10. Cultural heritage
- This chapter presents the assessment of the likely significant effects of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm Onshore Transmission Works (OnTW) (the Proposed Development) on cultural heritage. Specifically, this chapter considers the potential impact of the Proposed Development landward of Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) during the construction, operational and maintenance, and decommissioning phases.
- This chapter focuses on the assessment of effects of the onshore infrastructure (the Proposed Development) on archaeological remains and the settings of cultural heritage assets. The effects of the offshore infrastructure seaward of MLWS on the setting of cultural heritage assets are assessed within the Offshore EIA Report (Volume 2, Chapter 16).
- This chapter summarises information contained within Volume 4, Appendix 10.1 to 10.4.
10.2. Purpose of this Chapter
- This chapter:
- Presents the existing environmental baseline established from desk studies, site-specific surveys, and consultation with stakeholders;
- Identifies any assumptions and limitations encountered in compiling the environmental information;
- Presents the potential environmental impacts on cultural heritage arising from the Proposed Development, and reaches a conclusion on the likely significant effects on cultural heritage based on the information gathered and the analysis and assessments undertaken; and
- Highlights any necessary monitoring and/or mitigation measures recommended to prevent, minimise, reduce, or offset the likely significant adverse environmental effects of the Proposed Development on cultural heritage.
10.3. Study Areas
- Two cultural heritage study areas have been used for the assessment:
- The cultural heritage inner study area: the Proposed Development plus a 100 m buffer forms the cultural heritage inner study area to the south of the A1 Trunk Road. To the north of the A1 Trunk Road the cultural heritage inner study area includes the Proposed Development area plus a 100 m buffer to the west, while to the east the cultural heritage inner study area was extended, at the request of East Lothian Council Archaeology Service (ELCAS), to include the whole of Chapel Point. This study area was agreed with Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and ELCAS. This study area was adopted for the identification of heritage assets that could receive impacts arising from the construction of the Proposed Development. The adoption of a buffer is to ensure that a broad understanding of the archaeological context of the Proposed Development is understood and presented. A summary of the heritage assets identified within the cultural heritage inner study area is provided in Section 10.7 and their locations and extents are shown on Volume 2, Figure 10.1 Open ▸
- The cultural heritage outer study area: an area extending 5 km from the onshore substation forms the cultural heritage outer study area for identification of designated heritage assets whose settings may be affected by the Proposed Development. This study area was agreed with Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and ELCAS. A list of these assets is provided in Volume 4, Appendix 10.3 and 10.4, along with a summary assessment of the predicted effect on their setting from the Proposed Development. The locations of the heritage assets within the cultural heritage outer study area are shown on Volume 2, Figure 10.2.
10.3.1. Intertidal Area
- The onshore topic of cultural heritage study area includes the intertidal area. This intertidal area overlaps with the offshore topic of Cultural Heritage Settings. An assessment of the offshore topic is set out in the offshore EIA Report (Volume 2, Chapter 16).
- One cultural heritage study area has been used for the assessment:
- The cultural heritage intertidal study area: the Proposed Development plus a 500m buffer forms the cultural heritage inner intertidal study area. This study area was agreed with ELCAS for the identification of heritage assets that could receive impacts arising from the construction of the Proposed Development. The adoption of a buffer is to ensure that a broad understanding of the archaeological context of the Proposed Development is understood and presented.
10.4. Policy and Legislative context
- Policy and legislation in relation to cultural heritage, is set out in detail in Volume 4, Appendix 10.1 of the Onshore EIA Report. The policy provisions which have been given due consideration within the cultural heritage assessment are listed in Table 10.1 Open ▸ below. The legislative provisions relevant to cultural heritage are listed in Table 10.2 below.
- A summary of the key issues raised during consultation activities undertaken to date specific to cultural heritage is presented in Table 10.3 Open ▸ below, together with how these issues have been considered in the production of this Cultural Heritage chapter. Further detail is presented within Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report and the Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report.
10.6. Methodology to Inform Baseline
- A desk-based assessment was conducted covering the cultural heritage inner study area (including the intertidal zone). The purpose of the research was to identify all known heritage assets, designated or otherwise, that could be affected by the Proposed Development, and to inform an assessment of the archaeological potential of the Proposed Development site. The Baseline was established by desk-based research and field surveys.
- Data was gathered for the cultural heritage outer study area to identify designated heritage assets that may be subject to effects on their settings and to provide baseline information for the assessment of setting effects.
10.6.1. Desktop Study
- Information on cultural heritage within the cultural heritage study areas was collected through a detailed desktop review of existing datasets. These are summarised in Table 10.4 Open ▸ below.
10.6.2. Site-Specific Surveys
- To inform the Cultural Heritage chapter, site-specific surveys were undertaken, as agreed with HES and ELCAS through Scoping. A summary of the surveys undertaken to inform the cultural heritage assessment of effects is outlined in Table 10.5 below.
10.7. Baseline Environment
10.7.1. Overview of Baseline Environment
Heritage Assets within the Cultural Heritage Inner Study Area ( Figure 10.1 Open ▸ , Volume 2, Appendix 10.2, Appendix 10.3 and Appendix 10.4, Volume 4)
- Six designated heritage assets and 45 non-designated heritage assets have been identified within the cultural heritage inner study area.
- Numbers in brackets and in bold in the following text refer to the heritage assets shown on Volume 2, Figure 10.1 Open ▸ The sensitivity of these assets is given based on the criteria detailed in Table 10.9 Sensitivity of Receptor. Full descriptions, and an assessment of their heritage value/sensitivity, are provided in Volume 4 Appendix 10.2 (Undesignated Assets in the Cultural Heritage Inner Study Area), Appendix 10.3 (Scheduled Monuments in the Cultural Heritage Study Areas) and Appendix 10.4 (Designated Assets (Not Including Scheduled Monuments) in the Cultural Heritage Study Areas).
Designated Heritage Assets in the Cultural Heritage Inner Study Area (Appendix 10.1)
- There are five Scheduled Monuments and one Listed Building within the cultural heritage inner study area. No part of the cultural heritage inner study area falls within a Conservation Area, Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape, or Inventory Historic Battlefield.
- The five Scheduled Monuments are all cropmark features interpreted as dating to the prehistoric period.
- Dryburn Bridge, enclosure 300 m SE of (SM 4038) is the cropmark of a late prehistoric enclosed settlement. This cropmark is unusual in that it appears as a scorch mark suggesting a double palisade or rampart rather than an enclosing ditch.
- Skateraw, ring ditches and cropmarks 300 m NW of (SM 4040) are the cropmarks of numerous ring ditches representing a settlement of late prehistoric date. However, a Bronze Age short cist (MEL 1813) was recorded within the scheduled area in 1958, suggesting that some of the cropmarks may be barrow burials.
- Crowhill, enclosure WNW of (SM 5770) is the cropmark of a late prehistoric oval enclosed settlement.
- Innerwick Castle, fort and ring ditch (SM 5771) is the cropmark of a multivallate fort and external ring ditch of probable Iron Age date. Located to the immediate north-west of Innerwick Castle (SM 773), it appears likely that the fort’s defences remained extant at the time of construction of the medieval Innerwick Castle and were incorporated into the defences of the Castle.
- Castledene, enclosure SW of (SM 5849) is a sub-square cropmark interpreted in the HES listing as a possible high status domestic settlement dating to the late prehistoric period and the Roman occupation of Scotland.
- As cropmarks of probable prehistoric settlements, and possibly burials, these assets have the potential to increase our knowledge of society, domestic occupation, monument construction, and burial practices during the later prehistoric period. The value of these assets is enhanced by the number of likely contemporary cropmarks in the local landscape and what this can tell us about the settlement of East Lothian during the late prehistoric period. As such, these Scheduled Monuments are of heritage value at national level and are of high sensitivity.
- There is one Listed Building within the cultural heritage inner study area: the Category B Listed Building Skateraw Farmhouse (LB 7706). As a well-preserved example of a 19th Century farmhouse, with associations to Robert Burns, this asset is of heritage value at regional level and is of medium sensitivity.
Non-Designated Heritage Assets in the Cultural Heritage Inner Study Area (Appendix 10.2)
- The HER records the site of four Early Bronze Age burial sites: two short cists (MEL 1813 and MEL 1812), a burial cairn (MEL 1814), and a cremation surrounded by upright stones (MEL 1850) which appear to have been recorded and removed between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. As former prehistoric burial sites, these have the potential to contain in situ remains and are assessed to be of heritage value at a local level and to be of low sensitivity.
- An upstanding circular earthwork (MEL 1777) with an outer ditch (possibly a roundhouse) was recorded in 1966. It appears to have subsequently been removed by ploughing. As the largely (if not wholly) removed remains of a possible prehistoric roundhouse, this asset is assessed to be potentially of heritage value at a local level and to be of low sensitivity.
- The HER records the location of four other cropmarks, identified from aerial photography. The typology of these assets is not such that they can be confidently dated, but it is possible that some, if not all, are of later prehistoric date. The assets include two rectilinear enclosures (MEL 1899 and MEL 2499), an enclosure (MEL 1774), of unspecified character, and two large pits (MEL 11411). Without intrusive archaeological investigation the true date and value of these assets cannot be confidently appraised. However, in the absence of further information these assets are assessed based on professional judgement to be at most of heritage value at a regional level and to be of medium sensitivity.
- The HER records the sites of three possibly Early Christian sites which would likely date to the early medieval period. A long cist (MEL 2156) was recorded during trial trenching in 1994 in advance of the upgrade of the A1 Trunk Road, close to the location of the former Innerwick Free Church (MEL 1799). In 1964, a possible long cist (MEL 1770) was recorded at Skateraw. The third possible long cist burials are recorded in the HER as stone coffins (MEL 1848) discovered in 1913 in a field to the east of Innerwick Farm. The long cists (MEL 1770 and MEL 1799) have been removed through excavation, and it is presumed that the stone coffins (MEL 1848) were also removed, at the time of their discovery. As excavated and/or removed probable early medieval funerary monuments, any residual remains of these assets are assessed to be at most of heritage value at a local level and to be of low sensitivity.
- Also of medieval date, is the site of St. Denis’s Chapel and Graveyard (MEL 1764), at Chapel Point. The chapel was recorded in the New Statistical Account (1845), and in the Ordnance Survey Name Book (1853), as having been washed away by the sea some years previously and that bones found in the vicinity suggest the presence of a burial ground. It is not clear however whether the entire site of the chapel and burial ground has been lost to erosion. In 2006 (MEL 9365) and 2015 (MEL 11001 and MEL 10836) medieval pottery sherds and animal bones were recorded in coastal erosion on Chapel Point, perhaps indicating that remains of medieval date still survive on this headland. However, in 2016 a geophysical survey (EEL 1007) of Chapel Point was undertaken to identify any possible remains of the chapel or burial ground. No definitive geophysical anomalies were identified that could confidently correspond to the former chapel and burial ground. Without intrusive archaeological investigation, the extent to which the chapel or associated remains survive subsurface, remains unknown. As such, the site of St. Denis’s Chapel and Graveyard is assessed based on professional judgement to be of heritage value at a regional level and to be of medium sensitivity.
- Ten buildings and structures of post medieval date and of heritage interest have been identified. These are:
- A building (MEL 2369) recorded in the HER at Chapel Point may be a building annotated as ‘Knowehead’ on Roy’s ‘Military Survey of Scotland’ map (1747-55) giving it an early 18th century date. The building survives as an upstanding ruin.
- Edinken Bridge (MEL 1897) was recorded in the New Statistical Account (1845), and in the Ordnance Survey Name Book (1853), as having been an ancient bridge that was removed prior to 1836. Late 20th century visits to the bridge recorded masonry remains on either side of the stream, but these were not identified during the site visit for this assessment, possibly because of dense vegetation in the area.
- The bridges (MEL 2607 and MEL 4071) were first depicted on the First edition Ordnance Survey map (Haddingtonshire, sheet 12, 1854) suggesting an early 19th century date. The bridges survive, upstanding and in use.
- Crowhill Farmstead (MEL 1878) was first depicted on the First edition Ordnance Survey map (Haddingtonshire, sheet 12, 1854) suggesting an early 19th century date. The farmstead survives, upstanding and in use.
- Innerwick Free Church (MEL 1799) and Manse (MEL 1800) were first depicted on the First edition Ordnance Survey map (Haddingtonshire, sheet 12, 1854) suggesting an early 19th century date. The church and manse have been demolished and removed and their former locations now lie under the upgraded A1 Trunk Road.
- Skateraw Boat House and slipway (MEL 2371) and Chapel Point building (MEL 2370) were both first recorded from 1946 aerial photography, but both have subsequently been removed. The floor and slipway of the boathouse remain, however there is no surface trace of the building.
- Ford Bridge Dovecot (MEL 7922) was a Category C Listed Building until it was demolished between 1939 and 1945. There are now no surface traces of this building.
- The demolished and removed buildings (MEL 1799, MEL 1800, MEL 2370 and MEL 7922) have little or no residual archaeological potential and are assessed as being of limited heritage value and of negligible sensitivity.
- The upstanding and partially upstanding assets (MEL 1878, MEL 1897, MEL 2369, MEL 2371, MEL 2607 and MEL 4071) are elements of the local historic landscape. As such, they are assessed as being of heritage value at a local level and of low sensitivity.
- A cropmark (MEL 1861) to the immediate north of the A1 Trunk Road was originally interpreted as a prehistoric roundhouse and designated a scheduled monument. Subsequent examination of aerial photographs taken in the 1970s revealed this to be an area of quarry pits and the site was subsequently de-scheduled in 1993. As quarry pits are a common site type throughout the county, this site is assessed as being of little or no heritage value and to be of negligible sensitivity.
- The HER records the cropmarks of two possible trackways (MEL 10316 and MEL 11438). As cropmarks, it is not possible to confidently give a date to these features. However, MEL 10316 appears to run between a gap in a field wall (possibly a former gateway) and a building on the opposite side of the field, so it may be a post-medieval farm trackway. The second cropmark (MEL 11438) appears to be very wide where visible on aerial photography, which may suggest the cropmark is that of a paleochannel rather than a trackway. Without intrusive investigation it is not possible to confirm the true nature of either of these cropmark features, it is assessed based on professional judgement that they are likely to be heritage value at no more than a local level and of low sensitivity.
- A Hurricane aircraft crash site (MEL 9792) in 1940 is recorded at Innerwick Farm. As the recorded location is within an arable field, it is presumed that all wreckage of the plane would have been removed relatively soon after the crash to allow the continued farming of the land. As such it is assessed as being of little residual heritage value and of negligible sensitivity.
- The HER records the site of a World War I emergency aircraft landing ground (MEL 10407) at Skateraw. A 1918 RAF survey of air stations listed it as comprising an area of 21.5ha on the coast adjacent to a sea cliff. The recorded location places it in a large open field to the east of Skateraw Farm. As the landing ground may have been little more than a greenfield site and a safe area to land an aircraft in difficulty, it is assessed as being of little residual heritage value and of negligible sensitivity.
- A War Memorial (MEL 9125), to the memory of boys of the St Giles Club who died in World War II, stands at Chapel Point. The monument was moved to this location in the 1980s, from an unspecified other place. As an element of the local historic landscape and a memorial, it is assessed as being of heritage value at local level and of low sensitivity.
- The HER records that a modern sculpture of a large fish (MEL 9366) was set on the route of the John Muir Way at Chapel Point in 2000. Field survey for this assessment found that, as it is no longer present, this sculpture has been removed. The site of this former modern (20th century) sculpture is assessed as being of no heritage value and to be at most of negligible sensitivity.
Previous Archaeological Events
- The HER records that a series of archaeological investigations (MEL 2154) were carried out along the route of the A1 Trunk Road between the Tarmac Cement Works and Innerwick Road in 1994. These included geophysical survey (EEL 282), a fieldwalking survey (EEL 283) and evaluation trenching (EEL 285). From these, the Long Cist (MEL 2156) and an undatable circular pit (MEL 2157) were recorded in the area of the former Innerwick Manse.
- The HER records that a series of archaeological investigations (MEL 10227) were carried out between 2000 and 2003 at Skateraw in advance of opening a proposed quarry. A geophysical survey (EEL 713), a watching brief (EEL 69) and an evaluation (EEL 714) were carried out. These investigations targeted two assets, which had previously been identified as cropmarks: a possible ring ditch (MEL 1958) and a possible settlement (MEL 1959). These were revealed upon excavation to be the result of the natural geology and not of archaeological interest. The evaluation did though record a number of isolated features of archaeological interest and evidence of rig and furrow cultivation (MEL 10228). This area was subsequently quarried (MEL 7947), as evidenced through examination of aerial photography, and has subsequently been returned to agricultural use.
- The HER identifies three areas of geophysical anomalies (MEL 11230, MEL 11231 and MEL 11232) which were recorded during geophysical surveys (EEL 1008) along the route of the onshore cable associated with the Neart na Gaoithe Offshore Wind Farm. The geophysical anomalies were interpreted mainly as being ditches and areas of increased magnetic response. Subsequently, a programme of archaeological trial trenching (EEL 1184, Malone et al 2019) was carried out along the route of the Neart na Gaoithe onshore cable route which targeted the geophysical anomalies. No archaeological features were recorded in those trenches that were excavated within the cultural heritage inner study area.
Archaeological Potential of the Proposed Development Site
- The Historic Land Use Assessment (HLAmap) records the majority of the Cultural Heritage Inner Study Area as ‘Rectilinear Fields and Farms’, which it describes as follows: “rectilinear field boundaries and associated farm steading and other buildings are typical of agricultural improvements since the 1700s. Recent amalgamation of these fields is common.”
- Roy’s ‘Military Survey of Scotland’ map (1747-55) shows settlement at ‘Knowehead’, ‘Skateraw’ and ‘Innerwick’, surrounded by unenclosed rig and furrow cultivation indicating that the area has been farmed since at least the 18th century, and most probably much earlier. A small remnant of medieval/post-medieval agricultural activity, in the form of relict rig and furrow (CFA 001) remains, was recorded during field survey for this assessment in the area to the immediate south of Chapel Point, at the location of the proposed cable landfall.
- Examination of early Ordnance Survey maps (1856-7, 1909) indicates that much of the cultural heritage inner study area was improved, enclosed farmland during the latter part of the 19th century. This land use largely continues today.
- The Proposed Development area lies in an area in which the presence of a substantial amount of archaeological remains have been recorded through aerial photography. The number of sites identified demonstrates that the area has seen occupation throughout history and prehistory. It should also be noted that the formation of cropmarks is dependent on the nature of the underlying geology and agricultural regimes, and their identification is a result of campaigns of aerial photographic reconnaissance in the area. Cropmarks also tend to be less evident in areas of pasture. As such, there are potential gaps in the cropmark evidence where the agricultural regime or geology has not been conducive to cropmark formation. Also, the recorded cropmarks largely relate to later prehistoric features, such as enclosed settlements and forts, where large enclosing ditches readily appear as cropmarks. Such features are more readily identifiable than the smaller features (such as post holes and pits) that are also associated with buried archaeological sites. However, previous archaeological evaluations within the cultural heritage inner study area have largely produced no archaeological evidence suggesting that perhaps the available cropmark evidence is a reasonable reflection of the extent of subsurface archaeological remains present in the area. Also of note, is the 2000 evaluation at Skateraw (MEL 10227) which targeted two cropmark sites, identified from aerial photography as a settlement (MEL 1958) and a ring ditch (MEL 1959). When excavated these were revealed not to be archaeological remains and it was concluded that the cropmarks were the result of the natural geology.
- The archaeological potential therefore varies along the cable route of the Proposed Development:
- The fields at the north of the cultural heritage inner study area have moderate potential for archaeological remains to be present. This is largely due to the proximity of the Proposed Development to Chapel Point, and the potential for medieval ecclesiastical assets and medieval to post medieval agricultural remains to survive subsurface in this area.
- Quarrying at Skateraw will have effectively removed all potential for archaeological remains to survive within this area and this part of the Proposed Development area has no residual archaeological potential.
- In the areas of the cultural heritage inner study area immediately surrounding the Scheduled Monuments present there is greater potential for further archaeological remains to survive subsurface than have been identified by aerial reconnaissance. It is therefore assessed that in these areas there is medium to high archaeological potential.
- For the remainder of the cultural heritage inner study area, where the Proposed Development crosses farmland fields, it is assessed that there is low to medium potential for archaeological remains to survive subsurface. The potential is largely for small, discrete features of prehistoric date, reflecting the baseline evidence which identifies continued occupation of the landscape throughout prehistory with larger assets showing as cropmarks.
Heritage Assets within the Cultural Heritage Outer Study Area ( Figure 10.2 Open ▸ , Appendix 10.2 – 10.4)
Properties in Care
- There are two Properties in Care (Volume 4, Appendix 10.3, and Volume 2, Figure 10.2 Open ▸ ) within the cultural heritage outer study area. These are: the excavated remains of two probable Neolithic Timber Halls; Doon Hill, hall, Innerwick (PiC 140, SM 90098); and the upstanding remains of the early 15th century Dunglass Collegiate Church, 70 m E of 2 Stable Cottages (PiC 142, SM 13313). As Properties in Care and Scheduled Monuments, these are assets of heritage value at national level and of high sensitivity.
- There are 30 other Scheduled Monuments (Volume 4, Appendix 10.3, and Volume 2, Figure 10.2 Open ▸ ), within the cultural heritage outer study area. These include 26 assets identified as cropmarks visible on aerial photographs. The cropmark assets include 21 that have been interpreted as prehistoric enclosed settlements and five interpreted as forts of prehistoric date. In addition to the cropmark assets, there are four others that survive as earthwork remains: Blackcastle Hill, homestead 1300 m SSE of Thurston Mains (SM 3933), Blackcastle Hill, homestead 1300 m SSE of Thurston Mains (SM 3933), Innerwick Castle (SM 773) and French Camp, fort, Dunglass (SM 3191). As scheduled monuments these are assets of heritage value at national level and of high sensitivity.
- There are 62 Listed Buildings in the cultural heritage outer study area (Volume 4, Appendix 10.4, and Volume 2, Figure 10.2 Open ▸ ). Of these, five are Category A Listed Buildings of heritage value at national and of high sensitivity.
- There are 37 Category B Listed Buildings of heritage value at a regional level and of medium sensitivity and 20 Category C Listed Buildings of heritage value at a local level and of low sensitivity.
- The listed buildings are mainly located within the Conservation Areas of Innerwick (CA 285) and Oldhamstocks (CA 288) or are within the grounds of the Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes of Broxmouth Park (GDL 00076) and Dunglass (GDL 00154).
Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes
- There are two Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes within the cultural heritage outer study area: Broxmouth Park (GDL 00076) and Dunglass (GDL 00154) assets of heritage value at national level and of high sensitivity (Volume 4, Appendix 10.4, and Volume 2, Figure 10.2 Open ▸ ).
- There are two Inventory Battlefields within the cultural heritage outer study area: Battle of Dunbar I (BTL 31), which took place in April 1296, and Battle of Dunbar II (BTL 7), in September 1650. These are assets of heritage value at national level and of high sensitivity (Volume 4, Appendix 10.4, and Volume 2, Figure 10.2 Open ▸ ).
- There are two Conservation Areas within the Cultural Heritage Outer Study Area: Innerwick (CA 285) and Oldhamstocks (CA 288), assets of heritage value at a regional level and of medium sensitivity (Volume 4, Appendix 10.4, and Volume 2, Figure 10.2 Open ▸ ).
10.7.2. Future Baseline Scenario
- If the Proposed Development was not to proceed, it is probable that there would be little or no change to the baseline condition of the various heritage assets and features that presently survive within the cultural heritage inner study area. For the majority of the area, agricultural land-use would be likely to continue, and that activity would continue to exert an attritional influence on any buried archaeological remains or deposits that may be present within the Proposed Development site.
- The surviving designated assets within the cultural heritage outer study area would continue to receive statutory protection.
10.7.3. Data Assumptions And Limitations
- This assessment has been completed using data derived from HES’s Spatial Warehouse and from the ELC HER, obtained in 2021 and 2022 ( Table 10.4 Open ▸ ). It is assumed that, at the time of the acquisition of the data, the information provided was accurate and up to date.
10.7.4. Intertidal Area
Overview of Baseline Environment
- There are no designated or non-designated cultural heritage assets within the cultural heritage intertidal study area.
- There are 12 maritime records (Volume 4, Appendix 10.5, and Volume 2, Figure 10.1 Open ▸ ) recorded in the HER within the onshore cultural heritage inner study area. Due to the nature of these recorded events (shipwrecks/losses at sea) and the uncertainty around the actual location of wrecks, in all cases the grid references cited appear to be located on land; but this is because they are normally mapped to the south-west corner of a grid square (1 km, or in some cases 10 km). The site visit found no evidence of any of these wrecks surviving within the cultural heritage intertidal study area. It is reasonable to assume that given the bare rock surface of the Intertidal Area on which no wrecks are visible, all the recorded maritime wreck sites were either recovered or salvaged from the shoreline, swept away by the sea or were offshore somewhere along the coastline between Barn Ness in the north and Torness in the south.
- As a rocky, exposed shoreline any previously unrecorded archaeological remains would have been identified during the site visit, therefore there is no potential for subsurface remains as the bedrock is visible. It is assessed by professional judgement that there is no potential for previously unrecorded archaeological remains to survive within the cultural heritage intertidal study area. As such, it is determined that the cultural heritage intertidal study area has no archaeological potential.
10.7.5. Data Assumptions And Limitations
- This assessment has been completed using data derived from HES’s Spatial Warehouse and from the ELC HER, obtained in 2021 and 2022 ( Table 10.4 Open ▸ ). It is assumed that, at the time of the acquisition of the data, the information provided was accurate and up to date.
10.8. Key Parameters for Assessment
10.8.1. Maximum Design Scenario
- The maximum design scenario(s) summarised here have been selected as those having the potential to result in the greatest effect on an identified receptor or receptor group. These scenarios have been selected from the details provided in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the Onshore EIA Report. Effects of greater adverse significance are not predicted to arise should any other development scenario, based on details within the Project Design Envelope (e.g. different infrastructure layout), to that assessed here, be taken forward in the final design scheme.
- For the purposes of this chapter the maximum design scenario refers to the maximum construction extent as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 5 and the assessment is written presuming that construction works will be to the maximum extent proposed. As such, the assessment of the maximum design scenario will be equally valid for lesser parameter values as the assessment covers the whole of the Proposed Development envelope (including the applied micrositing allowance).
- Operational impacts, those affecting the settings of designated heritage assets, presume the maximum design scenario of the onshore substation. That is, dimensions of 390 m length by 250 m width, with a maximum building height of 21 m. All cables will be subsurface, and all construction compounds will be temporary. As such, the assessment of potential effects on the settings of designated heritage assets will be equally valid for lesser parameter values (i.e. a building of lesser dimensions).
- Impacts scoped out of the assessment were agreed with key stakeholders; HES and ELCAS through the scoping opinion 1 October 2020. These impacts, together with a justification, are presented in Table 10.6 Open ▸ .
10.8.3. Intertidal Area
- Impacts scoped out of the assessment, together with a justification, are presented in Table 10.7 Open ▸ .
10.9. Methodology for Assessment of Effects
- The Cultural Heritage assessment of effects has followed the methodology set out in Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report. Specific to the assessment of cultural heritage, the following guidance documents have also been considered:
- Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) & HES (2018) ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Handbook’;
- HES (2019) ‘Designation Policy and Selection Guidance’;
- HES (2016) ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting’;
- CIfA (2017) ‘Standard and Guidance for the Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment’; and,
- Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) (2021) ‘Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment’.
- In addition, the assessment of cultural heritage has considered the legislative and policy framework as defined by:
- The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (as amended);
- Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended);
- Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 (as amended);
- Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014;
- National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) (2023);
- Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) (2019);
- Planning Advice Note 1/2013 (PAN 1): Environmental Impact Assessment; and
- Planning Advice Note 2/2011 (PAN 2): Planning and Archaeology.
10.9.2. Impact Assessment Criteria
- Determining the significance of effects is a two-stage process that involves defining the magnitude of the potential impacts and the sensitivity of the receptors. This section describes the criteria applied in this chapter to assign values to the magnitude of potential impacts and the sensitivity of the receptors. The terms used to define magnitude and sensitivity are based on those which are described in further detail in Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report.
- The effects of the Proposed Development on heritage assets will be assessed on the basis of their type (direct effects, indirect effects, secondary effects, and cumulative impacts), nature (adverse or beneficial), duration (temporary or permanent, short, medium or long term) and reversibility (reversible of irreversible). The assessment will take into account the value/sensitivity of the heritage asset, and its setting, and the magnitude of the predicted impact.
- Adverse effects are those that detract from or reduce cultural significance or special interest of heritage assets.
- Beneficial effects are those that preserve, enhance or better reveal the cultural significance or special interest of heritage assets.
- The magnitude of impact (adverse or beneficial) will be assessed in the categories, high, medium, low and negligible and described in Table 10.8 Open ▸ , following the guidance laid out in the SNH & HES EIA Handbook (2018).
- Cultural heritage assets are given weight through the designation process. Designation ensures that sites and places are recognised by law through the planning system and other regulatory processes. The level of protection and how a site or place is managed varies depending on the type of designation and its laws and policies (HES, 2019). Table 10.9 Open ▸ defines the relative sensitivity of heritage assets (including their settings) relevant to the Proposed Development.
- The significance of the effect upon cultural heritage is determined by correlating the magnitude of the impact and the sensitivity of the receptor, as outlined in Table 10.10 Open ▸ below. Where two outcomes are possible, professional judgment supported by reasoned justification, will be employed to determine the level of significance. Major and moderate effects are considered to be 'significant' in the context of Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations). Minor and negligible effects are considered to be 'not significant'
- HES’s guidance document, 'Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting' (HES, 2016), notes that:
“Setting can be important to the way in which historic structures or places are understood, appreciated and experienced. It can often be integral to a historic asset’s cultural significance.”
“Setting often extends beyond the property boundary or ‘curtilage’ of an individual historic asset into a broader landscape context.”
- The guidance also advises that:
“If proposed development is likely to affect the setting of a key historic asset, an objective written assessment should be prepared by the applicant to inform the decision-making process. The conclusions should take into account the significance of the asset and its setting and attempt to quantify the extent of any impact. The methodology and level of information should be tailored to the circumstances of each case”.
- The guidance recommends that there are three stages in assessing the impact of a development on the setting of a historic asset or place:
- Stage 1: identify the historic assets that might be affected by the proposed development;
- Stage 2: define and analyse the setting by establishing how the surroundings contribute to the ways in which the historic asset or place is understood, appreciated and experienced; and,
- Stage 3: evaluate the potential impact of the proposed changes on the setting, and the extent to which any negative impacts can be mitigated.
- The approach suggested in the guidance has been used in the following assessment.