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