Orkney Sustainable Energy Hammars Hill February 2008

Section 4

Archaeology Survey

OSE/2825 Section 4 Orkney Sustainable Energy Hammars Hill February 2008

OSE/2825 Section 4 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

HAMMARS HILL WIND ENERGY PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS ON THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT OF THE LOCAL AREA

A pair of previously unrecorded adjacent possible prehistoric tumulus mounds found during survey work in March 2007. These are discussed in Section 7.0, but lie well outside the development footprint. From NW, the ranging rod shows the further member of the pair. No other significant sites were found in the footprint.

Prepared by David Lynn for Richard Jenkins

© David Lynn March 2008 David Lynn retains full copyright of this report under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 with all rights reserved, except for hereby providing an exclusive licence to Richard Jenkins and Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd for their use of this report in all planning matters directly relating to the proposed wind turbine construction project on the Hammars Hill site covered by this project assessment. 4 Lawrence St, Glasgow G11 5HQ; e-mail: [email protected] Unless noted, all maps were created in Fugawi software, which uses Crown copyright licence no. PU 100032767

1 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Summary of findings The report considers two types of potential impact on the Historic Environment of the development footprint and the surrounding area. The first is the direct impacts which would be physically caused on any recorded archaeology or previously unrecorded features within the development footprint. The second is the indirect impacts, particularly the degree of visual change, which would be caused on important archaeological sites and historic buildings contained within the surrounding landscape. Direct impacts There are no substantive archaeological concerns for the direct impacts of this proposal. No previously recorded archaeological features exist within the footprint. Onsite surveys discovered nothing of significant interest and suggest that the probability of construction work encountering buried sites or deposits is minimal. The only proposed mitigation covers (1) a precautionary exclusion zone around two newly discovered potential prehistoric tumuli some distance beyond the footprint, and (2) a small section of cable route which is likely to slightly damage minor ground features from a relic 19thC landscape. This should be discussed with the Local Authority Archaeologist Indirect impacts There are no Historic Environment sites which would receive shadow flicker or noise impacts. The process of identifying the significance of the visual impacts or degrees of change which would be caused on the important archaeological sites and historic buildings within the surrounding area has two main stages (1) identifying which sites would be affected within a landscape with a high concentration of both recognised sites and a subset promoted as visitor attractions and (2) deriving a measure of the significance of change for the sites by correlating their sensitivity to change with the anticipated degree of change. After repeated sifting and grouping, Stage 1 identified 19 viewpoints of Historic Environment importance for further analysis. Stage 2 has methodological complications, as there are no defined procedures for undertaking settings analysis, particularly from agencies with statutory responsibilities for protecting the Historic Environment. Existing guidelines from these agencies focus almost entirely on statutory designations and ignore the degree to which people might encounter or visit the sites and experience their settings. To move outside the confines of the statutorily derived site-as-receptor measures of sensitivity for each site, parallel measures of the people-as-receptor sensitivity are derived. This twin-pronged approach is designed to draw out all relevant perspectives which could inform the range of audiences who contribute towards a fully balanced planning decision and their likely concerns. Neither approach should be treated in isolation, but their combination gives a balance between statutory needs and the actual interactions which people might experience. Key visual results are: 1] A design priority has been to rationalise the character of the windfarm from the viewpoints. In most cases this has achieved balanced views of the 5 turbines, symmetrically spaced within a level or smoothly curving topographic position. While the turbines may be clearly noticeable, their obtrusiveness - if defined by the character of what can be seen - will be somewhat less. 2] The design has appreciably reduced visual effects on several sites regarded as sensitive from the combination of their statutory designations and roles as visitor attractions. These include all the relevant Historic Scotland Properties in Care, with the maximum applied rating being moderate under the people-as-sensitivity criteria which cover their visitor attraction use. 3] The only significance ratings for the anticipated degrees of visual change above moderate are given for 5 sites under the site-as-receptor assessment path. None, apart from Knowe of Yarso, show real evidence of directly receiving visitor or amenity use, and all receive lower people-as-receptor ratings. 4] From the 19 archaeological relevant viewpoints, the Hammars Hill turbines would only cause visual impact on one site where no impact from any other current, consented or formally registered windfarm exists or would exist. Of the other 18, the vast majority already receive a larger degree of impact from the Burgar Hill turbines than would be caused incrementally by the Hammars Hill turbines. 5] For all 19 viewpoints, the cumulative visual impact of all relevant windfarms seen or potentially seen is always at the moderate level or below, whatever level and definition of site sensitivity is applied. 6] No visual impact would be caused on the Orkney World Heritage Site and its Inner Buffer Zones. Conclusion The overall verdict is that the direct and indirect impacts on the Historic Environment from the proposed Hammers Hill windfarm development covered by this report are acceptable and do not provide grounds for the application to be refused.

2 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment Contents 0.0 Location maps 1.0 Report format 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Project details and location 2.2 Target audiences for this report 2.3 Archaeological Scope 3.0 Site topography and character 4.0 Objectives 5.0 Methodology 6.0 Archaeological background 6.1 Database records 6.2 Discussion 7.0 Results of field surveys 7.1 Test pit results 7.2 Discussion 8.0 Direct or physical impact on archaeological remains 8.1 The turbine sites 8.2 Permanent and temporary access needed on-site for turbine and plant movement 8.3 Stone and aggregate supply, including borrow pits 8.4 Onsite cabling and generator/switchgear building 8.5 Offsite cabling and inter-connector routes to the National Grid 8.6 A works compound area 8.7 Other construction features 8.8 Summary of direct impact assessment and recommended mitigations 9.0 Assessing indirect impacts 9.1 The scope and value of assessing indirect impacts 9.2 Relevant issues 10.0 Identifying relevant sites for VI analysis 10.1 Selection of relevant archaeological and historical sites 10.2 First sift to remove sites – desk-based 10.3 Next sift to remove sites – field assessment 10.4 Final selection of sites for further assessment 11.0 Defining sensitivities for the site categories 12.0 Deriving VI sensitivities of individual sites from site-as-receptor criteria 13.0 Deriving VI sensitivities of individual sites from people-as-receptor analysis 13.1 Rationale and uncertainties 13.2 Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre context 13.3 Sources for people-as-receptor analyses 13.4 Site analyses 13.5 Comparison of sensitivity results across methods 14.0 Producing visual assessments 14.1 Differential site viewpoint treatments 14.2 Incremental and cumulative visual impact alongside other visible windfarms 15.0 Visual assessments of major views with OSEL photomontages 16.0 Visual assessments of secondary views without photomontages 17.0 Summary of visual assessments 18.0 Significance of visual change results and comment 19.0 Photographs, archive and other reporting 20.0 Acknowledgements 21.0 Bibliography Appendix: Wireframes for secondary viewpoints

3 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

0.0 Location maps

1.0 Report format This independent assessment considers the direct and indirect archaeological implications of a proposed 5-turbine windfarm on Hammars Hill, a terminal ridge summit in Evie in the West Mainland of Orkney. The report follows a sequence of hierarchical numbered sections; each major component has its own section, which may contain numbered sub-sections as appropriate. Section 2 gives a brief description of the main project elements, defines the main target audiences for this report and how their respective needs inter-relate, and concludes with a statement of the archaeological scope of the report. A brief topographical description of the landscape in Section 3 is followed by a summary of the assessment’s objectives (Section 4) and methodology and sources (Section 5).

4 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Section 6 investigates whether there are previously recorded archaeological sites or discoveries from Hammars Hill and its immediate environs from a desk-based investigation of databases and other sources; this produced a nil return. Section 7 describes the results of the field survey of the development footprint. No significant previously unrecorded archaeological sites or features were identified within this footprint; however two previously unrecorded features were identified some distance away from the on-site cabling route. In the normal course of events these would be unaffected, but to ensure the safety of this pair of possible prehistoric tumuli a 25m exclusion zone for any activity or plant transit is recommended in Section 7.0. Section 8 relates the results of the field survey to the direct impacts from the various construction elements; no other factor suggests that any mitigation is required for the ground and features within the footprint. However, a small section of the cable route is likely to slightly damage some minor ground features from a relic 19thC landscape (Section 8.5). This issue should be raised with the Local Authority Archaeologist to establish if the degree of damage and the nature of the features warrant any mitigation. In all other respects, this report recommends no further archaeological role for this development proposal. Sections 9-15 cover the various aspects of assessing indirect impacts from this proposal on the statutorily protected historic environment sites within the surrounding area, with a particular emphasis on Visual Impact (VI). This is an unclear process without robust guidance or fully established objectives, so requires detailed discussion. Section 9 discusses the policy context for such analysis within the planning process. Section 10 defines the procedures for identifying potentially affected sites and categories, and then progressively sifts the identified sites against Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) software and the results of field visits to remove those examples which would be screened by firstly topography and then by other above-ground landscape elements. The result of these sifts is a core group of sites where VI would be caused, which are listed in Section 10.4 Section 11 defines the levels of sensitivity which accompany the statutory protections for the categories covering these remaining sites; this constitutes the procedurally defined site-as- receptor of impact approach which Historic Scotland have described as their responsibility when analysing VI. A matrix is introduced to relate generic sensitivity to the degree of visual change and therefore to demonstrate the significance of the degree of change. Section 12 applies these site-as-receptor sensitivities to the individual sites. Section 13 outlines the people-as-receptor of impact approach, an innovative and parallel analysis which explores whether the sites are visited or used (or have a plausible chance of being visited or used) and therefore whether anyone would actually experience the VI. Each site is described from this perspective in Section 13.3, with a level of sensitivity assigned to replicate the site-as-receptor approach. This section also contains some particular discussion of the monuments on Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre to acknowledge their potential sensitivities within the economic and tourism profiles of each island (Section 13.2). A tabular comparison of the site-as- receptor and people-as-receptor sensitivities is given in Section 13.5. Section 14 describes the processes used in producing the illustrations of the anticipated degrees of visual change for each site, the separation of the site list into two treatment categories, and identifies the other potentially visible windfarms where cumulative impact may result. The assessments of the anticipated degrees of visual change are derived from the wireframe and photomontage depictions in Sections 15 & 16 and summarised in Section 17. The results are correlated in Section 18 with the sensitivity levels from each of the twin approaches to give the results defined by the matrix introduced in Section 11. These show the significance of the degrees of visual change for each site for planning consideration; in most cases the significance is low or moderate, and therefore unlikely to cause substantial concern. However, there are some high assigned significances under the site-as-receptor route which are likely to attract close scrutiny by statutory consultees, although the respective people-as-receptor ratings are somewhat lower, and some comment is given on this and other aspects of the results. The section concludes with the verdict that no substantive issues for the visual impacts of this proposal on the archaeological and historical settings of the surrounding area have been identified. Sections 19-21 cover further reporting, acknowledgements, and a bibliography and finally an Appendix of wireframes for the secondary viewpoints assessed in Section 16. 2.0 Introduction

5 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

2.1 Project details and location The proposed Hammars Hill windfarm site lies about 8miles/13km NNW of Kirkwall in the Evie district of Orkney’s main island. It contains five wind turbines placed at 200m intervals in a single linear formation and the associated components of a windfarm such as an access track, a switchgear building and other standard ancillaries for a development of this type. The five proposed turbines have a tower/hub height of 45m and a blade radius of 22m, giving a total height from ground to vertical blade tip of 67m. The distance from T1 at the ENE end of the array to T5 at the WSW end would be c800m. The NGRs and altitudes OD are: T1 – HY 38555/22700, alt 144m T2 – HY 38370/22618, alt 150m T3 – HY 38190/22520, alt 149m T4 – HY 38010/22430, alt 137m, and T5 – HY 37837/22327, alt 132m. Note on use of local placenames The Hammars Hill ridge on which the turbines would be located overlooks an upland valley to the northwest, which is generally known now as Savisgarth, after the only settlement which is still occupied in the middle and upper valley. However the valley contains other abandoned residential and former croft sites which are mentioned in this report, particularly the former croft of Neigarth which is now derelict but still used as a working satellite complex of yards and storage. To avoid confusion and to ensure consistency with these other placenames, the name Savisgarth will only be used in this archaeological report when referring to the current house of that name at HY 37500/23000, which is the home of Richard Jenkins, the applicant. This usage is consistent with current OS maps of the area, as well as the earlier editions cited later in the report. 2.2 Target audiences for this report This report has four main or priority audiences, as described below, and aims to satisfy the various requirements of fieldwork investigation, relevant site identification, consequent impact prediction and overall assessment which each audience will use in reaching their respective conclusions about the archaeological implications of the project proposal. 2.2.1 The planning authority The planning authority is defined here as the organisation or individual who will take the decision on whether the planning application will receive consent, thereby allowing the project to go ahead. In the first instance this will be the Planning Department and/or councillors of Orkney Islands Council (OIC). It is assumed that the planning authority will wish to have the full range of relevant information, comment and analysis from within the scope of this report to enable a planning decision which is as fully informed as possible. The planning authority is therefore the ultimate audience of this report, both as the decision- maker, and as an audience whose needs are broader in some respects than the defined responsibilities of some of the other audiences defined below. 2.2.2 The developer and the project designer Richard Jenkins, the applicant, lives on and runs the farm of Savisgarth within the landscape which would contain the proposed turbines and ancillary features and within the community on which its closest impacts would be felt. Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd, as the project designer, aims to create designs which can make a significant contribution to improving the lives and livelihoods of a range of people, and which assist in sustaining communities as well as the environment. Both parties therefore hope that this independent assessment will produce results which are compatible with their environmental objectives. It will also become a publicly available document for use within the local community to demonstrate that the appropriate levels and depth of investigations into the proposal’s impact on the historic environment have been objectively undertaken. The developer and the project designer are therefore the most immediate audiences for this report, and it would be used for a number of practical and procedural avenues as the project design, consultation and submission develops momentum.

6 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

2.2.3 The local community As with any large scale or visually obvious development, the local community is likely to be interested in how this proposal might affect their quality of life. As this archaeological assessment will be one component of the documents given an open release during the planning process, the community becomes a potential audience. In general terms, the community does not have a specific role or responsibility within such consideration, nor a defined set of criteria or values which they might use in absorbing this report and its findings. As a result the community is not seen as a target audience for whom this report can be deliberately designed. However, some steps and elements have been incorporated to anticipate how members of the community may consider the archaeological and historic environment implications. One element is to provide full and hopefully clear explanations for the investigative techniques used and their rationales. Another point has been to anticipate particular community concern for people on Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre in relation to the display monuments on these islands and the role these may have in bringing the islands to the attention of visitors; this is explored in Section 13.2. 2.2.4 Historic Scotland and Orkney Islands Council archaeological and built heritage interests Although they are given a shared sub-heading, these are two distinct main audiences who have defined responsibilities within the planning process. These responsibilities are defined under Scottish law and by a number of Scottish Government policy guidance and planning advice notes; these also define responsibilities for other parts of the Scottish Government, although the scope and remit of this report do not carry significant information for this wider involvement. Both Historic Scotland (HS) and OIC archaeological and built heritage interests will comment directly to the planning authority on the impact of the development proposal within their responsibilities; this report therefore aims to provide them with as much information as will be useful for their deliberations, with particular attention paid to a relevant identification and selection of historic environment sites and locations, the use of appropriate methodologies to assess the potential impacts of the proposal, and an objective analysis and presentation of the assessment results. If this is successfully executed, it might enable a high degree of agreement between the conclusions of this report and the comments which HS and OIC archaeological and built heritage interests would subsequently provide to the planning authority. The specified responsibilities for the historic environment are shown below. Site and monument categories and protective responsibilities in planning applications Category Historic Scotland Local Authority Scottish Natural Heritage Archaeological SAMs All others None monuments Historic buildings LB Category A LB Categories B & C(S) None Advisory non-management Conservation areas Lead responsibility Possible but unlikely role Historic Gardens & Designed Lead role Not defined Supporting role with HS Landscapes Joint responsibility within Joint responsibility within Joint responsibility within World Heritage Site consortium consortium consortium Not defined; however HS Not defined, but may fall manage PICs, which will all within the responsibility for Heritage Visitor be either SAMs and/or LBs None defined, but general non-SAM archaeological Attractions (Category A), so there is an landscape role may apply sites or for LB Categories implicit responsibility for B & C(S) some sites

Notes: 1] Abbreviations used are: Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs), Listed Buildings (LBs), Historic Gardens & Designed Landscapes (HGDLs), Historic Scotland Properties In Care (PICs), World Heritage Sites (WHS), HS (Historic Scotland), SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage). 2] Only LBs are formally defined within a hierarchical level of significance: Listed Buildings – definitions of categories CATEGORY A Buildings of national or international importance, either architectural or historic, or fine little- altered examples of some particular period, style or building type. CATEGORY B Buildings of regional or more than local importance, or major examples of some particular

7 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

period, style or building type which may have been altered. CATEGORY C(S) Buildings of local importance, lesser examples of any period, style, or building type, as originally constructed or altered; and simple, traditional buildings which group well with others in categories A and B or are part of a planned group such as an estate or an industrial complex. (from Scotland’s Listed Buildings: A Guide for Owners and Occupiers; undated, issued by HS about 1999) All other categories are simple yes/no designations, although there may be different grounds for nomination of WHS sites (natural environment, historic environment, geological, cultural) which determine the management responsibilities within the consortium. 3] Individual sites may have more than one statutory designation. SAM & LB (any category) combinations are the most common. 4] Area designations (Conservation areas, HGDLs, WHS) may contain other protected sites: Area Designation……. …may contain Conservation area SAMs (rarely), LBs, HGDL SAMs, LBs WHS Any of the other categories 5] The number of different permutations of responsibility which result from duplicated designations and/or area designations containing designated sites is immense; a common outcome is that 2 or 3 parallel responsibilities can exist for individual sites. 6] The main Local Authority responsibilities usually lie with the Archaeological Unit or equivalent section; arrangements will vary for some Local Authorities, and may involve other parts of their infrastructure and/or external organisations through service-level agreements. The numbers of protected sites within each category are shown in the following table. Category No. of Scottish examples SAM 8000 LB 45000 HGDL 346 Conservation Area 600 WHS 3 HS PIC 330 A pragmatic overview suggests that Scotland has over 50,000 protected Historic Environment sites. This was calculated by combining SAM and LB numbers and removing 5% of the total to allow for some double protections; as a working assumption the relevant components of the other four categories will be contained within the combined LB and SAM aggregate. 2.2.5 Comment However a key point about the target audiences for this report arises at this stage in the discussion, in that both HS and OIC archaeological and built heritage interests are intermediate audiences for this report rather than ultimate audiences, as each makes their own submissions to the planning authority. Previous liaison with HS on similar projects has established agreement that this is an acceptable comment. Its significance is two-fold: the first point is that while agreement between the contents of this report and the comments which HS and OIC archaeological and built heritage interests might offer is desirable - it would make the overall planning decision an easier process for the planning authority by demonstrating expert and specialist consensus - it is not a primary objective for this report and its findings. This statement is not offered in a challenging or provocative tone, but simply to suggest that some degree of differences of professional opinion may occur, even if further liaison is undertaken in the customarily positive spirit of such background discussion. The second is that the investigations within this report contain elements which may go above and beyond the defined responsibilities of HS and possibly OIC archaeological and built heritage interests in their advisory roles. This latter point becomes particularly relevant for the discussion in Section 13 on indirect and visual impacts, where a series of methodological points and issues are pursued to provide results which are designed to be of wider and/or practical use to the ultimate audience of the planning authority and the immediate audience of the developer and the project designer. 2.2.6 Compatibility with Orkney Islands Council [OIC] planning policy and guidance It is not a primary responsibility within this archaeological assessment to ensure the project design meets the requirements of OIC planning policy documents such as the Orkney Structure Plan of 2001 and the adopted Orkney Local Plan of 2004; this task is tackled elsewhere within the

8 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment planning submission. However the release of OIC’s latest consultation draft of the Supplementary Planning Guidance - Onshore Wind Energy Development in November 2007 was noted (see www.orkney.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=10248&tt=orkneyv2). Although this was issued after the vast majority of the assessment had been completed and the draft status of the guidance does not give it formal recognition, it may be useful to discuss particular elements of this report’s scope and methodology in relation to the provisional requirements outlined in the consultation document. At a general level, the intention of this report matches the ethos of the draft guidance by looking to explore every relevant implication of this proposal for Orkney’s Historic Environment. Its scope at least matches and probably exceeds the suggested list of site and feature types and designations which are described as sensitive and requiring consideration under Development Control 7: Historic Environment (OIC 2007, p11). In terms of the project design implications, the proposed development should be compatible with the other provisional intentions for DC7, including compliance with what is termed Map 3 (for the Orkney WHS central and buffer zones). Other Development Controls identified in the draft guidance cover related issues, including elements of DC4 Landscape Impact and Cumulative Landscape Impact, DC 5 Visual Impact and Cumulative Visual Impact and DC6 Quality of Life and Amenity (ibid, pp8-10). This report has been designed to explore all the relevant implications of these DCs, with the inter-relationship for the Historic Environment of Landscape impact, Visual impact and Amenity value at the core of the methodologies used here to identify the indirect impacts on the surrounding historic and archaeological sites (see comments in Section 2.2.5 above and 9.1 below). As the draft guidance does not specify the appropriate investigative methodologies in any detail, those used are given as the best means identified to date of producing the required research and results. However a caveat needs to be highlighted at this point, although this report is not the appropriate vehicle for a critique of the supplementary guidance document. The point needs making that some of its text could - if pursued to extremes - rule out any new windfarm development in Orkney. For instance the opening sentence of DC7 reads “On shore wind energy development and/or associated infrastructure will not be permitted in locations which will impact on the historic environment ….and setting.” The result is that the guidance requires a measure of judicious interpretation in order to extract some of its messages, rather than a literal reading. This report is also part of a wider documentation package submitted for planning consideration, and has been constructed to link in with the other elements of the Environmental Statement within the full set of perspectives. This means that the full implications of particularly DC4-6 and their requirements lie outside this report’s remit, which covers DC7 head on, and then broadens into DC4-6 only as required by Historic Environment issues. In summary, despite the current informal status of the supplementary planning guidance and the unfinished state of some of the text therein, this report is regarded as respecting the investigative requirements of DC7 as its primary remit and of the relevant aspects of DC4-6 as accompanying targets. The results of these investigations show a number of site-specific Visual Impact assessments which will require assimilation within the planning process to arrive at a verdict on whether the proposed project design can be accepted as compatible with primarily DC7 and with the relevant elements of DC4-6 for the Historic Environment. This report does not give any possibly premature or spurious claim about this compatibility, but does offer a verdict that the proposal deserves serious planning consideration within the terms of a pragmatic interpretation of the guidance material in its current form. 2.3 Archaeological scope The archaeological and historic environment issues are tackled under two approaches within the broader context outlined in the preceding section. This involves separating the likely impacts into direct and indirect agents of change; as a result of unrelated external discussions with other archaeologists involved in EIA work, it has become clear that these terms are used in a number of different ways, and to avoid any confusion some semantic clarification is given here. Direct impacts are defined as those where irreversible change could or would be caused to physical archaeological or historic features and deposits. In practice this is likely to be limited to the development footprint for this project, and its main thrust is whether the excavations and other ground disturbance might affect any archaeology by damage or removal. This is extended to the

9 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment environs of the footprint to include other construction factors where plant transit, material stockpiling and possible water table changes might cause comparable destructive changes. Indirect impacts are defined as those where any changes or impacts do not physically change any archaeological or historic features and deposits. In practice this is likely to consist of changes which are ultimately reversible and which only come into play on sites and features which lie substantially outside the development footprint; the main attributes for this report are visual intrusion, noise and shadow flicker. An additional defining attribute will be mentioned in passing at this point in the discussion, which is the suggestion that these impacts are dependent on human experience of them to move from conceptual issues of concern to becoming actual concerns. However this is a controversial distinction which is explored in Sections 9.1 and 13.1, and is left open at this stage in the narrative. This use of direct and indirect is intended to be clearly understood as a defining device for the nature of potential changes, but does not include any consequential element which some other EIA conventions or techniques may include; for example the idea that the direct impact of a major road development on a nearby farmhouse might be a high level of noise and vibration, with the indirect result or consequence being the house is likely to become uninhabitable, abandoned and then derelict. While many findings within this report are designed to open up consequential discussions, this lies outside the definitions of directness used to for the initial nature of changes. 2.3.1 Direct or physical impact on archaeological remains The turbine locations are discussed in Section 8. The range of construction activities which are identified in this assessment for their potential to cause direct impact includes the following elements where ground-breaking work is likely: the turbine sites, permanent access road construction, and any one-off or temporary access needed for turbine and plant movement, stone and aggregate supply, including borrow pits, onsite cabling and generator/switchgear buildings, offsite cabling and inter-connector routes from the switchgear building to the National Grid, either by overhead pylons or poles or more probably by underground cabling, an on-site works compound area. The impacts can be reduced if the project design incorporates areas of already disturbed land to lessen the degree of archaeological concern. Note: No attempt is made within this assessment to include the provisional plans for a subsequent addition to the development of a visitor centre. This is mentioned in the planning documentation as a probable additional feature of the windfarm, but will be the subject of a separate EIA and planning application at some stage in the future. 2.3.2 Indirect impact on nationally important archaeological and historic environment sites in the surrounding area The key element of this component of the assessment is to illustrate and assess the visual impact which the turbines would cause on a number of statutorily protected archaeological and historic environment sites within the surrounding area.

3.0 Site topography and character The proposed windfarm site is located on a hilltop plateau with a summit altitude of 167m OD. The hill is more of a ridge terminus forming the northeast corner of an extensive plateau than a distinct isolated feature; although the ground slopes downward for over three-quarters of its circumference, the connecting ridge to the plateau runs southwest with a loss of height of only 30m. The underlying geology is part of the Rousay Flag subgroup of the generic Orkney Old Red Sandstone sequences. These relatively level bedded sequences have been glacially sheared to give apparently stepped or terraced hill shoulders and slopes coming off the summit plateaus. The flagstones have a high calcareous content, with some shales within the sequences quarried for building lime at two Orkney sites. One of these, Gallowhall (HY374/240) lies 1.5km NW of Hammars Hill on the opposite slope of the valley formed by the Woodwick Burn basin outlet. This description is largely derived from Mykura (1976, pp 11 & 123), where a map also shows Hammars Hill within an upland patch deemed ”virtually free of glacial deposits” (fig 29, p115).

10 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

The lower slopes of the hill merge into the heavily agriculturally developed coastal strip in the North, East and South quadrants, with extensive settlement and field system distribution. This ceases as height and severity of slope increase as the hill rises, and is replaced by an open and largely unimproved moorland terrain used as open pasture. The shoulder and plateau of the hill contain bog vegetation over this poorly draining upland summit area. 4.0 Objectives There are four objectives for this assessment: to locate and describe any known archaeological sites, to identify any visible but previously unrecorded sites or features, and to anticipate the potential for other unknown sites within the windfarm development area and its environs, to assess the potential for direct impacts from the development on these sites, to identify measures to mitigate any adverse impacts and/or areas where further evaluation may be required, and to assess the potential for indirect impacts from the development on a defined selection of statutorily protected sites and groups outside the windfarm development area within the surrounding landscape. No excavation or other intrusive exploration of archaeological features occurred.

5.0 Methodology The following information resources were used for the desk-based assessment: the National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS), compiled by the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), and accessed through the on-line CANMORE database (www.rcahms.gov.uk) the PASTMAP on-line database of sites and monuments with statutory protection, also compiled by RCAHMS and accessed at www.rcahms.gov.uk the Orkney Sites and Monument Record (SMR), a paper database accessible at the Orkney Archaeological Trust offices in Kirkwall maps, with particular emphasis on the Ordnance Survey 1:10560 County Series first edition of 1882 (accessed at www.old-maps.co.uk), and the current OS 1:25000 Explorer series map of the area (no. 463, Orkney – West Mainland, revised 2002), and other old maps retrieved from the National Library of Scotland (accessed at www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map) and those held by the Orkney Library and Archive in Kirkwall. Site visits and walkover surveys of the development area and the immediate surroundings were made in March and August 2007. Any identified archaeological features were located in relation to site plans provided by OSEL. Their locations, along with other reference sites for visual impact assessment, were confirmed by hand-held GPS and recorded by written description and digital photography. Weather conditions during the surveys were variable, with the full range between heavy rain showers, and murky low cloud to glaring sunshine and gales. Ground conditions on Hammars Hill were boggy, with some areas of terrain heavily waterlogged during site visits. The poor conditions did not affect the ability to fully investigate the development footprint and surroundings on Hammars Hill, but did cause problems in obtaining some of the longer distance landscape views from external locations for visual impact analysis. One trip to Rousay, for instance, produced several photos which were unusable due to glare, and other locations needed 2-3 visits before satisfactorily workable pictures could be obtained. Walkover locations were recorded in three dimensions by a hand-held Garmin eTrex GPS unit, giving 5-figure grid co-ordinates and altitude readings to a precision as quoted in this report to within 1m. Practical experience of these units suggests that the readings will be reliable to within a +/- 5m range of the given figure. The GPS readings were subsequently confirmed against NGRs and altitude data from GIS software, and where appropriate against previously recorded NGRs in the relevant NMRS and SMR records. 6.0 Archaeological background 6.1 Database records A previous enquiry had been made by the intending developer, Richard Jenkins, about archaeological sites on his land at Savisgarth as part of a Rural Stewardship Scheme application.

11 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

In a response dated 22:02:02, Julie Gibson (Orkney Islands Council Archaeologist) identified only two sites within the Orkney Record SMR database. These were: Kirk of Norrisdale at HY 3732/2291 (OR no. 1198, NMRS no. HY32SE 10), an indeterminate structural feature reputed to be a post-medieval chapel, and Styes of Aikerness at HY 3655/2291 (OR no. 1749, NMRS no. HY32SE 12), a turf-covered and mutilated mound, possibly a prehistoric burial cairn. Current investigations were undertaken for this assessment, covering NMRS through the CANMORE and Pastmap online databases at www.rcahms.gov.uk and the Orkney Sites and Monuments Records (SMR) paper database accessible at the Orkney Archaeological Trust offices in Kirkwall. These confirmed the 2002 citations but gave no other recorded monuments or discoveries. Both sites lie on or close to Woodwick Burn to the WNW of Hammars Hill, and are well away from the development footprint which is clear of recorded features. More as an exercise to satisfy a shared curiosity than a direct component of this assessment, a walkover survey was made of Woodwick Burn to include the Kirk of Norrisdale, Styes of Aikerness and other possible features which Richard Jenkins suspected. The walkover identified a total of 10 features, with the kirk site still diagnosable but badly affected by flood erosion and/or stone robbing and the Styes probably being a pair of Bronze Age tumulus mounds, the larger of which had been crudely modified to create a shelter. The other sites were diagnosed as post- medieval minor features, variously relating to quarrying a bed of high quality flagstone, peat cutting and possibly a watermill. All sites lie at least 0.5km from the closest element of the development footprint, and can be disregarded for the scope of this report; full details were given in a separate account which has been passed to NMRS and the Orkney SMR. Investigation of old maps revealed nothing significant in and around the development footprint. The OS 1st edition of 1882 at 1:10560 scale shows only the presence of a croft at Cupper (now vanished, although the name survives on the current 1:25000 OS map in roughly the same position at HY 3803/2301) with a quarry further uphill on open ground above the upper field boundary. The quarry is not shown on the 1903 1:2500 OS map, which does show a new croft at Neigarth; this still exists as an ancillary of Savisgarth farm and recurs later in the onsite discussion as the starting point for the new access track to the windfarm. An unusual place name of Hang The Cow is shown on this 1903 map just below and NNE of the “Hamar Hill” [sic] summit, but without a point location or associated feature which might explain its origin. Both maps show what appears to be a simultaneous arrangement of two separate field systems on the lower slope of the hill, with a more orderly and regular rectangular series of outlines (as also shown on the current OS map) presumably overlying an earlier more random pattern which is no longer shown. The table below summarises the changes. Feature 1882 OS 1903 OS 2002 OS Notes Cupper croft Y - - All also show Inner Cupper and Outer Cupper name at former - Y Y Cupper names higher up the hill, in croft position each case without features Quarry above Cupper Y - - Neigarth croft - Y Y Dates its build to 1882-1903 No feature marked; lone inclusion may Hang the Cow name - Y - reflect larger scale of 1903 map Number of overlapping Current map only shows rationalised 2 2 1 field systems rectangular system 6.2 Discussion There are two basic circumstances to explain the lack of recorded sites. The first is simply that there is actually nothing. This gives a stark contrast with the coastal strip to the north and east of Hammers Hill, though is a plausible reflection of the topographic differences of a lower fertile area which has been heavily exploited over the millennia compared to a peat-choked upland valley and ridge which has never achieved sufficient topsoil development to attract use. A cautionary note against the automatic acceptance of such a broadbrush assumption is derived from a separate survey in 2005 of a comparable upland valley overlooking Redland in Firth, c6km to the south, where a number of small features can be recognised and it appears that the hanging valley was well used in prehistoric times. The second circumstance is that Hammars Hill and its hinterland have never received any degree of survey attention, so that a potential cache of unrecorded features could emerge during the scrutiny of this assessment. This is also plausible; without a specific reason for the area to be given such scrutiny, it may well have slipped through the net.

12 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

The records for the two previously identified sites of Kirk of Norrisdale and Styes of Aikerness only list OS survey visits in June 1967 as modern sources, a context which supports this scenario. The resolution of these two contrasting but tangible possibilities therefore becomes the agenda behind the field survey component of this assessment, supported by any other lines of investigation which can be productively pursued. 7.0 Results of field surveys Two extensive walkovers were made of the development footprint. The first, in March 2007 involved a 3-turbine project layout design which was subsequently superseded by the current 5- turbine design. The latter formed the basis of the second walkover in August 2007. Section 8 describes the detailed terrain descriptions for the locations of each construction element, with the discussion here giving an overall perspective. The repeated walkovers gave a comprehensive coverage of the full summit plateau and the relevant areas of the hillslopes, enabling a confident verdict that the lack of previously recorded features is a largely accurate indicator of the true situation. The only archaeological features identified are a pair of low and inconspicuous mounds 11m apart, probably artificial and diagnosable as potential prehistoric tumuli. These lie outside the main focus of the development, and occur close to a possible interconnector route which was later rejected. Their position is some way below the summit, on a portion of north facing shoulder with an impressive outlook but which would not be seen from below. Details are as follows: Feature NGR HY Altitude Size Description Green grassy mound standing proud of heather/reed vegetation; no stone Mound 1 38969/22755 119m 0.8m high, 4.0m diam content apparent. Possible deflation by burrowing Green grassy mound standing proud of heather/reed vegetation; no stone Mound 2 38965/22737 121m 0.8m high, 3.0m diam content apparent. Possibly hollowed centre and/or deflation by burrowing

Mounds 1 & 2 from SE; ranging rod in Mound 1. March 2007

13 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Mounds 1 & 2 from NW; ranging rod in Mound 1. March 2007

Recommendation A 25m exclusion zone should be placed around this pair of features to ensure their safety from any construction activity or plant transit. Given their distance from the nearest point of activity, which would be the excavation of the cabling trench as discussed in Section 8.4, this is unlikely to create any problems; however, construction staff should be familiarised with the position of these features to ensure the area is avoided by, for instance, plant movement. The only other discoveries relate to a pre-1882 road alignment around the base of the hill and are discussed in Section 8.4. In all other respects the terrain was consistent, with a total coverage by peat bog vegetation. The plateau was heavily waterlogged, though lacking pooled water. Very shallow hag development was apparent in some areas, but an overall impression from the flattened vegetation was that surface run-off is a dominant feature. A few exposures of vertical peat faces were found but were always 0.7m high or less, and the ground had frequent sharp dips and rises as though closely following undulations in the underlying bedrock. This summative impression has two implications; with the first being that there is no significant depth of topsoil over the bedrock, a factor which would have severely constrained the development of archaeologically significant activity on the hill plateau or slopes. The second consequence of the scanty peat build-up is that the probability of buried or sub-peat features is low; any features would probably create above-ground outlines which should be identifiable at the walkover stage rather than remaining invisible until exposed by groundbreaking disturbance. A precautionary examination was made of the summit itself in case any sign of a prehistoric summit cairn could be identified. This produced nothing, and the absence is perhaps unusual in Orkney for such a widely visible landmark with an extensive panorama. 7.1 Test pit results Alongside the walkover results, a second strand of investigation is provided from a test-pitting exercise carried out in June 2007 by MT Austin of Kirkwall. This was an investigation to establish the engineering situation of the sub-surface geology, with particular emphasis on the depth and nature of the underlying solid deposits beneath the peat and topsoil development. Further details are given elsewhere in the OSEL planning documentation, but a summary is relevant here. Using

14 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment a back-acting excavator with a 60cm/2ft wide bucket, 20 test holes were dug in a sequence from a start midway up the hillside above Neigarth along the route of the proposed windfarm access track to the ridge crest and then along the ridge to the T1 area. TH1-8, progressing up the hill flank, encountered clay solid under topsoil/peat at depths of 0.3-0.9m, results which are consistent with the walkover observations on the access track route for depths of bedrock exposed in drainage gullies (Section 8.2 below). No horizons or other material of interest were noted within the peat. TH9-20 followed the access track route along the ridge-top plateau, including the turbine locations, in a WSW-ENE sequence. These all showed shallower depths of peat/topsoil varying between 0.3-0.6m, each directly overlying glacial clays and/or weathered bedrock. Again, no horizons or other material of interest were noted within the peat. 7.2 Discussion Alongside the lack of previously recorded features and the comparative dearth of named features on old maps, the surface and sub-surface investigations suggest that the probability of archaeological features or deposits within the development footprint is minimal. This is perhaps an unexpected outcome, as an initial encounter with the hill brings home its impressive and widely visible position within the landscape and its proximity to the intensively settled and exploited coastal strip. For several millennia, communities within that strip would have been well aware of the hill alongside their territories, yet there is almost no tangible sign, apart from two possible prehistoric tumuli in a hidden micro-location, that the hill ridge was included within the activities of these communities. This applies in terms of spot location buildings, such as cairns or domestic complexes, and for more extensive features such as fieldwalls and land boundaries. A further observation is that there is no sign of any process which might have led to the concealment or destruction of earlier remains. The only exception may be the lower slopes of the hill, which have probably been broken in at some stage by ploughing, perhaps relating to the Neigarth and Cupper crofting episodes. Otherwise the hill appears untouched; there are no fieldwalls which might have sourced material by stone-robbing, and its upper slopes provide sufficient gradient to remove the need for buried field drain systems. Apart from the open drainage gullies on the lower slopes and a network of fences mainly along the ridge, there is nothing to indicate any degree of disturbance or the potential for archaeological loss. The explanation, or at least the context for a series of explanations, is very much derived from the severe geology, with post-glacial bedrock so close to the ground surface that conventional topsoil development processes could never take any real hold. Instead a thin skin of peat seems to have been the only covering. The visual indications from the walkovers and the data from the test pits confirm this scanty covering, and provide a consequent indication that any significant deposits or features would show some degree of surface presence. The hill does not, at least within the surveyed areas and spot locations, show any sign of deeper pockets or tranches of peat which might conceal buried features. In summary, the sub-surface geology both determines the barren nature of the hill and the subsequent degree of confidence with which the lack of observed features can be regarded as a true picture. 8.0 Direct or physical impact on archaeological remains The range of construction activities which are considered in this assessment for their potential to cause direct impact includes the following elements where ground-breaking work might occur: the turbine sites, permanent access track construction, and any one-off or temporary access needed for turbine and plant movement, stone and aggregate supply, including borrow pits, generator buildings, cabling and inter-connector routes from the sites to the National Grid, either by pylons or poles or by underground cabling. clearance of a works compound 8.1 The turbine sites The turbine base excavations would normally involve an area of 10m x 10m, contained within a larger crane pad excavation of approximately 30m x 20m. Excavations would be taken down

15 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment through topsoil and subsoil to the first appropriate natural solid layer; the likelihood is that this would remove all depths of material which could contain archaeological material in conventional circumstances. The planned locations of the turbine centre points and altitudes OD are: T1 – HY 38555/22700, alt 144m T2 – HY 38370/22618, alt 150m T3 – HY 38190/22520, alt 149m T4 – HY 38010/22430, alt 137m, and T5 – HY 37837/22327, alt 132m. Note on photos: the locations above represent the third and final evolution of the design, produced by OSEL in September 2007. The first version featured 3 larger turbines with a site visit made to survey their planned locations in March 2007 with photographic spot recording measured in by hand-held GPS. The design then changed to 5 smaller turbines. A second site visit in August 2007 surveyed the 5 locations, again with photographic spot recording. Subsequent minor changes were made to individual positions to better accommodate bird-related issues, a more efficient construction process in relation to ground conditions, and a more coherent visual profile from external positions in the landscape. This gave the third evolution on which this report is based. However the by now extensive walkover experience of the summit area and the fact that all 3 designs occupied the same positional envelope meant that a third site visit was not regarded as productive. The only practical issue which arises is that the photographs used below of the individual T locations were taken for the second evolution, when the planned NGRs and altitudes were: T1 - HY 38630/22650, alt 150m T2 - HY 38375/22680, alt 137m T3 - HY 38250/22460, alt 150m T4 - HY 38000/22485, alt 130m and T5 - HY 37820/22305, alt 132m. From comparing the two lists, the variations in turbine positions between the 2nd and 3rd evolutions range from c20m to c90m. The photos therefore represent each general turbine location, rather than showing the precise point of the turbine as had been intended and depicted by the insertion of a ranging rod. The only turbine where this causes a change in terrain is T2, which had featured too steep a slope for satisfactory construction, but now occupies a flatter but higher position. Although the vantage point of the photo taken for T2 approximates to the final position, it is no longer usefully representative and therefore not used here. All turbine locations are within or on the fringe of the summit plateau, and have consistent terrain characteristics; individual descriptions are therefore replaced here by a single generic summary. Each position is fairly flat or gently sloping, as steeper slope changes are undesirable. Within the 30m x 20m area of each excavation there are in some cases a few hummocks or dips which are regarded as underlying bedrock quirks and of no archaeological concern. The ground surface in all cases is formed by waterlogged peat vegetation with variously mosses, heather and reed grasses giving a total cover. Some minor shallow puddling was visible; as both site visits occurred during and after rainy spells, this is easily explained. There was no sign of permanent pooling or larger or deeper lochan features, and a general impression from areas of flattened vegetation that greater build-ups of standing water lead to surface flow rather than increased retention. All positions were very exposed and opened onto wide panoramas. T1 and T2, the closest to the summit and to the NE facing terminal end of the hill, gave the most complete landscape panoramas with up to 270° of outlook.

16 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

T 1 area from S; August 2007 T 2: No photo

17 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

T 3 area from SE; August 2007

T 4 area from E; August 2007

18 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

T 5 area from WSW; August 2007 8.2 Permanent and temporary access needed on-site for turbine and plant movement The access track would leave the A966 public road opposite the Woodwick stores at about HY 38603/23663 alt 27m. For the first kilometre it would use the existing straight track to the former croft of Neigarth which is now uninhabited but used as a working farm complex; this is a well-built currently used access and apart from top-dressing and minor verge removal to give a consistent 4m width is unlikely to require any modification. The track is shown as a wide feature on the 1882 OS map, before Neigarth was built so it ended in open country, but looks an integral component of the secondary rationalised field system presumed to have been superimposed shortly before (Section 6.1).

19 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Access track from Neigarth down to public road at Woodwick. From SW; March 2007 At Neigarth the track would divert uphill to follow a short section of current track through the abandoned but standing croft complex and past some modern farm structures to the edge of the improved land at about HY 37873/22943, alt 76m; the track area within the croft complex is sufficiently wide to avoid any clearance issues for turbine transport on the standing structures.

20 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Access track route through Neigarth farmyard. From S; March 2007 From this point the track would require a new build exercise for a width of 4m. It would steadily climb the hillside in a southerly direction to the top of the ridge connecting Hammars Hill to the upland massif, cresting the ridge at about HY 37938/22328, alt 135m, close to the location of T5. This upland climb would run for about 0.8km, with its first half alongside a wide drainage ditch. This is a modern machine-cut feature down to bedrock at a depth of up to 1m; its side sections show peat build-up without identifiable horizons. The degree of upcast. intensive hoof trample and vehicle use have created a very rutted and muddy margin to this ditch, which can be assessed as disturbed ground where no archaeological evidence would survive with any degree of coherence.

21 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Access track route above Neigarth. From S; March 2007 Above the upper end of the drainage ditch, the ground surface continues to be very boggy with rough grass and rushes evolving into the peat vegetation of the ridge top as height increases. At the ridge crest, the course changes to an ENE direction, and runs as a single stretch to connect all the turbines before terminating at T1. The terrain descriptions given for the turbine sites (Section 8.1) apply equally for this section of the track. The access track design as described here will constitute permanent track for the duration of the life of the windfarm; no additional temporary access need is anticipated during the construction phase. 8.3 Stone and aggregate supply, including borrow pits The stated intention is to source all construction stone from external commercial quarries. Although a minor use of excavated stone from within the development footprint is possible from removing obstructing outcrops within excavated areas, the design policy will avoid creating borrow pits outside the footprint or other onsite sourcing from the 19thC or earlier quarries around Neigarth. However, there seems no reason why on-site sourcing would create any archaeological risk, and this assessment would allow whatever strategy is most efficient without further archaeological investigation. 8.4 Onsite cabling and generator/switchgear building Onsite cabling would run from T5 to T1 and be contained within the relevant portion of access track excavation. It would then run from T1 to the switchgear building location close to the National Grid powerline; the route would be c.0.8km long and descend from the summit following a major fenceline running downhill in a NNE direction. As it reaches the lower levels of the hill the route starts to curve progressively eastwards and then southeastwards to terminate at the switchgear building location (below).

22 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Approximate cable route descending from summit area alongside fenceline from SSW. March 2007

Repeated recommendation As described in Section 7.0, a 25m exclusion zone is proposed for the pair of possible prehistoric tumuli which lie some way east of the upper portion of the cable route. This is reiterated at this point to ensure recognition The cabling excavation would involve a linear ditch up to 1.0m wide and deep, which would be backfilled with the upcast after cable insertion. This trench is very likely to cross a series of features at the base of the hill which derive from an old road layout. These occur as turf-covered banks, mounds and tributary tracks which have survived apparently undamaged since their abandonment and replacement by the current road network. As the 1882 OS map shows the present system, this reorganisation, which suggests an extensive rerouting for a wide area of Evie rather than just around the base of Hammars Hill, is older but looks on the ground as unlikely to date from before the 19thC.

23 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Sample view of old road at HY 39248/22935 alt 59m, from S. This representational viewpoint is south of the cabling route, so shows a portion which would not be affected. March 2007. The relic landscape covers an extensive ribbon strip on the uphill side of the current A966 road, and a full recording survey could be productively undertaken. However it lies beyond the needs of this development, which would only cause an extremely minor linear intrusion and leave the vast majority unaffected for any future study or investigation. The possibility of monitoring this portion of the cable excavation trench was considered, but it is unlikely to give a viable opportunity for information recovery within such a narrow slit trench. Therefore no mitigation is proposed for the incursion into these features, but confirmation should be sought that none is required.

Recommendation A small section of the cable route is likely to slightly damage some clearly identifiable 19thC ground features. This issue should be discussed further with the Local Authority Archaeologist to establish if the degree of damage and the nature of the ground features warrant any mitigation. The location of the switchgear building would be HY39260/23105, alt 37m immediately to the north of an existing derelict roadside cottage, where a direct link to the National Grid powerline can be made on the uphill side of the A966 before the powerline crosses over the road. This would entail a new single storey shed with an excavation of up to 6m x 4m which would be taken down through topsoil and subsoil to the first appropriate solid layer beneath, removing all material which might contain archaeological material. However there is no reason to suggest from surface inspection that archaeological features would be present, so no further concern is registered.

24 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Derelict A966 roadside cottage at HY 39281/23082; the switchgear building would be positioned on the far side close to the twin pole of the powerline. From SE, August 2007 8.5 Offsite cabling and inter-connector route to the National Grid The switchgear building location gives a direct connection to the National Grid, without needing an interconnector stretch. This can therefore be disregarded. 8.6 A works compound area A compound for works accommodation and plant and materials storage would be located on existing hard standing areas within the Neigarth complex of working buildings. There are no archaeological implications for this usage. 8.7 Other construction features None have been identified to date. Off-site public road modifications to allow turbine transport are reported by OSEL to be minimal, as the vast majority of the route from Kirkwall harbour, where the turbines would be landed, to the start of the access track at Woodwick has been successfully used by previous windfarm developments. A full description of this aspect is given elsewhere in the planning documentation, which indicates that minor modifications at the Woodwick junction of the onsite track with the A966 are the only elements where work may be needed (Stage 8 in the OSEL transportation description). These will be relatively minor and contained within ground already disturbed by access track construction, so has minimal archaeological implications. 8.8 Summary of direct impact assessment and recommended mitigations No indications of actually or potentially significant archaeological remains have been identified within and immediately around the development area. Therefore no mitigation or other concern is registered for: the 5 turbine locations the on-site access track route on-site cabling any on-site sourcing of stone or other construction material, although this is not a major element of the design policy

25 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

a works compound any off-site road modifications to allow turbine and other construction transport. The only definite mitigation is a 25m exclusion zone for the pair of possible prehistoric tumuli at HY 38969/22755 and 38965/22737 which lie some way east of the upper portion of the cable route, and might only be affected by plant transit rather than direct construction activity. Elsewhere, a small section of the cable route is likely to slightly damage some clearly identifiable but minor ground features from a relic 19thC landscape. This should be discussed further with the Local Authority Archaeologist to establish if the degree of damage and the nature of the features warrant any mitigation. 9.0 Assessing indirect impacts 9.1 The scope and value of assessing indirect impacts The discussion in Section 2.2.5 raised the possibility that there could be different perspectives under which the audiences for this report will derive their comments on the suitability of this development proposal. This can now be opened up to describe where significant differences in approach may exist, particularly between Historic Scotland and the scope of this analysis. The crucial issue is the significance which the planning adjudication could choose to assign to the indirect impacts, and particularly the visual impacts, which the development would cause on a number of statutorily protected sites, and how this might affect the eventual decision. Previous discussions with HS on other projects have identified a difference in scope which can be crudely summarised as an HS belief that the site, despite being an inanimate object, is the potential recipient of indirect impacts, and that these impacts become significant criteria for all circumstances affecting statutorily protected sites. This report’s perspective is that indirect impacts only become significant planning concerns if and when the site is visited, valued or otherwise used by people; in other words people - not the sites themselves - are the potential receptors of indirect impacts if and when they encounter the sites. The presence in many Scottish Executive planning documents of sections of text which provide a statutory basis from which HS can derive their stance is fully acknowledged. Two examples are [1] para 17 of NPPG5, Archaeology and Planning, which states that “Scheduled Ancient Monuments are of national importance and it is particularly important that they are preserved in situ and within an appropriate setting. Developments, which would have an adverse effect on scheduled monuments or the integrity of their setting, should not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances”, and [2] Section 10.1.0 of the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas which states that “At all times the listed building should remain the focus of its setting. Attention must never be distracted by the presence of any new development whether it be within or outwith the curtilage. […] development outwith the curtilage should also be regarded as affecting the setting where this will, in a rural location, be seen in any principal view either of or from the listed building, or affect in any way the main approaches to it.” These extracts illustrate that there are procedurally established guidelines behind the stance that sites are the potential receptors of impact; however these and other related documents do not make any distinction between direct and indirect impacts. Discussions with HS have been pursued to explore how this operates in practice when the human receptor perspective - which HS have confirmed lies outside their defined remit in statutory protection - is excluded from the basis of assessment. To summarise and paraphrase the exchanges, their concern is that the degree of indirect impact or change should be explicitly demonstrated by diagrammatic representation (ie photo-montage and wireframe depictions), supported by narrative description; there should also be some analysis of the sensitivity of the site or monument to different levels of change, derived from its place in the hierarchy of classifications of site importance. The outcome is an assessment which simply relates the site’s intrinsic archaeological or historical characteristics to the degree of indirect impact, but goes no further. It leaves open the question which could provide the planning authority with a full perspective of whether the demonstrated impact has a wider importance. Therefore this report will go beyond the investigative limits under which HS operate their considerations, and will augment the site-as-receptor analyses with assessments of the degree to which the statutorily protected sites are used, visited and otherwise valued by the public. The intention is to establish in each case whether the degree of change has a wider importance for the planning decision than might be demonstrated within the confines of the site-as-receptor protective policing.

26 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

9.2 Relevant issues There are three attributes within this heading to discuss in relation to the setting of statutorily protected archaeological and historical sites in the neighbourhood of the proposed development. These are: noise, shadow flicker, and visual impact. The comparative methods are shown in the following table. Assessment Currently Attribute/sub-attribute Criterion Analytic method device recognised by HS? yes/no A] Noise whether site distance from not so far identified for linear measures lies within turbine(s) inclusion B] Shadow flicker predetermined range C.1.1] the narrative degree of analysis, C.1] aesthetic change to the landscape wireframes appreciation landscape that characterisations and would result from photomontage the development depictions identifying the C.2.1] trying to surrounding explain why the landscape features archaeological narrative which would have site is located analysis influenced the where it is in original choice of C.2] landscape terms location intellectual C.2.2] any identifying yes at a conceptual interpretation subsequent surrounding level phenomena features which narrative within the have developed as C] analysis landscape due to the direct and Visual the presence of indirect results of impact this site the site’s presence narrative discussion; relies on C.3.1] undefined elements of visual assessment direct attribute aesthetic appreciation (see attribute C.3] above) experience assesses the literature and likelihood of people promotion visiting the site, to analysis, C.3.2] Public show whether there discussion of no; discussion Amenity Value would be an access currently unresolved audience who might facilities and actually experience of the visitor any impact experience These are considered within the assessments in the remainder of this report.

9.2.1 Noise This is given a full methodological description and analysis elsewhere in the planning documentation covering Environmental Health Studies, but as a general non-technical rule, noise effects under normal conditions would not extend beyond a circular area with a radius of about 500m from the nearest turbine. Any location outside this zone would be beyond any noise impact. No recorded historic environment site, whether statutorily protected or not, will receive any noise impact in normal conditions. 9.2.2 Shadow flicker

27 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

This is also given a full methodological description and analysis elsewhere in the planning documentation covering Environmental Health Studies, but as a non-technical rule, shadow flicker effects under normal conditions could be visible in windowed structures within a circular area with a radius of about 10 rotor diameters from each turbine. As five turbines each with a 44m blade diameter are proposed for this project, this gives a potentially affected zone of 440m outwards from the nearest turbine. No windowed historic environment site, whether statutorily protected or not, will receive any shadow flicker impacts in normal conditions. 9.2.3 Visual impact This attribute focuses on the result of erecting structures in the landscape, a relevant element for on-shore wind farms, which contain large rotating structures in often prominent locations. A practical difficulty is that there is no direct guidance from Historic Scotland for the assessment of visual impact on archaeological grounds. Scottish Executive Planning Advice Note 45 gives the following guidance on the effect of distance on the perception of a windfarm in an open landscape (without relating this to tower height, but having earlier referred to turbines of tower height >70m and rotor diameters of >80m; these dimensions are larger than those proposed for this project): General perception of a wind farm in an open landscape Distance Perception Up to 2 km Likely to be a prominent feature 2-5 km Relatively prominent 5-15 km Only prominent in clear visibility – seen as part of the wider landscape 15-30 km Only seen in very clear visibility – a minor element in the landscape Source: PAN 45 (revised 2002): Renewable Energy Technologies, Table 3. Other approaches and guidelines exist for ZTV assessment from the wind energy industry and from SNH and can be transferred across. An SNH review of ZTV literature in 2002 included several assessments on distance of turbine from observer, noting also that in most cases any distance-effect is not related directly to or varied by the size or height of turbine towers. The PAN 45 guidance above was cited, along with the statement that “significant visual impacts of wind turbines are only experienced within 5 km” (British Wind Energy Association 2000). This BWEA statement was cited in the same manner in a separate project assessment, to which HS recently commented that “it is a misleading statement that does not reflect accurately national planning policy guidance” as a result of its initial inclusion in a draft text of NPPG 6 before the blanket removal of all the numerically specific comments for the revised version published in 2000. However, its citation remains valid because it appears in the 2002 SNH publication which describes it as a comment “of interest” - p10, para 3.13 - where it remains registered within Scottish Government publications as an informed external observation. HS concerns are noted, but can be referred back to the PAN45 table which offers a largely compatible perspective on the significance of the 5km threshold within national planning policy guidance and related material. There is no specific definition of setting for cultural heritage situations amongst the policy and guidance documents normally identified by HS nor within other members of the document families. NPPG 5 states “It is also important that the integrity of the setting of archaeological sites be safeguarded” (para 16). Many other references are made in NPPG 5, NPPG 16, PAN 42 and PAN 71, all of which emphasise its relevance without defining it. The HS Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas revealingly states that setting “is not defined in the legislation but authorities are firmly encouraged not to interpret the word narrowly” (Appendix 1, para 10.0.0). As previously quoted, Section 10.1.0 of the same Memorandum states that “At all times the listed building should remain the focus of its setting. Attention must never be distracted by the presence of any new development whether it be within or outwith the curtilage.” It continues by explaining that “development outwith the curtilage should also be regarded as affecting the setting where this will, in a rural location, be seen in any principal view either of or from the listed building, or affect in any way the main approaches to it.” HS have begun over the last three years to issue a series of SHEP (Scottish Historic Environment Policy) documents which will continue over the next few years and which provide some opportunity to move the debate forward, but the early signs are not promising. SHEP2 on Scheduled Ancient Monuments, one of the three so far which have been issued as a full policy document, gives little more than a passing reference to “the relationship of the monument and its parts with its wider landscape and setting” (p14, para 5g) as being a contextual category for identifying national significance. The consultation draft issued for SHEP3 on [Historic] Gardens and Designed Landscapes similarly avoided any definitions of settings or their assimilation. An

28 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment ancillary paper to the SHEP1 consultation draft for an overarching Historic Environment Policy stated “the historic environment encompasses the context or setting in which these features sit, and the patterns of past use in landscapes and within the soil, and in our towns, villages and streets”. (SHEP1 Environmental Report, para 2.3). Hopes were raised when the SHEP1 draft announced that a specific SHEP would appear later in the series for “Settings of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings” (p24, para 9.3); subsequent conversations with HS have revealed that any mention of such a SHEP in the draft was a mistake as there are no plans at all to issue one. SHEP1 as released in its full policy version gives no further definitional assistance. Another source through which HS have to formally express their ideas and thinking is through precognition documents for Local Public Enquiries where HS object to the proposed development. To date there has been only a handful of such cases for windfarms, so the number of papers is low and there is no established mechanism for sourcing them. However, they become public domain documents as part of the enquiry process and can be obtained with a degree of ferreting. Two of these document sets have been investigated, for the South Clyde windfarm enquiry (held in September 2006, enquiry reference IEC/3/90) and Merranblo in Orkney (held in January 2008, enquiry reference NA/ORK/1). In the latter case, Allan Rutherford as one of the three HS witnesses states in para 7.2.2 that: “HS considers that the concept of setting should not be interpreted in a narrow fashion. In regards to monuments it will be substantially, though not entirely, a visual issue; monuments need not necessarily be visible themselves to have a setting and some aspect of a monument’s setting may not be wholly visual such as a sense of remoteness. Setting broadly relates to the interrelationship of a wide and varying range of factors and attributes beyond the site or resource under discussion which are important for its meaningful and sustainable preservation. For SAMs these will include: attributes intrinsic to the site itself e.g. its type/form/history/evolution/functional and spatial characteristics, including visual and physical relationships between monuments of similar function and date. These relate strongly to its cultural significance as discussed in SHEP 2, annex para 3; attributes of the surrounding landscape e.g. its form/structure/topography/scenic qualities/history/evolution/degree of development; how the site might relate to and influence the landscape and vice versa; the sensitivity of the site to impacts; and less tangible aesthetic/visual/emotional attributes.” As an encompassing statement to define parameters for planning consideration, this quote sets out a very broad catch-all philosophy which most archaeologists would probably accept and perhaps applaud. However the subsequent text of these precognition documents fails to address the crucial issue of how this can be achieved. Instead, HS only offer the following comments on how appropriate methodologies should be presented; this is again from Rutherford’s precognition for Merranblo, and is the entire text of para 7.3.3: “In assessing ESs themselves HS is normally looking for: a systematic, rigorous and focused approach; an assessment carried out in a fair and impartial way; processes and methodologies which are transparent and clearly expressed, without jargon - they should be capable of comprehension not just by fellow professionals, but also by the public. They should provide clarity, not obscure the issues; processes and methodologies which are suitable to the case in hand and are not routine and off the peg. One size does not necessarily fit all; integrated, interdisciplinary working across topics which leads to an internally consistent ES; the application of considerable thought and sound professional judgment for environmental topics such as the historic environment where assessment is not based on measurable, scientific certainty; an ES which aids rather than impedes decision making (the length, layout, clarity, relevance, focus and presentation of information will be factors here); an approach to mitigation which is effective and follows the hierarchy discussed in Planning Advice Note (PAN) 58 sections 53-4, recognising prevention as the most effective approach, and that offsetting methods, including prior excavation or study of archaeological features are at the bottom of the hierarchy.”

29 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Again, these points are well made and unlikely to prove controversial, but stop well short of identifying how to proceed productively or what standards and criteria of investigation should be included. While the methodologies used in this report have been designed to meet these presentational suggestions and the preceding comments about the scope of settings issues, the fact that these two quoted extracts constitute the only HS texts to outline what is required limits HS’s ability to criticise or reject approaches used in this type of assessment. Provided the methodologies used match the comments on scope and presentation, they become legitimate tools. There may still be disagreement about the results within the parameters of professional judgement, and it is revealing that Rutherford’s precognition includes the following text in para 7.3.4. “..in line with the emphasis we would place on the fundamental role of professional judgment, knowledge and experience.”. However the default and possibly inadequate nature of the current situation can be portrayed as limiting HS’s scope to pursue objections outside such largely subjectively-derived considerations. To reverse the argument from the context of this planning assessment, an open question can be posed whether this provides a sufficiently reliable or consistent platform from which the protection of the Historic Environment and its integration with development needs should be able to securely operate. In fairness to HS, a concluding comment can be made following an as yet unpublished draft report commissioned by the Institute of Field Archaeologists in February 2008. One of its findings is that HS is some distance ahead of its counterparts in the rest of the UK in issuing such guidance material; therefore even if some of its directions along the way do not yet achieve the desired clarity or robustness, HS deserves recognition for trying to signpost a route through an uncertain element of the planning process. 10.0 Identifying relevant sites for VI analysis 10.1 Selection of relevant archaeological and historical sites The selection of sites for consideration for indirect impact analysis uses a number of criteria. All sites formally designated by HS within the surrounding area were included for initial testing against the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) maps provided by OSEL to determine whether the topography would provide potential visual impact. The surrounding area is derived from the 5km distance threshold in PAN45 (Section 9.2.3), but is extended up to 8km to ensure that the catchment is responsive to any idiosyncrasies of the local topography and context. In addition the sweep for HS Properties in Care (PICs) was extended to 10km. The various databases accessible through the RCAHMS on-line portals (Section 5.0) were used as search engines. This first sift gave a large number of SAMs, LBs, PICs and one HGDL, as no Conservation Areas or WHS are affected within the ZTV and/or present in this part of Orkney. As the ZTV software does not record visibility screening from above-ground features, such as forestry or other buildings, a further investigation was made of the actual situation for each site, as described in Section 10.3, which reduces the list at a second stage. Note: a problem occurred with the Pastmap and Canmap on-line databases for this region. Both show significant numbers of LBs and SAMs within the selected map ranges, particularly at larger ranges which included parts of Rousay and the other islands. The on-screen display can deliver up to 100 records within the selected category, but it is unclear how the record capture operates when over 100 records of that type exist within a map range. There is no clue whether these sets of 100 were drawn from a sample of, say, 105 or 195 eligible sites of that type. To overcome this, a number of searches were made using various map ranges and moving the map central points away from the turbine sites. By repeating these tweaks several times an extensive list was created, which was also cross-referenced against sites mentioned in various local and regional heritage publications (Sections 13.2 and 16.0 Bibliography) to identify any obvious anomalies, and the impression gained that all relevant sites within the specified distances had been captured. However this cannot be fully guaranteed for the SAM, LB-B and LB-C(S) groups. 10.2 First sift to remove sites – desk-based This is usually a fairly straightforward desk-based process carried out by comparing the lists of SAMs, LBs and HGDLs within the relevant distances to the ZTV maps. If a SAM, LB or HGDL lies outside the patches of ZTV, it is eliminated from further analysis. Sites on the margins between ZTV and non-ZTV patches are retained within the sample for the next stage. This sifting normally leads to a substantial decrease in the number of sites, and the notable exclusions from the first are identified with a short list to satisfy any concern that inadvertent omissions have occurred.

30 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

However the presentation has been adapted here to reflect the unusual ZTV characteristics for the Hammars Hill location and the intense distribution of designated sites and areas within this part of Orkney. This ZTV is unusual in that it does not provide the customary patchwork of affected zones dappled across the surrounding landscape. Instead it portrays a series of full-on swathes across the various land and seascapes, saturating everything in their paths. At the same time, the many dominant ridgelines and plateau crests create substantial swathes of ZTV exclusion behind them. The combined result is that major portions of the landscape are either totally within or totally outside the ZTV. As many of the zones totally outside the ZTV contain heavy distributions of designated sites, the usual approach of listing them individually would achieve relatively little value for the purposes of this assessment. Instead, some of the major ZTV exclusion zones will be described geographically, followed by a short list of excluded designated sites for which most consultee concern is anticipated. The biggest ZTV exclusion is virtually all of Orkney’s West Mainland to the west of Easting HY 35, which includes the interior basins of and around the Harray and Stenness lochs. The only low- lying exception to this complete ZTV exclusion is a slim wedge opening out westwards from northeast of Dounby to Quoyloo, which is contained to the north of the two lochs. Some sporadic and small patches of upper hill areas comprise the only other exceptions, with the summit portions of Ward Hill (Orphir), Kame of Corrigall (Harray) and Costa (Evie) being the only locations where the five Hammars hill turbines would be seen. A few other sporadic and small patches elsewhere in this West Mainland exclusion might give fractional visibility of some of the five turbines, but that is all. Other ZTV exclusion swathes include the eastern portion of the Rendall headland, much of central and northern Rousay, much of St Ola to the west of Kirkwall, and the eastern sides of the islands of Gairsay, Shapinsay and Egilsay. In each case an intervening ridgeline provides the topographical barrier. In terms of sites outside the ZTV, the list removed from further analysis includes the following: Site or group Category Comment Orkney World Heritage WHS containing Whole of Inner Buffer Zone lies outside the ZTV. The only Site [1] Harray and SAMs, LBs and anomaly is 2 small patches of hillside near Clouston (around Stenness loch basin PICs HY300/107) which overlook the IBZ from the south; these contain a couple of house sites and a portion of farm track, and are not areas which would receive any tourism traffic. The distance to the turbines is about 14.5km and they would only give partial visibility of less than five turbines. Orkney World Heritage WHS containing Whole of Inner Buffer Zone lies outside the ZTV. However a Site [2] Skara Brae and SAMs, LBs and small area immediately to the west of the IBZ lies within the Skaill area PICs ZTV for partial visibility of less than five turbines; this contains the overlooking headland at the south end of Skaill Bay and is not an area with an obvious significance. The distance to the turbines is about 16.2km. Click Mill PIC, SAM, LB-B Well outside ZTV Brough of Birsay PIC, SAMs Well outside ZTV Earls Palace, Birsay PIC, SAM Well outside ZTV Others grouped by parish Including: Knowes of Euro, mounds 400m SW of Appietown, Gorsness, HY413/188, 4.6km; West Puldrite, mounds 250m SAMs Rendall various NNW of, HY414/186, 4.9km; Varme Dale, mounds 400m E of Gorn, HY406/187, 4.4 km LB-B & HVA Woodwick doocot, HY 39003/24088 , 4.0 km Firth SAM Burness broch & chapel 200m S of, HY 388/156, 6.9km Finstown various SAMs & LBs Outside ZTV for village and immediate periphery 10.3 Next sift to remove sites – field assessment The next step involved field visits to the recorded location of each site within the ZTV and the appropriate distance range to determine whether actual visibility would be possible. This was related to the previously cited extract from the HS Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas that “development outwith the [LB] curtilage should also be regarded as affecting the setting where this will, in a rural location, be seen in any principal view either of or from the listed building, or affect in any way the main approaches to it” (Section 10.1.0). This definition was also applied as much as feasible to the SAMs within this section.

31 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

At a simplistic level, this sift is usually a simple yes/no question of whether Hammars Hill is visible from each site. Where direct visibility was interrupted, it means that there would be no chance of seeing the entire turbines, but does not exclude the possibility of fractional visibility. This scenario was dealt with as a series of site-based judgements, using the distance and extent of the screening features as criteria. In some cases this meant that sites with potential partial visibility remained in contention for further investigation. The following sites were excluded from further consideration at this stage: Name Category NGR HY Dist kms Comment Screened by surrounding buildings due to Rennibister earth-house PIC, SAM 39736/12584 9.9 central location within farm complex Knowe of Grugar/Ryo Marginally in ZTV but site visit showed SAM 356/272 5.6 broch SE of Burgar isolated topographic screen of spot area. Marginal ZTV exclusion confirmed by Burgar broch SAM 35212/27699 6.1 wireframe test & photo examination Knowe of Stenso broch N Marginal ZTV exclusion confirmed by SAM 363/267 4.9 of Dyke wireframe test & photo examination Robie's Knowe burnt Marginal ZTV spot exclusion confirmed by SAM 362/266 4.7 mound N of Dyke wireframe test & photo examination Marginally inside ZTV for 1-2 turbines at maximum tip height, but clearly outside ZTV at nacelle height; confirmed by photo examination & wireframe test which Vinquin broch, Costa SAM 32696/28287 8.0 showed 2 turbines visible for upper blade fractions only. Site visit suggested no intermediate above ground screening on sightline, but no further analysis pursued. 10.4 Final selection of sites for further assessment The two sifting exercises produced the following sites in the Zone of Proven Visibility (ZPV); these are taken forward for discussion of the degree of visual impact, by presentation of the associated views as wireframes and some photomontages, and of the significance of the impacts under the parallel perspectives of site-as-receptor and people-as-receptor. As a result of the unusually large number of sites remaining in contention and the concentrated micro-distributions in many cases, several are assembled into groups where one lead site is taken to represent all those which lie close by. The lead site is usually the most “famous” of the group such as a PIC as this would give the most useful results for planning consideration; the specific choice of the lead site is unlikely to create any skew in the subsequent assessments as the VI calculations within each group will be virtually identical for each of its members.

NGR from site record SAM Other applicable Name OR measured on site Dist km no. categories visit HY MAINLAND 90157 Gurness broch & settlement LB-A 12713, PIC 38189/26832 4.3 Also representing 1369 Reeky Knowes mounds, Aiker Ness HY 387/265, 4.0km 1378 Seven Knowes mounds 39276/20654 2.0 Also representing 1360 Northwald, mounds and burnt mound 300m NNE of, HY 390/180 &

390/181, 4.4 km; 1376 Sandyhall, mounds S of, HY 399/193 & 398/195, 3.5 km; Black Knowe, mound WSW of 1245 36949/19863 3.1 Blubbersdale, Also representing 1343 Knowe of Lyron, mound WNW of Lyron Cottage, HY 386/196, 2.9 km 1473 Thing Woll broch, Tingwall 401/228 1.7 1412 Wass Wick, mound (broch?) 41272/21957 2.6 1426 Burgar, broch 320m NE of 35212/27699 6.1 Also representing 1459 Knowe of Stenso broch N of Dyke, HY 363/267, 4.9km, 1371 Robie's Knowe, burnt mound N of Dyke, HY 362/266, 4.7km, 1454 Knowe of Grugar or Ryo broch SE of Burgar, HY 356/272, 5.6km Craig of Ritten/ Ness of 1467 40076/24859 2.7 Woodwick broch Also representing 1415 Midland, mound NNW of Wood Wick, HY 397/235 1.5 km; 1303 Knowe

of Midgarth, settlement and cairn SE of Wood Wick, HY 398/235 1.7km 90315 Wideford Hill cairn PIC 40910/12084 11.0 90092 Cuween cairn PIC 36434/12766 10.3

32 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

N/a Burness House LB-B 12733 38761/15848 6.4 EGILSAY 90137 St Magnus church PIC 466/304 11.2 SHAPINSAY N/a Balfour Castle LB-A 18615,HGDL 47477/16435 10.7 Also representing 18616 Balfour Castle doocot, LB-B; 18617 Balfour Castle gate lodge, LB-B; 18618 Balfour Castle gate piers, LB-C(S). [Note: all Balfour village LBs outside ZTV and/or will be screened] GAIRSAY 2181 Langskaill, Viking houses 434/220 4.8 Also representing 1442 Ness of Boray, broch, HY 442/210, 5.8 km EYNHALLOW 90144 Eynhallow church & settlement LB-B 18645, PIC 359/288 6.9 Also representing 1263 Eynhallow, standing stone & mound, HY 359/287, 6.8 km WYRE 90079 Cubbie Row’s Castle LB-B 19898, PIC 441/263 6.8 Also representing 90317 St Marys Chapel [PIC] & LB-B no. 18644, HY 443/262, 6.9 km ROUSAY 90035 Blackhammer cairn PIC 414/276 5.9 Also representing 1456 Knowe of Hunclett, broch ESE of Hunclett, Frotoft, HY 414/272, 5.7 km Knowe of Yarso chambered 90198 PIC 404/279 5.7 cairn Also representing 1267 Long Stone, standing stone, Frotoft HY 404/275, 5.3 km; 1306 Knowe of Ramsay chambered cairn, 270m E of Hullion, Frotoft HY.401/280, 5.2 km; 1451 Knowe of Burrian, broch, Frotoft, HY 400/275 5.1km; 1476 Viera Lodge, broch, Frotoft, HY 391/281, 5.6 km; 1300 Knowe of Lairo cairn, E of Hullion, Frotoft, HY 398/279, 5.6km, 42648 Viera Lodge LB-B complex, HY 392/281, 5.6 km Taversoe Tuick cairn & nearby 90297 PIC 425/276 6.5 remains Also representing 1269 Geord of Nears, cairn HY 423/273, 6.1 km; LB Cat B 18641 Trumland

House HY 4270/2782, 6.7 km 90218 Midhowe broch & settlement LB-A 18639, PIC 371/305 8.2 Also representing other SAMs near NW end of Westness Heritage Trail, eg 90219 Midhowe chambered cairn and remains [PIC] HY372/304, 8.1 km; 1469 North Howe broch HY 370/307, 8.3 km; 1425 Brough/South Howe broch, HY 372/303, 8.1km; 5773 The Wirk, tower & hall, HY

373/301, 8.0 km, 3626 Westness Church HY 374/302 8.0 km, AND group of 3 SAMs near Quandale, 1363 Lower Quandale, burnt mounds, HY368/319; 1364 Upper Quandale, cairn, HY 373/315; 1367 Quoynalonga Ness, burnt mound, HY 364/319 (all c 10 km) N/a Westness House LB-B 18640 38303/28908 6.3 Approximately representing SAMs towards SE end of Westness Heritage Trail: eg 3534 Westness, Viking houses, noost & graveyard HY 375/296 & HY 375/293, 7.2 km; 1307 Knowe of

Rowiegar, chambered cairn & nearby remains HY373/297, 7.1 km, 1310 Knowe of Swandro, mound (broch?), HY 375/297, 7.0 km 11.0 Defining sensitivities for the site categories This section defines the generic measures of sensitivity which result from the statutory designations. These are summarised in tabular form to describe the full range of permutations operating in Scotland, with items or attributes relevant for the ZPV of this project highlighted by shaded text backgrounds, and it then derives the consequent generic sensitivities to change for subsequent use in this reassessment in relation to the relevant individual sites. Table of site categories and the level of potential sensitivity which arises from their recognised levels of importance Type of site Recognised importance Potential sensitivity WHS international very high SAMs, LB-As, HGDLs, Conservation national high Areas Archaeological sites of regional regional moderate importance*, LB-Bs Archaeological sites of local local low importance*, LB-C(S)s Other archaeological remains* zero to slight not usually seen as sensitive As yet undiscovered or unidentified indefinable ahead of discovery indefinable ahead of discovery sites and remains **

33 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Notes * = there is as yet no consistent or defined system for differentiating between these levels of importance nor for their treatment within the planning process. All three categories would normally be present within NMRS and the SMR; depending on the individual SMR, its records may show these assigned levels of importance ** = the potential presence of as yet undiscovered or unidentified sites and remains would normally be considered in relation to the probability of direct impacts by programmes of precautionary mitigation to maximise the likelihood of their discovery; however the implications of indirect impacts can not be resolved until the presence and nature of any “new” sites or remains is established [site type] = the pink background indicates that sites of this type are given specific analysis later in this assessment due to their occurrence within the ZPV for this project A matrix has been developed to show how the generic site sensitivity can be related to the degree of anticipated change or impact which the site may undergo as a result of the proposed development. The use of such an illustrative device was recommended by HS in discussions in December 2006, when they provided a very useful example to work from. The matrix below was separately developed, but is compatible with their example. General matrix showing the provisional significance of any potential site sensitivity against the anticipated degree of change Sensitivity of site NOT MINIMAL/ VERY MODERATE HIGH SENSITIVE LOW HIGH moderate/ high/ VERY HIGH none high very high high very high moderate/ high/ HIGH none moderate high high very high Degree moderate/ of MODERATE none low moderate high high change moderate/ LOW none minimal/ low low moderate high minimal/ MINIMAL none minimal low moderate low Significant impacts which deserve further investigation for final determination may occur towards the top and right of the chart, at the levels of moderate and above. Specific circumstances will apply to each case (derived from the individual characteristics of each site and the precise nature of the anticipated change which the site would undergo) which will require individual analysis before accurate assessments can be made. This matrix, including the derived levels of significance and the hierarchy of colour coding will be used in the remainder of this report. 12.0 Deriving VI sensitivities of individual sites from site-as-receptor criteria By combining the sites which remain from the sifting and exclusion exercises in Section 10.4 with the generic sensitivities to change derived from their designated categories in Section 11.0, the main table below can be derived to start the individual site analyses. Other assessments have occasionally produced sites which show evidence from field observations that their locations were deliberately selected to provide extensive landscape panoramas as a primary consideration, and that the current landscape preserves these characteristics in a clearly evident fashion. The effect of this is to suggest that the purely designation-driven level of sensitivity can be refined by increasing the sensitivity band to reflect these exceptional circumstances. No such sites occur within those assessed here. However no adjustment is made at this stage to reflect that many (lead) sites are PICs in addition to their statutory designations, as the PIC dimension is considered within the later people-as-receptor discussions; each PIC in this sample is a SAM with some also having LB protections. In each case the highest acting grade is taken forward, which because of the SAM is a high rating. In the case of a lead site, the highest acting grade of the site or from within its group is taken forward, a scenario which actually affects only one lead site, Westness House on Rousay. Finally, if a site has multiple acting grades at the same level (eg SAM & LB-A or HGDL & LB-A), its rating remains at the level of the individual grades without any cumulative adjustment.

34 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Dist Level of sensitivity Type Site NGR HY km from site-as-receptor MAINLAND SAM, LB-A, Gurness broch & settlement 38189/26832 4.3 high PIC Also representing Reeky Knowes mounds, Aiker Ness HY 387/265, 4.0km [SAM] SAM Seven Knowes mounds 39276/20654 2.0 high Also representing Northwald, mounds and burnt mound 300m NNE of, HY 390/180 & 390/181,

4.4 km; Sandyhall, mounds S of, HY 399/193 & 398/195, 3.5 km [SAMs] Black Knowe, mound WSW of SAM 36949/19863 3.1 high Blubbersdale, Also representing Knowe of Lyron mound, HY 386/196, 2.9 km [SAM] SAM Thing Woll broch, Tingwall 401/228 1.7 high SAM Wass Wick, mound (broch?) 41272/21957 2.6 high SAM Craig of Ritten/ Ness of Woodwick, broch 40076/24859 2.7 high Also representing Midland, mound NNW of Wood Wick, HY 397/235 1.5 km; Knowe of Midgarth,

settlement and cairn SE of Wood Wick, HY 398/235 1.7 km [SAMs] SAM, Wideford Hill cairn 40910/12084 11.0 high PIC SAM, Cuween cairn 36434/12766 10.3 high PIC LB-B Burness House 38761/15848 6.4 moderate EGILSAY SAM, St Magnus church 466/304 11.2 high PIC SHAPINSAY LB-A, Balfour Castle 47477/16435 10.7 high HGDL Also representing Balfour Castle doocot, gate lodge & gate piers [LB-Bs & C(S)] GAIRSAY SAM Langskaill, Viking houses 434/220 4.8 high Also representing: Ness of Boray broch, HY 442/210, 5.8 km; Langskaill house HY435/218, 4.9

km [SAM, LB-B] EYNHALLOW SAM, LB-B, Eynhallow Church & settlement 359/288 6.9 high PIC Also representing Eynhallow, standing stone & mound, HY 359/287, 6.8 km [SAM] WYRE SAM, LB-B, Cubbie Row’s Castle 441/263 6.8 high PIC Also representing St Marys Chapel, HY 443/262, 6.9 km [SAM, LB-B, PIC] ROUSAY SAM, Blackhammer cairn 414/276 5.9 high PIC Also representing Knowe of Hunclett, broch ESE of Hunclett, Frotoft, HY 414/272, 5.7 km [SAM] SAM, Knowe of Yarso chambered cairn 404/279 5.7 high PIC Also representing Long Stone standing stone, Frotoft HY 404/275, 5.3 km; Knowe of Ramsay chambered cairn, nr Frotoft HY.401/280, 5.2 km; Knowe of Burrian, broch, Frotoft, HY 400/275

5.1km; Viera Lodge broch, Frotoft, HY 391/281, 5.6 km; Knowe of Lairo cairn, nr Frotoft, HY 398/279, 5.6km, Viera Lodge LB-B complex, HY 392/281, 5.6 km [SAMs & LB-B] SAM, Taversoe Tuick cairn & nearby remains 425/276 6.5 high PIC Also representing Geord of Nears, cairn HY 423/273, 6.1 km; LB-B Trumland House HY

4270/2782, 6.7 km [SAM, LB-B] SAM, LB-A, Midhowe broch & settlement 371/305 8.2 high PIC

35 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Also representing other SAMs near NW end of Westness Heritage Trail, eg Midhowe stalled cairn and remains nearby [PIC] HY372/304, 8.1 km; North Howe broch HY 370/307, 8.3 km; Brough/South Howe broch, HY 372/303, 8.1km; The Wirk, tower & hall, HY 373/301, 8.0 km,

Westness Church HY 374/302 8.0 km, AND group of 3 SAMs near Quandale, Lower Quandale, burnt mounds, HY368/319; Upper Quandale, cairn, HY 373/315; Quoynalonga Ness, burnt mound, HY 364/319 (all c 10 km) [SAMs with 1 PIC] LB-B Westness house 38303/28908 6.3 high Approximately representing SAMs towards SE end of Westness Heritage Trail: eg Westness Viking houses, noost & graveyard HY 375/296 & HY 375/293, 7.2 km; Knowe of Rowiegar, chambered cairn &c HY373/297, 7.1 km, Knowe of Swandro mound (broch?), HY 375/297, 7.0 km 13.0 Deriving VI sensitivities of individual sites from people-as-receptor analysis Alongside the site-as-receptor analyses and results, some parallel lines of enquiry can be pursued to identify whether the site-as-receptor findings are likely to be actually experienced by people. This involves assessing the character and function within the landscape of the same group of sites to gauge the probability of their being visited by people, and to provide information where possible on the number of visits and visitors. 13.1 Rationale and uncertainties An earlier comment can be revisited to illustrate that there is a divergence in purpose when assessing indirect impacts. The statutory protection of important and formally designated elements of the historic environment focuses on the concept of the site or landscape feature as the receptor of the impact. The basis of this approach is derived from the content of a series of planning policy and guidance notes, which outline settings considerations in a generic context but do not acknowledge that there are fundamental differences between direct and indirect impacts. This context sets a series of objectives and procedures within which HS and others operate their protective strategies in discharging their statutorily-defined responsibilities. The problem with this site-as-impact-receptor model, despite allowing the defined discharge of statutory responsibilities by HS and others, is that it excludes any measure of the actual impact experienced by people. Previous reports on similar projects have attempted to identify this characteristic through the development of a technique to identify the Public Amenity Value (PAV) of a site. PAV looked at a number of site characteristics to estimate whether the site has a plausible chance of being visited, whether in an impromptu or planned activity. These derive from: the degree to which the site is actively or passively promoted as a visitor attraction or functions as a public facility, the extent to which public access is feasible or facilitated, and an analysis of the site’s occurrence in publications, particularly the non-specialised material which might bring the site’s existence to the attention of a mainstream audience. The result of such an investigation would indicate whether the potential significance of the impact from the site-as-receptor analysis has a real significance beyond the procedurally-defined assessment within the protective designations. It could enable a transparent discussion about whether the potential impacts are significant actual matters of concern, and therefore enable an improved baseline of assessment evidence to inform the ultimate planning decision. However, its previous use has received a distinctly hostile formal reaction from some statutory consultees; at a more informal level the tone of discussions has been more productive, but has yet to establish recognised common ground between the respective stances. This leaves a situation where this report has attempted to fully address the statutory needs of HS and others within the terms which they have defined as necessary (ie the site-as-receptor approach) and will now extend the scope of the discussion to include investigations from the people-as-receptor perspectives. This progression is intended to remove the debate from a polarised argument between the two stances to a platform where both are used in a sequential progression towards a comprehensive set of verdicts. This should enable all potential audiences (see Section 2.2.5) to gain full value from this assessment; those who see their interests as only lying within specified limits should be able to satisfy those needs from the wider composite of perspectives. A common question voiced by potential developers in the context of this type of assessment exercise can be paraphrased along the lines of “Why does the demonstrated indirect impact from the site-as-receptor approach matter?”, to which the response that its analysis is statutorily and

36 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment procedurally required is often only a partial answer within the general heritage protection context. This uncertainty can be extended by incorporating the temporary nature of windfarm-derived indirect impacts, which are normally defined by absolute limits on their duration; many local authorities place a 20 or 25 year fixed limit on their existence, after which dismantling or a totally new planning application is required. Therefore the indirect impacts will be either totally removed or subjected to a complete re-examination, and either outcome means that the indirect impacts under site-as-receptor become short-lived agents of change, after which the setting reverts to its previous state with no residual issues and no loss of attributes for future generations to contend with. This may be a pivotal threshold for the credibility of purely site-as-receptor judgements if they exclude human interactions with the setting, as it becomes logically impossible to identify any measure of significance for temporary indirect impacts which will subsequently be removed in a regulated fashion. The remainder of the issue depends on the degree to which some people-as- receptor elements are implicitly or explicitly allowed into the debate, as there needs to be some degree of human experience of the indirect impacts within their temporary influence for the impacts to exert a significance. As a result the way and extent to which people interact or could interact with the site or feature and its setting becomes an inevitable focus of attention. This interaction can take many forms, with the two most obvious being to visit the site or feature and/or to use it for a particular function or purpose within their routine. Each of these raises practical issues for consideration. The first is the difficulty in quantifying the extent to which a site may be visited or used, as direct or measured visitor figures are rarely available. In Section 2.2.3, an estimate was derived that Scotland has over 50,000 protected Historic Environment sites. However, a pragmatic overview suggests that Scotland only has some 400 or so Historic Environment sites where visitor attendances can be directly measured or assessed; this figure is derived from the annual publication on behalf of VisitScotland of the Visitor Attraction Monitor, a data-gathering exercise which attempts to survey all the 1000 or so visitor attractions of all types where visitor figures are monitored. Therefore in the vast majority of cases, an indirect assessment methodology is needed, with the PAV approach standing as one possibility. This is a relatively new approach, which is still being developed through increasing experience of its application in a variety of site contexts, and by building up a series of results to give a perspective on whether it provides a useful additional strand of assessment. There is therefore no established consensus yet on its application nor an ability to define its outcomes within robust hierarchical gradings. It is intended to be a relatively straightforward method of analysis which produces practical and non-technical results, and is completely replicable in the sense that it can be undertaken by anyone at any time and is likely to produce consistent results from the identified sources for each investigation. However, even at this formative stage of development, the people- as-receptor approach does provide some qualitative insights which are not currently obtainable within other methods, and this justifies its continued use. All comments on how its application, methodology and its results can be further developed will be welcome. The objectives for this assessment will be to compile evidence to estimate whether the selected sites have a plausible chance of being visited or used functionally. In some cases the evidence is easily derived and can give some indication of the volume or quantity of users and visitors, but in others the available evidence was minimal or non-existent. As will become apparent, the target is to demonstrate a probability threshold for each site. Once a site passes that threshold into having a plausible chance of being visited, then no further evidence sourcing is needed. A site which remains below that threshold is investigated for a number of elements and sources, though once these are exhausted its analysis can stop. The search does not have to be totally exhaustive as long as it is balanced and wide-ranging, as the goal is to demonstrate a plausible chance, not any chance in any circumstance. Again any comments or suggestions on further sources of relevant information or investigation are welcome. An uncertainty is how its application would be formally recognised by statutory consultees within the planning process. HS have stated in discussion that they do not see it as an element which currently falls within their jurisdiction, nor a factor which they think would usefully inform their comments in relation to the statutory protection role; however they recognise that it has a wider validity. It also may not fall easily within the remits of other statutory consultees in a defined fashion; for instance it is not a purely landscape-derived issue which can be fully addressed within that discipline. However this does not prevent its pursuit providing relevant information for planning consideration, so jurisdiction concerns are not sufficient grounds to reject the inclusion of people-as-receptor investigations for statutorily protected historic environment sites and features.

37 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

One indicator for visitor probability is whether a site is indicated on maps, particularly the OS 1:50000 Landranger and 1:25000 Explorer ranges, and how it is shown; this may be neutral such as a blob symbol with a name, may show a gothic script to indicate an antiquity, or may be highlighted by one of the tourist and leisure symbols used across the map ranges. The use of OS maps as a reference source has been criticised by consultees on previous reports from different consultants, due to the apparent reliance on its supposedly pivotal influence and consultee opinion that OS inclusion may not be as comprehensive or currently accurate as might be wished when analysed in detail. These concerns are accepted and OS inclusion is used in this methodology as one of a range of indicators rather than as a pivotal determinant. However, OS inclusion remains a valuable indicator for two reasons. The first is that the inclusion of a site is highly relevant to the probability of it being considered for a planned visit, particularly by people who come from outside the area; the corollary is that a site which is not OS marked is likely to only be known by locals and a limited number of historic environment specialists, which may well decrease the plausible visitor estimates dramatically. The second element is the logo or symbol used to denote the site; in some cases OS use a range of clear symbols to show the site as welcoming visitors. Current editions illustrate 15 symbol types under tourist and leisure information on the 1:50000 maps and 29 for the 1:25000 range. A site without one of these symbols, most of which are designed to be clearly visible within the map, will attract correspondingly less attention from visitors with mainstream or non-specialist intentions. Therefore the symbol used for a site becomes a valid indicator of probability. A final issue to explore is that the people-as-receptor model targets the probability of the site being visited by people by compiling a series of indicators. In some cases, which includes sites within this assessment, the site may be identifiable as receiving a large number of separate visitors (ie the number of visits and the number of different people who make the visits are similar) or it may be a smaller number of people making repeated visits. The full significance of this distinction is not yet apparent, but it does provide some interesting lines of approach. On one level a promoted visitor attraction may receive a significant number of visitors, and it seems likely that most will be tourists who come to the area briefly from outside. Their experience of the visual impact will be temporary and probably a one-off event before they move on. On the other hand the vast majority of visitors to the location of Tingwall broch will be frequent visitors due to the site’s proximity to the inter-island ferry terminal (see Section 13.4.4 below for detailed comment). Many of the frequent visitors who would be repeatedly exposed to the visual impact will be local residents, which means that they can be reached within a programme of community consultation and their reactions canvassed. This could provide a means of gauging the people-as-receptor assessment results against actual community opinions to give a powerful feedback mechanism with a direct relevance for the overall planning assessment process. In conclusion, it is acknowledged that the implementation of a people-as-receptor assessment is still finding its way as a technique and that further development and experience of its use will be needed before it can produce fully robust findings. There have also been expressed uncertainties from statutory consultees on whether their remits can encompass its inclusion, but these do not give grounds for valid objections to its use. As will become apparent it provides largely qualitative findings, which would not otherwise explicitly emerge and which can inform the planning process in a productive fashion. It therefore creates a mark in the sand which it is hoped consultees can recognise as a point to advance from. 13.2 Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre context There are a number of practical issues which apply when pursuing the people-as-receptor approach to sites on these islands, the majority of which derive from the lack of directly measured visitor numbers. 13.2.1 Comparing potential visitor numbers for Rousay PICs Rousay has a very high density of PICs concentrated within a fairly small linear strip and conveniently placed for access from the island's circuit road. The Midhowe pairing of a broch settlement and the largest neolithic cairn on the island are the furthest from the ferry terminal, but are the most famous and spectacular of the PIC set. If most Rousay visitors are assumed to be day trippers, which is a reasonably plausible conjecture and one that many local contacts regard as applicable, it could be argued that this pair of sites would receive more visitors than the others and are the most significant for VI assessment. The site visits gave some initial indications that

38 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment this could be the case from the degree to which parking arrangements had been created, with a large 6-car parking area built out of the roadside and overlooking the relatively long walk down steep field slopes to the Midhowe monuments. The other PICs, all smaller neolithic cairns located close to the road, have 2/3-car parking with one exception. This is Knowe of Yarso, with a 4-car parking area and a location reached by a walk of 600m. Instead of providing an indicator of comparative visitor numbers, the degree of parking provision is more likely to reflect the amount of time required to visit the respective sites; because Midhowe and Yarso are furthest from the road they involve the longest visiting times and therefore require more parking capacity to avoid blocking the island's circuit road. Given that most tourists are likely to be daytrippers to Rousay, arriving on the morning ro-ro ferry and departing in the late afternoon, experience shows that it is well possible to visit all the PICs by car or bicycle with some time to spare within that schedule. While the Midhowe PICs may be rather better known than the others and probably give the most exciting visitor experiences, the practicalities would suggest that visitor numbers may well not vary radically amongst this set of sites. Therefore this assessment will not emphasise the Midhowe pair of PICs over the others. 13.2.2 The Westness trail on Rousay In addition to the PICs, Rousay has a wealth of other non-guardianship sites as reflected in the concentration of SAMs. In the 1980s and 1990s, efforts were made to construct a heritage trail between Westness and Midhowe to capture the particular wealth and variety of sites along that comparatively short shoreline; access arrangements were made, signage erected, paths and stiles inserted and leaflets and displays produced. However this seems to have fallen away in the last decade or so; much of the signage is still present, but the promotion has declined to the point where a visitor could easily tour Midhowe and depart without realising the trail exists. Although it is still cited in the Rough Guide (Humphreys & Reid 2006, p435) and many of its sites are mentioned in a recent set of publications from Orkney Museums & Heritage covering the Orkneyinga and related Norse sagas (Muir 2004 & 2005, Owen 2005, and a Saga trail leaflet), none of the previous trail promotion leaflets were found locally and other current tourist literature gives it very little mention, if any. Therefore this assessment does not place a particular weighting on visitor probability for the non-PIC components of what used to be a fascinating trail. The apparent demise of this local heritage asset is sad. 13.2.3 Visitor numbers to Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre Given that these islands are all promoted for their archaeological and historical sites rather more than for any other attribute and that the only conventional access is by ferry, some attempts were made to obtain ferry traffic figures which might suggest at least an indirect ceiling figure for how many visitors these sites might receive. Enquiries were made at Orkney Ferries to establish if useful analyses could be derived. One approach might be to look at the number of single visit tickets sold for each island, on the assumption that islanders or regular business visitors would use season tickets. Another might be to take the summer season monthly aggregates and subtract the winter monthly aggregates. However, despite some encouraging conversations with Orkney Ferries staff, it proved impossible to obtain such data, and this line of enquiry failed. This only leaves some very indirect opportunities to pursue. Taken purely as archaeological sites, Gurness and Midhowe are very similar monuments and presented as walk-round sites in the same fashion. As Gurness receives c12000 visitors a year (from VAM figures) during its periods of staffed opening (covering the summer season and daily times of 09.00-18.00 hours), this gives a comparison to start from. While Gurness may receive additional out-of-season/hours visitors, any equivalent can be discounted for Midhowe due to the constraints of the ferry timetabling. Unlike Midhowe, Gurness is actively promoted by HS and features as an element on many Orkney short-tour itineraries by coach or cruise ship. When Midhowe's rather more isolated location and travel implications are considered, it is probably realistic to look at a substantially reduced visitor figure. Three other Orkney attractions off the main island so requiring ferry access are listed in VAM with Balfour Castle (Shapinsay) having c2200 visitors pa (figures from 2005), Hackness Battery (Hoy) averaging c1300 visitors annually over the last 3 years and Carrick House (Eday) with c300 (figures from 2005). Given that Balfour is a commercial hotel and dining facility as well as a historical site, its figures will incorporate types of visitor usage denied to Midhowe. The Hackness figure would seem the closest comparison, and adding an element to reflect the probably greater profile Midhowe has over Hackness, a working estimate can be made

39 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment that Midhowe might receive 1500-2000 visitors annually. VAM lists 22 Orkney attractions with known or estimated visitor numbers, and for comparison Midhowe would sit at number 18 in this chart. There will be a number of further Orkney attractions receiving greater but uncounted visitor numbers, particularly on the main island where the Brodgar and Stenness monuments spring to mind, so the likely outcome would be to relegate Midhowe further down a complete list. As argued earlier, a Midhowe visitor figure would apply at a rough equivalence to the other Rousay PICs so this is carried through. However the point can be made that these are likely to be the same individual visitors, so the aggregate number of people visiting these sites who might experience VI remains at the 1500-2000 annual level. For the Egilsay and Wyre sites, a substantial reduction on the Rousay figure can be proposed. Two reasons can be identified; firstly that Rousay is inherently better known than the other two islands and secondly that the ferry timetables prevent a realistic opportunity to combine a multi- island trip within the same day. Egilsay and Wyre are therefore only likely to receive tourist visitors who have already been to Rousay and have enough time in Orkney to spend further days on island hopping. This may well bring the numbers down to something like 300 or less for each island, which would place them well down the Orkney league table. However an important qualification needs to be stated at this point. Simply estimating visitor numbers in this way and deriving a series of pan-Orkney comparisons omits any consideration of the importance of the sites to the micro-economy of each island. In all three islands, the archaeological sites are the most actively promoted visitor elements, and could become highly sensitive to VI if it substantially affects the visitor experience to those sites and therefore the attractiveness and reputation of the island as a destination. This point has emerged from discussions with local contacts, who have registered concerns that it needs to be acknowledged and explored within a full and balanced assessment. As a result, the analysis of people-as- receptor impacts needs to balance the use of absolute visitor numbers with a recognition of relative significance within each island's context, and the site descriptions and consequent sensitivities will reflect this. In contrast, Eynhallow and Gairsay do not have economic activity derived from visitors, so the people-as-receptor sensitivities of the respective sites can be derived purely from absolute number estimates. 13.3 Sources for people-as-receptor analyses The following publications were assembled as a basis from which to identify the degree to which each site is referenced in conventional and readily available literature. particularly the non- specialised material which might bring the site’s existence and significance to the attention of a mainstream audience. The list is a representative sample of the available regional or local guidebooks and some semi-specialist/academic literature. Burgher 1991 Orkney – an illustrated architectural guide; RIAS Cope 1998 The modern antiquarian – a pre-millennial odyssey through megalithic Britain Fojut 2001 The brochs of Gurness & Midhowe (HS guide book). Gifford 1992 Highlands and islands; Buildings of Scotland/Pevsner Architectural Guides series, Humphreys & Reid 2006 Rough Guide to Scottish Highlands & Islands (4th ed) Martin 2006 Walks Orkney; Hallewell Publications Ritchie 1995 Prehistoric Orkney; Batsford & Historic Scotland Ritchie 1996 Orkney (2nd ed); Exploring Scotland’s Heritage series, Stationery Office Tait 2006 The Orkney Guide Book (3rd ed); Charles Tait Photographic Welsh 1999 Walks in Orkney (revised edition); Clan Books Wickham-Jones 1998 Orkney – a historical guide; Birlinn A collection of locally available tourist leaflets was assembled, as detailed in the Bibliography; a further set of publications has been issued by Orkney Museums & Heritage about the Orkneyinga and related Norse sagas (Muir 2004 & 2005, Owen 2005, and a tourism trail leaflet) which highlight a number of sites relevant to this assessment. Other sources included the last few annual issues of Visitor Attraction Monitor (Moffat 2001-7). OS maps were investigated, focusing on the 1:25000 Explorer map (no. 463, Orkney - West Mainland, revised 2002). A note was also taken of the relevant records in the Canmore and Pastmap online databases and the Orkney SMR in case these highlighted particularly relevant attributes; these records also list any specialist and academic references which might attract niche visitors with particular interests. A specialist RCAHMS sites catalogue publication was investigated but found - as expected - to contain nothing additional to the relevant Canmore database records (RCAHMS 1982).

40 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

The vast majority of the sites were visited, with notes taken to create the descriptions below of the site as it appears today. These included the comments on access availability and degree of facilitation, signage, and any presentation and promotion. The unvisited sites were those on Eynhallow and Gairsay owing to the lack of conventional access facilities, and Balfour Castle on Shapinsay for logistical reasons. Further problems were caused by the weather and light conditions during the two survey visits in March and August 2007; these meant that the Rousay sites were visited, but the photos were unusable, and had to be subsequently retaken by others. Sites on Egilsay and Wyre were only visited by others, and the descriptions and commentaries are partially derived from their observations and previous direct experience of visits to these monuments some years ago. This may mean that they have more recent or additional on-site presentation arrangements than detailed here, but any discrepancy is unlikely to substantially affect the sensitivity verdicts. 13.4 Site analyses These are discussed in the site sequence previously used. In addition to the literature sources, all the sites have their own records within the Canmore, Pastmap and Orkney SMR databases, but these are only identified when specifically relevant. Many of the Rousay, Wyre and Egilsay sites are also mentioned in RCAHMS (1982), a specialised and long-deleted publication with only a limited issue; the relevant entries only contain the information subsequently used in the NMRS and other database records. 13.4.1 Gurness broch [PIC, SAM & LB-A] One of Orkney’s most famous attractions and archaeological sites, and marked as such on OS maps. Extensively featured in tourism literature (including postcards, regional and national guides, and calendar views), and has a dedicated HS guidebook (Fojut 2001). It is also very prominent in archaeological literature as a key type-site for this class of monument which is unique to Atlantic Scotland. It lies outside the Orkney WHS, but otherwise has the highest possible combination of protective classifications. It has been extensively developed as a fully accessible and charged admission visitor attraction (with a coach-sized parking area, off-site signage from all main routes, display hut with merchandise and refreshments, on-site paths and steps) and features within organised tour itineraries; the only significant constraint on its attraction potential is its comparatively remote location from other major Orkney attractions. Official visitor numbers of c 12,000 pa and its consequent ranking as 11th in the Orkney league table (Moffat 2007, p64) may be an underestimate as out of hours/season visits are not monitored. Its people-as-receptor sensitivity is very high. It also represents the nearby Reeky Knowes SAM site, a series of prehistoric mounds. These are marked by OS with the site name in gothic script, but no other emphasis. Accessible from the Gurness access track by crossing a couple of worked fields, the site is not promoted in any way nor does it have any tourism or specialist literature coverage. No indications were found to suggest the site would attract visitors, so its people-as-receptor sensitivity is virtually nil. 13.4.2 Seven Knowes mounds SAM Seven Knowes is a set of prehistoric cist mounds lying in a field next to a crossroads of minor backlanes. From database records (NMRS no. HY 32SE 8, Orkney SMR no OR 666) it contained seven mounds - hence the name - with six of these still surviving; another mound set is recorded as having existed 150 yards to the west. The site was recorded as a mound group in 1946 and 1967, but reported as destroyed in 1985. It was relocated by topographic and geophysical survey in 1998 and partially excavated, inevitably destroying part of its surviving extent. Three site visits have been made for various reasons since April 2004 and none gave a definite visual identification for the remainder of the mound group from the current ground surface; the field is now used as cattle pasture, with thick grass cover. Access to the field boundary is easy due to the roadside boundary, but now has an electric fence inside the barbed wire boundary, preventing easy access. It is marked on OS maps as an un-named site with the label tumuli in gothic script. From the unusual concentration of similar sites in the vicinity, this part of Evie and Rendall seems to have been one of a handful of Orkney locations with evidence of major Bronze Age activity, though it is unclear if these pockets represent true prehistoric focuses or more random quirks of survival. As most of the locations would receive VI from the proposed development, they are discussed here as a group; Seven Knowes was selected as the lead site because its proximity to

41 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Hammars Hill would give the highest VI level. The other cists and or mounds known in the immediate area include: • Castle (HY 384/201, NMRS no. HY32SE 14, OR 1751), • Hackland Hill barrows (HY 3942/2081, NMRS no. HY32SE 15, OR 665), • Lower Ellibister (HY 386/212, NMRS no. HY32 SE 20, OR 2594), • Ferndale (HY 3844/2033, OR 2881), • two burnt mounds located to HY 32SE, but now lost (OR 1194 & 1195), • Gitterpitten (3 mounds at HY 3947/2079, OR 665 continuation) • Sandyhall SAM (up to 6 mounds around HY 398/194, NMRS no. HY31NE 7, OR 664) • Northwald mounds SAM (HY 390/180 & 390/181). Many more may well have existed and either await discovery or have been destroyed and/or removed. Their density also suggests the probability that associated but so far unidentified settlements were present in the area. As a general comment, these are all sets of fairly small and inconspicuous grass-covered mounds, usually isolated within modern field systems and lacking any visible structural components. Most of them are readily accessible from within the network of farm roads and tracks, but offer little of visible interest. A few are shown by OS in a low-key fashion as mounds or tumuli, and none are signed or otherwise presented. None of the tourism or specialised literature highlighted these sites. The overall situation is that this inconspicuous set of seemingly mundane minor sites has a specialised group significance but no mainstream appeal; indeed their fragile nature may well suggest that they are inherently unsuitable for any degree of visitor traffic and the current lack of profile is the best outcome. The people-as-receptor sensitivity for Seven Knowes and the other members of this monument set is minimal. 13.4.3 Black Knowe mound, SAM A very similar set of characteristics applies as for the Seven Knowes site and related examples (above). Black Knowe is a single rough grass-covered mound in an isolated position. It is easily accessible but requires an obscure route following a dead-end farm road and then on foot along a farm track; the track is signed for an RSPB reserve and hide, with Black Knowe lying partway down a boggy area of rough pasture. It has been used as a field corner, so is surmounted by rusty fence posts and remnants of barbed wire. It is marked on OS maps as a named site with the label tumuli in gothic script, but lacks any visible structural components and offers little for visitor interest. It does have impressive views, perhaps giving some explanation for its location, but this is a characteristic of much of the surrounding landscape rather than a specific attribute. The people-as-receptor sensitivity for Black Knowe is minimal, a rating which also applies to the nearby similar SAM site of Knowe of Lyron. 13.4.4 Thing Woll broch, Tingwall SAM This monument is a severely robbed broch mound clearly visible in a roadside cattle pasture field. Though heavily mutilated, probably by stone-robbing and subsequent cattle hoof damage, there is no record of archaeological investigation. However the structure is clearly recognisable as one of the many broch mounds along the Evie and Rousay shores, a number of which receive assessments in this report. It is easily reached, with a barbed wire field fence and dilapidated stone wall the only obstacles, though offers little visible structural evidence within the mound. It is marked on OS maps as a named “broch (rems of)”, and in normal circumstances this SAM would only be rated as having a minimal people-as-receptor sensitivity. However two complicating factors are acknowledged. The first is largely symbolic, and results from its place name indicating the site of a local parliament field site in Norse times. This may or may not have used the remnant broch mound, but it seems probable that such a landscape feature would have been a natural focus for this activity. It is also very unclear if the function would have left any identifiable archaeological trace, but it gives the site a wider significance for archaeological interests than the broch in isolation might confer. This is reflected in the tourism and archaeological literature, which contain several references to both facets of the location. So, although the direct Norse use of the monument itself is unproven and may not have left any physical trace, the site is highlighted in an unusual fashion; the only other explicitly recognised example in Orkney is the similar association with a broch mound at Dingieshowe in Deerness. The second complication is a modern rather than archaeological characteristic, as the ferry terminal for Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre is located very close by. As a location in the landscape,

42 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Tingwall is visited by a continual stream of people, including tourists and locals, many of whom would have stationary periods waiting for the ferry or bus connections. Although no figures were obtained, the likelihood is that this would involve a few thousand people annually, and allowing for repeat visits by local residents several thousand separate visits during which VI from the proposed windfarm would be experienced. In landscape assessment terms, this would probably give a high-very high people-as-receptor sensitivity. In resolving these conflicting levels of sensitivity, the rationale is that the use of Tingwall as a ferry terminal has no regard for any archaeological significance of the location, and most ferry users will have no interest in the presence of the SAM as they pass through. Within the terms of this archaeologically-focussed sensitivity assessment, ferry users can be disregarded, although their presence is relevant within the landscape assessment exercise which is a separate component of the planning consideration of this proposal. However the presence of a Norse parliament site, and the degree to which this is emphasised across the literature sources, is likely to draw visitors to the otherwise unremarkable broch mound, despite the lack of on-site promotion or designated access, so the overall conclusion is that the site has a moderate people-as-receptor sensitivity 13.4.5 Wass Wick, mound (broch?) SAM Though there has never been a definitive diagnosis nor any recorded investigation, this is a very plausible broch mound, and is shown by OS as an un-named “broch (rems of)”. It lies in a pasture field between a minor road and the shore and is fairly visible as a rough grass-covered mound. Only one passing reference was found from the various literature sources (Tait 2006, p310), which simply lists the site with other nearby brochs, and there is no direct signage or other presentation of the monument. However the current site visit noted the recent creation of the Rendall coastal walk, which passes next to the monument; custom-built and shiny field gates had been newly erected, and a path mown alongside the broch. The trail is signed, but proved puzzling at first, until the original roadside sign was found on a section of broken gate hidden from view in a ditch. As yet the existence of the trail does not seem to have attracted attention, but its proximity is sufficient grounds to raise the people-as-receptor sensitivity from the minimal rating the site would have otherwise received by one level to low. 13.4.6 Craig of Ritten/Ness of Woodwick broch SAM Shown by OS as an un-named “broch (rems of)”, it lies on the shore outside a pasture field boundary as a large grass-covered mound without visible structural elements; a walled-off area of disturbed ground on the landward side may show the presence of a surrounding village complex under the turf and nettles. Access involves a complicated series of farm roads and obscure tracks and then a stretch of shore/beach. There is no signage, promotion or presentation and only one passing reference was found from the various literature sources (Tait 2006, p305), which simply lists the site with other nearby brochs; there is no specialised literature or record of an excavation. There is no basis to suggest visitor traffic, and the people-as-receptor sensitivity is rated as minimal. It is the lead site in this assessment for two other nearby SAM sites: Midland mound NNW of Wood Wick, and Knowe of Midgarth, settlement and cairn SE of Wood Wick. Neither site is promoted, presented or signed, nor mentioned in the literature sources. The people-as-receptor sensitivities are also rated as minimal. 13.4.7 Wideford Hill cairn SAM, PIC This Historic Scotland PIC sits underneath the summit of a prominent hillside with presentation, signage and access provision via a long and difficult marked path from a small designated parking area which lies off a steep and tortuous side road. Entry to the tomb involves lifting a hatch and climbing down a ladder, and it has a modern concrete roof with skylights to illuminate the interior. It is a small and quickly explored structure and therefore unlikely to detain people for very long, although the panoramic outlook may prolong dwell time. Admission is unmediated, preventing a direct assessment of visitor numbers, but some rather contradictory indicators can be cited. It is well covered in the literature sources at both tourism promotion and specialist sources, and is easily and conveniently reached until its final approach. However its extremely exposed position makes its visitor drawing capacity a heavily weather-dependent attribute and can be affected by unfavourable ground conditions. The cairn can perhaps best be summarised as well known but perhaps does not receive the visitation levels which would normally accompany its level of recognition. The visitor experience will be created by its position within the landscape as much as

43 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment or possibly more than the monument itself, which has several other comparable and more easily visited examples in Orkney. This landscape emphasis gives a people-as-receptor sensitivity level of moderate to high for external change 13.4.8 Cuween Hill This cairn is also a Historic Scotland PIC on a hillside with presentation, signage and access encouragement from a small designated parking area and a rough path. However it differs from Wideford Hill in having a markedly less exposed location and an easier and shorter final approach. Again, admission is unmediated, preventing a direct assessment of visitor numbers, but it is similarly well covered in the literature sources at both tourism promotion and specialist sources, and is easily and rather more conveniently reached. This may mean a higher level of visitor use than Wideford, but while its location also gives a panoramic outlook, it is less spectacular. This reduction of landscape emphasis gives a people-as-receptor sensitivity level of moderate for external change. 13.4.9 Burness House LB-B This viewpoint was nominated for landscape inclusion by SNH in early discussions with OSEL, but is included within the archaeological remit. Burness is an abandoned and overgrown but roofed house largely surrounded within a working farm complex. There is no presentation, signage or access encouragement, and no mention in the reference literature. Any visitor traffic is likely to be limited to the farm complex as residents and others without any relating to the historic building attribute, and the people-as-receptor sensitivity is rated as at best minimal. The nearby Burness broch and chapel SAM site lies outside the ZTV and has no view past the Burness farm buildings in the direction of Hammars Hill. 13.4.10 St Magnus church [EGILSAY] SAM, PIC This is a complex site for this kind of assessment, with a number of subtle and less obvious factors to recognise. The lack of any direct evidence for visitor numbers lies at the root of the uncertainties, with much of the rest defined by its small island context. As a monument it is historically famous, built to commemorate the martyrdom of Orkney’s patron saint close by. This ensures comprehensive and detailed coverage across the literature sources, some of which also refer to its uniquely surviving round tower. The tower has an additional attribute by making the structure visible from an extensive sweep of the Orkney landscape, and thereby raising an inescapable level of awareness of the site. It is also a PIC, with appropriate signage, presentation and access provision. Within the Egilsay context, it is the most heavily emphasised attraction in the tourism literature from a very small range on the island; the only other draws are three nature reserves which are seasonal in impact as areas used by migratory birds and seals, unlike the year round appeal of the monument. The problem is the island’s isolation, which creates a situation of very low visitor numbers; the limited ferry provision makes it an inconvenient excursion. As outlined earlier, indirectly derived visitor estimates would only reach a few hundred per year. Therefore despite all the site’s attributes and its iconic significance which would suggest a high sensitivity, the cold numerical reality would push this towards a low rating. There is another, perhaps less tangible, argument to incorporate in resolving this. The comparative lack of other visitor attractions means that Egilsay relies to a large extent on the monument for its profile, and that although the tourism economy of the island may be small in absolute terms, any major change to the monument’s context could dramatically affect the sustainability of the island and its community. This may well lead to a high degree of community concern for the implications of the proposed development on the monument’s continued appeal for potential visitors. Such concern may well be resolvable in the medium term, but is a legitimate planning issue for incorporation at this stage. Therefore this assessment will attempt to balance the various strands to give an overall rating of the people-as-receptor sensitivity as moderate to high. 13.4.11 Balfour Castle & grounds [SHAPINSAY] LB-A & HGDL This viewpoint was nominated for landscape inclusion by SNH in early discussions with OSEL, but is included within the archaeological remit. The castle is another of Orkney’s most famous attraction, both for its architecture and its gardens, and is comprehensively referenced throughout the literature sources. These attributes are used as the basis of an upmarket hotel and restaurant

44 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment centre; VAM figures suggested an annual visitor level of 2200 in 2005, but no figures are given for 2006. Instead a note appears that those attractions which wish their figures to remain confidential have been omitted, and the inference is that Balfour’s owners have made such a request. For this exercise, a similar current figure can be assumed. The inevitable verdict is that the commercially marketed development of the castle as a hospitality venue with a strong emphasis on the quality of its surroundings gives a very high people-as-receptor sensitivity. The castle is used here as the lead site for a number of other buildings within its grounds, all of which are LB-Bs. These include the doocot, the gate lodge, and the gate piers. These can be regarded as having a low-moderate people-as-receptor sensitivity as individual structures, which might increase within their contributory roles as components to the surrounding designed landscape; this is acknowledged by the overall rating for the castle and grounds. The other nearby LBs within the designed village are not pursued within this assessment as they either lie outside the ZTV and/or will be screened by the castle and its accompanying features. 13.4.12 Langskaill Viking houses [GAIRSAY] SAM This site and the others it represents on Gairsay are easily dealt with. The key is that Gairsay is a small privately occupied working island with no recognised ferry service and no promotion of its attributes as a potential visitor attraction. Despite Gairsay’s fame as a highly significant island in the Norse Sagas and which is reflected in some of the literature sources, it is not accessible by conventional means. Any visitors would have to charter privately, and there is no local promotion of such a facility. Island visitors will therefore be largely confined to residents of the handful of farms and other folk on related business. The island, and therefore its monuments, are rated as having a minimal people-as-receptor sensitivity in these circumstances. The other designated sites included in this rating are the SAM of Ness of Boray, an unproven but probable broch, and the LB-B of Langskaill House. 13.4.13 Eynhallow church & settlement SAM, PIC Eynhallow’s island context is very similar to Gairsay’s, though with some idiosyncrasies. Again the island is famous with Norse Saga references, but is uninhabited. Access is similarly dependent on private arrangements, but is sporadically undertaken by local heritage groups for outings and the occasional determined tourist party. The church site is, somewhat bizarrely, a PIC and is both shown as such by OS and receives the same passive HS promotion as the 250 other free admission PICs scattered across Scotland. The access problems prevented a site visit, so there is no information about whether the monument has been presented as an attraction or is more of a guardianship property; it could well be the most inaccessible and least visited of the 350 PICs, so its PIC status is not a major consideration here. The monument is rated as having a minimal people-as-receptor sensitivity in these circumstances. It also represents another SAM, simply identified as Eynhallow standing stone & mound; this is not marked by OS nor mentioned in the literature sources, so achieves the unusual rating of a nil people-as-receptor sensitivity. 13.4.14 Cubbie Row’s Castle [WYRE] SAM & PIC Wyre has a similar scenario for this perspective to Egilsay (above). Cubbie Row’s Castle and the neighbouring St Marys Chapel [PIC & LB-B] are both marked as attractions by OS and widely referenced in the literature sources; the castle figures heavily in the Norse Sagas and is one of the oldest to survive in Scotland. Apart from the associated Wyre Heritage Centre the island has no other recognised attractions, although the ferry timetabling is slightly more flexible than for Egilsay. Given the indirect estimate derived earlier that annual visitor traffic would only be in the low hundreds at the most, these sites would be rated as sharing minimal people-as-receptor sensitivities, but the dependency of the island’s community on the profile of these sites gives an overall rating of the people-as-receptor sensitivity as moderate to high. 13.4.15 Blackhammer cairn [ROUSAY] SAM & PIC This neolithic funerary cairn is a very obvious feature alongside the island’s main circuit road, so is well placed to attract passing traffic. It is clearly signed and has a 2-car designated parking area; access is through a gate and a short stroll across part of a muddy field. Entry to the tomb involves lifting a hatch and climbing down a ladder. It has a modern concrete roof with skylights to illuminate the interior. It is a small and quickly explored structure and therefore unlikely to detain people for very long, although offers one of the few available shelters in bad weather. It has a

45 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment panoramic outlook, though this is shared with much of the surrounding landscape rather than being a site-specific attribute. It is clearly shown as a PIC by OS and well referenced in the literature selection, though with little detailed coverage nor any suggestion that it is a must-see monument. Probably the key factor is that it is conveniently sited and quickly visitable, and therefore easily incorporated into an island tour within the constraints imposed by ferry schedules. The rating of its people-as-receptor sensitivity is moderate. It also represents the SAM of Knowe of Hunclett, a probable broch mound some distance from the road down by the shore. This is marked by OS as a named “broch (rems of)”, but has no other reason to suggest any degree of visitor traffic and its people-as- receptor sensitivity can be rated as minimal. 13.4.16 Knowe of Yarso chambered cairn [ROUSAY] SAM & PIC This neolithic funerary cairn lies c0.6km from the island’s main circuit road, where it has a 4-car designated parking area. It is clearly signed and is reached by a steep uphill path which winds its way to the monument’s position on the edge of a scarp. Entry to the tomb involves crawling through a low doorway, and it has a modern concrete roof with skylights to illuminate the interior. It is a small and quickly explored structure and therefore unlikely to detain inside people for very long. It has a very panoramic outlook because of its elevated position, which if time is available and conditions are good can reward an extended stay. It is clearly shown as a PIC by OS and well referenced in the literature selection, though with little detailed coverage nor any suggestion that it is a must-see monument. It is less conveniently sited and quickly visitable than some of the other Rousay sites, and therefore less easy to incorporate into an island tour within the ferry schedules. However these comparisons are minor and it shares the rating of its people-as-receptor sensitivity as moderate with the other Rousay cairns. It also represents the following other SAMs: Long Stone standing stone at Frotoft; Knowe of Ramsay chambered cairn, Knowe of Burrian broch, Viera Lodge broch and Knowe of Lairo cairn, and the Viera Lodge LB-B complex. None of these give any reason to suggest a higher people-as- receptor sensitivity than low, and in most cases would be rated minimal. 13.4.17 Taversoe Tuick cairn [ROUSAY] SAM & PIC This small neolithic funerary cairn is another obvious feature alongside the island’s main circuit road, so is well placed to attract passing traffic. It is clearly signed and has a 3-car designated parking area; access is through a gate and a stroll across part of a very muddy cattle churned field. Entry to the tomb involves lifting a hatch and climbing down a ladder. It has a modern concrete roof with skylights to illuminate the interior. It is a cramped and quickly explored structure and therefore unlikely to detain people for very long, though has an unusual split level internal architecture and a second external chamber. As with Blackhammar cairn (above) there is an extensive panorama, described with some hyperbole by one account as “this magnificent cairn gives wide intoxicating views across the whole Orcadian landscape”, which apparently led to the discovery of the cairn in 1898 when workmen started cutting a summer seat for the landowner (Cope 1998, p411). It is clearly shown as a PIC by OS and well referenced in the literature selection, though with no suggestion that it is a must-see monument. Probably the key factor is that it is conveniently sited and quickly visitable, and therefore easily incorporated into an island tour within the constraints imposed by ferry schedules. The rating of its people-as-receptor sensitivity is moderate. It also represents the Geord of Nears SAM cairn and the LB-B of Trumland House, a private residence. Neither site gives any reason to suggest any real degree of visitor traffic and their people-as- receptor sensitivities can be rated as low. 13.4.18 Midhowe broch & settlement [ROUSAY] SAM, LB-A & PIC The Midhowe broch and its neighbouring neolithic stalled cairn, also a PIC, can be regarded as the must-see sites on Rousay, and the attributes most likely to draw visitors to the island. Both are heavily featured in all the literature sources and fully depicted by OS. The broch is a similar site type to Gurness and is presented in much the same way as a fully accessible structure; it also shares joint billing in the HS site guidebook (Fojut 2001). The only significant onsite difference is that the broch is unstaffed with no visitor centre, which somewhat ironically means the guidebook is unobtainable at the venue. Both sites are very visible from the overlooking road with a clearly signed 6-car parking bay built out from the roadside slope. The path is a steep descent through

46 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment several fields, with en route signage, stiles and gates. The visitor experience of the broch and surrounding settlement is an engrossing attraction, both for the monument and its spectacular setting within an open land and seascape. The neolithic cairn is an unusually large example of its type, and enclosed within a huge aircraft hangar-like shed as a modern protective device. This enables the cairn to remain fully exposed from its excavated state, and a series of walkways within the shed allow a full tour from above and a unique opportunity to see the entire surviving structure in detail. However the shed has the effect for the visitor of giving a total physical separation of the monument from its setting as the trade-off for the display arrangement. Given the distance from the road to the monuments and the steep climb on the return, a dwell time of up to two hours may well be typical. This description of the site’s characteristics would tend towards giving the Midhowe broch monument a high degree of people-as-receptor sensitivity, and it is relevant to note that the LB-A designation includes consideration of the principal approaches to the LB as well as the site itself. Although the enclosing shed of the cairn destroys its specific setting relationship, this is only of passing relevance for this assessment due to the relationship of the two sites and the broch retaining a significant settings experience. The broch therefore becomes the dominant component for consideration. The key factor for people-as-receptor sensitivity is the degree of actual visitation, a figure which can only be indirectly estimated. From comparative analysis in Section 13.2.3, a derived estimate of 1500-2000 visitors annually would lead to a people-as-receptor sensitivity of moderate. As outlined previously, this acknowledges the role played by the monuments within the island’s tourism profile and is a rating shared with the other island PICs as they are likely to be mainly visited as a set, instead of having individual traffic. This viewpoint also represents other SAMs near the northwest end of the Westness Heritage Trail, including North Howe broch; Brough/South Howe broch; The Wirk tower & hall; Westness Church, and a group of 3 SAMs near Quandale, Lower Quandale burnt mounds; Upper Quandale cairn, and Quoynalonga Ness burnt mound. Although some are also highlighted by the recent Orkneyinga Saga initiatives, the uncertainties about the continuing presence and promotion of the Westness trail suggest that a low-moderate rating would be the maximum people-as-receptor sensitivity which could be applied to any of these sites. 13.4.19 Westness House [ROUSAY] LB-B This viewpoint has a slightly contrived derivation to reflect a specific landscape situation. The other Rousay viewpoints are distributed at reasonable intervals along the coastal strip, and only leave a major gap around Westness. The house itself is a private residence, which would not normally lead to a major concern for any people-as-receptor sensitivity. However its selection fills the spatial gap, and allows the representation of those SAMs towards the SE end of the Westness Heritage Trail, including Westness Viking houses, noost & graveyard; Knowe of Rowiegar chambered cairn & nearby remains, and Knowe of Swandro mound, a probable broch. The archaeological rating for the SAMs and LB-B would be low to moderate as a maximum across the sites, and derived as above from the Westness trail and saga significances. 13.5 Comparison of sensitivity results across methods The comparative results are shown in the following table:

Level of sensitivity Dist Type Site NGR HY kms Site as People as receptor receptors MAINLAND SAM, LB-A, Gurness broch & settlement 38189/26832 4.3 high very high PIC SAM Seven Knowes mounds 39276/20654 2.0 high minimal SAM Black Knowe mound 36949/19863 3.1 high minimal SAM Thing Woll broch, Tingwall 401/228 1.7 high moderate SAM Wass Wick broch mound 41272/21957 2.6 high low Craig of Ritten/ Ness of Woodwick SAM 40076/24859 2.7 high minimal broch high moderate to SAM, PIC Wideford Hill cairn 40910/12084 11.0 high SAM, PIC Cuween cairn 36434/12766 10.3 high moderate LB-B Burness House 38761/15848 6.4 moderate minimal

47 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

EGILSAY moderate to SAM, PIC St Magnus church 466/304 11.2 high high SHAPINSAY LB-A & HGDL Balfour Castle 47477/16435 10.7 high very high GAIRSAY SAM Langskaill, Viking houses 434/220 4.8 high minimal EYNHALLOW SAM, LB-B, Eynhallow Church & settlement 359/288 6.9 high minimal PIC WYRE SAM, LB-B, moderate to Cubbie Row’s Castle 441/263 6.8 high PIC high ROUSAY SAM, PIC Blackhammer cairn 414/276 5.9 high moderate SAM, PIC Knowe of Yarso chambered cairn 404/279 5.7 high moderate SAM, PIC Taversoe Tuick cairn &c 425/276 6.5 high moderate SAM, LB-A, Midhowe broch & settlement 371/305 8.2 high moderate PIC Westness house (also representing low to LB-B 38303/28908 6.3 high nearby SAMs] moderate 14.0 Producing visual assessments This section uses representations prepared by Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd in wireframes and photo-montages to discuss the visual impacts which the proposed windfarm development would create on the designated sites within the ZPV. The preparation of these representations is a fairly standard process; it involves taking a photo from the designated site to the position of the windfarm, and noting the NGR of the photo position; in this case the positions were recorded by a hand-held Garmin eTrex unit. A software package provides a wireframe illustration of the topographic view, into which the turbines can be placed, and which then absorbs the photo to produce the photo-montage with the turbines shown in position; the depiction of the turbines can be adjusted to show the precise models and dimensions planned for the development. There are some points to be borne in mind when viewing these representations in the accompanying Viewpoint documents. The wireframe software is derived purely from topographic GIS data based on OS contour lines; therefore it does not show any man-made features of the landscape, nor any features which stand above the ground surface. It excludes items such as roads, buildings, trees, hedges, powerlines and a myriad of other features which will be actually contained in the views, so the photo-montages create a complimentary mode of depiction. 14.1 Differential site viewpoint treatments In a departure from the usual practice for an archaeological assessment, a two-tiered approach is used for the illustration and presentation of the predicted visual impacts from each viewpoint. A meeting in June 2007 of OSEL and the applicant with OIC Planning Department and SNH identified 25 major viewpoints within the Orkney landscape which would form the main presentational emphasis for planning consideration. These cover many of the archaeological and historical sites which have been identified in this report, including most of the better known sites and the PICs within a larger group of potentially sensitive or well used locations which collectively covers the surrounding area. These are all given a full wireframe and photomontage treatment in the accompanying OSEL documentation, including individual, incremental and cumulative treatment in relation to other visible windfarms which have been built or given planning consent or lodged within the planning system. This leaves a further batch of archaeological and historical sites which are presented at a secondary level, with no photomontage preparation at this stage, though they have been fully analysed and in most cases visited; the exceptions and the particular circumstances are identified in Section 13.3, with the wireframes included as an Appendix to this report. The wireframe presentation and discussion includes the same depth of individual, incremental and cumulative examination in relation to other visible windfarms as given for the 25 major views. This presentational separation into major and lesser groups with the latter lacking photomontage illustration can be given some context as follows:

48 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

The overall distribution of the 25 major viewpoints gives a spatial distribution in the local geography which gives a relatively unskewed overall perspective for planning consideration, avoiding an emphasis on closely spaced archaeological sites (such as the Rousay PICs) which would cause gaps in coverage elsewhere within the agreed planning quota of 25 viewpoints Five of the 11 archaeological viewpoints without photomontages can be related to a nearby major viewpoint whose photomontage will show an equivalent scale of visual impact; there may be differences in viewing angle and the visual relationship with other windfarms, but these can be extrapolated from the cumulative wireframes and these issues will be identified in the relevant discussion of each affected viewpoint. The missing visual dimension can therefore be extrapolated from the presented evidence to a large extent; there is no omission of information, only a gap in the comprehensiveness of its presentation Because of access restrictions, two viewpoints could only be presented as wireframes as site visits and photographs were impractical, so there would have been an inevitable inclusion of some sites without photomontages Overall, while this differential treatment is unusual, the circumstances which led to it are recognised and focussed efforts have been made to avoid any loss of presented information and analysis. The results should therefore be acceptable for meeting the needs of the planning process. The separation of sites into the two groups is shown in the following table: 1] MAJOR OSEL VIEWPOINTS WITH PHOTOMONTAGES Dist Text analysis View no. Name NGR HY kms Section (below) MAINLAND 5 Gurness broch 38189/26832 4.3 15.1 12 Burness House 38761/15848 6.4 15.6 15 Wideford hill cairn 40910/12084 11.0 15.7 16 Cuween cairn 36434/12766 10.3 15.8 EGILSAY 11 St Magnus church 466/304 11.2 15.5 WYRE 10 Cubbie Row’s Castle 441/263 6.8 15.4 ROUSAY 7 Midhowe broch 371/305 8.2 15.2 8 Knowe of Yarso cairn 404/279 5.7 15.3

2] SECONDARY VIEWPOINTS WITHOUT PHOTOMONTAGES Wireframe Dist Text analysis Nearest relevant OSEL Name NGR HY view no. kms Section (below) major viewpoint no. MAINLAND A Seven Knowes mounds 39276/20654 2.0 16.1 3 A966 Skiddy junction 2 A966 Rendall B Black Knowe mound 36949/19863 3.1 16.2 community centre C Thing Woll broch 401/228 1.7 16.3 N/a D Wass Wick broch mound 41272/21957 2.6 16.4 N/a Craig of Ritten/ Ness of E 40076/24859 2.7 16.5 N/a Woodwick broch SHAPINSAY F Balfour Castle 47477/16435 10.7 16.6 22 Vasa loch GAIRSAY G Langskaill Viking houses 434/220 4.8 16.7 N/a EYNHALLOW H Eynhallow church 359/288 6.9 16.8 N/a ROUSAY I Blackhammer cairn 414/276 5.9 16.9 9 Trumland House entry J Taversoe Tuick cairn 425/276 6.5 16.10 9 Trumland House entry K Westness house 38303/28908 6.3 16.11 7 Midhowe broch 14.2 Incremental and cumulative visual impact alongside other visible windfarms

49 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

At the time of writing, a summary of other built, consented or submitted windfarms in Orkney includes the following locations and descriptions. The nearest existing project is on the Burgar Hill ridge to the northwest of Hammars Hill, with five wind turbines currently in place along the NW-SE ridgeline, varying in tip height between 76 and 116m; plans for one additional turbine have been submitted for a position beyond the NW end at a lower elevation and using a turbine which would be one of the smaller sizes of the existing Burgar examples. Other more distant windfarms potentially intervisible with Hammars Hill are or would be on Stronsay and Sanday to the north east of the site and Merranblo (near Stromness) to the west, for which the results of a public inquiry are awaited; all three are 3-turbine developments. Other Orcadian windfarms include a single turbine application which has been refused for low-lying ground at Redland in Firth, a decision which may be appealed. There is a single turbine on Burray, and single turbine proposals have been consented for Holodyke near Dounby, and Flotta and Westray. Full details of the other windfarms in Orkney, and particularly those which would feature in the various viewpoints of the major and secondary groups are given elsewhere in the OSEL documentation. In relation to the viewpoints included in this archaeological assessment, the Burgar Hill windfarm is the most relevant, featuring in almost all viewpoints on both sides of Eynhallow Sound and the contained islands, though is not visible from other archaeological viewpoints. The single Redland turbine would, if eventually consented and built, be visible from only a small selection of archaeological viewpoints to the south and southeast of Hammars Hill. The Sanday and Stronsay windfarms are visible from a handful of the locations along Eynhallow Sound, though at distances of over 25km, while Merranblo would only be visible from the Wideford Hill cairn at a distance of over 17km. None of the other windfarms would be visible in any of the archaeological viewpoints. The current array of turbines at Burgar is the result of several years of incremental development with a single turbine construction at a time, in some cases replacing older examples. Together with the site’s role as a research and test location for different turbine models alongside a purely generational function, this has led to a mixed development. Its current disposition includes the following turbines and dimensions: T1 (NW end of array) 100m tip height; T2 76m; T3 100m; T4 116m; & T5 (SE end) 92m. Precise details of the sixth turbine which has been submitted for planning consideration are not yet known so it is not shown in any of the OSEL wireframes and photomontages, but it would extend the array further northwest (ie away from the direction of Hammars Hill) and is likely to feature a comparatively smaller turbine on a location descending off the main Burgar ridge. Therefore its omission from the illustrations should be noted, but the effect of the omission has little significance for a consideration of the Hammars Hill proposal. Despite this piecemeal accumulation the Burgar turbines have been designed to give a well balanced and regularly spaced symmetry within the rolling nature of the landscape, and by positioning the largest turbines off the highest ground and placing the smallest turbines on the exposed ridgeline, the difference in tips heights is not apparent from most viewpoints. As will become apparent in the later discussion, the Burgar turbines will be more prominent from all the relevant viewpoints, partly because of the larger turbine sizes and the locational dominance, and in some cases because of the varying distances to the viewpoints. This creates three attributes to consider for the Hammars Hill turbines: the individual visual impact of the Hammars Hill proposal (which can be characterised as defining the degree of change on the viewpoint if the proposal is the only windfarm which could be seen) the incremental impact (which can be characterised as defining the degree of change which the Hammars Hill proposal would cause in relation to the visual impacts of the built and proposed windfarms which could be seen from the viewpoint), and the cumulative impact (which can be characterised as an assessment of the total extent of the visual impacts from all built and proposed windfarms which could be seen from the viewpoint). This is a key attribute as it leads towards a judgement on whether and to what degree the surrounding landscape is progressing towards a visual saturation; Orkney Islands Council have developed - but not yet defined - some intriguing phraseology for such a threshold by asking “when does a landscape cease to be a landscape with a wind farm and become a wind farm landscape?” (OIC 2007, p8). This idea is used to set the background parameters when cumulative ratings are given in this report. Each of these gives a distinct attribute for evaluation, before an overall rating from each viewpoint can be given; in some cases this gives a complex discussion before the final verdict.

50 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

15.0 Visual assessments of major views with OSEL photomontages 15.1 OSEL Viewpoint 5: Gurness broch The Gurness presentation monument creates a very specific set of circumstances which need to be balanced in deriving the visual assessments. It lies directly on an eroding coastline of low cliffs at the foot of a gentle slope which rises for a few metres in the direction of Hammars Hill before rounding off. Within the lee of the rise, the crest obscures any landward view, but at the top of the crest, a panorama opens out to give a direct sightline to Hammars Hill and the turbine positions. The result is that the turbines would not be seen from anywhere within the fenced presentation area surrounding the broch and settlement, provided the observer with a notional 2m height stayed at ground level and did not climb on the monument, which survives as a standing structure several metres high following its excavation and consolidation into a visitor attraction. There are many clear signs asking visitors not to climb on the superstructure, and as a visitor attraction with a custodian in attendance during regular working hours over the 6-month opening season, the outcome is that the normal visitor who respects the prohibitions would not receive any visual impact within the site’s curtilage. However the unregulated behaviour of visitors in the unsupervised periods out of season or out of opening hours is a matter for speculation. As a minimal impact on the visitor significance of Gurness was a clear priority from the outset of the design evolution, this result has been targeted within the choices and permutations of turbine size and micro-location and represents the best achievable outcome while retaining the Hammars Hill location. Two caveats need to be noted at this point: (1) there may be a partial view of the turbines from a small zone at the site entry gate by the custodian’s hut; this is too fine a judgement to test from the wireframe software, but its possibility is suggested by the fact that the upper outline of the hut, though not the broch, is visible from the vicinity of some of the turbine positions on the Hammars Hill ridge top (2) the secondary designation of Gurness as an LB-A specifies the inclusion of the principal approach to and from the building as an element for discussion. As an ancient monument, the original approach is no longer identifiable, but its artificial modern approach via a consolidated road built in the last decade will give clear sightlines to the proposed turbines for visitors returning to the main A966 road from the monument. Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal Apart from the slight zone of probable visibility at the site entry gate and the custodian’s hut, the conventional visitor would only see the turbines on their way back to the main road after the visit, therefore the impact would not affect their visit or experience of the monument, only its aftermath. The individual visual impact is rated minimal to cover the slight probable zone of visibility at the site entry gate and the custodian’s hut which would be the full extent of the onsite impact for the huge majority of visitors in normal circumstances. However if visitors clamber on portions of the monument, they would have a sightline from the highest portions to the turbines. This would contain all five turbines in a regular linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 4.3km. Each turbine would be almost totally visible, and almost totally silhouetted. The direction of view is only of incidental interest compared to both the more aesthetic seaward panoramas in the other quadrants and the view down onto the original broch and village entry avenue, which also lies in a different viewing direction. Therefore the presence of the turbines would only be noted in passing, as a balanced landscape component which would not be particularly distracting. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal All 5 current Burgar Hill turbines are clearly visible for nearly their full heights at a distance of 4.4- 4.7 km, also in a regular linear array along the skyline in a separate viewing angle and creating near total silhouettes. They lie in a rather more interesting viewing direction along the shore, and are visible from the majority of the fenced presentation area surrounding the monument without any artificial elevation, as well as large extents of the principal approach in either direction. The scaled wireframe comparisons show the Burgar turbines as appearing larger than the Hammars examples, although the distances are similar. Experience from site visits in various weather and light conditions suggests the Burgar turbines are noticeable, though not as significant distractions

51 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment from the site experience and that their visual impact is low to moderate for all visitors. The comparative increase provided by the Hammars turbines is appreciably smaller, so its incremental impact is minimal without any need to differentiate between modes of behaviour. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms in the landscape in separate viewing angles is regarded as creating a situation where most people would notice some turbines in normal conditions, so a moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a minimal visual impact or change, as the vast majority of site visitors would not notice the turbines during their visit. 15.2 OSEL Viewpoint 7: Midhowe broch As discussed in Section 13.4.16, no assessment is given for the adjacent neolithic cairn as it is entirely contained within a large protective hangar, which abruptly separates the visible elements of the site from its landscape Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightlines from most parts of the monument area would contain all five turbines in a regular linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 8.2km. Each turbine would be almost totally visible, and almost totally silhouetted. The direction of view is less interesting than the more aesthetic seaward 180° panoramas, though would be encountered by visitors walking from the broch to the huge and very obtrusive hangar protecting the adjacent cairn, as shown in the photomontage picture. Therefore the presence of the turbines would only be noted in passing, as a balanced landscape component which would not be particularly distracting. As with Gurness, the site also has LB-A protection for its main approach; again the current route is an artificial modern device, descending an open and steep hillside in a direction perpendicular to the Hammars turbines. While visitors would be able to see the turbines across an uncluttered land- and seascape, they would not be distracting. The individual visual impact is therefore rated low. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal All 5 current Burgar Hill turbines are clearly visible for nearly their full heights at a distance of 5.4- 5.6 km, also in a regular linear array along the skyline in a separate viewing angle and creating near total silhouettes. They lie in a rather more interesting viewing direction out to sea and including Eynhallow and the far shore of the Sound, and are clearly visible from the majority of the area surrounding the monument, as well as the full extent of the principal approach in an incoming direction. The scaled wireframe comparisons show the Burgar turbines as appearing larger and closer than the Hammars examples. Experience from site visits in various weather and light conditions suggests the Burgar turbines are fairly noticeable, and can begin to distract from the site experience for some visitors. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines is appreciably smaller, so its incremental impact is minimal. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms in the landscape in separate viewing angles is regarded as creating a situation where most people would notice at least some turbines in normal conditions, so a moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a low increase in visual impact or magnitude of change to the current situation. 15.3 OSEL Viewpoint 8: Knowe of Yarso cairn Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightlines from this elevated monument would contain all five turbines in a regular linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 5.7km; the unusually high location of the monument at 101m OD reduces the upward angle of the sightline to create a more level view between vantage points. Each turbine would be almost totally visible and silhouetted. The direction of view is part of the major panorama seawards from the monument, and would be noted by most visitors, but the

52 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment scale and layout creates a balanced landscape component which would not be particularly obtrusive. While visitors would be able to see the turbines across an uncluttered land- and seascape, they would again not be distracting. The individual visual impact is therefore rated low. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal All 5 current Burgar Hill turbines are clearly visible for nearly their full heights at a distance of 6.0- 6.5km, also in a regular linear array along the skyline in a similar viewing angle and creating near total silhouettes. The scaled wireframe comparisons show the Burgar turbines as appearing larger and closer than the Hammars examples. Experience from site visits suggests the Burgar turbines are fairly noticeable in certain weather and light conditions, and can begin to distract from the site experience for some visitors. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines is appreciably smaller due to its smaller scale, so its incremental impact is minimal. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms together in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where most people would notice at least some turbines in normal conditions, so a moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a low increase in visual impact to the current situation. 15.4 OSEL Viewpoint 10: Cubbie Row’s Castle, Wyre Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightlines from this monument area would contain all five turbines clustered in an obliquely angled linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 6.8km; the overall effect would be a single cluster of overlapping turbines appearing as a single feature instead of five separate landscape components. Each turbine would be almost totally visible, and almost totally silhouetted. The direction of view is part of the encircling panorama from the monument with no particular aspect which emphasises or diminishes its attractiveness within the panorama. In good conditions, it would probably be noted in passing by most visitors without being particularly obtrusive across an uncluttered land- and seascape. The individual visual impact is therefore rated low. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal All 5 current Burgar Hill turbines are clearly visible for nearly their full heights at a distance of 9.9- 11.0km, in a regular linear array along the skyline in a similar viewing angle and creating near total silhouettes. The scaled wireframe comparisons show the Burgar turbines as appearing much the same size as the single Hammars cluster, with the only differential being the Burgar turbines being individually visible. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines is smaller due to its single outline, so its incremental impact is minimal to low. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both distant windfarms in a similar viewing angle is regarded as creating a situation where few people would notice any turbines in normal conditions, so a low rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a low increase in visual impact to the current situation. 15.5 OSEL Viewpoint 11: St Magnus church, Egilsay Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightlines from this monument area would contain all five turbines a linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 11.2km; the overall effect would be a single cluster of close packed but not overlapping turbines uniting as a single feature instead of five separate landscape components. Each turbine would be almost totally visible, with varying degrees of silhouette from near total to partial. The direction of view is part of the encircling panorama from the monument with no particular aspect which emphasises or diminishes its attractiveness within the panorama.

53 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

It would probably not be noticed by visitors in most conditions despite the uncluttered land- and seascape. The individual visual impact is therefore rated minimal. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal None of the Burgar Hill turbines are visible, but the OSEL wireframe shows the 3-turbine windfarms on Sanday and Stronsay; two of the Sanday trio are partially visible, and all 3 Stronsay turbines show as near full silhouettes. However the distances of 15-25km mean they will be very small features visible only in very good conditions, so have a minimal current impact. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines would be greater due to perceived size, so its incremental impact is minimal to low. Cumulative impact The overall impact of these three distant windfarms in separate viewing angles of the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where few people would notice any turbines in normal conditions, so a minimal rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a minimal increase in visual impact to the current situation. 15.6 OSEL Viewpoint 12: Burness House Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightlines from this semi-derelict listed building would contain all five turbines grouped in a linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 6.4km. Each turbine would be almost totally visible, with similar degrees of silhouette. The direction of view is the only view out from the building’s position on the edge of a working farm complex, but has no other attribute which emphasises or diminishes its significance. It contains several elements of foreground landscape furniture (powerlines, fences, other buildings) which clutter the view and distract from an awareness of the comparatively distant turbines, which would probably not be noticed by visitors in most conditions. The individual visual impact is therefore rated minimal. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal None of the Burgar Hill turbines are visible, but the OSEL wireframe shows the as yet unbuilt Redland single turbine as completely visible at a distance of 1.8km, though unusually only gives a small portion of upper blade silhouette. This would be readily visible at such proximity in nearly all conditions, so has a moderate visual impact. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines would be much less, so its incremental impact is minimal to low. Cumulative impact The overall impact of the Hammars Hill and Redland windfarms in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where most people would notice at least one relatively unobtrusive turbine in normal conditions, so a low rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a minimal to low increase in visual impact to the current situation. 15.7 OSEL Viewpoint 15: Wideford hill cairn Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The open sightline from this monument would contain all five turbines grouped in a linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 11.0km. Each turbine would be almost totally visible across an uncluttered land- and seascape, with similar degrees of turbine silhouette. The direction of view is a major outlook from the spectacular panorama from this elevated viewpoint, and is therefore one which would attract visitor attention; a linear dyke in fields below the cairn provides a coincidental pointer towards the turbines which increases the visual emphasis of that direction, as shown in the OSEL photomontage. Despite the distance the individual visual impact is therefore rated as low to moderate. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal

54 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Virtually nothing of the Burgar Hill turbines is visible apart from the extreme blade tips of 2 turbines at a distance of 16km, but the OSEL wireframe shows the as yet unbuilt Redland single turbine as completely visible at a distance of 6.1km in a similar viewing angle, though unusually only gives a zero silhouette due to its low-lying position and the hill ridge behind. This would be visible in normal conditions, but not particularly obtrusive below the dominant ridge horizon. The three Merranblo turbines which were the subject of a recent public enquiry and await the announcement of the outcome are also shown in the OSEL wireframes as partially visible silhouettes at over 17km away. These would rarely be visible, let alone noticeable, so can be discounted, leaving Redland as the only turbine to consider further. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines would be similar or perhaps slightly higher when the various attributes are balanced, so its incremental impact is low to moderate. Cumulative impact The overall impact of the various windfarms in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where most people would notice some turbines in normal conditions, so a low to moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a low to moderate increase in visual impact to the current situation. 15.8 OSEL Viewpoint 16: Cuween cairn Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The open sightline from this monument would contain all five turbines grouped in a linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 10.3km. Each turbine would be almost totally visible across a partly cluttered land- and seascape, with similar degrees of turbine silhouette. The direction of view is a neutral outlook from the extensive panorama from this elevated viewpoint, and is therefore one which would attract visitor gazes to a certain extent. Because of the lack of viewpoint emphasis compared to the Wideford view above with a similar distance, the individual visual impact is therefore rated as low. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal None of the Burgar Hill turbines nor Merranblo are/would be visible, but the OSEL wireframe shows the as yet unbuilt Redland single turbine as completely visible at a distance of 4.8km in a similar viewing angle, though unusually only gives a zero silhouette due to its low-lying position and the hill ridge behind. This would be visible in normal conditions, but not particularly obtrusive below the dominant ridge horizon. The windfarms on Stronsay and Sanday are also shown in the OSEL wireframes as partially visible silhouettes at over 27km away, which in practice is too great a distance for visibility so can be discounted, to leaving Redland as the only turbine to consider further. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines would be similar or perhaps slightly less when the various attributes are balanced, so its incremental impact is low. Cumulative impact The overall impact of the various windfarms in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where few people would notice some turbines in normal conditions, so a low rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a low increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.0 Visual assessments of secondary views without photomontages 16.1 Seven Knowes mounds [Wireframe A] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightline from this site complex would contain all five turbines grouped in a linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 2.0km. Each turbine would be almost totally visible, with similar degrees of silhouette. The view is perhaps the least interesting direction from the monument,

55 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment though it is difficult to identify a major direction within the current landscape. The view is cluttered with a foreground house and related features, but the key element is the proximity of the turbines in a domineering position, so that a visitor would be fully aware of their presence in virtually all conditions. A comparison can be made with the OSEL Viewpoint 3 photomontage from the A966 Skiddy road junction, which lies close by, though with a slightly reduced distance to turbines of 1.4km, but otherwise similar characteristics. The individual visual impact is therefore rated high. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal No other turbines are shown as visible in the OSEL wireframe, but it is highly probable that the as yet unbuilt Redland single turbine would be at least partially visible at a distance of 3.8km, though in an opposite viewing angle and across a cluttered landscape of houses, power cables and other features; given the landscape clutter, a low to moderate visual impact rating can be assigned. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines would be much greater, so its incremental impact is high. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms together in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where most people could notice most of the turbines in most conditions, so a high rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a high increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.2 Black Knowe mound [Wireframe B] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightline from this site complex would contain all five turbines grouped in a linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 3.1km. Each turbine would be almost totally visible, with similar degrees of silhouette. The viewline is not a major direction from the monument, which would probably lie in the NW and NE quadrants into the Bay of Firth and the hills beyond. The view to the turbines is comparatively uncluttered, and their still domineering position means that a visitor would be aware of their presence in most conditions. A degree of comparison can be made with the OSEL Viewpoint 2 photomontage from the A966 at Rendall community centre, which lies close by, though with a slightly reduced distance to turbines of 2.7km. The individual visual impact is therefore rated moderate to high. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal No other turbines are shown as visible in the OSEL wireframe, but it is highly probable that the as yet unbuilt Redland single turbine would be at least partially visible at a distance of 2.7km, though in an opposite viewing angle and across a landscape with some degree of cluttering from houses, power cables and other features, so that a moderate visual impact rating can be assigned. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines would be different in various respects but probably similar in magnitude, so its incremental impact is also moderate. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where most people could notice some turbines in normal conditions, so a moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a moderate to high increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.3 Thing Woll broch [Wireframe C] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightline from this monument would contain two of the five turbines close together on the skyline at a distance of 1.7km. One turbine would be almost totally visible, with the other only seen above hub height, and each visible extent would be fully silhouetted. The viewline is not a major direction from the monument, which would probably lie in the opposite seaward direction. The view to the turbines is uncluttered, but the incomplete visibility reduces the awareness of their

56 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment presence in such proximity; however a visitor would be aware of them in most conditions. The individual visual impact is therefore rated moderate to high. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal No other turbines are shown in the wireframe, but the Burgar turbines are visible at a distance of 6.0-7.0km, though in a different viewing angle and across a landscape with a high level of cluttering from houses, power cables and other features in the sightline. This means that they can escape attention, so that a low visual impact rating can be assigned. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines would be higher, so its incremental impact is moderate. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where most people could notice some turbines in normal conditions, so a moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a moderate increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.4 Wass Wick broch mound [Wireframe D] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightline from this monument would contain the five turbines in a regular linear array on the skyline at a distance of 2.6km. One turbine would be almost totally visible, with the others seen for full blade diameters; each visible extent would be fully silhouetted. The viewline is not a major direction from the monument, which would probably lie in the opposite seaward direction. The view to the turbines is uncluttered, and a visitor would be aware of them in most conditions. The individual visual impact is therefore rated moderate to high. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The Burgar turbines are visible at a distance of 7.5-8.2km, though in a different viewing angle and across a landscape with an appreciable level of cluttering and some screening from houses, power cables and other features in the sightline. This means that they can escape attention, so that a low visual impact rating can be assigned. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines would be higher, so its incremental impact is moderate. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where most people could notice some turbines in normal conditions, so a moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a moderate increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.5 Craig of Ritten/ Ness of Woodwick broch [Wireframe E] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightline from this monument would contain the five turbines in a regular linear array on the skyline at a distance of 2.7km; these would be nearly completely visible and similarly silhouetted. The viewline is not a major direction from the monument, which would probably lie in the opposite seaward direction. It is uncluttered, and a visitor would be aware of them in most conditions. The individual visual impact is therefore rated moderate to high. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal No other turbines are or would be visible from this site. Cumulative impact No other turbines are or would be visible from this site. Overall verdict

57 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

The Hammars Hill project would cause a moderate to high increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.6 Balfour Castle [Wireframe F] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightline from this site complex would contain all five turbines grouped in a linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 10.7km. Each turbine would be only be visible for its upper portions (only 3 would have visibility below hub height), with similar degrees of silhouette. However the direction means that the Hammars turbines merge into the visible portions of the Burgar group, creating a single larger cluster than exists at present. The viewline is not a major direction from the monument, though the open island location does not suggest a major viewpoint except perhaps south towards Kirkwall. In practice the view to the turbines will be largely if not entirely screened by woodland and other elements of the designated garden and designed landscape, although this can not be fully demonstrated at this stage due to the inability to make a site visit. A degree of comparison can be made with the OSEL Viewpoint 22 photomontage from above Vasa loch, which lies close by; however this has a different viewing angle within which the Burgar and Hammars Hill turbines become separate clusters, so its usefulness is limited to illustrating the visual scale which would be apparent without the screening of the Balfour castle designed landscape. The individual visual impact of the Hammars Hill turbines is most heavily influenced by the onsite screening and the intervening distance, both of which give dramatic reductions. It is therefore rated nil to minimal. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal As described above, the particular viewing angle merges the Hammars turbines into the visible portions of the Burgar group, creating a single slightly wider cluster than exists at present rather than separate features. The turbine sizes will appear similar, as will the degrees of visibility and silhouetting of each turbine across the two windfarms. This would give a very low incremental rating in an open situation, but the screening reduces it further to nil to minimal. Although the Redland turbine would lie in a similar direction, previous investigation in 2005 established that it was concealed behind a low foreground mound from the Balfour site, which explains its non- appearance in the wireframe. This outcome was accepted by Historic Scotland, who were satisfied that the Redland turbine would not cause any visual issues. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms together in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where very few people could notice any turbines in normal conditions, so a minimal rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a minimal increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.7 Langskaill Viking houses [Wireframe G] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightline from this monument is shown by the wireframe as containing the five turbines in a regular linear array on the skyline at a distance of 4.8km. Each turbine would be fully or near fully visible and similarly silhouetted. The site’s inaccessibility by conventional means prevent any consideration of the actual ground and view circumstances, but an open and largely unscreened sightline seems likely; there are no intervening buildings or other features apart from field walls shown on maps. The viewline has nothing to suggest it is a major direction from the monument, though is likely to lie within a more interesting general seawards panoramic sweep than its opposing counterpart facing Gairsay’s hill slopes. The view to the turbines is uncluttered, and a visitor would probably be aware of them in normal conditions. The individual visual impact is therefore rated moderate. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The Burgar turbines are visible at a distance of 9.3-10.1km in a similar direction and across the same open seascape. All five turbines are shown on the wireframe as nearly fully visible and

58 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment silhouetted, but as a slightly unbalanced pair of single turbines and an overlapping cluster of the other three; their apparent size is much the same as the Hammars Hill group. The result is that two fairly similar turbine groups would be seen in fairly close proximity instead of the single cluster currently in place; the viewing conditions are likely to mean that either no turbine or all 10 turbines would be seen together on any given occasion, which at this distance does not cause a large increase in prominence over the current situation where no turbine or five would be seen in a similar fashion. The incremental impact provided by the Hammars turbines is therefore low. Cumulative impact Although the new situation would double the number of visible turbines, it would cause little change to the circumstances in which turbines would be seen or noticeable within the site’s overall setting, so a low rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a low to moderate increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.8 Eynhallow church [Wireframe H] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightline from this monument is shown by the wireframe as containing the five turbines in a regular linear array on the skyline at a distance of 6.9km. Each turbine would be fully or near fully visible and similarly silhouetted. The site’s inaccessibility by conventional means prevent any consideration of the actual ground and view circumstances, but an open and largely unscreened sightline seems likely; there are no intervening buildings or other features shown on maps. The viewline has nothing to suggest it is a major direction from the monument, though is likely to lie within an alluring general seawards panoramic sweep down Eynhallow Sound. The view to the turbines is uncluttered, and a visitor would probably be aware of them in good conditions. The individual visual impact is therefore rated low. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The Burgar turbines are visible at a distance of 3.3-3.8km in a different viewing direction and across an open seascape. All five turbines are shown on the wireframe as nearly fully visible and silhouetted; they would appear much larger and closer than the Hammars turbines and occupy a greater viewing angle, and would therefore be readily noticeable in most viewing conditions. The incremental impact provided by the Hammars turbines is therefore low. Cumulative impact The new situation would cause little change to the circumstances in which turbines would be seen or noticeable within the site’s overall setting, so a low rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a low increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.9 Blackhammer cairn [Wireframe I] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightlines from this elevated monument would contain all five turbines in a regular linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 5.9km; the fairly high location of the monument at 76m OD reduces the upward angle of the sightline to create a more level view between vantage points. Each turbine would be almost totally visible, and almost totally silhouetted. The direction of view is part of the major panorama seawards from the monument, and would be noted by most visitors, but the scale and layout creates a balanced landscape component which would not be particularly obtrusive. A degree of comparison can be made with the OSEL Viewpoint 9 photomontage from the Trumland House entrance gateway, which lies fairly close by, though with a different foreground situation which in Trumland’s case consists of a change in topographic profile and the presence of the Home Farm complex which screen any continuation of the view westwards towards the Burgar turbines; neither factor would obstruct the view from Blackhammar. While visitors would be able to see the turbines across an uncluttered land- and seascape in most

59 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment conditions, they would not be particularly distracting. The individual visual impact is therefore rated low to moderate. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal All 5 current Burgar Hill turbines are clearly visible for nearly their full heights at a distance of 7.2- 7.5km, also in a regular linear array along the skyline in a different and less direct viewing angle and creating near total silhouettes in an extended line. The scaled wireframe comparisons show the Burgar turbines as appearing larger than the Hammars examples. Experience from site visits suggests the Burgar turbines are noticeable in most weather and light conditions, so can begin to distract from the site experience for some visitors. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines is appreciably smaller due to its smaller scale and tighter grouping, so its incremental impact is low. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms together in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where most people would notice at least some turbines in normal conditions, so a moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a low to moderate increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.10 Taversoe Tuick cairn [Wireframe J] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal The sightlines from this elevated monument would contain all five turbines in a regular linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 6.5km; the fairly high location of the monument at 63m OD reduces the upward angle of the sightline to create a more level view between vantage points. Each turbine would be almost totally visible, and almost totally silhouetted. The direction of view is part of the major panorama seawards from the monument, and would be noted by most visitors, but the scale and layout creates a balanced landscape component which would not be particularly obtrusive. A degree of comparison can be made with the OSEL Viewpoint 9 photomontage from the Trumland House entrance gateway, which lies very close by, though with a different foreground situation which in Trumland’s case consists of a change in topographic profile and the presence of the Home Farm complex which screen any continuation of the view westwards towards the Burgar turbines; neither factor would obstruct the view from Taversoe Tuick. While visitors would be able to see the turbines across an uncluttered land- and seascape in most conditions, they would not be particularly distracting. The individual visual impact is therefore rated low to moderate. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal All 5 current Burgar Hill turbines are clearly visible for nearly their full heights at a distance of 8.2- 8.7km, also in a regular linear array along the skyline in a different and less direct viewing angle and creating near total silhouettes in an extended line. The scaled wireframe comparisons show the Burgar turbines as appearing larger than the Hammars examples. Experience from site visits suggests the Burgar turbines are noticeable in normal weather and light conditions, so can begin to distract from the site experience for some visitors. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines is appreciably smaller due to its smaller scale and tighter grouping, so its incremental impact is low. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms together in the landscape is regarded as creating a situation where some people would notice at least some turbines in normal conditions, so a low to moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict The Hammars Hill project would cause a low increase in visual impact to the current situation. 16.11 Westness house [Wireframe K] Individual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal

60 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

The topographic sightlines from this building would contain all five turbines in a regular linear formation along the skyline at a distance of 6.3km; each turbine would be almost totally visible, and almost totally silhouetted. The direction of view is part of the major topographic panorama seawards from the monument, and would be noted by most visitors, but the scale and layout creates a balanced landscape component which would not be particularly obtrusive. However the actual situation includes a surrounding screen of established woodland which would remove most if not all of the outwards sightlines towards Hammars Hill. The individual visual impact is therefore rated minimal. However it should be noted that the screening is not present for the other sites along the adjacent portion of the seemingly abandoned Westness trail (see table in Section 10.4), from which open sightlines are likely; the situations for these sites has not been directly investigated for this assessment, but previous visits have given sufficient experience to suggest a low rating might apply for the visual impact from the Hammars Hill proposal. Incremental impact from the Hammars Hill proposal Outside the woodland screen surrounding the house, all 5 current Burgar Hill turbines are clearly visible for nearly their full heights at a distance of 5.1-5.3km, also in a regular linear array along the skyline in a different and less direct viewing angle and creating near total silhouettes in an extended line. The scaled wireframe comparisons show the Burgar turbines as appearing larger than the Hammars examples. Experience from site visits suggests the Burgar turbines are externally noticeable in normal weather and light conditions, so could begin to distract from the site experience for some visitors. The comparative impact provided by the Hammars turbines is appreciably smaller due to its smaller scale and tighter grouping, so its incremental impact is low outside the screen, though would be minimal for the house itself. Cumulative impact The overall impact of both windfarms in the landscape would create a situation where most people would notice at least some turbines in normal conditions, so a moderate rating is applied. Overall verdict Acknowledging the role of Westness House as a lead site for others which do not have a surrounding woodland screen, the Hammars Hill project would cause a low increase in visual impact to the current situation. 17.0 Summary of visual assessments The results of the analyses of Sections 15 & 16 are shown in this summary table. View Site Dist kms Text discussion Degree of visual change 5 Gurness broch 4.3 15.1 Low 7 Midhowe broch 8.2 15.2 Low 8 Knowe of Yarso cairn 5.7 15.3 Moderate 10 Cubbie Row’s Castle 6.8 15.4 Low 11 St Magnus church 11.2 15.5 Minimal 12 Burness House 6.4 15.6 Minimal to low 15 Wideford hill cairn 11.0 15.7 Low to moderate 16 Cuween cairn 10.3 15.8 Low Wf A Seven Knowes mounds 2.0 16.1 High Wf B Black Knowe mound 3.1 16.2 Moderate to high Wf C Thing Woll broch 1.7 16.3 Moderate Wf D Wass Wick broch mound 2.6 16.4 Moderate Craig of Ritten/ Ness of Wf E 2.7 16.5 Moderate to high Woodwick broch Wf F Balfour Castle 10.7 16.6 Minimal Wf G Langskaill Viking houses 4.8 16.7 Low to moderate Wf H Eynhallow church 6.9 16.8 Low Wf I Blackhammer cairn 5.9 16.9 Low to moderate Wf J Taversoe Tuick cairn 6.5 16.10 Low Wf K Westness House 6.3 16.11 Moderate

61 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

18.0 Significance of visual change results and comment This section brings together the investigations of Sections 12-17 to present the conclusions of whether the proposed windfarm will create significant levels of change for the statutorily designated selection of sites within the ZPV. The table below summarises the outcomes; it takes the general matrix showing the significance of site sensitivity against the anticipated degree of change (Section 11.0), and incorporates the parallel approaches of Site-as-receptor from Section 12.0 and People-as-receptor analyses from Section 13.0. Level of sensitivity Degree of Significance of change Site View Site as People as visual Site as People as receptor receptor change receptor receptor Gurness broch 5 high very high minimal low moderate Midhowe broch 7 high moderate low moderate low Knowe of Yarso moderate to 8 high moderate moderate moderate cairn high Cubbie Row’s moderate to 10 high low moderate moderate Castle high moderate to St Magnus church 11 high minimal low low high minimal to Burness House 12 moderate minimal low minimal low moderate to low to Wideford hill cairn 15 high moderate moderate high moderate Cuween cairn 16 high moderate low moderate moderate Seven Knowes Wf A high minimal high high moderate mounds Black Knowe moderate Wf B high minimal high low mound to high moderate to Thing Woll broch Wf C high moderate moderate moderate high moderate to Wass Wick broch Wf D high low moderate low high Craig of Ritten/ moderate Ness of Woodwick Wf E high minimal high low to high broch Balfour Castle Wf F high very high minimal low moderate Langskaill Viking low to minimal to Wf G high minimal moderate houses moderate low minimal to Eynhallow church Wf H high minimal low moderate low Blackhammer low to Wf I high moderate moderate low cairn moderate Taversoe Tuick Wf J high moderate low moderate low cairn low to Westness House Wf K high moderate moderate low moderate This sequential process of deriving a series of internally consistent ratings from a series of single criterion indicators and giving parallel outcomes under the site-as-receptor and people-as- receptor definitions has been used for sufficient projects to begin to characterise these results. So far no project has shown a full equivalence of exactly matched results across both the sensitivity categories, but the others have tended to differ by only one ranking for many of the relevant sites, and usually at the levels of moderate or below. The Hammars Hill results show wider levels of difference between the rankings for many individual sites, which deserves some context to consider how the results can best be appreciated. An opening point is that the development would occur in a part of Orkney with a high concentration of recognised archaeological and historical sites and structures; many of these, by quirks of recent history and geography have become promoted as visitor attractions, again within an unusually dense spatial distribution. In at least two cases these sites are internationally famous, but some of the other sites in the sample are almost invisible and almost unknown

62 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment outside specialist sectors of interest. This context would inevitably produce a wide variation in results; it is therefore an achievement by the project designers that the proposed development has been sufficiently integrated to avoid triggering the peak levels of visual intrusion which might be pivotal in determining its planning consideration. A second issue to highlight is that the proposal would sit close to an existing and established windfarm; in many cases the new turbines will be significantly less obtrusive or distracting than those which currently feature in the landscape. During the course of this investigation, several comments were received that people, particularly local residents, have grown used to their presence and even gently fond of them. No claims are made that this is a more representative opinion, as the pursuit of the fieldwork is more likely to encounter friendly rather than opposing reactions. However it remains a personal indicator that some people are happy to live within and experience windfarm-containing landscapes in the relevant area. Despite this and without trying to anticipate the reactions of any particular agency or interest within the planning process, a widely ranging series of reactions can be anticipated. In order to minimise any role of this report in fuelling such differences, some observations can be offered: A priority within this design has been to rationalise what would be seen of the windfarm from the various viewpoints. A short time spent flicking through the wireframes and/or photomontages shows a repeated illustration of 5 turbines, visible in a symmetrically spaced array within a level or smoothly curving topographic position. This series of balanced views allows the viewer to understand what is being seen relatively quickly and reduces their distraction from the other attributes of the landscape setting, which for most of the viewpoints is an extensive panorama with many other facets to capture attention. Therefore while the turbines may be clearly noticeable from many viewpoints, their obtrusiveness - if defined in terms of the character of what can be seen - will be somewhat less. The design has appreciably reduced the originally anticipated effects on a number of sites which would be regarded as sensitive from the combination of their statutory designations and from their role as visitor attractions. These include all the PICs, with the maximum applied rating being moderate under the people-as-sensitivity criteria which cover their visitor attraction use. The only significance ratings for the anticipated degrees of visual change which are higher than moderate are given under the site-as-receptor assessment path derived from their statutory designations. None of these 5 sites, apart from Knowe of Yarso, show any evidence of directly receiving visitor or amenity use to any tangible extent, which is reflected in their lower people-as-receptor ratings and is the sort of contrast which the parallel lines of investigation were developed to illustrate. From the full sample of 19 archaeological relevant viewpoints, the Hammars Hill turbines would only cause visual impact on one site where no impact from any other current, consented or formally registered windfarm exists or would exist. Of the other 18, the vast majority already receive a degree of impact from the Burgar Hill turbines which is larger than would be caused incrementally by the Hammars Hill turbines. For all viewpoints, the cumulative visual impact of all the relevant windfarms seen or potentially seen is always at the moderate level or below, whatever level and definition of site sensitivity is applicable. In conclusion, the proposed development would sit within a landscape which is regarded as highly sensitive for its archaeological wealth and a number of other perspectives. It is inevitable that archaeological concerns will focus around the issues of indirect impacts, particularly the anticipated degrees of visual change and that the attached significances for planning consideration are likely to cause much debate before a decision is reached. Despite the range of unresolved questions about how and in what circumstances settings issues matter and can be resolved, a verdict can be given now to inform the ensuing debate that this report has found no substantive issues for the visual impacts of this proposal on the archaeological and historical settings of the surrounding area. 19.0 Photographs, archive and other reporting

63 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

There are no unresolved interpretive issues, nor any further planned lines of investigation. No further archaeological role is recommended for this project. Several additional scenery photographs of the relevant locations were taken as colour jpegs, but not used once the selection of pictures for photomontage enhancement in the associated Archaeological Viewpoint document had been made. The remaining photos can be provided on request as a CD-R, though they are unlikely to add useful findings for this assessment. The absence of any intrusive investigation at this stage of the project means that no formal drawings or finds were made, no samples taken, and no contexts assigned. There is therefore no primary archive material from the project. A brief report will be sent to Discovery & Excavation in Scotland to register the “new” pair of potential prehistoric tumuli described in Section 7.0. No other significant new archaeological discoveries, information or analysis have resulted from this assessment. 20.0 Acknowledgements Richard Gauld of Orkney Sustainable Energy Ltd provided project design details, including the wireframe and photo-montage depictions. The landowner and applicant, Richard Jenkins, provided a wealth of information about the character and agricultural uses of the development footprint, and Micky Austin (of MT Austin) provided the detailed results of the test pitting exercise undertaken in June 2007 which directly informed some of the on-site conclusions. Thanks are also due to Mardy Jenkins for obtaining many of the off-site photos used in the viewpoint analyses, and to Julie Gibson (Orkney Islands Council Archaeologist) who provided helpful discussion and access to the Orkney SMR database. Finally the enthusiastic assistance of staff at the Orkney Library & Archive in Kirkwall deserves recognition for help in researching older maps. 21.0 Bibliography Burgher, L 1991 Orkney – an illustrated architectural guide; RIAS, Edinburgh Cope, J 1998 The modern antiquarian – a pre-millennial odyssey through megalithic Britain; Thorsons, London Fojut, N 2001 The brochs of Gurness & Midhowe (official guide book, revised edition), Historic Scotland, Edinburgh Gifford, J 1992 Highlands and islands; The Buildings of Scotland/Pevsner Architectural Guides series, Yale University Press, New Haven & London Historic Scotland policy documents: Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (revised 1998; issued under cover of Historic Scotland Circular 1/1998). Precognition documents lodged by HS for the public local enquiry for a windfarm at Upper Clyde Valley in South Lanarkshire (SEIRU ref: IEC/3/90) in September 2006. The documents were placed by Nick Bridgeland and Lily Lange. Precognition documents lodged by HS for the public local enquiry for a windfarm at Merranblo in Orkney (DPEA REF: NA/ORK/1) in January 2008. The documents were placed by Allan Rutherford, Patricia Weeks and Kenny Brophy. Scheduled Ancient Monuments: a guide for owners, occupiers and land managers (undated, issued about 1999). Scotland’s Listed Buildings: A Guide for Owners and Occupiers (undated, issued about 1999) Scottish Historic Environment Policy 1 [known as SHEP1]: [a] consultation paper seeking views on Scottish Ministers’ vision and overarching policies for the historic environment issued May 2006 in draft with an accompanying Environmental Report [b] the final policy version issued in March 2007. Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2: Scheduling: protecting Scotland’s nationally important monuments (2006), a formal policy paper known as SHEP2. Scottish Historic Environment Policy 3: Gardens and Designed Landscapes Consultation (2006); known as SHEP3 (consultation draft for a policy document planned for 2007; until this appears in its final form, there is no absolute policy document for HGDLs as a formally protected site designation). Humphreys, R & Reid, D 2006 Rough Guide to Scottish Highlands & Islands (4th ed); Rough Guides/ Penguin, London Leaflets and pamphlets: [Note: most of these locally collected leaflets are undated, but probably less than 5 years old. Some do not clearly state their publishing organisations, so the details below are the best interpretations of the details supplied. Some agencies have since changed after reorganisations of public sector tourism, economic development and community structures.]

64 OSE2825, Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment

Leaflet 1 – Scotland’s Historic Islands – undated A5 foldout tourism leaflet published by Historic Scotland, possibly in 2006 Leaflet 2 – The islands of Orkney – A4 52-page brochure of 2007 ferry timetables and local information published by Orkney Ferries, the “Island Community Councils” and others. Leaflets 3 & 4 – Rousay, Egilsay, Wyre – 2 different undated foldout tourism leaflets published by variously the Rousay Tourist Association, VisitOrkney and others Leaflet 5 – West Mainland – undated foldout tourism leaflet “produced by West Mainland Community Councils” Leaflet 6 – What to do, where to go, what to see – undated foldout tourism leaflet produced by Orkney Visitor Attractions Forum &/or Orkney Museums & Heritage Leaflet 7 – Orkneyinga saga trail – undated foldout tourism leaflet produced by Orkney Museums & Heritage and others

Martin, F 2006 Walks Orkney; Hallewell Publications, place unknown Moffat 2007 The 2006 visitor attraction monitor (and previous editions), compiled for VisitScotland by the Moffat Centre for Travel & Business Development, Glasgow Caledonian University Muir, T 2004 The shorter Orkneyinga Saga; Orkney Museums & Heritage, Kirkwall Muir, T 2005 Orkneyinga in the Sagas: Orkney Museums & Heritage, Kirkwall Mykura, W 1976 Orkney & Shetland: British Regional Geology series. HMSO, Edinburgh. Ordnance Survey 2003 Orkney – West Mainland: Explorer Series no 463, 1:25,000 map. OIC 2007 Supplementary Planning Guidance Onshore Wind Energy Development Consultation Draft released 16 November 2007, OIC Development Services Policy and Projects, Kirkwall Owen, O (ed) 2005 The world of Orkneyinga Saga; Orkney Museums & Heritage, Kirkwall RCAHMS 1982 The archaeological sites & monuments of Rousay, Egilsay & Wyre, (Archaeological sites & monuments of Scotland series no. 16), Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments of Scotland, Edinburgh Ritchie, A 1995 Prehistoric Orkney; Batsford (& Historic Scotland), London Ritchie, A 1996 Orkney (2nd edition); Exploring Scotland’s Heritage series, Stationery Office, Edinburgh Scottish Executive policy documents: National Planning Policy Guidance series NPPG 5 Archaeology and Planning (undated, issued in mid-1990s) NPPG 6 Renewable Energy Developments (revised 2000) NPPG 18 Planning and the Historic Environment (1999) Planning Advisory Note series PAN 42 Archaeology: the Planning Process & Scheduled Monument Procedures (1994) PAN 45 Renewable Energy Technologies (2002) PAN 58 Environmental Impact Assessment (1999) PAN 71 Conservation Area Management (2004) SNH 2002 Visual assessment of windfarms: Best Practice; Report F01AA303A, Scottish Natural Heritage (www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/f01aa303a.pdf) Tait, C 2006 The Orkney Guide Book (3rd edition); Charles Tait Photographic, Orkney Welsh, M 1999 Walks in Orkney (revised edition); Clan Books, Doune, Perthshire Wickham-Jones, C 1998 Orkney – a historical guide; Birlinn, Edinburgh Various individual site records from the National Monuments Record of Scotland, compiled by the Royal Commission on the Ancient & Historical Monuments of Scotland and accessed through the CANMORE and PASTMAP online databases at www.rcahms.gov.uk the Orkney Sites & Monuments Record, compiled by Orkney Archaeological Trust as a paper database accessible in Kirkwall Various old maps accessed at www.old-maps.co.uk and www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map.

65 Orkney Sustainable Energy Hammars Hill February 2008

Appendix to OSE2825 Section 4: Hammars Hill archaeological assessment SECONDARY VIEWPOINTS WITHOUT PHOTOMONTAGES Wire- Text analysis Viewing angle Name NGR HY Dist kms frame Section of wireframe MAINLAND Wf A Seven Knowes mounds 39276/20654 2.0 16.1 50° Wf B Black Knowe mound 36949/19863 3.1 16.2 50° Wf C Thing Woll broch 401/228 1.7 16.3 50° Wf D Wass Wick broch mound 41272/21957 2.6 16.4 50° Craig of Ritten/ Ness of 50° Wf E 40076/24859 2.7 16.5 Woodwick broch SHAPINSAY Wf F Balfour Castle 47477/16435 10.7 16.6 50° GAIRSAY Wf G Langskaill Viking houses 434/220 4.8 16.7 50° EYNHALLOW Wf H Eynhallow church 359/288 6.9 16.8 50° ROUSAY Wf I Blackhammer cairn 414/276 5.9 16.9 50° Wf J Taversoe Tuick cairn 425/276 6.5 16.10 50° Wf K Westness house 38303/28908 6.3 16.11 52° These wireframes have been produced by OSEL to illustrate the 11 archaeological secondary viewpoints which supplement the list of 25 major views identified by OIC and SNH at an early project liaison meeting. These are illustrated in Vol 2 of the OSE2825 documentation with photomontage and wireframe presentation; the 11 secondary viewpoints are shown as wireframes only in this Appendix. Ten have a 50° viewing angle, and one 52°; this enables a consistent visual scale to be used across the set. As a result the apparent turbine sizes in any wireframe will be the same as those in any other, as will the depths and heights of the illustrated topography. The pictures can therefore be reliably compared across all these views. Other technical details for the preparation of these wireframes can be obtained on request from OSEL. The secondary viewpoints are shown on this map:

Wireframe A: Seven Knowes mounds Wireframe B: Black Knowe mound Wireframe C: Thing Woll broch. Wireframe D: Wass Wick broch Wireframe E: Craig of Ritten/ Ness of Woodwick broch Wireframe F: Balfour Castle and gardens Wireframe G: Langskaill Viking houses Wireframe H: Eynhallow church Wireframe I: Black Hammar cairn Wireframe J: Taversoe Tuick cairn Wireframe K: Westness House