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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.