative.

59. The SPEN Eastern Link Project – Converter Station and Cabling (Planning application ref: 22/00852/PPM) is a scheme for a new 525kV electricity converter station, underground cables and associated works and overlaps the current site. Also includes S37 application (22/00002/SGC) to install and keep a new 265 m section of 400 kV overhead line east of the proposed Branxton Grid substation. Due to the overlap in ecology receptors assessed within the EIA and the Proposed Development, including designated sites, this development is scoped into the CEA.

60. The Branxton BESS Project is a S36 application to construct and operate a BESS with a generating capacity in exceedance of 50 MW, comprising battery-based electricity storage containers and associated infrastructure. The above ground area being developed totals 13.35 hectares. The current land use is arable, and hedgerows, trees and boundary features will be retained. Due to the overlap in ecology receptors assessed within the Branxton BESS Project EcIA and the Proposed Development, including designated sites, this development is scoped into the CEA.

Offshore Proposed Developments

Berwick Bank Offshore

Up to 307 wind turbines (each comprising a tower section, nacelle and three rotor blades) and associated support structures and foundations;
Up to ten Offshore Substation Platforms (OSPs) and associated support structures and foundations;
Estimated scour protection area of up to 2,280 m2 per wind turbine and 11,146 m2 per OSP;
A network of inter-array cabling linking the individual wind turbines to each other and to the OSPs plus inter-connections between OSPs (approximately 1,225 km of inter-array cabling and 94 km of interconnector cabling); and
Up to eight offshore export cables connecting the OSPs to Skateraw Landfall. It is possible that either High Voltage Alternating Current (HVAC) or High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) cables will be used at the Proposed Development. The options currently considered include:

– Up to eight HVAC offshore export cables; or

– Up to four HVDC offshore export cables.

Construction to start 2025 with an 8-year build programme.

Table 2.4 Updated List of Other Projects Considered Within the CEA for Ecology

2.3.2. Maximum Design Scenario

61. The maximum design scenarios summarised here have been selected as those having the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. The cumulative effects presented and assessed in this section have been selected from the details provided in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the Onshore EIA Report as well as the information available on other projects and plans, to inform a ‘maximum design scenario’. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Design Envelope, to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.

2.3.3. Cumulative Effects Assessment

62. An assessment description of the likely significance of the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development upon ecology receptors arising from each identified impact is given below.

63. Table 2.5 Open ▸ provides an overview of residual effects on Important Ecological Features (IEFs) from each of the scoped-in developments to allow an assessment of overall cumulative effect.

Table 2.5 Summary of Residual Effects of Scoped in Developments on IEFs

HABITAT LOSS/DISTURBANCE

Tier 1 & Tier 2

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

Designated Sites

64. As described in Table 2.5 Open ▸ , no significant impacts on designated site IEFs considered within this assessment were predicted during the construction of the scoped in developments.

65. The cumulative effect and magnitude are predicted to be as follows for each designated site:

Dunglass Burn LNCS: local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.
Thornton Glen SWT: local spatial extent, short term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore, considered to be low.
Dryburn Valley LNCS: local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.

Habitats

66. As described in Table 2.5 Open ▸ , no significant impacts on habitat IEFs considered within this assessment were predicted during the construction of the scoped in developments.

67. The cumulative effect and magnitude are predicted to be as follows for each habitat IEF:

Dense/scattered scrub: local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.
Species-poor hedgerow: local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.
Running water: local spatial extent, medium-term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly (Skateraw Dean and Braid Burn) and directly (unnamed watercourse). The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of receptor

Designated Sites

68. The sensitivity of each designated site IEF is as per Paragraphs 112, 119, and 127 in Volume 1, Chapter 7 of the Onshore EIA.

69. The overall sensitivity of each designated site is:

Dunglass Burn LNCS: low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Thornton Glen SWT: medium vulnerability, low recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Dryburn Valley LNCS: medium vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptors is therefore considered to be low.

Protected Habitats

70. The sensitivity of each habitat IEF is as per Paragraphs 134, 142, 150 in Volume 1, Chapter 7 of the Onshore EIA.

71. The overall sensitivity of each habitat IEF is:

Dense/scattered scrub: low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Species-poor hedgerow: low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.
Running water: medium vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of effect

Designated Sites

72. As summarised in Table 2.5 Open ▸ no significant cumulative effect on the designated site IEFs is considered likely.

Dunglass Burn LNCS: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Thornton Glen SWT: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Dryburn Valley LNCS: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Protected Habitats

73. As summarised in Table 2.5 Open ▸ no significant cumulative effect on the habitat IEFs is considered likely.

Dense/scattered scrub: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Species-poor hedgerow: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be medium, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.
Running water: overall the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effect will therefore be negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

74. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Proposed Monitoring

75. No monitoring is considered necessary.

2.4. Ornithology

76. A total of four projects and plans have been selected as relevant to the CEA presented within this Addendum are based upon the results of a screening exercise (see Volume 4, Appendix 2.4 of the Onshore EIA Report). Each project or plan has been considered on a case by case basis for screening in or out of this Addendum section's assessment based upon data confidence, effect-receptor pathways and the spatial/temporal scales involved.

Developments Scoped Out of Assessment

77. Crystal Rig IV wind farm (Planning application ref: 18/00004/SGC) lies 7.9 km south-west of the site in upland areas, comprising a combination of moorland and forestry habitats. With the site being upland areas with significantly different habitats from the lowland farmland within and surrounding the site, they also support different breeding and wintering bird assemblages. The results of the ornithology surveys at Crystal Rig IV wind farm showed little overlap with surveys at the Proposed Development due to the differing habitats, with only low numbers of herring gull in the winter months being the only overlap, curlew was recorded as a breeding species but not recorded in the non-breeding season (Fred Olsen Renewables, 2018). The fact that there is no significant overlap in habitats and hence species mean that the two locations have different breeding and wintering bird assemblages and the significant distance between the two wind farms and the Proposed Development mean this site is scoped out of the cumulative assessment.

Developments Scoped into Assessment

78. A planning application for a cable route and sub-station which overlaps the site (SPEN Eastern Link Project, 22/00852/PPM & 22/00002/SGC) is in ongoing dialogue and breeding bird and wintering bird surveys were completed in 2021. The cable route and proposed sub-station location overlapped with the site which was covered by surveys for the Proposed Development. A similar range of species were recorded during the bird surveys and the Onshore EIA Report scoped out all designated sites and species bar wintering curlew, breeding peregrine falcon and breeding herring gull. The predicted impacts on all three receptors were concluded to be minor and not significant during construction, operation and cumulative.

79. Another similar scheme is a (currently withdrawn) application for the construction of a 400 kilovolt (kV) gas insulated switchgear (GIS) substation and associated works (SPEN Branxton Grid Substation, 21/01569/PM). This works area which would overlap the current site, but the planning application has not been submitted to date. The withdrawn EIA predicts no significant effects on bird species with basic mitigation outlined to fully off-set both the breeding bird and wintering bird assemblages including herring gull, peregrine and curlew (SP Energy Networks, 2021).

80. The Branxton BESS Project site’s current land use is noted as arable and the majority of key habitats for breeding birds (field margins and hedgerows) will be retained. No impacts have been predicted on any designated sites in terms of birds, including the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA and Firth of Forth SPA and more detailed bird surveys were not considered to be necessary to support the Branxton BESS Project's S36 application (Arcus, 2022).

81. Due to the proposed loss of arable fields which are considered suitable for qualifying species of the Firth of Forth SPA (such as wintering pink-footed goose and golden plover) and given a loss of similar habitats within the Proposed Development, this development is scoped into the CEA. The specific projects scoped into the CEA for ornithology are outlined in Table 2.6 Open ▸ .

Offshore Proposed Developments

82. Berwick Bank Offshore Infrastructure (refer to Ecology section above for a summary description of this development).

Table 2.6 Updated List of Other Projects Considered Within the CEA for Ornithology

Maximum Design Scenario

83. The maximum design scenarios assessed here based on the details in Table 2.6 Open ▸ above are those having the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. The cumulative effects presented and assessed in this section have been selected from the details provided in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the Onshore EIA Report as well as the information available on other projects and plans, to inform a ‘maximum design scenario’. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Design Envelope, to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.

Cumulative Effects Assessment

84. The potential cumulative impacts arising from the construction, operational and maintenance phases of the Proposed Development and an assessment of the likely significance of the effects of the Proposed Development on ornithological receptors caused by each identified impact is given below.

85. The predicted impacts on all receptors during construction due to disturbance and habitat loss or displacement due to habitat loss during operation of the Proposed Development are predicted to be barely perceptible and not significant. The predicted impacts during operation are predicted to be less than during construction and also not significant for all receptors. The predicted impacts on all IEFs for the five schemes included in the cumulative assessment are also predicted to be not significant.

Disturbance or Habitat Loss: All species

Construction & Operational Phase

86. Cumulative impacts on roosting or foraging bird species during construction and operation activities due to disturbance or direct habitat loss.

Magnitude of impact

87. No significant impacts were predicted for any species based on the scoped in cumulative projects displayed in Table 2.6 Open ▸ . The assessment above predicted there would be no significant impacts on any species during construction and operation of the Proposed Development.

88. It is considered that the cumulative construction and operational are assessed to be of short-term duration, reversible and will affect the receptors directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be barely perceptible.

Sensitivity of the receptor

89. Sensitivity of all species is as set out in Volume 1, Chapter 8: Table 8.9 of the Onshore EIA Report.

Significance of the effect

90. The cumulative effect on all species as a result of construction and operation is considered to be negligible and therefore not significant in the context of the EIA Regulations.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

91. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Proposed Monitoring

92. No monitoring to test the predictions made within the assessment of likely significant effects on ornithology is considered necessary.

2.5. Cultural Heritage

93. 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. This assessment is based on the methodologies set out in Volume 1, Chapter 10 of the Onshore EIA Report, Section 10.6 Methodology to Inform Baseline, Section 10.9 Methodology for Assessment of Effects, and Section 10.12 Cumulative Effects Assessment. Figure 1.6.1 illustrates the location of the Proposed Development and the Branxton BESS Project and the designated cultural heritage assets in the surrounding area.

94. To avoid duplication of reporting, the cumulative assessment of SPEN Eastern Link – Branxton Grid Substation and SPEN Eastern Link Project – Converter Station & Cable Route on cultural heritage receptors are not included in this Addendum and are provided in Volume 1, Chapter 10, Section 10.12 of the Onshore EIA Report.

Direct Impacts On Cultural Heritage Assets

Construction phase

95. The Branxton BESS Project lies outwith the Inner Study Area considered for direct impacts on cultural heritage and would have no construction impact on any of the known cultural heritage assets affected by the Proposed Development (Volume 1, Chapter 10, Section 10.7 Baseline Assessment, and Volume 2 Figure 10.1 of the Onshore EIA Report). As a result, there is no potential for direct cumulative impacts on any of the known cultural heritage assets affected by the Proposed Development.

96. The Branxton BESS Project is approximately 960 m to the east of the Proposed Development’s grid connection point at Thornton Law and 1.7 km to the southeast from the proposed onshore substation. Given the distance between the construction footprints of the two developments, it is assessed that there is no potential for direct cumulative construction impacts on any previously unrecorded cultural heritage receptors affected by the Proposed Development.

Operation and maintenance phase

97. Five designated cultural heritage asset (SM 775, SM 3990, SM 5770, SM 5771 and SM 5958) have been identified as potentially being subject to cumulative impacts on their setting.

Innerwick Castle (SM773)

98. The scheduled monument comprises the ruins of a castle dating from the 14th century which occupies a rock promontory on the edge of the steep-sided Thornton Glen. The glen provides an enclosed setting for this castle and views from the castle are largely focused within the steep gorge of Thornton Glen. Its location within the Thornton Glen provides the castle with a relatively hidden position and results in Innerwick Castle not being a prominent local landmark with limited views afforded towards the Castle from the wider landscape. Views towards the site of the Castle are possible from the north, at Castledene. However, looking from Castledene towards Innerwick Castle, the Castle is backdropped by Torness Power Station.

99. The assessment for the Proposed Development in Volume 1, Chapter 10 and Volume 4, Appendix 10.3 of the Onshore EIA Report identified an impact of minor adverse significance on this scheduled monument. The ZTV predicted no theoretical visibility of the Proposed Development from the area of the castle, however there was potential for the Proposed Development to be visible in combination with views to the castle from the wider area. The ZTV for the Branxton BESS Project is not available however given the location of Innerwick Castle within Thornton Glen it is considered unlikely that there will be visibility of the Branxton BESS Project from the castle area. It is possible that the Proposed Development and the Branxton BESS Project will be seen in combination with Innerwick castle in views from the north. Given the baseline setting of the scheduled monument, the combined cumulative impact will constitute a slight change in views to the castle. However, the localised setting of the castle within Thornton Glen will remain unchanged and it will remain possible for any visitor to understand and appreciate the setting of the monument. As such, the integrity of the setting of Innerwick Castle and its capacity to inform and convey its cultural significance, will not be compromised by the cumulative impact on its setting. It is assessed that there will be an adverse cumulative impact of minor significance on Innerwick Castle (SM773).

Thornton Mill, enclosure 350 m ESE of (SM 3990)

100. The scheduled monument comprises cropmark of a possible ring ditch (or barrow) and a row of three large pits and is located on the northeast edge of a rolling hill within an arable field. Views from the asset are over the surrounding arable agricultural land of the Lothian Plain, with the Firth of Forth visible to the north and east. The A1 Trunk Road and the East Coast Mainline are located to the immediate north of the asset and Torness Power Station, approximately 850 m to the north dominates the view from the asset.

101. The assessment for the Proposed Development in Volume 2, Appendix 10.3 of the Onshore EIA Report identified an impact of minor adverse significance on this scheduled monument. It is considered that, given the baseline setting of the scheduled monument, the combined cumulative impact will constitute a slight change to the wider views obtained from the site of the enclosure. The greater effect on the enclosure’s localised setting will arise from the proximity of the Branxton BESS Project, which is located 475 m to the west of the scheduled area. The Proposed Development substation is 1.2 km to the northwest (Figure 1.6.1). However, the enclosure will not become isolated from its surroundings, nor will its relationship and associations with contemporary monuments be disrupted by either proposed development. It will remain possible for any visitor to understand and appreciate the setting of the monument, which is dominated by the proximity of the East Coast Mainline. As such, the integrity of the setting of the enclosure and its capacity to inform and convey its cultural significance, will not be compromised by the cumulative impact on its setting. It is assessed that there will be an adverse cumulative impact of minor significance on Thornton Mill, enclosure 350 m ESE of (SM 3990).

Crowhill, enclosure WNW of (SM 5770)

102. The scheduled monument comprises the cropmark remains of an enclosed settlement located on southeast facing slope, above the settlement of Crowhill. Views to the north from the asset are slightly restricted by the rising ground. However, from the north edge of the site, the views are over arable fields towards the coast, and include Torness Power Station. The views to the east and west are over arable fields, and, to the south, the fields rise to the Lammermuir Hills.

103. The assessment for the Proposed Development in Volume 2, Appendix 10.3 of the Onshore EIA Report identified an impact of moderate adverse significance on this scheduled monument. The Proposed Development onshore substation will be located approximately 250 m to the north-west of the site. The Branxton BESS Project would also be visible in the wider landscape, 1.5 km to the west of the settlement, although probably partly screened by intervening buildings at Crowhill and tree belts along Thornton Burn. The two developments will lie in different directions from the monument and will be seen cumulatively in the same view.

104. While the integrity of the setting of this settlement will be compromised to some extent, the greater part of the impact would be as a result of the Proposed Development. It is assessed that the cumulative impact on Crowhill, enclosure WNW of (SM 5570), from the addition of the Branxton BESS Project will be an adverse cumulative impact of minor significance.

Innerwick Castle, fort and ring ditch (SM 5771)

105. The scheduled monument comprises cropmark remains of a multivallate fort and a ring ditch, of late prehistoric date, which are located on a gentle southeast facing slope above the steep valley of Thornton Glen. Adjoining the fort to the immediate southeast is the medieval Innerwick Castle (SM 773). Views to the north are slightly restricted by the rising ground, but, from the north edge of the site, they are over arable fields towards the coast, and include Torness Power Station. The view to the west is over arable fields and, to the south, the fields rise to the Lammermuir Hills. To the east, is the valley of Thornton Burn, which is recognisable by the belt of deciduous trees that line it.

106. The assessment for the Proposed Development in Volume 2, Appendix 10.3 of the Onshore EIA Report identified an impact of minor adverse significance on this scheduled monument, due to the limited views of the Proposed Development (630 m to the north) from the north edge of the asset. The Branxton BESS Project, 1.3 km to the east of the asset, may be visible in the wider landscape, although it would most likely be screened by the intervening trees of Thornton Glen. The two developments will lie in different directions from the monument and will be seen cumulatively in the same view.

107. Given the baseline setting of the scheduled monument, the combined cumulative impact would constitute a slight change in views from the asset. However, the key views from this fort, towards the valley of Thornton Glen, will not be affected and the relationship with Innerwick Castle (SM 773), and with possibly contemporary prehistoric assets in the area, will not be compromised. As such, the integrity of the setting of Innerwick Castle, fort and ring ditch, and its capacity to inform and convey its cultural significance, will not be compromised by the cumulative impact on its setting. It is therefore assessed that there will be an adverse cumulative impact of minor significance on Innerwick Castle, fort and ring ditch (SM 5771).

Branxton, enclosure 350 m NNW of (SM 5958)

108. The scheduled monument comprises cropmark remains of an enclosed settlement of prehistoric date, sited on a northeast sloping terrace above a meander of the Ogle Burn. The key views from this asset are over the surrounding arable land and to the coast to the north, Torness Power Station is a prominent feature to the north.

109. The assessment for the Proposed Development in Volume 2, Appendix 10.3 of the Onshore EIA Report identified an impact of negligible adverse significance on this scheduled monument, as there will be only limited visibility of the onshore substation, from the southern half of the enclosure, where, if not screened by the intervening trees, it would be visible 1.9 km to the northwest on the lower grounds of the East Lothian Plain sitting to the west of Torness Power Station. The Branxton BESS Project, 620 m to the northeast, will also be visible in the view to the north from this asset sited to the east of the view of Torness Power Station and offset from view of the onshore substation.

110. The cumulative effect of the Proposed Development and the onshore substation and the Branxton BESS Project would constitute a slight change to the wider views obtained from the enclosure and would not affect its localised setting. As such, the integrity of the setting of the Branxton, enclosure and its capacity to inform and convey its cultural significance, will not be compromised by the cumulative impact on its setting. It is therefore assessed that there will be an adverse cumulative impact of negligible significance on Branxton, enclosure 350 m NNW of (SM 5958).

Decommissioning phase

111. The potential for decommissioning effects was scoped out of the assessment for cultural heritage see Volume 1, Chapter 10 of the Onshore EIA Report, Table 10.6. Therefore, cumulative decommissioning effects are not considered relevant here.

2.6. Socio-Economics

112. An assessment of the likely contribution of the Branxton BESS Project to the significance of cumulative effects associated with the Proposed Development upon employment activities (including supply chain) is given below. This is based on information provided within the Branxton BESS Project Planning Statement (EastCoastGridServices, 2022), which provides an estimate of ‘local area’ job impacts [1]. The Planning Statement does not provide estimates of potential GVA impacts; therefore, assessment of this receptor is omitted, with any potential cumulative impacts assumed to be of negligible significance.

113. Cumulative impacts associated with the Branxton BESS Project are anticipated to be relevant for the ‘Local study area’ assessed within Volume 1, Chapter 13 of the Onshore EIA Report. Cumulative impacts are anticipated to be negligible at the Scotland study area level – assessment at this geography is therefore omitted here.

Cumulative impact on employment activities (including supply chain)

Construction phase

Magnitude of impact

114. The potential impact of the Branxton BESS Project on employment activities is estimated as circa 40–60 ‘local area’ jobs (EastCoastGridServices, 2022). In addition to the potential cumulative impacts described in Section 13.12.1 of Volume 1, Chapter 13 of the Onshore EIA Report, the scale of Branxton BESS Project impacts are considered low.

115. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude of the Branxton BESS Project cumulative impacts is therefore, considered to be low (beneficial).

Sensitivity of receptor

116. The receptor is deemed to be of low vulnerability, high recoverability and high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of effect

117. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be low (beneficial), and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effects associated with the Branxton BESS Project will, therefore, be of negligible to minor (beneficial) significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

118. The Applicant has committed to enhancement of beneficial effects as per Section 13.9 of Volume 1, Chapter 13 of the Onshore EIA report. No other secondary mitigation is required.

Operation and maintenance phase

Magnitude of impact

119. No material operation and maintenance phase impacts are assessed for the Branxton BESS Project. The scale of Branxton BESS Project impacts is therefore considered negligible.

120. The cumulative impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, medium term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude of the Branxton BESS Project cumulative impacts is therefore, considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of receptor

121. The receptor is deemed to be of low vulnerability, high recoverability and high value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of effect

122. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect is deemed to be negligible, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. The cumulative effects associated with the Branxton BESS Project will, therefore, be of negligible significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

123. The Applicant has committed to enhancement of beneficial effects as per Section 13.9 of Volume 1, Chapter 13 of the Onshore EIA report. No other secondary mitigation is required.

Decommissioning phase

124. No material decommissioning phase impacts are assessed for the Branxton BESS Project.

125. The scale and duration of decommissioning activity is uncertain. The exact approach to decommissioning is not yet confirmed as best practice at the time is not currently known.

126. Based on knowledge of existing industry practice, and in line with the approach taken to assess decommissioning phase cumulative impacts in volume 1, chapter 13: Socio-economics of the Onshore EIA Report, the workforce for the decommissioning of the onshore infrastructure associated with the Branxton BESS Project (as with other cumulative projects) is assumed to be supported in a similar way to installation and commissioning. However, the scale of activity is assumed to be greatly reduced.

127. Based on currently available information, the cumulative effects associated with the Branxton BESS Project will, therefore, be of negligible significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

128. The Applicant has committed to enhancement of beneficial effects as per Section 13.9 of Volume 1, Chapter 13 of the Onshore EIA report. No other secondary mitigation is required.

Summary

129. Overall, within the context of socio-economics the potential cumulative impacts associated with the Branxton BESS Project do not change the significance of cumulative effects on employment activities (including supply chain) assessed within Volume 1, Chapter 13: Socio-economics of the Onshore EIA Report.

2.7. Land Use, Tourism and Recreation

130. An assessment of the likely significance of the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development upon tourism and recreation receptors arising from each identified impact is given in Volume 1, Chapter 10 of the Onshore EIA Report. This Addendum section provides a cumulative effects assessment of Branxton BESS Project with the Proposed Development. A worst-case scenario has been assumed whereby the construction and operational phases of the developments overlap.

131. To avoid duplication of reporting, the cumulative assessment of SPEN Eastern Link – Branxton Grid Substation and SPEN Eastern Link Project – Converter Station & Cable Route on tourism and recreation receptors are not included in this Addendum section and is provided in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Section 14.12 of the Onshore EIA Report.

Cumulative Impact on Change in Land Use

Magnitude of impact

132. The construction of Branxton BESS Project will result in a loss of approximately 6.26 ha of Class 3.2 land, 0.13 ha of Class 3.1 land and 5.44 ha of Class 2 land. The breakdown of temporary and permanent land take of the Branxton BESS Project is not available at this time and therefore the cumulative temporary and permanent land take cannot be calculated.

133. Assuming all land take is permanent as a worst-case scenario, the cumulative loss of prime agricultural land associated with the Branxton BESS Project, the SPEN Eastern Link – Branxton Grid Substation and the Proposed Development will be less than 23 ha.

134. The impact of permanent change in land use is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and low reversibility. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Magnitude of impact

135. Given the presence of Class 2 and 3.1 land (prime agricultural land) in additional land take, the sensitivity of this receptor is medium.

Significance of effect

136. The magnitude of the impact of cumulative permanent changes to land use 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.

Cumulative Impact on Visitor Numbers to Visitor Attractions

Construction Phase

137. As a worst-case scenario, the construction of the Branxton BESS will overlap with the construction of the Proposed Development. The construction has the potential to reduce visual amenity and accessibility to visitor attractions. Given the proximity of Torness Power Station to the Branxton BESS Project there may be temporary reduction in accessibility to this receptor. The cumulative magnitude of impact is likely to be low.

138. The sensitivity of the receptor is as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraph 70 of the Onshore EIA Report.

139. The cumulative effect of change in visitor numbers to Torness Power Station during construction will therefore be of negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Operation and maintenance phase

140. The addition of the Branxton BESS Project will slightly increase the cumulative presence of industrial built form within the existing landscape and has the potential to reduce visual amenity of visitor attractions during operation. Given the separation distance Barns Ness Lighthouse and Doon Hill, the cumulative magnitude of impacts on these receptors are likely to remain low.

141. The sensitivities of receptors are as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraph 88 of the Onshore EIA Report.

142. The cumulative effects of change in visitor numbers to Doon Hill and Barns Ness Lighthouse will therefore be of negligible to minor adverse significance which is not significant in EIA terms.

Cumulative Impact on Visitor Numbers to Beaches

Construction Phase

143. Construction activities associated with the Branxton BESS Project have the potential to impact access to Skateraw Harbour and Thorntonloch Beach as a result of additional HGV traffic on the A1. This has the potential to affect the number of visitors to these receptors. There will be no additional traffic on direct access routes from the A1 to either receptor, therefore it is anticipated that the cumulative magnitude of impact will remain at medium and low for Skateraw Harbour and Thorntonloch Beach, respectively.

144. The sensitivities of receptors are as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraphs 97 and 98 of the Onshore EIA Report.

145. The cumulative effect of change in visitor numbers to Skateraw Harbour and Thorntonloch Beach will be of minor adverse significance which is not significant in EIA terms.

Operation and maintenance phase

146. The Branxton BESS Project is likely to be visible from Thorntonloch Beach during operation and may have a limited impact on the visual amenity of this receptor. There is potential for overlapping views with the Proposed Development. However, given the existing baseline of industrial infrastructure visible from Thorntonloch Beach, the cumulative magnitude of impacts on this receptor is considered to be low.

147. The sensitivity of this receptor is as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraph 104 of the Onshore EIA Report.

148. The cumulative effect of change in visitor numbers to Thorntonloch Beach will be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Cumulative Impacts to Tourist Accommodation

Construction Phase

149. The construction of the Branxton BESS Project has the potential to reduce access to Thorntonloch caravan park, Dunbar Thorntonloch House Bed and Breakfast. This has the potential to affect the number of visitors to these receptors. However, adverse impacts may be offset by the potential to increase customer turnover at tourist accommodation facilities during the construction period. The cumulative magnitude of impact will therefore remain low.

150. The sensitivities of receptors are as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraph 110 of the Onshore EIA Report.

151. Therefore, the cumulative effect of change in visitor numbers to Thorntonloch caravan park and to Dunbar Thorntonloch House Bed and Breakfast will be of negligible to minor adverse significance which is not significant in EIA terms.

Operation and maintenance phase

152. The addition of the Branxton BESS Project to the cumulative context has the potential to be viewed in conjunction with the Proposed Development from Thorntonloch caravan park, Dunbar Thorntonloch House Bed and Breakfast, The Old Coastguard Lookout and the Blue Cabin by the Sea. This may reduce the visual amenity of views from these receptors which has the potential to reduce visitor numbers. Due to the proximity of the Branxton BESS Project and the Proposed Development to Thorntonloch caravan park and Dunbar Thorntonloch House Bed and Breakfast, the cumulative magnitude of impacts on visitor numbers to these receptors will be medium. Due to the separation distance of Old Coastguard Lookout and the Blue Cabin by the Sea the cumulative magnitude of impacts on visitor numbers to these receptors will be low.

153. The sensitivities of receptors are as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraph 118 of the Onshore EIA Report.

154. The cumulative effect of change in visitor numbers to Thorntonloch Caravan Park and Dunbar Thorntonloch House Bed and Breakfast is therefore considered to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms. The cumulative effect of change in visitor numbers to Old Coastguard Lookout and the Blue Cabin by the Sea will, therefore, be of negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Impacts to Recreational Users of Paths

Construction Phase

155. The construction of the Branxton BESS Project has the potential to be visible in conjunction with the Proposed Development from some stretches of the John Muir Link and Core Paths 309 and 310. The impact on recreational amenity of the paths as a result of visual disturbance from construction activities will be minimal and temporary. The cumulative magnitude of impact on recreational users of these paths will be low.

156. The sensitivities of receptors are as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraphs 129-132 of the Onshore EIA Report.

157. Therefore, it is considered that the cumulative effect of change in number of recreational users of the John Muir Link will be of minor adverse significance and the effect on Core paths 309 and 310 will be of negligible to minor adverse significance which is not significant in EIA terms.

Operation and maintenance phase

158. The Branxton BESS Project may be visible from sections of the John Muir Link, Core Paths 310 and 309, the Southern Upland Way (SUW) and the Berwickshire Coastal Path in conjunction with the Proposed Development. This may reduce recreational amenity of the receptors which has the potential to impact their recreational users. Clear views of both the Branxton BESS Project and Proposed Development experienced by recreational users would be limited to short sections of the overall paths. Additionally, there would be no cumulative effect on key views out to sea. The magnitude of impact on the recreational users of these receptors will be low.

159. The sensitivities of receptors are as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraph 145 of the Onshore EIA Report.

160. The cumulative effect of change in number of recreational users of the John Muir Link and the SUW will be of minor adverse significance which is not significant in EIA terms. In relation to the Berwickshire Coastal Path, Core Paths 310, 18 and 42, and the SUW the cumulative effect will be of negligible to minor adverse significance which is not significant in EIA terms.

Impact on Number of Recreation Users of Cycle Paths

Construction Phase

161. The construction activities associated with the Branxton BESS Project will be visible in conjunction with the Proposed Development from the NCN 76 and local cycle route. Reduced recreational amenity of the NCN 76 and local cycle route as a result of visual disturbance and construction traffic on the A1 will have the potential to impact a number of recreational users of the cycle path. The cumulative impact on the number of recreational users on the cycle paths will be temporary and of low magnitude.

162. The sensitivity of the cycle route is as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraph 153 of the Onshore EIA Report.

163. The cumulative effect of change in number of recreational users of cycle paths will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Operation and maintenance phase

164. The Branxton BESS Project is likely to be visible from short sections of the NCN 76 and local cycle route in conjunction with the Proposed Development. Therefore, there is the potential for cumulative impacts on recreational amenity of the cycle paths as a result of a change in views inland when travelling southeast on the NCN 76 and northwest on the local cycle route. This has the potential to impact a limited number of recreational users of the paths. Given the baseline of industrial infrastructure within the existing view inland, the cumulative magnitude of impact is considered to be low.

165. The sensitivity of the cycle route is as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 14, Paragraph 157 of the Onshore EIA Report.

166. Therefore, the cumulative effect of change in number of recreational users of cycle paths will be of negligible to minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Proposed Monitoring

167. No monitoring to test the predictions made within the assessment of likely significant effects on land use, tourism and recreation is considered necessary.

3. Other Issues

3.1. Flood Risk and Drainage

168. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was originally prepared as a Technical Appendix to Chapter 11 of the Onshore EIA Report. In response to comments from ELC’s Flood Risk Officer following the submission of the PPP, the FRA has been updated to align the assessment with NPF4 and is provided as an appendix to this document (Appendix A11.1). The following updates have been made:

The assessment of coastal flood risk with respect to the landfall location has been updated to account for the most up to date sea level rise allowance for the 2100 epoch.
In accordance with NPF4 the Braidwood Burn crossing assessment has been updated to ensure the proposed culvert can convey the estimated peak flow for the 1 in 200 year plus climate change design event.

169. The above changes have not affected the outcome of the FRA, with additional sea level rise being shown not to affect any above ground infrastructure and the proposed crossing of the Braidwood Burn is capable of conveying the updated design flow.

3.2. Ecology

170. The Phase 1 habitat survey data, used to inform the ecology chapter (Volume 1, Chapter 7 of the onshore EIA report), mapped the habitat along the Braidwood Burn corridor as broadleaved, semi-natural woodland, which is the dominant habitat type at that location. Following the consultation response from the East Lothian Council Officer, habitats under the footprint of the cable bridge crossing at Braidwood Burn were mapped in detail to assist with discussions regarding the potential impact of the crossing on Dunglass Burn LNCS and assist the Initial Biodiversity Net Gain assessment (see Section 3.4). When viewed at a smaller scale, habitats within the area of the cable bridge crossing include dense and scattered scrub, semi-improved grassland, and scattered trees.

171. In addition, the footprint of the both the Braidwood Burn crossing and the Skateraw Burn crossing, were assessed as temporary habitat loss within the ecology chapter. These areas have now been assessed as permanent habitat loss (as shown on Figures A1 and A2).

172. The above revisions have resulted in small amendments of habitat area values within Volume 1, Chapter 7, Sections 7.7.5, 7.8.3 and 7.11 including Table 7.11, Table 7.15 and Table 7.20. Figure 7.4 has also been updated and is presented as Figure A7.4 within this addendum.

173. Whilst these amendments have not altered the conclusions of the impact assessment, all amendments are included within the following sections, with amended text italicised.

Habitats (Supersedes Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.7.5)

174. In 2020 the extended Phase 1 habitat study area comprised the full site and a 250 m buffer, as shown in Volume 4, Appendix 7.1, Appendix Figures 7.1.4-5. In addition, a National Vegetation Classification (NVC) survey was undertaken of all wetland communities recorded. This level of survey effort aimed to inform the design process, to allow for mitigation through design and reduce potential negative impacts on ecological receptors.

175. The EcIA considers habitats within the potential zone of influence of the Proposed Development, namely the potential works areas (i.e. the development footprint, temporary construction compounds/ laydown areas, access tracks) and a 250 m buffer as shown on Figure A7.4 (herewith referred to as the ‘ecology study area’).

176. The Phase 1 habitat survey results are shown on Figure A7.4 and summarised in Table 3.1 (this supersedes Table 7.11 in Volume 1, Chapter 7). The Phase 1 analysis was informed by an extended Phase 1 habitat survey in July and October 2020. In addition to summarising the Phase 1 habitats within the site, Table 3.1 also details those specifically present within the ecology study area. Volume 4, Appendix 7.1 should be consulted for full descriptions, including Target Notes, of habitats found within the ecology study area. Note that the original Phase 1 habitat survey documented in Volume 4, Appendix 7.1 was undertaken to inform the location of the Proposed Development and the document therefore includes a larger survey area and describes some habitats that are not present within the ecology study area as defined above. Table 3.1: Phase 1 Habitats within the Study Area. The original Phase 1 habitat survey documented in Volume 4, Appendix 7.1 was undertaken to inform the location of the Proposed Development and the document therefore includes a larger survey area and describes some habitats that are not present within the ecology study area as defined above.

Table 3.1: Phase 1 Habitats within the Study Area

IEFs Scoped In/Out of the Assessment (supersedes Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.8.3)

177. Following the collation of the baseline data, including desk study and field survey data, and following the embedded mitigation measures described in Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.10, several potential effects on ecological features can be scoped out of further assessment, as described in Table 3.2 below (supersedes Table 7.15, Volume 1, Chapter 7). This is based on professional judgement and experience from other relevant projects in the region.

178. The habitats present and their respective areas within the ecology study area are presented in Table 3.1. Estimates of direct and indirect habitat losses from the Proposed Development are presented in Table 3.3 (supersedes Table 7.20, Volume 1, Chapter 7). An estimated total of 58.5 ha will be directly lost due to the Proposed Development, approximately 12.44 % of the ecology study area. This includes 13.35 ha under the permanent footprint of works and 45.12 ha under the temporary footprint of works.

179. As listed in Table 3.2 the assessment of effects will be applied to IEFs that are known to be present within the site or surrounding area (as confirmed through survey results and consultations outlined above) and which could be susceptible to impacts from the Proposed Development.

Table 3.2: IEFs Scoped In or Out of the Assessment

Assessment of Significance (supersedes Volume 1, Chapter 7, Section 7.11)

180. The potential impacts arising from the construction phase of the Proposed Development on the scoped-in IEF and the likely significance of the effects of the Proposed Development on ecological receptors caused by each identified impact is given below.

181. Impacts on designated sites and habitats may include direct losses e.g. permanent land-take for the onshore substation and other infrastructure, SuDS wetland creation, temporary land-take for access tracks, laydown areas and construction site compounds. Negative impacts on habitats can also be indirect e.g., through habitat fragmentation. It is estimated that of the total habitat loss under the temporary and permanent footprint of works (c. 58.5 ha), 77.2% of this will be temporary such as access tracks and site compounds and will be restored at the end of the construction period.

182. All habitat loss calculations are presented in Table 3.3 (supersedes Table 7.20, Volume 1, Chapter 7), with habitat IEFs brought forward for assessment shown in bold [2]. As in Table 3.1, the ecology study area is defined as the potential works areas and a 250 m buffer. Note that the figures in the tables have been rounded to the nearest two digits but calculations have been completed using the unrounded figures.

Table 3.3: Estimated Loss of Habitat from Proposed Development Infrastructure

Dunglass Burn LNCS

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

183. Part of the Dunglass Burn LNCS lies under the footprint of the Proposed Development as shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.2 and Figure A1. The site is designated for its broadleaved, semi-natural woodland habitat. Approximately c.11.19 ha of broadleaved semi-natural woodland extends along the Thornton Burn and Braidwood Burn corridor within the ecology study area and is comprised of native woodland which is semi-natural in its origins. Native woodlands are defined as those whose tree species arrived naturally in Scotland without any apparent direct human assistance. Most of native tree and shrub species colonised Scotland after the last Ice Age, which ended roughly 9,000 years ago. The cover of native woodlands in Scotland has been calculated to be 311,153 ha, of which 23,189 ha comprises lowland mixed deciduous woodland (Patterson et al., 2014), which is the category of the best fit with the broadleaved semi-natural woodland at this location.

184. This woodland is connected to two areas of AWI which lie within Thornton Glen SWT. These AWI stands are defined as Ancient (of semi-natural origin) 1a and 2b. This indicates that part of this woodland corridor has been continuously wooded since 1750 (1a) and 1860 (2b).

Construction Phase

Impact

185. Impacts on the Dunglass Burn LNCS will include direct loss of habitats within the footprint of temporary and permanent works to install the cable bridge over the Braidwood Burn, as well as temporary disturbance of vegetation adjacent to works areas.

Magnitude of Impact

186. As shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.3, Figure A7.4 and Figure A1, a cable bridge crossing is proposed across the Braidwood Burn that passes through the Dunglass Burn LNCS for approximately 40 m. The footprint of the temporary and permanent works areas for the cable bridge within Dunglass LNCS is approximately 675 m2. The route has been microsited to minimise tree felling requirements and at the location of the cable bridge there is a natural gap in the broadleaved semi-natural woodland corridor. The proposed cable bridge is 40 m in length and 10 m in width therefore the footprint of the permanent works is estimated to be 400 m2. Habitat within the footprint of the permanent works is predominantly semi-improved grassland and dense scrub. The canopy is comprised of scattered semi-mature, multi-stem, ash trees with no mature tree specimens recorded within the footprint of the permanent or temporary works. Assuming the works could affect a zone of up to 15 m on either side of the footprint of works, up to 2,000 m2 of Dunglass Burn LNCS may be susceptible to temporary disturbance, including 140 m2 of broadleaved, semi-natural woodland, this is approximately 0.13% of the total extent of this habitat within the ecology study area.

187. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

188. The Dunglass Burn LNCS is deemed to be of low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

189. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

190. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Thornton Glen SWT

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

191. Thornton Glen SWT is approximately 6.50 ha in area and lies within 45 m of the footprint of the Proposed Development at its closest point as shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.3 The site is designated for its broadleaved, semi-natural woodland habitat. The SWT includes two areas of AWI. These AWI stands are defined as Ancient (of semi-natural origin) 1a and 2b. This indicates that this area of the woodland corridor has been continuously wooded since 1750 (1a) and 1860 (2b). The Thurston Burn Valley LNCS overlaps the SWT.

Construction Phase

Impact

192. As the Thornton Glen SWT lies over 15 m from the footprint of the Proposed Development no direct impacts are anticipated (e.g. habitat loss). The Proposed Development bisects the wider Thornton Burn and Braidwood Burn corridor at the location of a proposed cable bridge crossing which is to be installed over the Braidwood Burn (as shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.3, Figure A7.4 and Figure A1). These works may impact up to 2000 m2 of the riparian woodland corridor as discussed under Dunglass Burn LNCS. As these works have been micro-sited to pass through a natural gap in the woodland corridor it is anticipated that loss of tree canopy will be minimal and therefore the works are unlikely to result in the fragmentation of the woodland corridor.

Magnitude of Impact

193. The cable bridge crossing is proposed across Braidwood Burn that passes through an area of broadleaved, semi-natural woodland that connects to Thornton Glen SWT to the east. The footprint of the works areas for the cable bridge crossing within the Dunglass LNCS is approximately 675 m2 and the route has been micro-sited to minimise tree felling requirements. At the location of the cable bridge crossing there is a natural gap in woodland and the canopy is comprised of a scattered semi-mature, multi-stem, ash trees with no mature tree specimens recorded within the footprint of the works. The cable bridge crossing is 40 m in length and 10 m in width therefore the footprint of the permanent works is estimated to be 400 m2. The habitat under the permanent footprint of works is predominantly semi-improved neutral grassland and dense scrub. Assuming this could affect a zone of up to 15 m on either side of the footprint of works, up to 2,000 m2 of the Dunglass Burn LNCS may be susceptible to temporary disturbance, including 140 m2 of broadleaved, semi-natural woodland, this is approximately 0.13% of the total extent of this habitat within the ecology study area.

194. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

195. The Thornton Glen SWT is deemed to be of medium vulnerability, low recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

196. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

197. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Dryburn Valley LNCS

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

198. The Dryburn Valley LNCS lies under the footprint of the Proposed Development where a proposed cable bridge crosses the Skateraw Dean near the landfall, as shown on Volume 2, Figure 7.3 The features that this site is designated for include woodland listed within the Native Woodland Survey Scotland (NWSS), AWI woodland, and grassland. Notable species are ancient woodland flora. The site extends over an area of approximately 115 ha (or 1,150,000 m2), of which 1,650 m2 lies under the footprint of the Proposed Development (or 0.14 % of the total area).

199. The habitat present within the footprint of the Proposed Development is mixed plantation woodland, with sycamore, Scots pine, silver birch, beech, elder and ash recorded in the stand. This habitat type is not considered to be a designated feature of the LNCS.

Construction phase

Impact

200. Impacts on the woodland habitat will include a direct and permanent loss to the cable bridge crossing over the Skateraw Dean as well as temporary disturbance of vegetation adjacent to works areas.

Magnitude of Impact

201. As shown on Figure A7.4 and Figure A2 a cable bridge crossing is proposed across Skateraw Dean. The footprint of the temporary and permanent works area for the cable bridge within the Dryburn Valley LNCS is approximately 25 m long, with an area of approximately 1,650 m2. The route will use an existing culvert which will be widened from 18 m to 30 m to accommodate the cables. This will require felling works either side of the existing culvert. Assuming this could affect a zone of up to 15 m on either side of the footprint of works, up to 2,600 m2 of the LNCS may be susceptible to temporary disturbance which represents 0.23% of the total area of the LNCS. The permanent footprint of the cable bridge crossing is 350 m2 which represents 0.03% of the total area of the LNCS.

202. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

203. The Dryburn Valley LNCS is deemed to be of medium vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptors is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

204. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

205. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Dense and Scattered Scrub

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

206. Dense and scattered scrub is a priority habitat on the East Lothian LBAP. Within the ecology study area, scrub vegetation is mostly dense and scattered gorse with some blackthorn and hawthorn recorded along the Braidwood Burn corridor. Approximately 16.38 ha of this habitat was recorded within the Proposed Development.

Construction phase

Impact

207. Impacts on the scrub habitat will include a direct loss where it lies under the footprint of temporary and permanent works as well as temporary disturbance of vegetation adjacent to works areas.

Magnitude of Impact

208. As shown on Figure A7.4 and Figure A1 scrub habitat lies under the footprint of a proposed temporary access road that runs parallel to the northern edge of Braidwood Burn woodland corridor and also under the temporary and permanent works area for the proposed cable bridge crossing over the Braidwood Burn. The total footprint for both works is 0.37 ha which represents 2.26 % of the total area of this habitat recorded within the ecology study area.

209. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

210. The scrub habitat is deemed to be of low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

211. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

212. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Species-poor Hedgerow

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

213. Hedgerow is listed under the East Lothian LBAP as a Priority Habitat. Approximately 7.36 km of species-poor hedgerow lies within the ecology study area.

Construction Phase

Impact

214. Impacts on species-poor hedgerows will include a direct and permanent loss where it lies under the footprint of the permanent works area as well as temporary disturbance of vegetation adjacent to works areas.

Magnitude of Impact

215. As shown on Figure A7.4 species-poor, intact and defunct hedgerow lies under both temporary and permanent work areas.

Temporary works area: A total of c.450 m of species-poor hedgerow lies under the footprint of temporary works areas and 140 m of species-poor intact hedgerow lies immediately adjacent to temporary works areas. Assuming works may impact a zone of up to 10 m either side of a hedgerow, approximately 600 m of hedgerow may be impacted by the temporary works.

Permanent works area: Approximately 460 m of species-poor hedgerow lies under the proposed onshore substation and adjacent access track. Assuming works may impact a zone of up to 10 m either side of a hedgerow, it is estimated that approximately 500 m of hedgerow may be impacted by the permanent works.

The total area impacted by temporary and permanent works (c. 1.1 km) is approximately 14.94% of the total area of hedgerow habitat recorded within the ecology study area.

216. The planting scheme for the Proposed Development will include replacement hedgerow planting within the temporary works areas, reducing the loss of hedgerows in the long-term to 6.79 % of the habitat recorded within the ecology study area.

217. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and medium reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

218. The species-poor hedgerow habitat is deemed to be of low vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

219. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the significance of effect is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

220. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Running Water Habitat

Nature Conservation Value and Conservation Status

221. The Thornton Burn, Thurston Mains, Ogle Burn, Braidwood Burn, Skateraw Dean, Dry Burn and an unnamed watercourse run through the ecology study area. Rivers are a Priority Habitat listed on the SBL and Rivers and Burns are a priority habitat under the East Lothian LBAP. In total approximately 10.48 km of watercourses run through the ecology study area. The Proposed Development crosses the Skateraw Dean at the north and the Braidwood Burn at the south, with cable crossings proposed at each location. It is proposed to temporarily divert, or overpump, the unnamed watercourse to allow for open cut trenching technique and burying of this section of cable. The remaining watercourses lie outwith the footprint of the Proposed Development, however the Braidwood Burn flows into the Thurston Mains and Thornton Burn and Skateraw Dean flows into Dry Burn therefore these watercourses may be indirectly impacted.

Construction phase

Impact

222. Impacts on the running water habitat will include temporary disturbance to the riparian habitat of Skateraw Dean and Braidwood Burn at the proposed cable bridge crossings. The unnamed watercourse will be temporarily diverted.

Magnitude of Impact

223. As shown on Figure A7.4, Figure A1 and Figure A2, cable bridge crossings are proposed across Skateraw Dean and Braidwood Burn. The width of the temporary works areas for the cable bridge crossing at Skateraw Dean is approximately 70 m and works are to include the widening of an existing culvert to cross the burn. At the Braidwood Burn, where the proposed cable bridge crossing is to be constructed, the width of the temporary works area is 45 m. Assuming the works may impact running water habitat 30 m either side of the footprint of works at each site, a combined length of up to 235 m of this habitat may be susceptible to temporary disturbance. This represents 2.24% of the undesignated running water habitat within the ecology study area.

224. The cable route is then proposed to be installed using open cut trenching underneath the unnamed watercourse to the south of the A1, directly north of the onshore substation, as shown on Figure A7.4. The width of the temporary works area at this location is 100 m and the footprint of the cabling is approximately 30 m. As a worst-case scenario it is assumed that 100 m of running water habitat may be impacted at this location, though it is likely to be less as the width of the cable footprint is approximately 30 m. This represents 0.95% of the undesignated running water habitat within the ecology study area.

225. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, short-term duration, intermittent and high reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly (Skateraw Dean and Braid Burn) and directly (unnamed watercourse). The magnitude is therefore considered to be negligible.

Sensitivity of the Receptor

226. The running water habitat is deemed to be of medium vulnerability, medium recoverability and local value. The sensitivity of the receptors is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of the Effect

227. Given the above consideration of sensitivity and magnitude, the effect significance is considered to be negligible to minor adverse and not significant under the EIA Regulations.

Secondary Mitigation and Residual Effect

228. No secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

3.3. Biodiversity Enhancement / Biodiversity Net Gain

229. Chapter 7: Ecology of the EIA Report includes details of Habitat Loss and Mitigation (Table 7.20) that are likely to result from the Proposed Development based on the current indicative level of design. Included within Chapter 6: Landscape and Visual Impact of the EIA Report are outline landscape mitigation measures focussed on the substation where the majority of permanent habitat loss would occur. The outline landscape mitigation which includes habitat creation is set out in Figure 6.12 of Chapter 6 of the EIA Report. In order to address consultee comments regarding the scale of the landscaping and enhancement opportunities the applicant has undertaken an Initial Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment based on the permanent habitat loss set out in the EIA and as amended through this Addendum (as noted in Section 3.2 and in Appendix 1). Based on a worst-case scenario this indicated that further habitat creation beyond that indicated in Figure 6.12 of Chapter 6 of the EIA Report would be required to deliver a net gain in biodiversity.

230. In order to provide greater confidence that the Proposed Development can deliver biodiversity mitigation and enhancement for habitats which are permanently lost to development or for areas of temporary loss which require time to reinstate the Applicant has clarified that further land would be available for habitat enhancement and has updated Figure 6.12 of the EIA Report (as noted in Section 3.4 of Appendix 1) and as appended as Figure A6.12.

231. The assessment, when considering the additional area available for potential habitat creation indicates that the use of around 60% of that additional available area for woodland and grassland creation would result in a 10% net gain in biodiversity value. For completeness, the assessment and a more detailed explanation of the assessment are appended to this Addendum as Appendix 1. Full details of habitat restoration (for areas of temporary loss) and of new habitat creation will be provided at a detailed design stage for agreement with ELC. The assessment will be updated on the basis of that detailed design in order to demonstrate a significant enhancement in biodiversity value in line with policy requirements.

3.4. Landscape Mitigation Plan

232. The Initial Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment undertaken for the project (refer to Appendix 1 of this Addendum) confirms that additional habitat enhancement is likely to be required in order to meet the policy expectations set out in NPF4. As noted above additional land subject to temporary works as part of the substation development has been identified that could be utilised for additional habitat enhancement that would expand upon and complement the existing outline enhancement and landscaping proposals set out in Figure 6.12 of the EIA Report. The revised Figure A6.12 provided with this Addendum supersedes Figure 6.12 of the EIA Report. The landscape and enhancement proposals remain at an outline stage and will be refined through further detailed design following the granting of planning permission in principle.

4. References

EastCoastGridServices Ltd (2022), Branxton Energy Storage Facility Planning Statement.

Crystal Rig Wind Farm (Phase IV) (2018), CRIV EIAR Appendix 7 – Ornithology.

Figures

APPENDIX 1: ONSHORE INITIAL BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN ASSESSMENT

Link to PDF Open ▸

APPENDIX A11.1: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Link to PDF Open ▸

[1] The term ‘local area’ is assumed to be comparable to the ‘local’ study area assessed within volume 1, chapter 13: Socio-economics of the Onshore EIA report.

[2] Habitat IEFs not brought forward for assessment detailed in Table 3.2.