10.10. Primary & tertiary mitigation

73. As part of the project design process, a number of measures have been proposed to reduce the potential for impacts on cultural heritage (see Table 10.11   Open ▸ ). These include measures which have been incorporated as part of the Proposed Development’s design (referred to as ‘primary mitigation’) and measures which will be implemented regardless of the impact assessment (referred to as ‘tertiary mitigation’). As there is a commitment to implementing these measures, they are considered inherently part of the design of the Proposed Development and have therefore been considered in the assessment presented in Section 10.11 below (i.e. the determination of magnitude and therefore significance assumes implementation of these measures). These measures are considered standard industry practice for this type of development.

Table 10.11:  Measures Adopted as Part of the Proposed Development (Primary & Tertiary Mitigation)

10.11. Assessment of Significance

74. The potential impacts arising from the construction, operational, and maintenance of the Proposed Development and an assessment of the likely significance of the effect of the Proposed Development on Cultural Heritage receptors caused by each identified impact is given below.

Direct impacts on Cultural Heritage Assets

Construction

75. Direct (physical) effects on cultural heritage assets are most likely to arise from ground-disturbing activities that occur during development construction works (such as those required for construction of haul roads, compounds, topsoil stripping, and excavation of cable trenches), which may damage and possibly destroy, cultural heritage remains. Direct effects on cultural heritage assets are normally adverse, permanent, and irreversible.
76. Taking the Primary and Tertiary Mitigation Measures set out in Table 10.11, into account, there remains the potential for construction phase impacts on three non-designated heritage assets (MEL 2499, MEL 10316 and HA 01) and on any previously unrecorded archaeological assets that may be present as buried remains. These impacts are assessed below. The potential for construction impacts on other cultural heritage assets in the Inner Study Area will be avoided via the implementation of the Primary and Tertiary Mitigation Measures in particular by design measures to avoid areas of known cultural heritage assets and providing a buffer between the assets and areas of construction. Accordingly, because no potential for construction impacts is identified, no assessment of possible likely significant effects is required.

Thornton Law MEL 2499

Magnitude of Impact

77. The Proposed Development cable corridor crosses Thornton Law enclosure (Volume 2, Figure 10.1). At this section, the whole construction corridor will have the topsoil stripped, a haul road will be instated, and open-cut cable trenches will be excavated to a depth of up to 2.5 m. (Full details of the construction methodology are provided in Volume 1, Chapter 5). The ground-breaking works[3] associated with construction of the Proposed Development cable corridor will result in the loss of approximately half of this asset and will adversely affect the integrity of the asset as a whole.
78. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, permanent, continuous and not reversible. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be high adverse as half of this asset will be removed.

Sensitivity of the receptor

79. The non-designated Thornton Law enclosure is a cropmark site (representing the presence of buried archaeological features and deposits) which appears to be the remains of a rectilinear enclosure: most likely a late prehistoric/Romano British settlement. The cropmark is located in the same field as the Scheduled Monument Castledene, enclosure SW of (SM 5849), a heritage asset of value at a national level and of high sensitivity. The proximity of the Thornton Law enclosure to this Scheduled Monument increases the potential for it to be a broadly contemporary, or at least related, monument and potentially of similar heritage value. This asset has the potential to increase our knowledge of settlement practices in later prehistory.
80. The Thornton Law enclosure is deemed to be of high vulnerability, is not recoverable and is a heritage asset of at least regional value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be medium.

Significance of the effect

81. There will be a direct construction impact on the Thornton Law enclosure. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be high, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect, based on professional judgement, and taking into consideration that half of this asset will be removed, however half will survive in-situ will therefore be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

82. The impact on Thornton Law enclosure will be mitigated through a programme of archaeological works in accordance with the requirements in NPF4 Policy 7(o) and PAN2/2011, sections 25-27. The programme of works will be developed in consultation with ELCAS. This work will allow for the site to be investigated and recorded to an appropriate standard and is likely to comprise a targeted evaluation prior to construction commencing with further set-piece excavation of any vulnerable remains and reporting to an acceptable standard undertaken as appropriate.
83. The magnitude of the impact is deemed to be high and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. Following mitigation, the asset will have been appropriately recorded and the findings will increase our knowledge and understanding of the function and construction of the asset and of others of similar type. It will also provide an understanding of the level of preservation of cropmark sites in this area. It is therefore assessed that, following mitigation, there will be an adverse residual effect of minor significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Thornton Law Trackway (MEL 10316)

Magnitude of Impact

84. The Proposed Development cable corridor crosses the eastern end of the Thornton Law trackway (Volume 2, Figure 10.1). At this location, the construction corridor will have the topsoil stripped, a trenchless technique (e.g, HDD) compound will be instated, and open-cut cable trenches will be excavated to depths of up to 2.5 m (Full details of the construction methodology are provided in Volume 1, Chapter 5). The ground-breaking works associated with construction of the Proposed Development cable corridor will result in the loss of the eastern part of the Thornton Law trackway.
85. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, permanent, continuous and not reversible. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium adverse as it will remove the eastern end of this asset but the majority of the asset will survive in-situ.

Sensitivity of the receptor

86. The non-designated Thornton Law trackway is a cropmark site which appears as a linear feature, perhaps a trackway, which appears to line up with a gateway in the east of the field and run west to a building on the far side of the field. In doing so, it cuts across the Scheduled Monument Castledene, enclosure SW of (SM 5849). It seems probable that this is the cropmark of a post medieval trackway.
87. The Thornton Law trackway is deemed to be of high vulnerability, is not recoverable and is a heritage asset of at most local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of the effect

88. There will be a direct construction impact on the Thornton Law trackway. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be medium, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. Based on professional judgement and taking into consideration that while a relatively small section of this low sensitivity asset will be removed, the majority of the asset will survive in-situ, the effect is assessed to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation

89. No cultural heritage secondary mitigation is considered necessary, because the likely effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Area of Rig and Furrow (CFA 001)

Magnitude of Impact

90. The Proposed Development landfall crosses the area of surviving rig and furrow (Volume 2, Figure 10.1). At this location the whole construction corridor and trenchless technology (e.g. HDD) compound area will have the topsoil stripped, a trenchless technology compound and a haul road will be instated and opencut cable trenches will be excavated to a depth of up to 2.5 m (Full details of the construction methodology are provided in Volume 1, Chapter 5). The ground-breaking works associated with construction of the Proposed Development landfall will result in almost total loss of the remains of the rig and furrow.
91. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, permanent, continuous and not reversible. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly, removing almost all of the asset. The magnitude is therefore considered to be high as almost all the asset will be removed.

Sensitivity of the receptor

92. An area of rig and furrow cultivation is visible in the field immediately to the south of the shoreline. Rig and furrow is a type of post-medieval, and possibly earlier, cultivation. The rig and furrow cultivation is deemed to be of high vulnerability, is not recoverable and is of local value. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered to be low.

Significance of the effect

93. Without mitigation there is potential for a direct impact on the rig and furrow cultivation. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be high, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be low. Based on professional judgement, and taking into consideration that the majority of this low sensitivity asset will be removed, the effect is assessed to be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation

94. No cultural heritage secondary mitigation is considered necessary because the predicted effect in the absence of secondary mitigation is not significant in EIA terms.

Archaeological Potential

Magnitude of Impact

95. Within the Proposed Development area, there is potential for any ground disturbing works to disturb or destroy previously unrecorded, buried archaeological remains that may be present. It has been assessed that there is high potential for unrecorded discoveries in the areas surrounding Scheduled Monuments, medium to high potential in the field to the immediate south of the shoreline near Chapel Point, and low to medium potential for the remainder of the route. The exception to this assessment is the area of Skateraw quarry (Volume 2, Figure 10.1   Open ▸ ) where there is no residual archaeological potential following the use of the area as a quarry for construction of the A1 Trunk Road.
96. The potential impact on any previously unrecorded receptors is unknown and cannot be reliably determined. However, if any hitherto unidentified buried archaeological remains are present, an impact arising from construction of the Proposed Development will likely be of local spatial extent, permanent, continuous and not reversible. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. It is therefore considered that the magnitude of the impact could be up to high, resulting in the removal of the receptor.

Sensitivity of the receptor

97. The sensitivity of previously unidentified subsurface archaeological remains is unknown and cannot be reliably determined. However, based on the baseline evidence gathered through the assessment, it is probable that any such assets are most likely to be small, discrete features of prehistoric date.
98. Any previously unidentified subsurface archaeological remains, if present, are deemed to be of high vulnerability, are not recoverable and could be of heritage value up to national level. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered likely to be up to high.

Significance of the effect

99. If previously unrecorded subsurface archaeological remains survive within the Proposed Development area, they will be subject to a direct impact. Overall, the magnitude of the impact could be high and the sensitivity of the receptor also high. The effect could, therefore, be of major adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

100. The impact on previously unidentified archaeological remains will be mitigated through a programme of archaeological works in accordance with the requirements in NPF4 Policy 7(o) and PAN2/2011, sections 25-27. The programme of works would be developed in consultation with ELCAS and detailed in the WSI. This work will allow for features to be investigated and recorded to an appropriate standard and is likely to comprise targeted evaluation prior to construction commencing with further set-piece excavation of any vulnerable remains and reporting to an acceptable standard undertaken as appropriate.

The magnitude of the impact is deemed to be high and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. Following mitigation, any newly discovered assets will have been appropriately recorded and the findings will increase the knowledge and understanding of the archaeological remains present within the area. It is therefore assessed that following mitigation there will be an adverse residual effect of no more than minor significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Operation and Maintenance

101. No direct or indirect impacts have been identified during operation, therefore no significant effects. It is presumed that any repair and maintenance works will take place within the construction footprint therefore there is no further potential for impacts on cultural heritage assets

Decommissioning

102. It is presumed that any decommissioning works will take place within the construction footprint therefore there is no further potential for impacts on cultural heritage assets.

Setting Impacts on Cultural Heritage Assets

Construction

103. As per Table 10.6, settings impacts during construction are scoped out.

Operational and Maintenance

104. The Proposed Development onshore substation, which is the only infrastructure that will be visible above ground during operation, could result in adverse effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets, within the cultural heritage outer study area (Volume 2, Figure 10.2), although such effects will diminish with increasing distance from the onshore substation. 
105. Volume 4, Appendices 10.3 and 10.4 contain tabulated assessments of the predicted effects on the settings of all designated assets within the cultural heritage outer study area.
106. There are no heritage assets beyond 5 km of the onshore substation that have been identified through appraisal of the Bare-Earth ZTV, or notified through consultation with HES and ECLAS, that require consideration of potential impacts on their settings.
107. The assessment of operational effects on the settings of these heritage assets has been carried out with reference to the location and maximum design scenario parameters for the onshore substation and the locations of the cultural heritage assets shown on Volume 2, Figure 10.2   Open ▸ The criteria detailed in Tables 10.8 (Magnitude of Impact), 10.9 (Sensitivity of Asset) and 10.10 (Significance of Effect) have been used to assess, in combination with professional judgement, the nature and significance of the effects.
108. Once operational, the cables for the Proposed Development will be subsurface, the compounds will be removed, and the ground surface reinstated to current conditions. Therefore, the only component of the Proposed Development that would have an impact on the settings of heritage assets, beyond the construction phase, is the onshore substation and associated infrastructure. It is therefore the presence of the onshore substation within the settings of the assets discussed that is considered in the following assessments. As the Proposed Development onshore substation will not affect the assessed assets directly, but will affect their settings, the impacts are, in each case, assessed as affecting the receptors indirectly.
109. The following discussion addresses those assets where potentially significant adverse effects have been identified through the tabulated assessment (Volume 4, Appendix 10.3 and 10.4) and those assets identified by HES as requiring detailed consideration.

Dryburn Bridge, enclosure 300 m SE of (SM 4038), Cultural Heritage Viewpoint 5 (Volume 3, Figure 6.25)

Magnitude of Impact

110. The Proposed Development onshore substation will be visible from the site of this prehistoric enclosed settlement as the onshore substation will be located approximately 440 m to its south-east.
111. The Proposed Development onshore substation will add an industrial element to the wider views to the south of this monument, although at present it will be partly screened by the trees that line the A1 Trunk Road. It will remain possible to understand and appreciate the siting of the settlement, for its proximity to the coast, the water source of the Dry Burn and its position, which even in prehistoric times, will have been on fertile agricultural land. As a cropmark, this site and the contemporary cropmarks in the surrounding area are not visible at ground level but to the visitor with knowledge of these assets it will remain possible for them to understand the possible intervisibility between the sites. While the Proposed Development onshore substation will slightly alter the wider views from this asset, being visible in only one direction from the site of the settlement, the integrity of the setting will remain intact.
112. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the receptor

113. Dryburn Bridge, enclosure appears as a cropmark on aerial photography and is interpreted as an enclosed settlement of prehistoric date. Its sensitivity is primarily gained from the intrinsic value of its fabric and the potential for archaeological deposits within and around it to provide information on late prehistoric agricultural, domestic, and socio-economic practices. As a cropmark feature, this asset survives as subsurface remains, and no above ground remains are visible. While the landscape that surrounds the cropmark has changed to one largely characterised by intensive modern agriculture and modern transport infrastructure, with some industrial activity and energy generation facilities nearby, the site gains some value from its setting. In that regard, it is clear that it was sited on the agriculturally fertile East Lothian Plain close to the coast and in a position that was evidently not chosen for defensive reasons. The sensitivity of this asset is enhanced by the number of possibly contemporary cropmark sites in the surrounding area which together may inform our knowledge and understanding of development of the late prehistoric settlement landscape of this area.
114. The current setting of the settlement is in a flat arable field south of the coast with wide views over the surrounding landscape. The scheduled area is split into two parts by the raised track of the East Coast Mainline (ECML) which crosses northwest to southeast through the asset, with a Railhead to the immediate northwest of the scheduled area which includes an overhead gantry and street lighting. The minor road to East Barns and Skateraw Quarry forms its northern boundary.
115. From the site of the settlement, there are views to the north, towards the Firth of Forth, over the arable field that contains Skateraw, ring ditches and cropmarks 300 m NW of (SM 4040). To the east, the view is limited by a large agricultural shed at Skateraw, with Torness Power Station visible beyond. To the west, the view is over agricultural fields with the Tarmac Cement Works a prominent feature in that direction. To the south, the view is over an arable field to the tree lined route of the A1 Trunk Road, beyond which arable fields extend to the village of Innerwick and on to the rising ground of Blackcastle Hill, which is surmounted by a large telecommunications mast. Located close to the A1 Trunk Road and cut by the ECML, the noise from the traffic on these routes is a notable feature of the current setting of this settlement.
116. Dryburn Bridge, enclosure, including its setting, is a heritage asset of national value deemed to be of high vulnerability, the sensitivity of the receptor and its setting are considered to be high.  The setting is potentially recoverable, in the event of decommissioning.

Significance of the effect

117. The Proposed Development onshore substation will slightly alter the wider views from the Dryburn Bridge, enclosure, being visible in only one direction from the site of the settlement. However, the settlement will not be isolated from its surroundings, neither will its relationship and associations with contemporary monuments be disrupted, nor its setting appreciably fragmented. It will remain possible for any visitor to understand and appreciate the setting of the monument. As such, the integrity of the setting of the settlement and its capacity to inform and convey its cultural significance, will not be compromised. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect based on professional judgement will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Skateraw, ring ditches and cropmarks 300 m NW of (SM 4040), Cultural Heritage Viewpoint 5 (Volume 3, Figure 6.25)

Magnitude of Impact

118. The Proposed Development onshore substation will be visible from the site of this prehistoric enclosed settlement as the onshore substation will be located approximately 565 m to the south.
119. The Proposed Development onshore substation will add an industrial element to the wider views to the south of this monument, although at present it will be screened through the trees that line the A1 Trunk Road. It will remain possible to understand and appreciate the siting of this settlement site for its proximity to the coast and its position, which even in prehistoric times, would have been on fertile agricultural land. As a cropmark, this site and the contemporary cropmarks in the surrounding area are not visible at ground level but to the visitor with knowledge of these assets it will remain possible for them to understand the possible intervisibility between the sites. While the Proposed Development onshore substation will slightly alter the wider views from this asset, being visible in only one direction from the site of the settlement, the integrity of the cropmarks setting will remain intact.
120. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the receptor

121. Skateraw, ring ditches and cropmarks appear as a cropmark on aerial photography and the site is interpreted as an unenclosed settlement of prehistoric date. Antiquarian records of cist burials (MEL 1813) having been identified within the site suggest that some of the ring ditch features may represent burial barrows. The site’s sensitivity is primarily gained from the intrinsic value of its fabric and the potential for archaeological deposits within and around it to provide information on late prehistoric, agricultural, domestic, socio-economic, and funerary practices. As a cropmark feature, this asset survives as subsurface remains, and no above ground remains are visible. While the landscape that surrounds the cropmarks has largely changed to one largely characterised by intensive modern agriculture and modern transport infrastructure, with some industrial activity and energy generation facilities nearby, the site gains some value from its setting. In that regard, it is clear that it was sited on the agriculturally fertile East Lothian Plain close to the coast and the water source of the Dry Burn and in a position that was evidently not chosen for defensive reasons. The sensitivity of this asset is enhanced by the number of possibly contemporary cropmark sites in the surrounding area which together may inform our knowledge and understanding of development of the late prehistoric settlement landscape of this area.
122. The current setting of Skateraw, ring ditches and cropmarks is on a level arable field south of the coast with wide views over the surrounding landscape. Views to the north are over the course of the Dry Burn to the coast and the Firth of Forth, to the east the view is limited by the treebelts and large agricultural shed at Skateraw although Torness Power Station is visible beyond. To the west the view is over agricultural field at the same elevation with the Tarmac Cement Works a prominent feature in the distance. To the south the view is over a small arable field to the raised route of the ECML railway, beyond this is a further arable field and the tree lined A1 Trunk Road, beyond which arable fields rise to the village of Innerwick and on to the rising ground of Blackcastle Hill which is surmounted by a large telecommunications mast. Located close to the A1 Trunk Road and the ECML the noise from the traffic on these routes is a notable feature of the current setting of this cropmark.
123. Skateraw, ring ditches and cropmarks, including its setting, is a heritage asset of national value deemed to be of high vulnerability, the sensitivity of the receptor and its setting are considered to be high. The setting is potentially recoverable, in the event of decommissioning. 

Significance of the effect

124. The Proposed Development onshore substation will slightly alter the wider views from the Skateraw, ring ditches and cropmarks, being visible in only one direction from the site of the settlement. However, the settlement will not be isolated from its surroundings, neither will its relationship and associations with contemporary monuments be disrupted, nor its setting appreciably fragmented. It will remain possible for any visitor to understand and appreciate the setting of the monument. As such, the integrity of the setting of the settlement and its capacity to inform and convey its cultural significance, will not be compromised. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect, based on professional judgement will therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Crowhill, enclosure WNW of (SM 5770), Cultural Heritage Viewpoint 4 (Volume 3, Figure 6.24)

Magnitude of Impact

125. The Proposed Development onshore substation will be visible as the substation will be located approximately 250 m to the north-west of this cropmark.
126. The Proposed Development onshore substation will add a large industrial structure dominating views to the northwest of this asset. While it will remain possible to understand the siting of this enclosure for its position, which even in prehistoric times, would have been in the more fertile land, with views over the surrounding agricultural landscape to the south, east and west, the view to the north will change from one of an arable farming landscape to industrial infrastructure. As a cropmark, this site and the contemporary cropmarks in the surrounding area are not visible at ground level but to the visitor with knowledge of these assets it will remain to an extent possible to understand the potential intervisibility between the assets, while the onshore substation will stand between the Crowhill enclosure and the cropmarks at Skateraw (SM4038 and SM4040) it is unlikely that there would have been intervisibility between the Crowhill Enclosure and Skateraw at any point due to the local topography.
127. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.

Sensitivity of the receptor

128. Crowhill, enclosure appears as a cropmark on aerial photography and is interpreted as an enclosed settlement defined by a single ditch. The sensitivity of Crowhill, enclosure is primarily gained from the intrinsic value of its fabric and the potential for archaeological deposits within and around it to provide information on late prehistoric agricultural, domestic and socio-economic practices.  As a cropmark feature, this asset survives as subsurface remains, and no above ground remains are visible.  While the landscape that surrounds the cropmark has largely changed to one of intensive modern agriculture, the cropmark gains some value from its setting, in that it is clear that it was sited on a locally high though non-defensive location with views over the surrounding fertile land. The sensitivity of this asset is enhanced by the number of possibly contemporary cropmarks in the surrounding area which together may inform the knowledge of the late prehistoric landscape of this area.
129. The current setting of Crowhill, enclosure is in an arable field on a gentle southeast facing slope, immediately above the small agricultural settlement of Crowhill. Views to the north are slightly restricted by the rising ground however from the north edge they are over arable fields to the coast, the Firth of Forth and include Torness Power Station, the view to the east and west is over arable fields and to the south the fields rise to the Lammermuirs.
130. Crowhill, enclosure including its setting, is a heritage asset of national value deemed to be of high vulnerability, the sensitivity of the receptor and its setting are considered to be high. The setting is potentially recoverable, in the event of decommissioning. 

Significance of the effect

131. The Proposed Development onshore substation will alter the wider views to the north from the Crowhill, enclosure due to its close proximity.  While the integrity of the setting of this settlement will be compromised to some extent, it will remain possible for any visitor to understand and appreciate the settlement and its relationship with Thornton Burn and the contemporary settlements along it. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be medium, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect based on professional judgement will therefore be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Castledene, enclosure SW of (SM5849)

Magnitude of Impact

132. The Proposed Development onshore substation will be visible as the onshore substation is located approximately 950m to the north from this enclosure.
133. The Proposed Development onshore substation will add an industrial element to the wider views to the north of this monument, however this view already contains the larger industrial structures of Torness Power Station and Tarmac Cement Works. It will remain possible to understand and appreciate the siting of this enclosure for views over the surrounding lower lands. As a cropmark, this site and the contemporary cropmarks in the surrounding area are not visible at ground level but to the visitor with knowledge of these assets it will remain possible for them to understand the possible intervisibility between the assets. While the Proposed Development onshore substation will slightly alter the wider views from this asset the integrity of the cropmark’s setting will remain.
134. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be low.

Sensitivity of the receptor

135. Castledene enclosure appears as a cropmark and is interpreted as a sub-square enclosure defined by ditch, possibly representing a domestic settlement occupied by natives at the time of the Roman invasions of Scotland. The sensitivity of Castledene Enclosure is primarily gained from the intrinsic value of its fabric and the potential for archaeological deposits within and around it to provide information on late prehistoric/Romano-british settlement, agricultural and socio-economic practices.  As a cropmark feature, this asset survives as subsurface remains, and no above ground remains are visible.  While the landscape that surrounds the cropmarks has largely changed to one of intensive modern agriculture, the cropmarks gain some value from their setting, in that it is clear that they were built of the small natural rise between the valleys of Braidwood Burn and Thornton Burn looking over the relatively flat landscape to the north. The sensitivity of this asset is enhanced by the number of possibly contemporary cropmarks in the surrounding area which together may inform the knowledge of the late prehistoric landscape of this area.
136. The current setting of the Castledene enclosure is in an arable field just below the crest of an east to west running ridge, with open views to the north, currently partially screened by intervening hedgerows. Views to the south are restricted by the rising ground to the crest of the hill and views to the east and west are over arable fields at a similar elevation. The view to the north is over the lower arable lands of the East Lothian Plain, on which are the cropmark remains of several possibly contemporary settlement sites. Views in this direction also include Torness Power Station to the northeast and Tarmac Cement Works to the northwest.

137. The Castledene enclosure including its setting, is a heritage asset of national value deemed to be of high vulnerability, the sensitivity of the receptor and its setting are considered to be high. The setting is potentially recoverable, in the event of decommissioning. 

Significance of the effect

138. The Proposed Development onshore substation will slightly alter the wider views from the Castledene enclosure. However, the enclosure will not be isolated from its surroundings, neither will its relationship and associations with contemporary monuments be disrupted, nor its setting appreciably fragmented. It will remain possible for any visitor to understand and appreciate the setting of the monument. As such, the integrity of the setting of the enclosure and its capacity to inform and convey its cultural significance, will not be compromised. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be low and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be high. The effect based on professional judgement will, therefore, be of minor adverse significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

Innerwick Conservation Area (CA285) Landscape & Visual Viewpoint 2 (Volume 3, Figure 6.16)

Magnitude of Impact

139. The Proposed Development onshore substation will be visible from the buildings along the northeast edge of Innerwick Conservation Area, from Innerwick Farm and from the arable field included within the conservation area at its northeast edge. The Proposed Development onshore substation will be located approximately 410m to the northeast of Innerwick CA on the south facing slope of Corsick Hill. The Proposed Development will not be visible from the majority of the village of Innerwick as the built environment of the village blocks views out to the east and the view from the church knoll is largely to the north. While the Proposed Development onshore substation will not be visible from many of the buildings within Innerwick (See Volume 4, Appendix 10.4 for individual listed buildings) it will bring a large industrial building into the immediate arable land to the northeast of the Innerwick, further reducing the agricultural character of the Conservation Area.
140. The impact is predicted to be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and low reversibility. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor indirectly. The magnitude is therefore considered to be medium.

Sensitivity of receptor

141. Innerwick Conservation Area is largely an 18th century agricultural village centred around Innerwick Church which is set on a knoll in the centre of the village. The village is mainly composed of single or two storey cottages which lie at the foot of a steeply rising slope to the south. Views out of the conservation area are largely restricted by the built environment of the village. Where views out are possible from the church knoll, they look over the agricultural land to the north to the Forth. At the east end of the conservation area Innerwick Farm and the arable field to its north are included in the Conservation Area providing evidence of the agricultural origins of this village and from this end of the Conservation Area the views are out to the surrounding agricultural landscape. The historic and agricultural sense of place within Innerwick Conservation Area is diminished by the constant noise from the A1 Trunk Road which passes approximately 700m to the north.
142. Innerwick Conservation Area including its setting, is a heritage asset of regional value deemed to be of medium vulnerability, the sensitivity of the receptor and its setting are considered to be medium. The setting is potentially recoverable, in the event of decommissioning. 

Significance of the effect

143. The Proposed Development onshore substation will alter the wider views to the northeast from Innerwick Conservation Area. The setting of Innerwick Conservation Area will be compromised to a degree but not to an extent that the overall integrity of the setting will be affected. The internal relationships between the built environment will remain unchanged and that the Conservation Area was originally an agricultural settlement surrounded by agricultural field will remain appreciable. As such, the integrity of the setting of the settlement, its capacity to inform and convey its cultural significance, will not be compromised. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is deemed to be medium, and the sensitivity of the receptor is considered to be medium. The effect based on professional judgement will, therefore, be of moderate adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Decommissioning

144. No settings impacts during decommissioning.

10.11.1.         Proposed Monitoring

145. No cultural heritage monitoring to test the predictions made within the impact assessment in relation to construction impacts is considered necessary, as with the inclusion of primary, secondary and tertiary mitigation there will be no further potential for construction impacts on cultural heritage assets. Following mitigation all cultural heritage assets within the construction footprint will have been recorded by professional archaeologists and removed.
146. No cultural heritage monitoring to test the predictions made within the assessment of likely significance effects on cultural heritage is considered necessary as such impacts will remain for the duration of the operation of the Proposed Development.

10.12. Cumulative Effects Assessment

10.12.1.         Methodology

147. The Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) takes into account the impact associated with the Proposed Development together with other relevant plans, projects and activities. Cumulative effects are therefore the combined effect of the Proposed Development in combination with the effects from a number of different projects, on the same receptor or resource. Please see Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the Onshore EIA Report for detail on CEA methodology.
148. The projects and plans selected as relevant to the CEA presented within this chapter are based upon the results of a screening exercise (see Volume 4, Appendix 2.4). Each project or plan has been considered on a case by case basis for screening in or out of this chapter's assessment based upon data confidence, effect-receptor pathways and the spatial/temporal scales involved.
149. The specific projects scoped into the CEA for Cultural Heritage, are outlined in Table 10.12.

Table 10.12:  List of Other Projects Considered Within the CEA for Cultural Heritage

10.12.2.         Maximum Design Scenario

150. 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. 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.
151. For the purposes of this chapter the maximum design scenario refers to the maximum construction extent of the Proposed Development as detailed in Volume 1, Chapter 5 and the assessment is written presuming that construction works will be to the maximum extent proposed together with the full extent of the cumulative developments as given in Planning Applications. 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 for micrositing allowance).
152. Operational impacts, i.e. those affecting the settings of designated heritage assets, presume the maximum design scenario of the onshore substation together with the full extent of the cumulative developments as given in Planning Applications. 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).

10.12.3.         Intertidal area Maximum Design Scenario

153. As no potential impacts on cultural heritage have been identified within the Cultural Heritage Intertidal Area there is no potential for cumulative impacts as a result of any combination of the cumulative developments with the Proposed Development.

10.12.4.         Cumulative Effects Assessment

154. 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.

Direct IMPACTS ON CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS

Tier 2

155. There is no potential for cumulative direct impacts on cultural heritage assets in combination with Berwick Bank offshore infrastructure.

Tier 2

Construction

156. Cumulative construction impacts may arise from the Proposed Development in combination with developments that have the potential to impact on the same heritage assets.
157. The cumulative developments have no predicted construction impacts on any of the known cultural heritage assets effected by the Proposed Development. It is predicted that only one asset type; previously unrecorded receptors, surviving as buried archaeological remains, will potentially be affected by the Proposed Development, would also be potentially directly affected by ground disturbance works relating to the cumulative developments.

Magnitude of impact

158. Cumulative construction impacts on previously unidentified buried archaeological remains are possible from construction of the Proposed Development together with any combination of the cumulative developments (Table 10.12).
159. The potential impact on any previously unrecorded receptors, surviving as buried archaeological remains, is unknown and cannot be reliably determined. However, if any hitherto unidentified buried archaeological remains are present, an impact arising from construction of the Proposed Development together with any combination of the cumulative developments will likely be of local spatial extent, long term duration, continuous and not reversible. It is predicted that the impact will affect the receptor directly. It is therefore considered that the magnitude of the impact could be up to high, resulting in the removal of the receptor.

Sensitivity of the receptor

160. The sensitivity of previously unidentified subsurface archaeological remains is unknown and cannot be reliably determined. However, based on the baseline evidence gathered through the assessment, it is probable that any such assets are most likely to be small, discrete features of prehistoric date.
161. Any previously unidentified subsurface archaeological remains, if present, are deemed to be of high vulnerability, are not recoverable and could be of heritage value up to national level. The sensitivity of the receptor is therefore, considered likely to be up to high.

Significance of the impact

162. If previously unrecorded subsurface archaeological remains survive within the Proposed Development area and within the cumulative development construction footprints, they will be subject to a direct cumulative impact.
163. Overall, the magnitude of the cumulative effect could be high, and the sensitivity of the receptor could be up to high. The cumulative effect could, therefore, be of major adverse significance, which is significant in EIA terms.

Secondary mitigation and residual effect

164. The impact on previously unidentified archaeological remains as a result of the construction works associated with the Proposed Development will be mitigated through a programme of archaeological works in accordance with the requirements in NPF4 Policy 7(o) and PAN2/2011, sections 25-27. The programme of works would be approved in advance by ELCAS.
165. Following mitigation, any newly discovered assets will have been appropriately recorded and the findings will increase the knowledge and understanding of the archaeological remains present within the area.  It is therefore assessed that following mitigation there will be an adverse residual effect of no more than minor significance, which is not significant in EIA terms.

SETTING IMPACTS ON CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSETS

166. Cumulative impacts on the setting of cultural heritage assets are possible as a result of a combination of the operation of the Proposed Development along with the cumulative developments.

Tier 1

167. The Berwick Bank Wind Farm is located approximately 43 km north east from the East Lothian Coast. The offshore infrastructure consists of:

• 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.
  168. The cultural heritage assets assessed related to the Proposed Development have local onshore settings, the addition of the Berwick Bank Wind Farm 43 km offshore will not have a cumulative impact on their local onshore setting due to the separation provided by the distance.

Tier 2

Operation and Maintenance

169. The EIA Report for SPEN Branxton Grid Substation (21/01569/PM) predicts one impact on the setting of cultural heritage assets: an impact of ‘slight’ negative significance on the scheduled monument Branxton, enclosure 350 m NNW of (SM 5958). This assessment has identified an impact of minor adverse significance on the Branxton, enclosure 350 m NNW of (SM 5958) an asset of high sensitivity.  It is considered that given the limited visibility of the Proposed Development onshore substation downhill to the north of the SPEN Branxton Grid Substation the cumulative impact of the two substations will remain of negligible magnitude with the combined impact constituting a slight change to the wider views obtained from the enclosure, any effect on the enclosures localised setting will be as a sole result of the SPEN Branxton Grid Substation (21/01569/PM) which is located 270 m to the west of the scheduled area not the Proposed Development which is 1.9km to the north west. It is therefore considered that there will be a cumulative impact of minor significance on Branxton, enclosure 350 m NNW of (SM 5958).
170. The convertor station of the SPEN Eastern Link Project (22/00852/PPM) will be located approximately 2 km to the northeast of the Proposed Development onshore substation. The SPEN convertor station will be located to the immediate east of the Tarmac Cement Works and the Dunbar Energy Recovery Facility. Given the separation from the Proposed Development onshore substation and the baseline of large industrial structures in this view direction it is considered that there is no potential for a cumulative operational impacts on the setting of the cultural heritage assets.
171. Crystal Rig IV Wind Farm is located approximately 8 km to the southwest of the Proposed Development. Given the separation distance and as the turbines will be located in the Lammemuir Hills, beyond operational wind farms it is considered that there is no potential for a cumulative operational impacts on the setting of the cultural heritage assets.

10.13. Inter-Related Effects

172. No inter-related effects arising from the Proposed Development on cultural heritage have been identified.  

10.14. Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Likely Significant Effects and Monitoring

173. Information on cultural heritage within the cultural heritage study areas was collected through a desk-based assessment, site surveys and informed by comments and information supplied by ELCAS and HES.
174. A total of 51 heritage assets have been identified within the cultural heritage inner study area. The majority of these are cropmarks interpreted as prehistoric enclosed settlements, although the area also contains evidence of medieval and later settlement.
175. While the majority of the cultural heritage inner study area is arable fields, it is considered that there is medium to high potential for further buried archaeology to survive subsurface, with the greatest potential being in the areas surrounding scheduled monuments and in the fields to the southwest of Chapel Point. Table 10.13 presents a summary of the potential impacts, mitigation measures, and the conclusion of likely significant effects in EIA terms in respect to cultural heritage. The impacts assessed include:

• Potential for construction works within the cultural heritage inner study area to result in direct effects on three cultural heritage assets. In the absence of secondary mitigation, the effect on Thornton Law (MEL2499) is assessed as being of likely moderate significance (significant in EIA terms). The effects on Thornton Law Trackway (MEL10316) and an area of rig and furrow (CFA001) are assessed as being of minor significance (not significant in EIA terms). Mitigation measures have been set out that would avoid or reduce the predicted effects and residual effects are of no more than minor significance (not significant in EIA terms).
• Potential for construction works within the cultural heritage inner study area to result in direct effects on Areas of Archaeological Potential. In the absence of secondary mitigation, this is assessed as being potentially of up to major significance (significant in EIA terms). Mitigation measures have been set out that would avoid or reduce the predicted effects and residual effects are of no more than minor significance (not significant in EIA terms).
• Potential for operational impacts on the settings of designated cultural heritage assets in the Outer Study Area. Two effects, on the scheduled monument Crowhill, enclosure WNW of (SM 577) and Innerwick Conservation Area (CA 285), are assessed as being of moderate significance (significant in EIA terms). Effects on other designated assets in the cultural heritage study areas are assessed as no more than minor significance (not significant in EIA terms).
  176. Overall, it is concluded that there will be one likely significant effect arising from the Proposed Development during the construction phase on Thornton Law (MEL2499) and one potential significant effect on areas of archaeological potential both of which will be reduced to minor and not significant in EIA terms with secondary mitigation. Two significant effects arising from the Proposed Development during the operational phase are identified, on Crowhill, enclosure WNW of (SM 577) and Innerwick Conservation Area (CA 285).
  177. Likely cumulative effects have been assessed. The cumulative effects assessed include construction phase impacts on cultural heritage assets and operational phase impacts on cultural heritage assets. Overall, it is concluded that there is potential for a significant cumulative effect on previously unrecorded subsurface archaeology from the Proposed Development alongside other projects, this cumulative effect will be reduced to not significant following secondary mitigation.

10.14.1.         Intertidal Area

178. Information on the cultural heritage intertidal study area was collected through a desk-based assessment, site surveys and informed by information supplied by ELCAS and HES.
179. No cultural heritage assets were identified within the cultural heritage intertidal study area and it was assessed that there is no potential for previously unrecorded archaeological assets to survive within the area. It is therefore concluded that there will be no likely significant effects in the intertidal area from the Proposed Development on cultural heritage.

Table 10.13:  Summary of Likely Significant Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 10.14:  Summary of Likely Significant Cumulative Environment Effects, Mitigation and Monitoring

10.15. References

Literature

Malone E., Saunders B. and Swales C. (2019) Neart na Gaoithe Wind Farm Onshore Transmission Works, Data Structure Report for Stage 1B Archaeological Evaluation, Unpublished Grey literature Report, Wessex Archaeology

New Statistical Accounts Vol II (1845) Innerwick County of Haddington p233-248, available at: Statistical Accounts of Scotland (edina.ac.uk), [accessed March 2022].

Old Statistical Accounts Vol I (1791) Innerwick County of Haddington p121-125, available at: Statistical Accounts of Scotland (edina.ac.uk), [accessed March 2022].

Website

HES (2022) Historic Environment Scotland Data Warehouse, available at: http://portal.historic-scotland.gov.uk/spatialdownloads, [accessed March 2022].

HES (2022) Historic Environment Scotland Database (Canmore), available at: www.pastmap.org,uk, [accessed March 2022].

HES (2022) Historic Land-Use Assessment Map (HLAMap), available at: www. hlamap.org.uk [accessed March 2022].

Scottish Government (2022) Scottish Remote Sensing Portal, available at: https://remotesensingdata.gov.scot/ [accessed March 2022].

Legislation

CIfA (2014) ‘Code of Conduct’. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Reading (revised October 2019)

CIfA (2014) ‘Standard and Guidance for a Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment’. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Reading (updated October 2020)

Historic Environment Scotland (2019) Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS). Edinburgh, available at: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and-research/publications/publication/?publicationId=1bcfa7b1-28fb-4d4b-b1e6-aa2500f942e7

Scottish Government (2011) Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2011: Planning and Archaeology, Edinburgh, available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/355385/0120020.pdf

Scottish Government (2023) National Planning Framework 4. Available at: https://www.transformingplanning.scot/national-planning-framework/adopted-npf4/

INTERTIDAL AREA

New Statistical Accounts Vol II (1845) Innerwick County of Haddington p233-248, available at: Statistical Accounts of Scotland (edina.ac.uk), [accessed March 2022].

Old Statistical Accounts Vol I (1791) Innerwick County of Haddington p121-125, available at: Statistical Accounts of Scotland (edina.ac.uk), [accessed March 2022].

Website

HES (2022) Historic Environment Scotland Data Warehouse, available at: http://portal.historic-scotland.gov.uk/spatialdownloads, [accessed March 2022].

HES (2022) Historic Environment Scotland Database (Canmore), available at: www.pastmap.org,uk, [accessed March 2022].

HES (2022) Historic Land-Use Assessment Map (HLAMap), available at: www. hlamap.org.uk [accessed March 2022].

Scottish Government (2022) Scottish Remote Sensing Portal, available at: https://remotesensingdata.gov.scot/ [accessed March 2022].

Legislation

CIfA (2014) ‘Code of Conduct’. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Reading (revised October 2019)

CIfA (2014) ‘Standard and Guidance for a Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment’. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Reading (updated October 2020)

Historic Environment Scotland (2019) Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS). Edinburgh, available at: https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and-research/publications/publication/?publicationId=1bcfa7b1-28fb-4d4b-b1e6-aa2500f942e7

Scottish Government (2011) Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2011: Planning and Archaeology, Edinburgh, available at: http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/355385/0120020.pdf

Scottish Government (2023) National Planning Framework 4. Available at: https://www.transformingplanning.scot/national-planning-framework/adopted-npf4/

[1]  http://canmore.org.uk/collection/1681248 accessed17.01.2022

[2] C = Construction, O = Operational and maintenance, D = Decommissioning

[3] All works having a direct impact on the ground, i.e., ground excavations