Inner Sound, Canisbay, Caithness
Onshore Cultural Heritage
Environmental Impact Assessment
Project No: 266 ORCA Orkney College East Road Kirkwall Orkney KW15 1LX
Project Manager: Nick Card MA MIFA FSA Scot
Report: Paul M. Sharman and Mary K. Saunders
With Christopher Gee and Linda Somerville
Figures: Mary K. Saunders Plates: Christopher Gee
Client: Xodus Group and Meygen Ltd
April 2012 © ORCA 2012
This documents has been prepared in accordance with ORCA standard operating procedures and IFA standards
Authorised for distribution by: Paul Sharman Date: May 3rd 2012
Contents
Figures ...... 4
Plates ...... 4
Tables...... 5
Executive Summary ...... 6
1.0 Introduction...... 7
2.0 Legislative Framework and Regulatory Context...... 8 2.1 Legislative Framework...... 8 2.1.1 International and European...... 8 2.1.2 UK and Scottish ...... 9 2.2 Government and Planning Policy Context and Guidelines ...... 11 2.2.1 National...... 11 2.2.2 Local...... 12 3.0 Assessment Methodology...... 14 3.1 Scoping and Consultation...... 14 3.2 Desk Based Assessment...... 17 3.3 Walkover Survey ...... 18 3.4 Zones of Theoretical Visibility...... 19 3.5 Significance Criteria...... 21 3.5.1 Criteria for Importance, Significance and Sensitivity...... 21 3.5.2 Criteria for Assessing Magnitude and Likelihood of Impact ..... 26 3.5.3 Criteria for Assessing Significance of Impact ...... 29 3.6 Assessment Assumptions and Limitations ...... 31 4.0 Cultural Heritage Baseline Description ...... 33 4.1 Ness of Quoys...... 39 4.1.1 Identified Cultural Heritage Assets ...... 39 4.1.2 Cultural Heritage Potential ...... 41 4.1.3 Historic Landscape and Setting...... 41 4.2 Ness of Huna...... 43 4.2.1 Identified Cultural Heritage Assets ...... 43 4.2.2 Cultural Heritage Potential ...... 44 4.2.3 Historic Landscape and Setting...... 45 4.3 Underground Cable Routes...... 45 4.3.1 Identified Cultural Heritage Assets ...... 46 4.3.2 Cultural Heritage Potential ...... 60 4.3.3 Historic Landscape and Setting...... 61 5.0 Impacts During Construction and Installation...... 62 5.1 Impact 20.1: Construction and drilling noise...... 62 5.2 Impact 20.2: Direct damage, removal or destruction of onshore cultural heritage assets...... 66 5.2.1 Ness of Quoys ...... 66 5.2.2 Ness of Huna ...... 67 5.2.3 Underground Cable Routes...... 67 ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
5.3 Mitigation ...... 70 5.3.1 Ness of Quoys ...... 73 5.3.2 Ness of Huna ...... 74 5.3.3 Underground Cable Routes...... 75 5.4 Residual Impact...... 77 5.4.1 Ness of Quoys ...... 77 5.4.2 Ness of Huna ...... 77 5.4.3 Underground Cable Routes...... 80 6.0 Impacts During Operations and Maintenance ...... 81 6.1 Impact...... 81 6.1.1 Ness of Quoys ...... 83 6.1.2 Ness of Huna ...... 87 6.1.3 Underground Cable Routes...... 91 6.2 Mitigation ...... 91 6.3 Residual Impact...... 92 7.0 Impacts During Decommissioning ...... 93
8.0 Potential variances in Environmental Impacts ...... 94
9.0 Cumulative Impacts ...... 94 9.1 MeyGen Tidal Energy Project Phase 2...... 95 9.2 ScottishPower Renewables’ Ness of Duncansby Tidal Array.....95 9.3 Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution’s Gills Bay 132kV / 33kV Substation...... 96 9.4 Stroupster Windfarm...... 96 9.5 Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd (MORL) offshore windfarm and Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd (BOWL) offshore windfarm...... 96 10.0 Proposed Monitoring...... 97
11.0 Summary and Conclusions...... 97
12.0 References ...... 98
13.0 Appendix 1: Map Figures ...... 101
14.0 Appendix 2: Summary Cultural Heritage Environmental Impact Tables ...... 117
3 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) Figures
1 The Development Area Appendix 1 2 Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna: Identified Cultural Heritage Appendix 1 Assets 3 Philip’s Mains, West Burn of Gills to Rigifa cable route: Appendix 1 Identified Cultural Heritage Assets 4 Land south of East Mey, around Gills and cable route between Appendix 1 East Mey and Gills: Identified Cultural Heritage Assets 5 Gills to Kirkstyle, Kirkstyle to West Canisbay, West Canisbay to Appendix 1 West Burn of Gills cable routes: Identified Cultural Heritage Assets 6 Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna: Potential Significance of Appendix 1 Predicted Direct (Construction) Impacts 7 Philip’s Mains, West Burn of Gills to Rigifa cable route: Potential Appendix 1 Significance of Predicted Direct (Construction) Impacts 8 Land south of East Mey, around Gills and cable route between Appendix 1 East Mey and Gills: Potential Significance of Predicted Direct (Construction) Impacts 9 Gills to Kirkstyle, Kirkstyle to West Canisbay, West Canisbay to Appendix 1 West Burn of Gills cable routes: Potential Significance of Predicted Direct (Construction) Impacts 10 Ness of Quoys: Identified Cultural Heritage Assets in ZTV Appendix 1 11 Ness of Huna: Identified Cultural Heritage Assets in ZTV Appendix 1 12 Ness of Quoys: Potential Significance of Impacts on Setting Appendix 1 13 Ness of Huna: Potential Significance of Impacts on Setting Appendix 1 14 Ness of Quoys: Significant Residual Impacts on Setting Appendix 1 15 Ness of Huna: Significant Residual Impacts on Setting Appendix 1
Plates
Cover: Part of Ness of Quoys to Ness of Huna cable route Plate 1: ORCA 414 – possible Cromwellian magazine ...... 39 Plate 2: ORCA 416 – stone spread, potentially indicative of a larger site...... 40 Plate 3: ORCA 371 – large elongated mound, possibly of archaeological significance ...... 46 Plate 4: ORCA 383 – One of three mounds that may be of archaeological significance ...... 48 Plate 5: ORCA 18 - East Lodge Gate Piers ...... 49 Plate 6: ORCA 394 – possible stone tank with associated upright...... 50 Plate 7: ORCA 400 – a mound which may be of archaeological significance ...... 51 Plate 8: ORCA 403 – milestone removed during WW2 and later reset ...... 53 Plate 9: ORCA 274 – 19th-century farmstead built around a courtyard...... 54 Plate 10: ORCA 422 – a mound that may be of archaeological significance...... 55 Plate 11: ORCA 407 – the ‘Standing Stone of Canisbay’...... 56 Plate 12: ORCA 352 – Possible standing stone on the Hill of Rigifa...... 58 Plate 13: ORCA 352 – closeup of inscription on the stone...... 59
ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Tables
Table 1: Definitions of importance and significance of cultural heritage assets...... 22 Table 2: Definitions of setting sensitivity...... 26 Table 4: Determination of significance of direct impact...... 29 Table 5: Consequences of impact on setting...... 30 Table 6: Significance of impact on setting ...... 31 Table 7: Summary totals of identified cultural heritage assets in development areas36 Table 8: Summary of significance of identified cultural heritage assets in development areas...... 38 Table 9: Summary of the significance of potential construction impact ...... 65 Table 10: Summary of the residual significance of potential construction impact..... 79 Table 11: Summary of potentially significant setting impacts and impacts on statutorily designated sites by Ness of Quoys PCC...... 85 Table 12: Summary of potentially significant setting impacts and impacts on statutorily designated sites by Ness of Huna PCC...... 89 Table 15: Ness of Quoys - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 118 Table 16: Ness of Huna - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 120 Table 17: Philip’s Mains North - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 122 Table 18: East Mey - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 125 Table 19: Hilltop - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 129 Table 20: Gills - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 130 Table 21: Gills to Kirkstyle - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 134 Table 22: Quoys to Huna - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 135 Table 23: West Canisbay to Gills - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 136 Table 24: Rigifa’ - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 139 Table 25: Hill of Rigifa’ - Summary of construction and installation impacts on identified cultural heritage assets ...... 140 Table 26: Ness of Quoys - Summary of impacts on the setting of identified cultural heritage assets...... 145 Table 27: Ness of Huna - Summary of impacts on the setting of identified cultural heritage assets...... 170
5 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Executive Summary
The Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) was commissioned by Xodus Group Ltd (Xodus), on behalf of Meygen Ltd (MeyGen), to provide an Environmental Impact Assessment of the potential impacts on onshore historic environment assets in an area of Canisbay parish, Caithness, that may be affected by the proposed MeyGen Tidal Energy Project. The rich and varied archaeological heritage of the Canisbay area is clearly evident. There are no SAMs, Listed Buildings or other statutorily designated assets within the development areas themselves. However, there are such sites close by and the setting of two of them (the A-Listed Canisbay Kirk and Graveyard (ORCA 52 and 55) and the B-Listed East Canisbay Manse (ORCA 59) are key issues. Mitigation in building design and location will ensure that the key aspects of their setting will not be lost and that the change to the setting, although significant, will be of an acceptable nature.
Both the Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna landfall and PCC areas have potential for significant archaeology to be present. However, this is being mitigated by targeted geophysical surveys so that archaeological remains will be avoided where at all possible. In consultation with HC HET, intrusive evaluations will be conducted where remains cannot be avoided in order to establish whether or not significant remains do exist and thus identify any risks. The results could lead on to further management strategies, such as excavation or watching briefs, or may indicate that there are no further issues.
It is clear that there is a moderately high potential for further culturally significant remains to be concealed in some parts of the cable route options, and consideration will be given to the potential for further sites to remain below surface in the vicinity of known significant sites and for peat and intensive cultivation to have masked remains. It will be possible to route the cable to avoid known remains and further investigations could be targeted at areas thought to present most risk in order to establish whether or not significant remains exist. The results would enable the formulation, if shown to be required, of further management or mitigation strategies, such as avoidance, excavation or watching briefs, or may indicate that there are no further issues. A reporting protocol for the accidental discovery of archaeological remains can also be instated.
No adverse impacts have been identified during the decommissioning phase on the assumption that there will be no new areas subject to groundworks that have not already been subject to disturbance during the construction and operation phases.
Other developments that may contribute towards a cumulative impact on onshore cultural heritage assets in the area have been identified. All seek to avoid significant cultural heritage assets where at all possible and will formulate mitigation strategies where it is not. Cumulative impacts on setting will be very much dependent on the location of onshore infrastructure, but potentially may occur.
Other than the effect on the setting of Canisbay Kirk, which will be carefully managed, it is therefore concluded that, with the appropriate mitigation strategies, the proposed development will not significantly impact onshore cultural heritage.
6 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) 1.0 Introduction
The Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) was commissioned by Xodus to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment of the onshore historic environment assets in an area of the Canisbay parish, Caithness, that may be affected by the proposed MeyGen Tidal Energy Development, Phase 1 development in Inner Sound, between mainland Caithness and the island of Stroma.
The onshore aspects of the Project currently (as of September 2011) comprises two potential locations for the cable landfall, horizontal direction drilling (HDD) operations and Power Conversion Centre (PCC), one at the Ness of Quoys (NGR 334500 973000), the other at the Ness of Huna (NGR 336500 973500) and various potential underground cable routes to potential grid connection points, as depicted on fig 1.1 of MeyGen Tidal Energy Project: Basis of Design document, dated 30/06/2011. Further details of the development can be found in that document.
The focus of this onshore cultural heritage assessment is the potential impacts of the Project infrastructure on the areas that could be directly impacted and on the setting of adjacent areas and historic environment receptors within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) as defined during the visual impact assessment (ES Section 19).
This report will identify any sites or areas of cultural heritage significance that might be affected by the proposed development by means of the results of a desk-based survey and a walkover survey (see Figures and xls spreadsheets). The potential for the discovery of currently unknown remains will also be identified. The possible effects of the proposed development on the identified cultural heritage assets are then assessed, including those for both the Ness of Quoys and the Ness of Huna. Effects may occur during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed development, and there may be cumulative effects when the proposed development is considered along with others that are proposed in the area.
Management or mitigation strategies are outlined, addressing any identified issues and impacts concerning the cultural heritage resource. Such ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
resources include1:
• World Heritage Sites; • Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs); • Listed Buildings; • Gardens and Designed Landscapes; • Historic Battlefields; • Conservation Areas; • Other archaeological sites and monuments; and • Other non-designated historic environment assets.
The potential impacts of the proposed development upon the historic environment may include:
• direct physical impacts that may be caused by the development construction, including ancillary works, access routes and temporary compounds and laydown areas; and
• indirect impacts that may be caused by the development construction on the historic landscape and setting of the identified sites and resources.
It should be noted that this assessment was completed on the geographical project area as defined in 2011 (Figure 20.1) and this has since been refined to a smaller footprint at both the Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna PCC sites and to a single cable corridor to the SHETL substation option areas (see ES Figure 1.2). Therefore, the quantity of significant impacts identified in this Section is greater than that of the final project design in reality.
2.0 Legislative Framework and Regulatory Context
2.1 Legislative Framework
2.1.1 International and European
There are two international conventions concerning cultural heritage which are of particular relevance to this study. The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised), also known as the Valletta Convention, was ratified by the UK Government in 2000, This
1 See Scottish Planning Policy 2010, paragraphs 110-124, and the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2011, sections 11 & 14 for definitions.
8 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
contains provisions for the identification and protection of archaeological heritage both under water and on land, preferably in situ, but with provisions for appropriate recording and recovery if disturbance is unavoidable. The European Landscape Convention, ratified by the UK Government in 2006, promotes the protection, management and planning of landscapes in Europe, including the historical and cultural aspects of landscapes.
European Directives on environmental impact assessment have been incorporated into UK legislation including the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 (as amended through later legislation and directions such as the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011). This includes the requirement that the historic environment be included in the process to identify the environmental effects of development proposals to prevent, reduce and offset any adverse impacts resulting from them.
2.1.2 UK and Scottish
The primary piece of UK legislation concerning archaeology is The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (AMAAA), concerning sites that warrant statutory protection due to being of national importance and are Scheduled under the provisions of the Act. The Act is administered in Scotland by Historic Scotland. Such sites or areas may include any "monument which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching to it". A monument is defined within the Act as:
“any building, structure or work above or below the surface of the land, any cave or excavation; any site comprising the remains of any such building, structure or work or any cave or excavation; and any site comprising or comprising the remains of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft or other movable structure or part thereof” (Section 61 (7))”,
with the addition of “any thing, or group of things, that evidences previous human activity” from Section 14 of the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2011. This 2011 Act also adds the requirement for Scottish Ministers to compile Inventories of Gardens and Designed Landscapes and of Battlefields that appear to be of national importance (Section 11).
9 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
The criteria for the determination of national importance are contained in Historic Scotland’s Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) 2011. Under the provisions of the AMAAA (and as amended by the 2011 Act), it becomes an offence to carry out, without the prior written consent of the Scottish Ministers (scheduled monument consent), any works which would have the effect of demolishing, destroying, damaging, removing, repairing, altering, adding to, flooding or covering up the monument.
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 and amendments governs the listing and protection of buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest. Works which will alter or extend a listed building in a way which would affect its character or its setting and demolition works require listed building consent. Works requiring listed building consent may also require planning permission. The Act requires planning authorities, when determining applications for planning permission or listed building consent, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. There is a presumption against demolition or other works that will adversely affect a listed building or its setting. Similarly, it is the duty of the planning authority to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a Conservation Area when exercising their powers under planning legislation.
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and amendments, is the primary legislation which governs both development planning and development management in Scotland. The Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 amends in part the 1997 Act and makes further provision relating to town and country planning in Scotland. In essence these state that the historic environment (both statutory and non-statutory designations) are of interest in planning procedures and are of material consideration in the planning process.
Article 15 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order Statutory Instrument 1992 and amendments to it in Section 5 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Order 1994 and The Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007
10 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
requires planning authorities, prior to granting planning permission, to consult Scottish Ministers (through Historic Scotland) on any development proposals that may affect the site or setting of a Scheduled Monument, an A-Listed building, an Inventoried Garden or Designed Landscape or an Inventoried Historic Battlefield. This means that the presence of such sites within the area of a proposed development and the protection of its setting are material considerations in the planning process and any planning proposal that would affect a site must be referred to Scottish Ministers (through Historic Scotland).
2.2 Government and Planning Policy Context and Guidelines
2.2.1 National
Scottish Ministers’ vision and strategic policies for the historic environment are set out in Historic Scotland’s Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) 2011. Further more detailed guidance is provided by Historic Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment guidance series, to be found at their website2 and to which planning authorities are directed3. The Scottish Ministers’ key policy principles include that:
“there should be a presumption in favour of preservation of individual historic assets and also the pattern of the wider historic environment; no historic asset should be lost or radically changed without adequate consideration of its significance and of all the means available to manage and conserve it” (para 1.14);
that the conservation of the historic environment should:
“have regard to retaining, or where appropriate enhancing, the setting of the site, monument, building or landscape; ensure that, where change is proposed, it is appropriate, carefully considered, authoritatively based, properly planned and executed, and (if appropriate) reversible;” (para 1.15);
and that there should be
“provision for recording where continued preservation is no longer possible or where loss is taking place through change or ongoing decay, and ensure that all records are retained in readily accessible archives” (para 1.15).
2 http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/index/heritage/policy/managingchange.htm
3 Planning Circular 9 2009: Withdrawal and Replacement of the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
11 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP 2010), with the companion Planning Advice Note (PAN 2/2011): Planning and Archaeology 2011, sets out the Scottish Government’s planning policy on how the historic environment should be handled under the development plan and development control systems. The SPP acknowledges that the historic environment is a key part of Scotland’s cultural heritage and recognises that it enhances national, regional and local distinctiveness, contributing to sustainable economic growth and regeneration and should therefore be effectively protected and managed by Local Authorities. The historic environment includes “ancient monuments, archaeological sites and landscape, historic buildings, townscapes, parks, gardens and designed landscapes and other features. It comprises both statutory and non-statutory designations. The location of historic features in the landscape and the patterns of past use are part of the historic environment.” (SPP 2010, para 111).
It recognises that “archaeological sites and monuments are an important, finite and non-renewable resource and should be protected and preserved in situ wherever feasible” (SPP 2010, para 123), but also that “in most cases the historic environment can accommodate change which is informed and sensitively managed”, with the proviso that “in some cases the importance of the heritage asset is such that change may be difficult or not possible” (SPP 2010, para 111). “When determining a planning application, the desirability of preserving a monument (whether scheduled or not) and its setting is a material consideration….The objective should be to assure the protection and enhancement of monuments by preservation in situ in an appropriate setting (perhaps with a degree of interpretation) or, when preservation in situ is not possible, by recording and/or excavation followed by analysis and publication of the results” (PAN2/2011, para 14).
2.2.2 Local
The primary means by which Local Authorities must determine applications for planning consent is through the Local Development Plan Framework. Currently, the Highland Council’s Caithness Local Plan (2002) and The Highland Council’s Structure Plan (2001) set out the strategic framework for development of land in Caithness. These will shortly be supplemented and eventually superseded by the Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP), the proposed version of which was produced in September 2010
12 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
and which is a material planning consideration. These plans encourage appropriate developments while at the same time protecting inter alia archaeology and built heritage (see HwDLP Appendix 6.2 for definitions).
Structure Plan policies BC1-5 are specifically concerned with the built and cultural heritage of the Highlands. For example:
• Highland Structure Plan Policy BC1: “Archaeological sites [and in Strategic Policy G2 their setting] affected by development proposals should be preserved, or, in exceptional circumstances where preservation is impossible, the sites will be recorded at developers’ expense to professional standards. Provision will be made in Local Plans for the appropriate protection, preservation and enhancement of archaeological sites”;
• Policy BC4 “The Council will seek to preserve historic gardens and designed landscapes identified in the published inventory and in any additions to it. Local Plans will contain policies for their protection”; and
• Policy BC5 “The Council will seek to preserve Highland’s buildings and groups of buildings of historic or architectural interest, some of which may be at risk from neglect, by the identification in Local Plans of opportunities for their productive and appropriate use”.
The draft Highland wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) includes Policy 58, which states that
“All development proposals will be assessed taking into account the level of importance and nature of heritage features, the nature and scale of development, and any impact on the feature and its setting. The following criteria will also apply: 1. For features of local/regional importance we will allow developments if we believe that they will not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity and heritage resource. 2. For features of national importance we will allow developments that can be shown not to compromise the amenity and heritage resource. Where there may be any significant adverse effects, these must be clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance. It must also be shown that the development will support communities in fragile areas who are having
13 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
difficulties in keeping their population and services.”
3.0 Assessment Methodology
This assessment involved the following activities:
• reviewing existing databases for the area to identify and evaluate known sites in the area and known sites within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) and the potential for unidentified sites and landscapes; • conducting a walkover survey of the development area (defined as shown on Figure 1.1 of the MeyGen Tidal Energy Project: Basis of Design document, dated 30/06/2011) to identify and evaluate previously unknown sites and visiting sites with potentially sensitive settings within the ZTV; • predicting and assessing direct and indirect impacts that may occur during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the proposed development; and • presenting mitigation or management strategies in order to ensure the residual significance of any impact is of an acceptable level.
These activities are described in more detail in the sections that follow. They follow standard practice and guidelines (referred to in each section).
3.1 Scoping and Consultation
A scoping document (MeyGen Tidal Energy Project EIA Scoping Document, MEYGEN-ER-002-EIA Scoping Document_1.7, 24/05/2011) was sent by MeyGen Ltd and Xodus to the relevant statutory authorities, including Historic Scotland (via Marine Scotland) and the Highland Council and their Historic Environment Team (HC HET) for comment on the development project and the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment. Local cultural heritage bodies (the Caithness Archaeological Trust and the Caithness Field Club) were also invited to comment, and invited to the public meetings held in Thurso on 30th June and 1st July and Mey on 2nd July 2011 (see the Stakeholder Database Public Event Report by Pagoda Public Relations, July 2011). At these events there was clear concern about the potential Landscape and Visual impacts of the development, including the possibility for overhead power cables connecting to substations. It was also
14 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
felt that the project was much less intrusive than wind developments.
Historic Scotland’s (HS) response (letter dated 14th July 2011, HS case ID 201101676) concentrated on their statutory remit for statutorily designated sites, areas and landscapes, listing such cultural heritage resources that had the potential to be affected, and recommended that the HC HET was consulted for advice on all other aspects of the historic environment. HS provisionally stated that
“Without prejudice and on the basis of the information supplied, we can indicate at this stage that we consider that it may be possible to locate such a development in this location without it raising significant issues for our historic environment interests.”
HS stated that
“It will be important for the ES to assess both direct impacts (i.e. the direct loss of and/or damage to an historic environment feature) and indirect impacts (e.g. effects on the setting of an historic environment feature/developments affecting the existing character of the historic environment) on these features…[and]… consider the cumulative impacts of this development proposal in combination with other proposed and consented schemes.”
HS stated that the potential effect on Canisbay parish church (HB Num 1795; ORCA 53) should be considered along with the other onshore statutorily designated cultural heritage features listed in the Scoping Document. HS recommended referring to the Managing Change in the Historic Environment guidance note on setting. The guidance notes explain how to apply the policies contained in the Scottish Planning Policy (2010) and the Scottish Historic Environment Policy (2009), the Scottish Ministers overarching policy framework for the historic environment.
On receipt of further project details from MeyGen, HS welcomed
“that all land used for HDD temporary works will be fully reinstated following completion of the construction stage as permanent development in this location has the potential to impact on the setting of
the category A listed Canisbay Parish Church (HB Num 1795), a 17th century white-harled parish church with associated churchyard. The
15 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
fields to the north and east are important by providing an open landscape setting around the church in these areas” (letter dated 5th September 2011, HS case ID 201102047).
Finally, following further consultation and the submission of the document MeyGen Basis of Design v4, HS stated that
“the current proposals do not appear to raise significant issues for our statutory historic environment interests (i.e. scheduled monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting, Inventory designed landscapes and designated wrecks)” (e-mail dated 14th September 2011).
The Highland Council provided MeyGen with HC HET’s recommended approach to EIA scoping exercises, dated March 2011, which has been incorporated into this report. HC HET attended the Design meeting held in Caithness on 6th September to provide specific comment on the project. In the pre-application advice pack provided by the Highlands Council (September 2011, ref no 11/03214/PREAPP) policies relevant to the historic environment were identified, essentially requiring the consideration of impacts on cultural heritage assets and expressing the preference for preservation in situ. Historic environment constraints were identified, as were the requirements to submit a full assessment of historic environment assets both above and below ground and the necessity for the building and landscape design to be sympathetic to the landscape and historic environment.
In an e-mail dated 6th October 2011, approving recommendations based on the results of targeted geophysical survey of the Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna development areas, HC HET stated that
“Our preference is that all potential archaeological remains are preserved in situ and not damaged or destroyed, with the development designed to respect these features. If avoidance is not practicable or possible, however, we would be content to see any consented development proceed on the proviso appropriate archaeological mitigation (as per that discussed in the ORCA report) is in place. It is notable that following this [geophysical] survey the most significant historic environment issue appears to remain (pending visualisations) Canisbay Kirk and I would suggest that this should take precedence over other historic environment issues when considering the
16 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
design and positioning of any proposed development.”
No scoping response was made by the Caithness Archaeological Trust, but Mr Geoff Leet, Chairman of the Caithness Field Club, had the opinion that the “project has a small land footprint so should easily avoid historic monuments” and kindly brought to attention the relevant results of the 1980s Caithness Coastal Survey by Colleen Batey and additional sites in the area (letter to Ed Rollings of MeyGen, 22.05.2011).
The assessment methodologies used in this Chapter have been approved before by HS and the HC HET for other projects conducted by ORCA in Caithness4.
3.2 Desk Based Assessment
The DBA was executed in accordance with the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) Standard and Guidance for archaeological desk-based assessment (revised 2008, at www.archaeologists.net) and the relevant parts of The Highland Council’s Guidance for Archaeological Contractors (available at www.highland.gov.uk).
The DBA covered the area of mainland Caithness as shown on Figure 1.1 of the MeyGen Tidal Energy Project: Basis of Design document, dated 30/06/2011 which includes the areas of the Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna landfall, HDD and PCC locations and the potential cable route options between the PCC and grid connection point(s). This was to identify any sites that might be directly affected by the proposed development and their immediate context. The DBA reviewed the following sources:
• The National Monuments Record of Scotland, using the Canmore and Pastmap database websites; http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/ ;
• The local Sites and Monuments Record using the Highland Council website; http://her.highland.gov.uk/;
• Ordnance Survey maps including County Series 1:2500 (25” to 1 mile) 1st edition 1877, Caithness-shire; County Series 1:2500 (25” to 1 mile)
4 evidence to this effect can be supplied if requested
17 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
1st Revision (second edition) 1907, Caithness-shire; OS Explorer Map, 1: 25 000, 2007 edition, Thurso and John O’ Groats;
• Relevant historic maps available on the National Library of Scotland website;
• The Canisbay parish entries in the Old and New Statistical Accounts of Scotland, 1791-99 and 1834-45 respectively, via the Edina website; stat-acc-scot.edin.ac.uk;
• Statutory lists, registers and designated areas, including List of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Inventories of Gardens & Designed Landscapes and Historic Battlefields, and local authority Conservation Areas;
• High resolution aerial photographs of the study area supplied by Xodus;
• The Bulletins of the Caithness Field Club, available at http://www.caithness.org/caithnessfieldclub/bulletins/linkindex.htm; and
• Various other readily available archaeological and historical reports, databases and publications were consulted for information about the study area (such as Barber 2006, Batey et al 1993, Calder 1887, Davidson & Henshall 1991, Omand 1989) and, where used, will be cited in the report.
Each cultural heritage site, monument, area and building identified within the assessment area was assigned an individual site number. All sites identified by the DBA and the importance and significance of each individual site, are presented in an Excel spreadsheet accompanying this report (ORCA 266 MeyGen cultural heritage DBA and walkover results 20_09_2011 edition.xls).
3.3 Walkover Survey
The walkover survey was executed in accordance with the relevant sections of the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation (revised 2008, at www.archaeologists.net) and the relevant parts of The Highland Council’s Guidance for Archaeological Contractors (available at www.highland.gov.uk).
18 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
The area fieldwalked was defined as the development area, comprising the areas of the Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna landfall, HDD and PCC site, and the potential cable route options, as shown on Figure 1.1 of the MeyGen Tidal Energy Project: Basis of Design document, dated 30/06/2011 (see Figure 1).
The walkover survey, conducted in July 2011, was undertaken in a systematic manner, field by field, with transect width appropriate to the conditions (mostly pasture, silage, cereal crop and rough grazing). Any features or sites identified were assigned an individual site number, in the same sequence as the sites identified in the DBA, briefly recorded by notes, sketches, photographs and handheld GPS and evaluated. The accuracy of the co-ordinates for the sites identified by both the DBA and the walkover survey are included on the accompanying Excel DBA and walkover results spreadsheet.
All sites identified by the walkover survey, and the importance and significance of each individual site, are presented in the Excel spreadsheet accompanying this report (ORCA 266 MeyGen cultural heritage DBA and walkover results 20_09_2011 edition.xls). A list of photographs taken during the walkover survey is available on request. Any sites identified by the DBA within the development area were also visited to evaluate their nature, condition and potential impacts of the proposed works. Several sites within the Zones of Theoretical Visibility for onshore infrastructure were also visited for the consideration of setting issues. Subsequently, targeted geophysical surveys have been undertaken over potentially sensitive sites in the Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna areas in order to inform appropriate mitigation measures (ORCA October 2011).
3.4 Zones of Theoretical Visibility
The Zones of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna were established by a process described in the Landscape, Seascape and Visual Impact Assessment (ES Section 19) and photomontages from cultural heritage viewpoints / viewpoints relevant to cultural heritage assets are included in that EIA. Several sites within the ZTVs for were visited for the consideration of setting issues. Each archaeological or historical site, monument and building identified within the ZTV of each potential HDD and
19 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
PCC location was assigned an individual site number in the same sequence as those identified by the DBA and walkover survey.
Guidance indicates that if a historic asset is not within the visual envelope of a development then most factors contributing to the setting of the asset will not be affected.5 Thus it is not considered that the underground cable routes will have an effect on setting. The distance from which a development is seen is important in considering the impact on setting, which has resulted in the potential impact of the development on the setting of heritage assets being assessed in zones: within 2km of the PCC, 2-5km away and 5-10km away. Beyond this it is most unlikely that the development will have an impact.
Within the ZTV in a 2km radius of the proposed HDD and PCC locations, all sites were recorded and assessed in terms of the potential historic landscape and setting impact. For the ZTV between 2 and 5km from the PCC, sites of moderate to very high significance were assessed i.e. of regional, national or international importance), whilst 5 to 10km away only sites of high or very high significance, were assessed for the purposes of this report, because the potential impact on sites of lower significance within these zones would be minor or none. Sites outwith the 10km ZTV were not assessed, because the onshore sites would not really be visible to the naked eye, so the level of impact is considered to be none or negligible, even on sites of national importance. These bands are based on how prominent the development would be at increasing distances from the site and concepts in national guidance6.
Each archaeological or historical site, monument and building identified within the ZTV of each potential HDD and PCC location was assigned an individual site number in the same sequence as those identified by the DBA and walkover survey. All identified sites and the importance and significance of each individual site within the ZTVs are shown on Figures 10
5 http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/setting-2.pdf, sections 2 to 4
6E.g. Planning Advice Note 45, PAN 45 (revised 2002), Renewable Energy Technologies, para 78 & Fig 8, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/02/pan45/pan-45
20 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
and 11 and predicted impact on Figures 12 and 13. This part of the EIA is summarised in Tables 26 and 27 in Appendix 2 and presented in detail on the accompanying spreadsheets (ORCA_266_ZTV_Ness_of_Huna_setting_EIA.xls and ORCA_266_ZTV_Ness_of_Quoys_setting_EIA.xls).
3.5 Significance Criteria
3.5.1 Criteria for Importance, Significance and Sensitivity
The importance and significance attributed to each identified area, site or feature will be determined using the criteria in Table 1, which incorporate general guidelines used by statutory agencies such as Historic Scotland, outlined in Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) 2011, Scottish Planning Policy (February 2010), with the companion Planning Advice Note (PAN 2/2011): Planning and Archaeology and Historic Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment Guidance Notes. It should be noted that a site that has not been statutorily designated can still be of national importance. Features that would require considerable further work to interpret them will be recorded as of uncertain importance and significance.
The level of significance usually correlates directly to a site’s importance, as in Table 1 below, and relates to its intrinsic, contextual and associative characteristics7. However, some professional judgement may be needed when a site has more (or even less) significance than its importance would suggest. Factors such as:
• “the relative rarity of the archaeological feature concerned; • the completeness of the feature / whether it is a particularly good example of its type; • the historical or cultural associations of the feature; • the value given to the feature by the local community; • the potential value of the feature as an in situ educational or research resource; and • the potential value of retaining the feature for tourism or place-making”
may require consideration in assessing the significance of a site8.
7 See SHEP 2011 Annexes 1-6 for detailed explanations of such criteria.
8 Planning Advice Note (PAN 2/2011): Planning and Archaeology 2011, para 6.
21 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
It should be noted that although Listed Buildings have a hierarchy of relative importance, in law all listed buildings receive equal legal protection, and protection applies equally to the interior and exterior of all listed buildings regardless of category9.
Level of asset Importance Criteria10 significance
Very High Archaeological and historical sites or areas of international importance, such as World Heritage Sites, and may also include some Category A Listed Buildings, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Designed Gardens & Landscapes and Historic Battlefields that are not only of national but of international importance
Archaeological and historical sites or areas of national importance, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Category A and some Category B High Listed Buildings, Inventoried Designed Gardens & Landscapes, Inventoried Historic Battlefields
Sites and areas of regional importance, Some Category B Listed Medium Buildings and Category C(s) Listed Buildings
Locally important archaeological sites or areas and unlisted Low buildings/structures which may have elements of architectural value
Features that have been recorded but assessed as of no or negligible archaeological or historical importance, such as modern clearance Negligible cairns, 18th to 20th-century dykes and buildings that have been demolished or have been so altered or ruined that they no longer have any features of any historic merit
Features or sites that cannot be identified without further or detailed work, but potentially may be of some interest; findspots, which may Uncertain represent an isolated find, or could represent the location of a hitherto unknown site. An estimate may be given of maximum likely potential significance, depending on field survey evidence.
Table 1: Definitions of importance and significance of cultural heritage assets
Although there is no statutory definition, ‘setting’ is an important consideration in assessing changes to the historic environment in the planning process.
“Setting is more than the immediate surroundings of a site or building, and may be related to the function or use of a place, or how it was intended to fit
9 http://www.historic- scotland.gov.uk/index/heritage/historicandlistedbuildings/listing.htm 10For definitions see Scottish Planning Policy paragraphs 110-124, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/03132605/0 and http://www.historic- scotland.gov.uk/index/heritage/historicandlistedbuildings/listing.htm
22 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
into the landscape or townscape, the view from it or how it is seen from around, or areas that are important to the protection of the place, site or building. When…considering development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic character, planning authorities should consider the capacity of settlements and the surrounding areas to accommodate development without damage to their historic value” (SPP 2010, para 113).
“The setting of a heritage structure, site or area is defined as the immediate and extended environment that is part of, or contributes to, its significance and distinctive character” (ICOMOS Xi’an Declaration, 2005).11
Guidance on setting is contained in Historic Scotland’s Managing Change in the Historic Environment series12, dated October 2010. Here, setting is defined as how monuments were:
“deliberately positioned with reference to the surrounding topography, resources, landscape and other monuments or buildings. These relationships will often have changed through the life of a historic structure. Setting can be thought of as the way in which a historic structure’s surroundings contribute to how it is experienced, understood and appreciated. Setting often extends beyond the immediate property boundary of a historic structure into the broader landscape” (paras 2.2 & 2.3).
It can be seen from the above definitions that Setting can be a fluid concept, open to interpretation and difficult to quantify and tabulate, considering the range of factors that may contribute to the setting of a site, and will ultimately rely on professional judgement13. There is no statutory definition of setting. Historic Scotland’s guidance note on setting lists ten factors and indicates this is not exhaustive14:
• “current landscape or townscape context; • visual envelope, incorporating views to, from and across the historic structure;
11 http://www.international.icomos.org/xian2005/xian-declaration.htm 12 http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/setting-2.pdf 13 See Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) Working Group on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Features’ Setting Standards: A Review (Lambrick, 2008) for an illustration of the debate over definitions and approaches 14 http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/setting-2.pdf, section 3
23 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
• key vistas, framed by rows of trees, buildings or natural features that give a structure a context, whether or not intentional; • the historic structure’s prominence in views throughout the surrounding area; • character of the surrounding landscape; • general and specific views including foregrounds and backdrops; • relationships between both built and natural features; • aesthetic qualities; • other non-visual factors such as historical, artistic, literary, linguistic, or scenic associations, intellectual relationships (e.g. to a theory, plan or design), or sensory factors; • a ‘Sense of Place’: the overall effect formed by the above factors.”
All but the last three of the factors listed above are visual- or landscape- related and, in order to keep the assessment clear, concise and robust, are addressed in separate landscape setting and visual setting sub-sections in the summary EIA tables 26 and 27 in Appendix 2 and accompanying xls spreadsheets. It is clear that if a cultural heritage asset is not visible on the ground surface, then none of these factors apply and it is unlikely that its setting is sensitive, unless it is part of a proven subsurface landscape of archaeological deposits. Addressing visual- and landscape-related factors is usually enough to identify and evaluate all but the most serious setting concerns. If necessary, these will be addressed individually, site by site and include, where relevant, non-visual and non-landscape factors such as noise.
Landscape setting sensitivity includes the factors identified by Historic Scotland concerning the current landscape or townscape context, character of the surrounding landscape and relationships between both built and natural features. The level of sensitivity to change of the landscape-related setting of cultural heritage assets can be broadly defined as in Table 2.
The Visual setting sensitivity includes the factors identified by Historic Scotland concerning the visual envelope, incorporating views to, from and across the historic structure; key vistas, framed by rows of trees, buildings or natural features that give a structure a context, whether or not intentional; the historic structure’s prominence in views throughout the surrounding area; general and specific views including foregrounds and backdrops. The level of visual sensitivity of the setting of a cultural heritage asset can be broadly defined as in Table 2. Sensitivity is not directly equivalent to the importance
24 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
of the asset. The receptor is the asset itself, but can also include visitors to it.
Setting Sensitivity Landscape Guideline criteria Visual Guideline criteria
Areas of landscape that are critical Receptors from or to which (or for in their contribution to a site’s whom) the view is critical and where appreciation or understanding, any changes would be particularly unique or distinctive historic noticed. For example, World Heritage landscapes, or considered Sites and Areas, some Inventoried susceptible to any changes because Designed Landscapes, Historic Very High a heritage site is a critical part of it, Battlefields, SAMs and Listed World Heritage landscapes Buildings, where the view in question is of historic or heritage importance and critical to it; sites that have or are a highly visible part of critical views; sites that are a critical element of an Inventoried designed landscape Areas of landscape that are highly Receptors from or to which (or for valued in their contribution to a site’s whom) the view is important and where appreciation or understanding, changes would be particularly noticed. particularly rare or distinctive historic For example, the setting of nationally landscapes, or considered important sites such as SAMs, where susceptible to small changes the view in question is of historic or High because a heritage site is a key part heritage importance and relevant to it; of it highly visited sites; sites that have or are a clearly visible part of highly valued or key views; sites that are a major element of an Inventoried designed landscape Areas of landscape that are Receptors for whom or from which or to moderately valued in their which the change in the view is a small contribution to a site’s appreciation element in the overall view, not critical or understanding, are considered of to the visual setting, or where the historic value locally, are tolerant of nature of the view is of secondary moderate levels of change because importance. For example, sites that heritage sites are not key to the have or are part of little valued, Medium landscape secondary or minor views; sites that are little visited or usually only seen from moving vehicles (except tourist attractions or feature on tourist routes); sites that are a secondary element of a designed landscape, or hardly visible in highly valued or key views Areas of landscape that are Receptors from/to which or for whom generally more commonplace and/or the change is of little importance contribute little to a site’s appreciation or understanding, are considered potentially tolerant of Low noticeable change, or undergoing substantial development such that their character is one of change and heritage sites within it have therefore experienced much change to their surroundings
25 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Setting Sensitivity Landscape Guideline criteria Visual Guideline criteria
Areas of landscape that are Receptors from/to which or for whom commonplace and/or contribute the change is irrelevant, including nothing to a site’s appreciation or assets that do not show on the ground understanding (especially if the site surface is completely sub-surface), are considered tolerant of noticeable Negligible change, or have undergone substantial development such that their character is one of complete change and heritage sites within it have no relation to their surroundings Areas of landscape where it is Receptors that are not understood or uncertain how they contribute to a interpreted, so that it is uncertain how site’s appreciation or understanding, visual factors relate to them Unknown because the feature or asset itself could not or has not been understood or interpreted Table 2: Definitions of setting sensitivity
3.5.2 Criteria for Assessing Magnitude and Likelihood of Impact
The magnitude of any potential adverse impact on a cultural heritage asset and the historic environment caused by the development proposals was determined using the criteria shown in Table 3.
The magnitude of impact on the setting of cultural heritage assets is a function of the scale of changes likely to result from the proposed development to the character of the landscape in how it relates to associated cultural heritage assets. This may include physical changes to the fabric of the landscape, effects on significant individual elements of the landscape, and effects on characteristic combinations or patterns of elements, all in relation to archaeology and cultural heritage. It is also a function of the scale and type of change in the composition and character of the view of, to or from the heritage receptor under consideration. This includes the distance to the change, whether the change blends in or stands out, the location of the development within the view and the extent of the view affected. The cultural heritage asset is considered as the main receptor and visitors to it or viewing it considered as secondary receptors15.
15 See Historic Scotland 2010 Managing Change in the Historic Environment setting guidance note para 4.10 for this distinction
26 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Direct / Magnitude of Construction Indirect / Setting / Operational Impact Criteria Impact Impact Criteria
Works would result The removal of, or a fundamental and irreversible in the complete change to, the relationship between a heritage asset loss of a site. and a historically relevant landscape. Major change to a highly sensitive or valued landscape, which removes or prevents appreciation of characteristics key to a heritage asset, or permanent change to or removal of less sensitive or valued landscape.
The proposed development overpowers, dominates Very High and radically alters or removes the view and completely changes its character and quality. For example, the development is the only view in the near- ground; lies directly in the foreground removing a line of view to which the site has been deliberately oriented or designed.
An irreversible and radical change to the setting, removing or preventing appreciation of key characteristics of a highly sensitive asset.
Works would result A noticeable change to a key relationship between a in the loss of an heritage asset and a highly sensitive, valued or area, features or historically relevant landscape over a wide area or an evidence intensive change to a less sensitive or valued fundamental to the landscape over a limited area. historic character and integrity of the The proposed development dominates the view and substantially changes its character and quality. For High site. Severance would result in the example, the development in full view in the near- complete loss of ground; lies directly in the near-ground of the line of physical integrity. view to which the site has been deliberately oriented or designed; it projects well above the horizon or skyline in the near- or middle-ground
A fundamental or key change to the setting of a highly sensitive asset.
Works would result Noticeable change to a landscape not key to a heritage in the loss of an asset, tolerant of moderate levels of change. Small important part of changes to the relationship between a heritage asset the site or some and a historically relevant landscape over a wide area important features or noticeable change over a limited area. and evidence, but not areas or The proposed development is clearly noticeable in the features view and affects its character or quality, but is not Medium fundamental to its critical to the receptor. For example, the development historic character is in full view in the middle-ground of an otherwise and integrity. open view; lies in the middle ground of a designed Severance would view, but does not block or completely dominate or affect the integrity badly break the skyline. of the site, but key physical A material but non-fundamental change to the setting. relationships would not be lost.
27 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Direct / Magnitude of Construction Indirect / Setting / Operational Impact Criteria Impact Impact Criteria
Works or the Very minor changes to the relationship between a severance of the heritage asset and a historically relevant landscape site would not over a wide area or minor changes over a limited area. affect the main Minor changes to a landscape considered tolerant of features of the change in relation to heritage asset. site. The historic Low integrity of the site The proposed development does not affect the would not be character and quality of the view, or it is a minor significantly element likely to be overlooked by the casual observer. affected. For example, the development visible in the background or part of a wide view.
A detectable but non-material change to the setting.
Works or the Changes to a historically relevant landscape cannot be severance of the discerned or perceived in relation to the heritage asset. site would be confined to a The proposed development cannot be discerned in relatively small, views relevant to the setting of heritage assets. peripheral and/or Negligible unimportant part of No detectable change to the setting. the site. The integrity of the site, or the quality of the surviving evidence would not be affected.
Groundbreaking Changes to a landscape, views or other possible works over setting factors where it is uncertain how these features that have contributes to a site’s appreciation or understanding, not been fully because the feature or asset itself could not or has not interpreted would been understood or interpreted. reduce the chance of interpretation in the future. In the event of significant features this would Unknown constitute impact of high magnitude; for sites of lesser significance it is less problematical. It remains an issue where features have not been or could not be interpreted.
Table 3: Definitions of magnitude of adverse impact
The step of assessing likelihood and probability has been omitted in terms of effects on onshore cultural heritage assets, since following the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ worst-case approach it is considered to be certain that all
28 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
identified impacts will occur and only a one-off event would have a permanent and irreversible effect.
3.5.3 Criteria for Assessing Significance of Impact
Tthe calculation of the significance of any potential adverse direct (construction) impacts from the development proposal on any cultural heritage assets, prior to the application of any management or mitigation strategies, will be determined by combining the magnitude of the impact with the significance of each cultural heritage asset, as shown in Table 4.
Asset Magnitude of Impact Significance Very High High Medium Low Negligible Uncertain
Uncertain/ Very High Severe Severe Major Moderate Minor Severe
Uncertain/ High Severe Major Moderate Minor Negligible Major
Uncertain/ Medium Major Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible Moderate
Uncertain/ Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Minor
Uncertain/ Negligible Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain Severe Major Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible
Table 4: Determination of significance of direct impact
The sensitivity of the heritage asset’s setting in terms of the factors outlined in section 3.5.2 are combined with the magnitude of change as defined in section 3.5.3 so that the consequence of any effects of the proposed development on the setting of cultural heritage assets can be assessed. These consequences can be broadly categorised as in Table 5. The definitions column encompasses aesthetic qualities, non-visual factors and “Sense of Place”, as in Historic Scotland’s guidance quoted in Section 3.5.1 above.
Consequence Definition Guideline impacts on Guideline impacts on of Impact on (including non- landscape setting visual setting Setting visual factors (see Tables 2 & 6) (see Tables 3 & 7) An irreversible and Major change to a highly The changes caused by radical change to sensitive or valued the development Severe the setting, landscape, which overpower and removing or removes or prevents completely alter views preventing appreciation of and vistas key to a
29 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Consequence Definition Guideline impacts on Guideline impacts on of Impact on (including non- landscape setting visual setting Setting visual factors (see Tables 2 & 6) (see Tables 3 & 7) appreciation of key characteristics key to a highly sensitive heritage characteristics of heritage asset, or receptor the asset permanent change to or removal of less sensitive or valued landscape A fundamental or Noticeable change to a The changes caused by key change to the highly sensitive or valued the development setting landscape key to a dominate and heritage asset, or substantially alter the Major intensive change to less character of a key or sensitive or valued important view in landscape relation to a highly sensitive heritage receptor A material but non- Noticeable change to a The changes caused by fundamental landscape not key to a the development are change to the heritage asset, tolerant of clearly noticeable and setting moderate levels of affect the quality of a Moderate change view, but are not critical to the receptor, or the view itself is of secondary importance A detectable but Minor changes to a The changes caused by non-material landscape considered the development are a change to the tolerant of change in minor element in a view Minor setting relation to heritage asset and/or the view is incidental or of minor or no importance to the receptor No detectable No discernible change to The proposed None change to the the landscape development cannot setting normally be perceived. Table 5: Consequences of impact on setting
In order to evaluate how significant the impact on the setting of a cultural asset actually is, the significance of the site itself (see Table 1) that the setting is associated with must be related to the impact as in Table 6, otherwise a major impact on the setting of a site of low or negligible importance would take on more significance than it merits. Under EIA regulations, impacts of moderate or higher significance are considered to be significant effects that may require consideration by the competent authorities and will require control, management and mitigation16. However, it should be noted that impacts of minor significance may still require some
16 See Scottish Planning Series Planning Circulars 8-2007: The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, and 3-2011: The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011,
30 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
management or mitigation to remain within acceptable levels.
Asset Consequence of Impact on Setting Significance Severe High Medium Low Negligible Uncertain
Uncertain/ Very High Severe Severe Major Moderate Minor Severe
Uncertain/ High Severe Major Moderate Minor Negligible Major
Uncertain/ Medium Major Moderate Moderate Minor Negligible Moderate
Uncertain/ Low Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Minor
Uncertain/ Negligible Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain/ Uncertain Severe Major Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible
Table 6: Significance of impact on setting
Under EIA regulations, impacts of moderate or higher significance are considered to be significant effects that may require consideration by the competent authorities and will require control, management and mitigation17. However, it should be noted that impacts of minor significance may still require some management or mitigation to remain within acceptable levels.
3.6 Assessment Assumptions and Limitations
Using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ approach, the cultural heritage impact assessment has been produced with the assumption that the whole of the onshore development area will be subject to ground and demolition works and thus the magnitude of direct impact on any identified cultural remains within the area will be High (for sites partly within the development area) or Very High (for sites completely within the development area), with occasional lower magnitudes of impact assigned if the site is almost completely outwith the development area. The development area is as defined on Figure 1.1 of MeyGen Tidal Energy Project: Basis of Design document, dated 30/06/2011, and includes both possible sites for the
17 See Scottish Planning Series Planning Circulars 8-2007: The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, and 3-2011: The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011,
31 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
landfall and HDD operations, PCC location and all potential cable routes. Thus, in many cases, this approach has resulted in the over-rating of how significant many of the impacts will be in reality, since the project design has evolved and taken into account the results of this assessment since it was completed.
The desk based assessment was extensive but not exhaustive, thus there remains the low possibility that there may be sites or features of archaeological or historical significance that have not been identified by the DBA. Sites identified by the DBA, especially farms and wells, but not visited during the walkover survey, were assumed to be of at least Local importance with a minimum significance of Low, as a precautionary principle. Dwellings identified by the DBA which were seen to be currently occupied were assessed from a discreet distance.
During the walkover survey, every effort was made to thoroughly investigate all parts of the development area. However, some access limitations and visibility issues meant that this was not always possible; in these areas a best assessment was made of whether any sites were present.
The access limitations and visibility issues comprised:
• No access permission was gained for some small fields;
• Livestock such as bulls and horses prevented access to some fields;
• Maturing cereal crops prevented access to some fields;
• Maturing hay crop and the summer height of wild vegetation (including gorse, heather and thistles) reduced visibility in some areas;
• Intensive plough cultivation in some areas may have removed or masked archaeology that showed on the surface; and
• Peat cover of 1-2m depth in some areas may have masked prehistoric features.
The specific fields and issues are recorded on the field survey maps. Where there were such issues, survey and assessment was made from adjacent land. Whilst not perfect, it was felt that the access and visibility issues were not significant enough to require re-surveying a piece of land and that the walkover results are adequate for the purposes of this assessment.
The EIA and ES include an assessment of effects of the proposed
32 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
development on the setting of any historic environment assets. In terms of considering impact on setting, use of the ZTVs for the initial impact assessment prior to mitigation addresses the worst-case scenario. Also as part of the worst case scenario, this EIA has assumed that the buildings in the two PCC locations will be 13m high and, with ancillary car park, hard- standing and security fencing, spread across the full area. This will clearly not be the case, but the layout and design of the onshore facilities had yet to be finalised at the time of the assessment. The final indicative design with a smaller footprint and building designs and finishes can be seen in Section 5 of the ES.
The assessment of indirect impact issues including setting incorporates information provided by other studies, including that on Landscape Seascape and Visual and that on Noise and Vibration.
It is assumed that there will be no direct impacts on the historic environment during reinstatement and decommissioning, because all direct effects are likely to have occurred during construction and it is assumed that decommissioning works will not go outside the ground-breaking footprint of the construction phase. The effects of reinstatement are considered to be neutral since work will restore what was there before, rather than improve on what was there before.
4.0 Cultural Heritage Baseline Description
Each site, monument and building identified as of cultural heritage interest, both by the DBA and by the walkover survey, has been assigned an individual site number. The detailed results of the identified sites are presented in the Excel spreadsheet accompanying this report (ORCA 266 MeyGen cultural heritage DBA and walkover results.xls), including an assessment of the importance and significance of each site.
A summary of the sites, monuments and buildings considered to be of cultural heritage significance will be given for each part of the development area (as depicted on Figure 1) together with an assessment of archaeological potential. The sites are located on Figures 2 to 5 and summarised in Tables 7 and 8 below. For simplicity of illustration and
33 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
discussion, sub categories of significance have been grouped together by their highest likely significance in the report. For example, where it is uncertain if a site is of moderate or of low significance, it has been displayed and discussed as having a moderate significance as a precautionary principle. This higher classification informs the nature of the suggested management and mitigation strategies. The precise significance assigned to each site can be found in the accompanying DBA and walkover results Excel spreadsheet.
34 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) Philip’s West Mains Gills to Quoys to Canisbay Hill of Ness of Ness of Site Type North East Mey Hilltop Gills Kirkstyle Huna to Gills Rigifa’ Rigifa’ Quoys Huna TOTAL
Bridge 424 1 Cairn 1 1 Cropmark 356 1 Dam 184, 185 2 Ditch 367, 368 3 Drain 358 1 Enclosure 378 344 414 84 4 178, 182, 260, 261, Farmstea 193, 195, 137, 140 262, 264, 151 16 d 198, 199, 266, 274 396 Fence 431 1 line Findspot 48 1 365, 372, 384, 385, Flag dyke 401 7 375 386 Grave 65 1 marker Lodge 18 1 Milestone 403 1 379, 382, 397, 399, Mound 371 404 422 341, 350 64 81, 432 15 383, 391 400 Orthostat 409 1 Peat 426, 427, 390, 393 429 6 cuttings 428 150, 153, Quarry 148 102, 139 171 251 430 9 360 Ridge 398 405, 406 353 417, 418 6 ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Philip’s West Mains Gills to Quoys to Canisbay Hill of Ness of Ness of Site Type North East Mey Hilltop Gills Kirkstyle Huna to Gills Rigifa’ Rigifa’ Quoys Huna TOTAL
Ridge 366, 369, and 4 370, 373 furrow Spoil 349 1 heap Standing 352 1 stone Stone 419 361 2 Stone 392 420, 421 415 4 dyke 340, 354, Stone pile 388 411, 413 7 355, 359 Stone 364, 377 387, 389 402 348, 357 416 8 spread Strainer 395 1 Structure 376 163 408 152 4 Tank 394 1 Trackway 49, 410 2 342, 343, 345, 346, Turf dyke 380, 381 9 347, 351, 362 Well 374 142 167 200 249 423 242, 412 8 TOTAL 16 23 2 15 5 6 14 3 27 9 9 129 Table 7: Summary totals of identified cultural heritage assets in development areas
36 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Philip’s West Significanc Mains Gills to Quoys to Canisbay Hill of Ness of Ness of e North East Mey Hilltop Gills Kirkstyle Huna to Gills Rigifa’ Rigifa’ Quoys Huna TOTAL
Very high 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moderate 0 18, 379, 0 0 0 0 410, 422 0 0 64, 242, 82, 84 12 382, 383, 414 391 Low 148, 366, 137, 139, 167, 171 178, 184, 249 260, 261, 48, 49, 428 152, 153, 65, 412 0 45 369, 370, 140, 163, 185, 193, 262, 264, 251, 423, 346, 347, 373, 376 380, 381, 195, 198, 266, 274 424 350, 351 394 199, 200, 396 Negligible 364, 365, 102, 142, 0 182, 395, 401, 402, 0 405, 406, 426, 427 150, 151, 411, 413, 81, 417, 62 367, 368, 384, 385, 398, 399 403 408, 409, 340, 341, 4153 418, 429, 372, 375, 386, 387, 420, 421 342, 343, 430, 431, 377, 378 388, 390, 344, 345, 432 392, 393 348, 349, 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361,
37 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
362 Uncertain 371, 374 389 0 397, 400 404 0 419 0 352, 356 416 0 10 TOTAL 16 23 2 15 5 6 14 3 27 9 9 129
Table 8: Summary of significance of identified cultural heritage assets in development areas
38 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) 4.1 Ness of Quoys
4.1.1 Identified Cultural Heritage Assets
Within the Ness of Quoys development area, nine cultural heritage sites have been identified by the DBA and walkover. Of these, three sites have been classed as having a moderate significance (ORCA 64, 242, 414) while one site is of an uncertain significance (ORCA 416). Two sites are thought to have low significance (ORCA 65, 412) and three to have negligible significance (ORCA 411, 413, 415).
A mound (ORCA 64), measuring approximately 20m in diameter and 0.7m high, is evident at the centre of the proposed development area. Situated c. 450m north east of Cansibay Kirk in a highly cultivated area, the size and character of this mound strongly suggest it to be of archaeological significance (and it shows as a geophysical anomaly – ORCA 2011) . It may well indicate the location of some kind of structure, perhaps dating from the Norse or Mediaeval periods and potentially associated with the site at Canisbay Kirk. This monument has been assessed as having moderate significance.
Plate 1: ORCA 414 – possible Cromwellian magazine
At the point of the Ness, a rectilinear dry stone enclosure between the storm beach and the modern fence was identified (ORCA 414, see Plate 1). This ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
has been identified as a possible magazine related to a Cromwellian gun battery some 50m to the west (Pottinger 1993), which was not observed during the walkover survey, perhaps due to very high vegetation or perhaps due to erosion. However, this identification remains to be proven, but would be of moderate significance if correct.
A stone spread (ORCA 416) found on the coastal slope, has been classified as having uncertain significance. Although it is very overgrown, the nature and size of the stones evident could suggest that this is part of an earlier site eroding from the land (see Plate 2). There is no dating evidence for this feature, but it should be noted that several Norse sites have been observed eroding out along this coast, particularly in the vicinity of Huna (e.g. ORCA 76, 78 and 79) and a small area of geophysical anomalies have been identified 30-40m southeast, which may be connected (ORCA 2011).
Plate 2: ORCA 416 – stone spread, potentially indicative of a larger site
Lyrequoy well (ORCA 242), which appears to be a spring formalised into a well, has been extensively altered in the very recent past. However, given the proximity to the church and sites in the vicinity noted above, it is possible that the site of the well has some longevity of use, predating the 18th and 19th centuries, and may even be associated with ecclesiastical use.
Other sites in this area, thought to be of low significance, include a roadside well, possible structure and a grave marker, which may no longer exist. The
40 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
well (ORCA 412) probably dates to the mid 19th century and has been documented as having been used by the families at Seater, Quoys and Kirkstyle (Houston 1996: 313). The small possible flag structure (ORCA 411), perhaps some kind of tank, seems most likely to date to the 19th century and to be related to agricultural practices in this area. Because no evidence has been seen on the ground for the grave marker (ORCA 65), it is likely that this has now eroded out. The grave marker is undated and therefore it is difficult to make an assessment of its significance, however, if it has been eroded away, this is no longer an issue.
The remaining sites include a 19th-century dyke, possibly associated with kelp production (ORCA 415) and a stone pile (ORCA 413). These are of negligible significance.
4.1.2 Cultural Heritage Potential
The close proximity of Canisbay Kirk (ORCA 53) to the Ness of Quoys development area means that there is a high potential for Iron Age and Norse sites in this vicinity. There is an early 20th-century reference to an earlier ruined chapel north of Canisbay Kirk, but this appears to have been confused with a rock named ‘Papel’ (ORCA 50) – which is a name indicative of early Christian (Pictish) ecclesiastics – and the footings of an abandoned distillery by the shore, built in 1826 (ORCA 51) (http://www.paparproject.org.uk/caithness1.html), Canisbay Kirk is first mentioned in the 13th-century and it seems likely that the mound on which it sits is a large broch site, dating to the Iron Age, and prehistoric finds such as hammerstones and red deer antler have been found in the graveyard (various sources quoted in Canmore database entry). There is extensive evidence for the continuity of use of Iron Age sites into the Norse and later period in Caithness as noted by Batey (Smith and Banks 2002: 185 – 190). As the kirk itself sits just outside the south west corner of the Ness of Quoys development area, it is highly possible that associated Norse and Iron Age sites extended into the development area. Indeed, at least two sites of potential Norse or Medieval significance have been identified by this study.
4.1.3 Historic Landscape and Setting
The modern landscape in the locality of the PCC is described and characterised in the Landscape, Seascape and Visual Impact Assessment
41 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
(ES Section 19)18. The Ness of Quoys development area is set on a small headland some 5-10m a.s.l. at the east side of Gills Bay, in an open landscape of mixed agriculture (mostly pasture and cereal), with squared mostly fenced fields. The landscape is also one of dispersed settlement, farms and crofts, with concentrations at Canisbay and John o’ Groats, a new ferry terminal and pier at Gills Bay and the current A836 road following the coast. There are many new houses and new farm buildings. The area is contained with gently undulating landform sloping up to the south to open moor, which has coniferous plantation south of the Hill o Rigifa’, sloping up to the west to the moorland of Mey Hill and the headland of St John’s Point and steeply up to the east at the cliffs of Duncansby Head. The shoreline mostly comprises low rocky flagstone shelving gently into the sea, except for the cliffs around Mey Hill and Duncansby Head and the sands east of John o’ Groats and in the Bay of Sannick. There are open sea views northwards across Inner Sound to Stroma, which has a similar landscape, to the Pentland Firth and Orkney beyond.
The historic landscape19 is one of late 18th- and 19th-century rectilinear fields and farming and crofting (including many abandoned croft houses). There are both active and relict areas of peat cutting, especially between the Hills of Mey and Rigifa’ and several small abandoned flagstone quarries. Certain buildings dominate the historic landscape, especially the late 18th- and early 19th-century two-storey houses, such as the derelict Huna House (ORCA 80), West Canisbay House (ORCA 62) and East Canisbay Manse (ORCA 59), and most especially Canisbay Kirk and its graveyard (ORCA 53 and 55) and the John o’ Groats House Hotel. Some, such as Huna House and Canisbay Kirk, were used as navigational aids, as – obviously – is the early 20th-century Duncansby Head lighthouse, which has no significant
18 See also Stanton, C., 1998. Caithness and Sutherland Landscape Character Assessment, SNH commissioned report No. 130 Available at http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/LCA/CaithnessSutherland.pdf
19 as defined on Historic Land-use Assessment maps, produced by HS and RCAHMS http://hla.rcahms.gov.uk
42 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
architectural merit. There are some 19th century piers and boathouses, as at John o’ Groats, Huna House and Gills and other buildings representing activities of times gone by, such as the B-Listed mill complex west of John o’ Groats (ORCA 85-89), the ruined distillery (ORCA 51) and the old school (ORCA 435) at Kirkstyle and the 18th-century bridges over West and East Burns of Gills (535 and 536). Stroma, on the north side of the sound, has a similar landscape, and includes the late 17th-century B-Listed dovecote and burial vault (ORCA 490).
Although sites earlier than the 18th century sites are known, few are as prominent as the Stroma dovecote or Canisbay Kirk, and many hardly visible on the surface (such as the Norse sites at Huna (ORCA 76-79) and Robertshaven east of John o’ Groats). Other than those already mentioned, the most evident sites are the promontory fort and early Christian chapel site of St John’s Point (ORCA 21 and 22) and the fortified seastack of Castle Mestag (ORCA 486) at the south-western tip of Stroma. However, unless close up, their prominence is more due to being cliff-girt headlands, rather than archaeological sites. There are two possible standing stones of uncertain date (ORCA 352 and 407), which appear to have no particular prominence and there are known Iron Age broch sites in the vicinity, which are now low and much disturbed mounds (ORCA 20, 40, 46, 54, 70), all of them surviving in a continually changing landscape. It is only the open moorland (ignoring the extensive peat cutting and relict quarries) sweeping round from St John’s Point and Mey Hill to Warth Hill surmounted by Neolithic or Bronze Age burial cairns (ORCA 475 and 476) that is most likely to remain something like it appeared in the Iron Age, Norse and mediaeval periods when the brochs were built, the Vikings settled and the Kirk was built.
4.2 Ness of Huna
4.2.1 Identified Cultural Heritage Assets
There were nine cultural heritage sites identified by the DBA and walkover within the Ness of Huna development area. Two sites (ORCA 82, 84) are thought to be of moderate significance, while the remaining seven sites (ORCA, 81, 417, 418, 429, 430, 431, 432) have been assigned a negligible significance.
43 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
An enclosure containing mounds (ORCA 84) could not be identified on the surface as this area has been intensively plough-cultivated; however, the 1946 aerial photographic evidence identified in Canmore indicates the presence of a potentially prehistoric site. Despite cultivation, much of this site may remain below ground and as such it has been given a moderate significance.
The precise location of ORCA 82, the “Picts Village” appears to be unknown and nothing indicating the presence of such a site was visible here on the surface. However, this oral tradition may relate to the enclosure found in the adjacent field (ORCA 84). Although not identified on the ground, taking into consideration the nearby Norse and potentially prehistoric remains, this site has been given a moderate significance.
The remaining sites are viewed to have a negligible significance. Of minor note is an area of possible peat cuttings (ORCA 429) reputed to have been used by the islanders of Stroma (Cormack pers comm.). The other sites (ORCA 81, 417, 418 and 432) seem to represent dumps of modern material from the late 20th and early 21st century, while ORCA 431 seems to indicate the line of a mid 20th-century fenceline, now removed. ORCA 430 is a small quarry probably relating to the construction of Norvic between 1877 and 1907 (OS 1st and 2nd edn maps).
4.2.2 Cultural Heritage Potential
Although now bypassed by the modern road, even in the 19th century, Huna was an exceptionally important place to the islanders of Stroma and to the sea farers in the Pentland Firth. Prior to this, the area appears to have been occupied from at least the later prehistoric period.
The presence of the enclosure (ORCA 84) and the oral tradition of the “Picts Village” (ORCA 82), strongly suggest the existence of a prehistoric, possibly Iron Age, settlement within the development area. In addition, immediately to the west of Huna House (ORCA 80), a series of Norse sites including a ship burial and settlement evidence (ORCA 76,78,79) indicates the remains of significant Norse activity within this vicinity, although significant amount of this may have been destroyed (Batey 1993: 152). It is extremely likely that this site, or those associated with it, extends eastwards into the development area.
44 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
ORCA 73 indicates a kilometre square, encompassing the Ness of Huna, within which two Norse Burials and a potentially associated cairn were identified. Once again this supports the theory that a Norse settlement was present in this area.
4.2.3 Historic Landscape and Setting
The modern landscape in the locality of the PCC is described and characterised in the Landscape, Seascape and Visual Impact Assessment (ES Chapter 19)20. The Ness of Huna development area is set on a small bulge in the coastline some 5-10m a.s.l. midway between Gills Bay and John o’ Groats, in the same open landscape as the Ness of Quoys area (see Section 4.2.3). The west side of the site is dominated by the derelict Huna House and surrounding new farm buildings, including a farm house, banks of bulldozed earth and flattened vehicle turning areas. This activity has compromised the modern setting of any historic asset here and in the 1980s partly destroyed the Norse settlement to the west (ORCA 76-79).
The historic landscape21 is as described in Section 4.1.3 above.
4.3 Underground Cable Routes
The discussion of the cable route options is organised into areas (see Figure 1 for area names), so that the potential effects using different cable routes can be compared. The area around Philip’s Mains has been divided into Philip’s Mains North and Hill of Rigifa. The former includes the area of one of SHEPD’s substation options, which is likely to be led to by the South Meys cable route; the latter includes the areas of the other two SHEPD substation options, which are likely to be led to by the Rigifa cable route.
20 See also Stanton, C., 1998. Caithness and Sutherland Landscape Character Assessment, SNH commissioned report No. 130 Available at http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/LCA/CaithnessSutherland.pdf
21 as defined on Historic Land-use Assessment maps, produced by HS and RCAHMS http://hla.rcahms.gov.uk
45 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
4.3.1 Identified Cultural Heritage Assets
4.3.1.1 Philip’s Mains North
In the area surrounding Philip’s Mains, south of the minor Freswick to Castletown road, 16 cultural heritage sites have been noted. Of these, two (ORCA 371, 374) have uncertain significance, six are viewed as being of low significance (ORCA 148, 366, 369, 370, 373, 376), while eight (ORCA 364, 365, 367, 368, 372, 375, 377, 378) are of negligible significance.
Within an area of remnant agricultural features to the NW of Philip’s Mains (ORCA 366, 369, 370, 373, see below), there is an elongated mound (ORCA 371, see Plate 3) measuring some 70m by 20m and around 0.8m high. The precise character of this is unclear, the ridge and furrow appears to respect it so the mound may well predate this. It is also possible that this is a much older site, perhaps Norse or earlier. This site is of uncertain significance.
Plate 3: ORCA 371 – large elongated mound, possibly of archaeological significance
Also of an uncertain significance is what can only be described as a hole in the ground (ORCA 374), measuring c.0.5m in diameter. This may potentially indicate the location of a post-medieval collapsed well or drain but may also suggest the presence of an underlying archaeological feature.
46 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Many of the sites indicated as being of low significance appear to potentially be reminiscent of a pre-enclosure agricultural landscape. It is thought that the Philip’s Mains area was enclosed sometime after 1855 (Houston 1996: 399) and as such, some of these features may predate this. To the north west of Philip’s Mains, a collection of apparent cultivation remains have been identified (ORCA 366, 369, 370, 373). It is possible that these represent pre enclosure ridge and furrow cultivation and therefore may date to the early 19th century or before. However, the orientation of the ridges is very consistent with the orientation of the enclosure land divisions. This may suggest that these features could also be indicative of late 19th-century attempts at rig cultivation post-dating enclosure. As parts of remnant field systems, these features have been given a low (rather than negligible) significance.
Other sites of low or negligible significance include a quarry (ORCA 148), which is indicated as ‘old quarry’ on the 1st Edition map (OS 1877). This would suggest it could be mid-early 19th-century or perhaps even late 18th- century. A small potential structure (ORCA 376) was noted adjacent to one of the stone dyke field boundaries. Constructed of flags, it is unclear what this site is but it is suggested that it may have been a well. The apparent orientation of the structure with the enclosure boundary may indicate that the feature post-dates this; however, nothing is indicated at this location on the 1st, 2nd or later edition maps (Ordnance Survey 1877, 1907, 1968). This site has been given a low significance.
Those sites classified as being of negligible significance range from apparently 19th-century remnant boundaries and enclosures (e.g. ORCA 365, 378), and stone spreads and stone piles which represent 19th-, 20th- and 21st-century clearance activities (e.g. ORCA 364, 377).
4.3.1.2 East Mey
In the area south of East Mey and north of the minor Freswick to Castletown road, 23 cultural heritage sites have been identified. Of these, five (ORCA 18, 379, 382, 383, 391) have been assigned moderate significance, seven (ORCA 137, 139, 140, 163, 380, 381, 394) low significance and ten (ORCA 102, 142, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 390, 392, 393) are of negligible significance.
47 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
One site, ORCA 389, is of unknown significance. As a low ridge with stone evident within it, it may be indicative of the presence of an archaeological structure, however, it could be something much more recent.
Of moderate significance are three mounds (ORCA 379, 382 and 383, see Plate 4) to the west of East Lodge. These measure between approximately 7m and 30m in diameter by between 0.6m and 1m high and are spread across the field, rather than being grouped together. This particular field is still very unimproved, remaining boggy with rough vegetation. Although it is clear that extensive attempts at drainage have occurred in this area, and that it was once used for quarrying, there is still potential for older sites to remain visible as extant features and hence these mounds have been given a moderate significance to reflect this possibility.
Plate 4: ORCA 383 – One of three mounds that may be of archaeological significance
East Lodge and its associated gate piers (ORCA 18, see Plate 5), although not part of the Mey Estate Inventoried Designed Landscape, clearly do represent an extension to this estate, very possibly dating to the 14th Earl’s extensions and improvements to the estate in the mid-late 19th century (Houston 1996:399-401). Because of this association with the Mey Estate, the lodge has been assessed as having a moderate significance.
48 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Plate 5: ORCA 18 - East Lodge Gate Piers
To the west of East Lodge, there are a couple of linear features (ORCA 380, 381) that may be remnant pre-enclosure land divisions. These seem likely to date to the early or mid 19th century and as such are viewed as having low significance.
Several farmsteads (ORCA 137, 140, 163) within the area have also been given a low significance. These are of vernacular construction and are either still occupied and/or may have longevity of use.
A large quarry (ORCA 139) appears to be the southern part of a very extensive working, which continued for a further 300m north of the main road. This was in operation when mapped in 1877 but seems to have fallen out of use by 1907 (Ordnance Survey 1877, 1907). As it is so extensive, it is viewed as being of low (rather than negligible) significance.
Again of low significance, ORCA 394 is what seems to be a stone tank with a nearby upright stone and various other pieces of dressed stone in the vicinity (see Plate 6). This may be a well or other similar feature, although nothing is on any of the maps consulted (OS 1877, 1907, 1968).
49 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Plate 6: ORCA 394 – possible stone tank with associated upright
Those sites in the East Mey area which have been classed as of negligible significance include several areas of peat cuttings (ORCA 393, 390) probably dating to the late 19th or early 20th century. Also evident are features apparently relating to post-enclosure land divisions, agricultural improvements, such as a number of flag and stone dykes (ORCA 384, 385, 386, 392) and clearance heaps (ORCA 387, 388). A well and small quarry have also been recorded (ORCA 102, 142).
4.3.1.3 Hilltop
There were only two sites in the Hilltop section of the cable corridor linking Gills and East Mey, on the north side of the A826. These were both of low significance, one a well (ORCA 167), the other a quarry (ORCA 171). The stone-built well is known as the Marl Well and reputedly built by Cromwell's troops around 1652 (Houston 1996: 364). The quarry was sizable, seems to have been established between 1877 and 1907 (Ordnance Survey) and was still in operation in the mid 20th century.
4.3.1.4 Gills
In the Gills area, which links the northern and southern cable corridors, 15
50 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
cultural heritage sites have been located. Two of these sites (ORCA 397, 400) is of unknown significance, nine are of low significance (ORCA 178, 184, 185, 193, 195, 198, 199, 200, 396) and four are of negligible significance (ORCA 182, 395, 398, 399).
ORCA 397 is a mound at the edge of a field that is so obscured by rushes that it is difficult to make any firm statements about it. As such this has been classified as having an uncertain significance. Further to the south another mound is evident (ORCA 400), once again overgrown with rough vegetation (see Plate 7). Although this is adjacent to a 19th-century pond (ORCA 185), its location within a boggy area next to a watercourse means that is has at least some potential for being a prehistoric feature such as a burnt mound. Because it is so overgrown, its significance is also viewed as uncertain.
Plate 7: ORCA 400 – a mound which may be of archaeological significance
Many sites of low cultural heritage significance are small farmsteads which are either still occupied (ORCA 193, 195, 178, 396) or have the potential for some longevity of use, pre-dating the mid 19th century (ORCA 198).
Various sites have been assigned low rather than negligible significance, because they are clearly of local importance. A well (ORCA 200) may pre- date the mid 19th century. Two ponds and sluices were also identified within this area, within 300m of each other and both are likely to have utilized the West Burn of Gills for their water. The first site (ORCA 185) is very
51 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
overgrown, but does have a flagstone sluice still in place. The second site (ORCA 184) seems to be of finer construction, built up with drystone walls and in places, lined with flags. The sluice and outflow arrangement also seems slightly more sophisticated. Both are good extant examples of vernacular dams and ponds.
The remaining sites classified as having negligible significance include a farmstead which has been extensively modernised (ORCA 182) and a number of clues to post enclosure agricultural activity (ORCA 398, 395, 399).
4.3.1.5 Gills to Kirkstyle
Within the northern cable corridor, between Gills and Kirkstyle, on the south side of the A826, five cultural heritage sites have been located. One of these sites (ORCA 404) is of unknown significance, one of low significance (ORCA 249) and three are of negligible significance (ORCA 401, 402, 403).
Near Kirkstyle is a mound (ORCA 404) 8m in diameter and approximately 0.4m high. This was covered in thick vegetation so characterization was difficult, especially as access was restricted by the presence of a bull. Given that the mound is in such close proximity to Canisbay Kirk, it has been given an uncertain significance to reflect the potential for Iron Age and Norse sites in this area. Further investigation would be recommended before any choice is made to take a cable through this area.
A well (ORCA 249) may be of low rather than negligible significance, because it may have been a natural spring that was formalised into a well. The sites classified as having negligible significance include post enclosure agricultural activity (ORCA 401, 402) and a milestone (ORCA 403, see Plate 8). Documents suggest that this may have been moved by the road workers of the parish early in WW2 due to fear of German invasion (Houston 1996: 29) and later reset.
52 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Plate 8: ORCA 403 – milestone removed during WW2 and later reset
4.3.1.6 Ness of Quoys to Ness of Huna
The cable corridor between the Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna contains six sites of low significance, all of which are farmsteads. Sites ORCA 260, 261, 262, 264 and 266 are all in the Huna Crofts area. ORCA 266 has been extensively modernised, while the remaining four leave no trace, having been cleared sometime between 1877 and 1907 (1st and 2nd edition Ordnance Survey). ORCA 274 appears to be a late 19th-century farmstead, planned around a courtyard, with what seems to be a large hay barn and stables on one side (see Plate 9). Red sandstone quoins are also evident. The north side of this is just clipped by the south edge of the corridor.
53 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Plate 9: ORCA 274 – 19th-century farmstead built around a courtyard
4.3.1.7 West Canisbay to Gills
In the part of the underground cable route running roughly south from Kirkstyle to West Canisbay and from West Canisbay to the south side of Gills, 14 cultural heritage sites have been identified. One of these (ORCA 419) is of uncertain significance, while two (ORCA 410, 422) are thought to have moderate significance. A further five sites (ORCA 48, 49, 251, 423, 424) are of low significance, while six are considered of negligible significance (ORCA 405, 406, 408, 409, 420, 421).
ORCA 419 is a slab of stone lying in a pasture field. Although this could be fairly recent, it may have once stood upright and could have been associated with the nearby mound of ORCA 422, which is thought to have some prehistoric potential. It has therefore been classed as having uncertain significance.
A large low mound (ORCA 422) was identified in this area (see Plate 10). This measures approximately 18m in diameter and is around 0.6m high. It is thought that this may well be a site of interest, potentially dating from the later prehistoric or Norse periods and could be indicative of settlement or funerary activity and thus potentially of moderate significance.
54 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Plate 10: ORCA 422 – a mound that may be of archaeological significance
The trackway, ORCA 410, edged with flag dykes and overgrown formal hedging, seems to be part of the designed landscape of the B-Listed West Canisbay house and estate (ORCA 62). The house is late 18th- and early 19th-century, so the laying out of the grounds may also date to this time. As part of the setting of the estate, the trackway has been assigned a moderate significance.
ORCA 48 and 49 both represent the southwest corner of a kilometer square, within which the findspot for an undated arrowhead and the location of a historic trackway were identified. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the precise location of these sites, they have only been assigned a low significance.
Various sites have been assigned low rather than negligible significance, because they are clearly of local importance. ORCA 251 is a large quarry that may again relate to West Canisbay and could have been associated with the improvements to the house c. 1835 or the construction of the adjacent farmstead. It is certainly noted as ‘old quarry’ on the 1st edition map (Ordnance Survey 1877). Also of low significance is a late 19th - or early 20th-century well (ORCA 423) shown on the 2nd edition map (Ordnance Survey 1907). The bridge (ORCA 424) could also be a mid to late 19th- century construction as a bridge is marked here on the 1st edition map
55 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
(Ordnance Survey 1877). An area of peat cutting, still in current use (ORCA 426), was also thought to be of low significance.
Just outwith the development area on the south side of the road was a second displaced milestone (ORCA 425); also worthy of mention but outwith the eastern edge of the development area is ORCA 407. This is a narrow standing stone measuring c. 2.5m high and 0.4m wide (see Plate 11). It is positioned in the middle of a field and does not appear to have any associated stones nearby. Both the age and function of this stone are unclear, it may be some kind of post-medieval marker stone but there is no reason why it could not be earlier. Apparently called the ‘Standing stone of Canisbay’, local folklore offers no further information about it (Houston 1996: 459). Because the dating and function of the stone is so unclear, it is of uncertain significance.
Plate 11: ORCA 407 – the ‘Standing Stone of Canisbay’
56 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
4.3.1.8 Rigifa
The cable corridor from the West Burn of Gills to Rigifa runs though an area of extensive deep peat. Local people have obviously used this as a source of fuel for many centuries and vast networks of peat cuttings can be seen continuing well beyond the development area. ORCA sites 426, 427 and 428 all indicate the portions of these peat cuttings that extend into the development area and are assessed as of low or negligible significance.
4.3.1.9 Hill of Rigifa
In the area surrounding the Hill of Rigifa (south of the minor Freswick to Castletown road) and the east side of Philip’s Mains, 27 cultural heritage sites have been noted. Of these, two have an uncertain significance (ORCA 352 and 356, six are viewed as being of low significance (ORCA 152, 153, 346, 347, 350, 351), while 19 (ORCA 150, 151, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 348, 349, 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362) are of negligible significance.
57 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Plate 12: ORCA 352 – Possible standing stone on the Hill of Rigifa
Of perhaps most interest is an apparent standing stone (ORCA 352), which is rather enigmatic (see Plate 12). Measuring 2m in height, it is far too large to be a fence strainer, although the stones used to pack it into the ground are rather reminiscent of strainer settings. The stone has some initials (gJK?) and an apparent date (87?) carved on it (see Plate 13). It is thought most likely to be 19th-century but this is purely conjectural and as such it has been given an unknown significance.
58 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Plate 13: ORCA 352 – closeup of inscription on the stone
Many of the sites indicated as being of low significance appear to potentially be reminiscent of a pre-enclosure agricultural landscape. It is thought that the Philip’s Mains area was enclosed sometime after 1855 (Houston 1996: 399) and as such, some of these features may predate this. A ruined farmstead (ORCA 152) could potentially date to the early 19th century or before, but its dilapidated state makes it difficult to determine this more fully. Associated with it is a small mound (ORCA 350), measuring some 15m by 10m and around 0.6m in height. Some sites (ORCA 345, 346, 351) could potentially be denuded pre-enclosure dykes used for enclosing stock and crops and from before the mid 19th century.
Other sites of low or negligible significance include two quarries (ORCA 150, 153), both of which are indicated as ‘old quarry’ on the 1st Edition map (OS
59 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
1877). This would suggest they could be mid-early 19th-century or perhaps even late 18th-century.
Those sites classified as being of negligible significance range from apparently 19th-century remnant boundaries and enclosures (e.g. ORCA 343), a late 19th-century quarry (ORCA 360) and stone spreads and stone piles which represent 19th-, 20th- and 21st-century clearance activities (e.g. ORCA 359, 361).
4.3.2 Cultural Heritage Potential
Although as thorough a walkover survey as possible was carried out along the cable routes, it is always the case that traces of archaeology may potentially lie hidden beneath the surface of the ground with no visible traces being evident to the naked eye, especially in an area like Canisbay where there is a known rich cultural heritage from at least the late Iron Age. This is especially true where areas have a substantial peat cover (between West Burn of Gills and Rigifa’; around ORCA 393 south of East Mey) or have been intensively cultivated (Philip’s Mains and south of the Hill of Rigifa; most of the area south of East Mey, Gills to Kirkstyle; Kirkstyle to West Canisbay, West Canisbay to West Burn of Gills; Ness of Quoys to Ness of Huna). In these cases, the archaeology would only be revealed through geophysical survey, intrusive investigation or when the ground is disturbed during development.
There is a negligible potential for further post-medieval remains of any significance to be undiscovered. No significant post-mediaeval cultural heritage assets were identified within the walkover survey along the cable routes. Therefore the potential for any undiscovered significant assets from these periods to be within the study area is assessed as low to negligible.
The Hill of Rigifa itself remains unimproved and as such, visible remains might be expected if late prehistoric to mediaeval sites were present. Therefore, because none was noted, the potential for these here is assessed as low. The peat cover in this area could, however, conceal earlier prehistoric remains, if present. There is moderate potential for there to be remains associated with the mounds identified in the wet and boggy field west of East Lodge (ORCA 18) in the area south of East Mey.
60 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
The presence of a broch at Gills (ORCA 20) and another possible broch at Canisbay Kirk (ORCA 54) indicate a high potential for further remains to be found below ground in their vicinity, despite intensive cultivation in these areas, similarly in the area around the potential prehistoric mound (ORCA 422) identified west of West Canisbay.
Five significant Norse sites (ORCA 73, 76, 78, 79 and 83) have been identified both to the north and south of the corridor between Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna, indicating a moderately high potential for there to be some Norse remains within the development area.
4.3.3 Historic Landscape and Setting
The modern landscape in the area of the parish of Canisbay that is crossed by the proposed cable route is described and characterised in the Landscape, Seascape and Visual Impact Assessment (ES Chapter 19)22. It is an open landscape of mixed agriculture (mostly pasture and cereal), with squared mostly fenced fields. The landscape is also one of dispersed settlement, small farms and crofts, with concentrations at Canisbay and John o’ Groats, a new ferry terminal and pier at Gills Bay and the current A836 road following the coast. There are many new houses and new farm buildings.
The area is contained in a gently undulating landform sloping up to the south to open moor, which has coniferous plantation south of the Hill o Rigifa’, sloping up to the west to the moorland of Mey Hill and the headland of St John’s Point and steeply up to the east at the cliffs of Duncansby Head. The shoreline mostly comprises low rocky flagstone shelving gently into the sea, except for the cliffs around Mey Hill and Duncansby Head and the sands east of John o’ Groats and in the Bay of Sannick. There are open sea views northwards across Inner Sound to Stroma, which has a similar landscape, to the Pentland Firth and Orkney beyond.
22 See also Stanton, C., 1998. Caithness and Sutherland Landscape Character Assessment, SNH commissioned report No. 130 Available at http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/LCA/CaithnessSutherland.pdf
61 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
The historic landscape23 is as described in Section 4.2.3 above.
5.0 Impacts During Construction and Installation
There is essentially only one predicted effect of the proposed project during this stage of the development. This is the direct impact of damage to or the removal or destruction of cultural heritage assets within the development area, caused by the HDD operations, PCC construction (with associated hardstanding, carpark areas, security fencing), and by cable trenching. This has been assessed in terms of a worst-case scenario and summarised in Table 9 below.
The visual impacts of the project on the setting of cultural heritage sites during construction and installation are considered too short-term to be significant and are not discussed further.
5.1 Impact 20.1: Construction and drilling noise
The detailed study of predicted construction noise levels, their impact and mitigation is in ES Section 23. The A-Listed Canisbay Kirk, ORCA 53, is the key historic asset for considering the impact of construction noise levels on the setting of cultural heritage assets. The kirk (called Quoys Church / Kirkstyle in ES Section 23) is a specifically identified receptor in the study. Mitigation strategies have been formulated, such as the use of silencers on exhausts and compressors and the limiting of construction activity to a standard working week. Although construction noise levels will require ongoing management and monitoring to ensure the impact remains within acceptable limits, it is considered that the magnitude and the significance of impact will be minor and intermittent over 3 years (ES Section 23.5).
23 as defined on Historic Land-use Assessment maps, produced by HS and RCAHMS http://hla.rcahms.gov.uk
62 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Therefore, this potential impact is not addressed further this section. Similarly, it is considered unlikely that there will be any significant vibrations from drilling and construction (see ES Section 23), and thus there will be no adverse impact on the stability of historic buildings or archaeological sites.
63 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) Constructi on Impact Philip’s West Significanc Mains Gills to Quoys to Canisbay Hill of Ness of Ness of TOTAL e North East Mey Hilltop Gills Kirkstyle Huna to Gills Rigifa Rigifa Quoys Huna SITES
Severe 352 1
Major 371, 374 18, 379, 397, 400 404 410, 419, 64, 242, 82, 84 20 382, 383, 422 414, 416 389, 391 Moderate 148, 366, 137, 139, 167, 171 178, 184, 249 260, 261, 251 152, 346, 65, 412 37 370, 376, 140, 163, 185, 193, 262, 264, 347, 350, 380, 381, 195, 198, 266 351, 356 394, 199, 200, 396, Minor 364, 365, 102, 142, 182, 395, 401, 402, 48, 49, 428 150, 151, 411, 413, 81, 417, 65 367, 368, 384, 385, 398, 399 403 405, 406, 153, 340, 415 418, 429, 369, 372, 386, 388, 408, 409, 341, 342, 430, 431, 373, 375, 390, 392, 423 424 343, 344, 432, 377, 378 393 345, 348, 349, 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362 ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Constructi on Impact Philip’s West Significanc Mains Gills to Quoys to Canisbay Hill of Ness of Ness of TOTAL e North East Mey Hilltop Gills Kirkstyle Huna to Gills Rigifa Rigifa Quoys Huna SITES
Negligibl 387 274 420, 421 426, 427 6 e Positive 0 TOTAL 16 23 2 15 5 6 14 3 27 9 9 129 SITES
Table 9: Summary of the significance of potential construction impact
65 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) 5.2 Impact 20.2: Direct damage, removal or destruction of onshore cultural heritage assets
The detailed assessment of the magnitude and significance of construction and installation phase impacts on cultural heritage assets, along with the asset’s importance and significance is presented on an accompanying Excel spreadsheet (ORCA 266 MeyGen cultural heritage onshore direct EIA development area only.xls), summarised by area in Appendix 2 and depicted on Map Figures 6 to 9 in Appendix 1.
Adopting a precautionary approach (consistent with the Rochdale Envelope approach used in this EIA) makes impacts on sites of low significance appear to be higher than they warrant, because it is assumed that they will be completely destroyed. It is clear that many of the 129 identified cultural heritage assets will not be impacted to such a degree as predicted, usually because they will be avoided. However, this can only be known when precise cable trench routes and the actual area of drilling and construction are finalised.
Under EIA regulations, impacts of moderate or higher significance are considered to be significant effects that may require consideration by the competent authorities and will require control, management and mitigation24. However, it should be noted that impacts of minor significance may still require some management or mitigation to remain within acceptable levels.
5.2.1 Ness of Quoys
At the Ness of Quoys, four sites may receive adverse impacts of major significance (ORCA 64, 242, 414 and 416), and two may suffer impacts of moderate significance (ORCA 65 and 412). It is also possible that there could be a significant impact on subsurface remains associated with the prehistoric site (ORCA 54) on which Canisbay Kirk (ORCA 53) is built, if these remains extend into the development area.
The sites comprise a stony mound of uncertain function and date, potentially Norse or earlier (ORCA 64); the Lyrequoy Well, which has the potential to
24 See Scottish Planning Series Planning Circulars 8-2007: The Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999, and 3-2011: The Town and ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
have been used for centuries in association with the kirk and may contain waterlogged artefacts (ORCA 242); the remains of a possible Cromwellian battery (ORCA 414); a stone feature of uncertain function and date, potentially of antiquity, exposed at the coastal edge (ORCA 416); a gravemarker, probably removed by coastal erosion; and a roadside well used by local families and wayfarers (ORCA 412).
5.2.2 Ness of Huna
At the Ness of Huna, two sites may receive adverse impacts of major significance (ORCA 82 and 84). The sites comprise a supposed Pictish village and burial cairns for which there is no discernible physical evidence (ORCA 82) and the location of a cropmark interpreted as a banked enclosure approximately 25m in diameter, with low mounds within, observed on 1946 RAF photographs. It is also possible that there could be a significant impact on subsurface remains associated with a Norse settlement site (ORCA 76, 78, 79) west of Huna House, if these remains extend into the development area.
5.2.3 Underground Cable Routes
There are many sites where potentially significant impacts could occur along the proposed cable routes (see Table 12 above).
5.2.3.1 Philip’s Mains North
In the Philip’s Mains North area, two sites may receive adverse impacts of major significance (ORCA 371 and 374) and four may suffer impacts of moderate significance (ORCA 148, 366, 370 and 376). The sites comprise a broad low ridge of uncertain function and date, which could relate to pre-mid 19th-century agriculture but which may be archaeological (ORCA 371); a hole in the ground which seems to have some stone capping sticking out around the edges, of uncertain function and date (ORCA 374); a relict late 18th-century stone quarry (ORCA 148); areas of post-mediaeval ridge and furrow (ORCA 366, 370); and a small flagstone construction of uncertain function and date (ORCA 376),
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011,
67 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
5.2.3.2 East Mey
In the East Mey area, six sites receive adverse impacts of major significance (ORCA 18, 379, 382, 383, 389 and 391) and seven may suffer impacts of moderate significance (ORCA 137, 139, 140, 163, 380, 381 and 394). The sites comprise East Mey Lodge and gate piers (ORCA 18); four mounds of unknown date and function - possibly prehistoric or mediaeval (ORCA 379, 382, 383, 391); a broad ridge with some stone visible, of uncertain date and function (389); farmsteads, both occupied and abandoned, but all with some vernacular elements (ORCA 137, 140, 163); a large relict 19th-century stone quarry (ORCA 139); sections of two late pre-enclosure turf dykes (ORCA 380, 381); and a stone block with other stone nearby of uncertain date and function (ORCA 394).
5.2.3.3 Hilltop
In the Hilltop area, two sites may receive impacts of moderate significance (ORCA 167 and 171). The sites comprise the Marl Well, reputedly built by Cromwell’s troops (ORCA 167) and a relict stone quarry (ORCA 171).
5.2.3.4 Gills
In the Gills area, two sites may receive adverse impacts of major significance (ORCA 397 and 400) and nine may undergo impacts of moderate significance (ORCA 178, 184, 185, 193, 195, 198, 199, 200 and 396). The sites comprise two mounds of uncertain date and function, but possibly prehistoric (ORCA 397 and 400); two relict dams with flag lined ponds and sluices (ORCA 184 and 185); a pre-mid 19th-century well (ORCA 200); and six farmsteads, both occupied and abandoned, but all with some vernacular elements (ORCA 178, 193, 195, 198, 199 and 396).
5.2.3.5 Gills to Kirkstyle
In the Gills to Kirkstyle area, one site may receive adverse impacts of major significance (ORCA 404) and one may undergo an impact of moderate significance (ORCA 249). The sites comprise a mound of uncertain date and function, but possibly prehistoric (ORCA 404) and a well, perhaps a formalized spring (ORCA 249). It is also possible that there could be a significant impact on subsurface remains associated with the prehistoric site
68 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
(ORCA 54) on which Canisbay Kirk (ORCA 53) is built, if these remains extend southwest into the east end of the this area of cable route.
5.2.3.6 Quoys to Huna
In the Quoys to Huna area, five sites may receive impacts of moderate significance (ORCA 260, 261, 262, 264 and 266). Four of these are farmsteads or crofts that were cleared in the 19th century and ORCA 266 is an occupied house, perhaps the old farmstead modernised or possibly a new house on the cleared site.
5.2.3.7 West Canisbay to Gills
In the West Canisbay to Gills area, three sites may receive adverse impacts of major significance (ORCA 410, 419 and 422) and one may undergo an impact of moderate significance (ORCA 251). The sites comprise an avenue of flagstone with beech and hawthorn hedging (ORCA 410) associated with the B-Listed West Canisbay House (ORCA 62); a large stone slab, perhaps prehistoric (ORCA 419); a mound of uncertain date and function, but possibly prehistoric (ORCA 422); and a relict quarry (ORCA 251), possibly associated with the construction of the B-Listed West Canisbay House (ORCA 62).
5.2.3.8 Rigifa’ none
In the Rigifa’ area no sites were identified that would be significantly impacted.
5.2.3.9 Hill of Rigifa’
In the Hill of Rigifa’ area, one site may receive an adverse impact of severe significance (ORCA 352) and six may undergo impacts of moderate significance (ORCA 152, 346, 347, 350, 351 and 356). The sites comprise a standing stone of uncertain date (ORCA 352); a ruined farmstead with vernacular elements (ORCA 152); sections of three late pre-enclosure turf dykes (ORCA 346, 347 and 351); an elongated mound (ORCA 350) and a possible small rectangular cropmark (356), both of uncertain date and function.
69 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
5.3 Mitigation
Ideally, it is best to manage the presence of cultural heritage sites by locating building footprints and routeing cables and other infrastructure to avoid them, because preservation of assets in situ is the preferred outcome25. However, where this is not possible various mitigation strategies can be put in place that preserve the asset by record. The impact on many sites of negligible significance do not require mitigation, although it should be noted that impacts of minor significance may still require some management or mitigation to remain within acceptable levels.
The summarised management and mitigation measures suggested below will result in the avoidance, reduction, remedying and offsetting of the potential construction impacts on cultural heritage assets by the proposed development. The exact measure(s) suggested for each of the 129 sites is included in the Tables in Appendix 2. Avoidance is always preferred, and sometimes the only option, but alternatives are given where possible.
• Strategy 1: Avoidance. This strategy is recommended either if it is easy to avoid the site, with no or little impact on the works, or if the site is of major importance. Avoidance may comprise complete avoidance of the area down to narrowing the actual cable trench corridor. An alternative mitigation strategy has been suggested where possible if avoidance is not feasible within the proposed development scheme.
• Strategy 2: Walkover, surface collection or geophysical survey. A walkover survey would be recommended if it has not been possible to conduct such a survey during the period when the study was undertaken (for example if access was denied, or vegetation cover prevented a walkover). A gridded surface collection of artefacts may be recommended if there is a dense, contained scatter of material on the ground surface, which may indicate the presence of an archaeological site below. A geophysical survey is recommended if
25 E.g. PAN2/2011 Planning and Archaeology, para 14; Highland Council Structure Plan (2001), Policy BC1
70 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
no sites are visible, but there is thought to be a possibility that sites may exist in the area. The results of these surveys may lead to the implementation of any of the other mitigation strategies.
• Strategy 3: General survey. If the asset cannot be avoided, a detailed photographic record will be undertaken prior to intrusive works. A detailed topographic survey (such as earthwork or contour surveys) may be required. Completion of these and interpretation of the results may lead to implementation of Strategies 5 and 8. All photographic and other records from this mitigation strategy and those outlined below will be lodged with the local SMR and the NMRS.
• Strategy 4: Standing building or shore wreck survey. If the asset cannot be avoided, plans/elevations at a scale of 1:10-1:200 will be made with a full photographic record and basic written description prior to destruction. Wrecks would be recorded in an appropriate manner by specialists in marine archaeology. In addition, Strategies 6 and 9 will be implemented.
• Strategy 5: Intrusive archaeological evaluation. This response will be recommended for all sites and shore wrecks that cannot be avoided with significant or unknown archaeological potential prior to where there will be intrusive works. An intrusive evaluation would groundtruth geophysical survey results and assess the nature, extent and preservation of archaeological remains. The findings of the intrusive assessment may require the upgrading of fieldwork to Strategy 8.
• Strategy 6: Watching brief. If the asset cannot be avoided, this response will be recommended for all sites and shore wrecks with high archaeological potential and where there will be intrusive works. A watching brief may be conducted while ground-breaking construction works are happening if there is a potential for but no conclusive proof of archaeological remains, or as a precautionary measure if a site has been identified nearby. The works will allow opportunity for salvage excavation. The findings of the watching brief may require the upgrading of fieldwork to Strategy 8.
71 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
• Strategy 7: Detailed standing building or shore wreck survey and salvage. If the asset cannot be avoided, full analytical survey to RCAHMS standards detailing internal and external features and fittings including any which come to light during demolition or destruction, which will require monitoring. Attempts will be made to retrieve and conserve representative examples of maritime, architectural and/or other decorative elements of the fabric. Once the site has been levelled, mitigation Strategy 6 will be adopted in the event of further destructive works, with the possibility of escalation to Strategy 8.
• Strategy 8: Full archaeological excavation. This level of mitigation may be deemed necessary if the asset cannot be avoided, as a result of evidence gathered by other levels, particularly Strategies 5 and 6. Provision should be made for the examination and possible conservation of any artefacts recovered. Specialist samples will be taken from key deposits exposed in section faces and routine/control samples from any features that may be excavated in plan. Plans/elevations/sections at a scale 1:10 and/or 1:20 with a full photographic record. Provision should be made for post-excavation work bringing the results together in a report of publication standard in accordance with Historic Scotland guidelines.
• Strategy 9: Further documentary research and archiving. This response includes further detailed examination of unusual archival sources that would not routinely be consulted, if such research is appropriate for an asset is not understood or cannot be avoided. It also allows for copying of documents considered relevant, which then may be archived with bodies such as the RCAHMS, the local SMR, the NMRS and the Scottish Record Office (SRO).
• Strategy 10: Other recommendations. These could include recommendations for surveys by structural engineers, for surface finishes, landscaping and screening to offset setting impact, for palaeoenvironmental sampling, for finds/site reporting protocols, especially where removing peat, and so on. The particular type of suggested strategy is detailed where the recommendation is made.
General non site-specific mitigations include:
72 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
• ensuring that construction contractors have cultural heritage site maps and lists so that they know what is to be avoided;
• ensuring that the construction teams have a cultural heritage induction, especially if reporting protocols are to be used; and
• ensuring that the construction works manager or Environmental Clerk of Works marks off all sites within or close to edge of the development areas to ensure that they are avoided and accidentally not run over or otherwise impacted.
5.3.1 Ness of Quoys
Currently, as management of potential impact, further evaluation of the area is being conducted using geophysical techniques and/or intrusive evaluations in order to establish whether or not significant remains do exist within the area that may be significantly impacted and thus identify any risks and ways of reducing impacts. The results could lead on to further management and mitigation strategies, such as excavation or watching briefs, or may indicate that there are no further issues. The results will also be used to help inform the decision-making process for the design layout, potential routes and locations of buildings and ancillary structures within the proposed development area.
Initial interpretation of the geophysical survey results indicate that any possible subsurface remains associated with the prehistoric site (ORCA 54) on which Canisbay Kirk (ORCA 53) is built do not extend far into the development area (Ian Wilkins, pers. comm.). The results also indicate that there are no extensive subsurface remains associated with the stonework exposed on the coastal edge (ORCA 416). Evaluation trenches will investigate ORCA 416, the possible Cromwellian Battery (ORCA 414), the stony mound (ORCA 64) and identified geophysical anomalies that may be associated with the prehistoric site (ORCA 54) if the development impacts rather than avoids them. These investigations would be designed to discover the full extent of the sites / anomalies and ascertain whether their significance and archaeological identification is indeed correct. This will provide the basis for devising the next phase of management and mitigation (e.g. refinement of the layout of the proposed development area, or one of
73 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
the strategies summarised above).
It is suggested that the Lyrequoy Well, (ORCA 242), which has the potential to have been used for centuries in association with the kirk and may contain waterlogged artefacts is avoided since it is so close to the edge of the development area, otherwise intrusive evaluation of the contents may be required, which could lead to further work. Similarly, it is suggested that avoidance of the roadside well used by local families and wayfarers (ORCA 412) is the easiest and simplest strategy. Otherwise, a photographic record and a watching brief may be considered appropriate. The grave marker (ORCA 65) appears to have been removed by coastal erosion and requires no further actions except a watching brief as a precautionary measure.
5.3.2 Ness of Huna
Currently, as management of potential impact, further evaluation of the area is being conducted using geophysical techniques and/or intrusive evaluations in order to establish whether or not significant remains do exist within the area that may be significantly impacted and thus identify any risks and ways of reducing impacts. The results could lead on to further management and mitigation strategies, such as excavation or watching briefs, or may indicate that there are no further issues. The results will also be used to help inform the decision-making process for the design layout, potential routes and locations of buildings and ancillary structures within the proposed development area.
Initial interpretation of the geophysical survey results (Ian Wilkins, pers. comm.) indicate that any possible subsurface remains associated with the Viking site to the west of Huna House (ORCA 76,78,79) do not extend into the development area (Ian Wilkins, pers. comm.). There are no indications in the results for the existence of the supposed Pictish village (ORCA 82), which could have arisen out of a local confusion with the Viking settlement to the west. There were no indications of the cropmark enclosure and mounds (ORCA 84), however the geophysical survey method used may not have picked these up if they contained no enhanced material such as ashes and midden. Therefore, it is recommended that evaluation trenches are used to test the presence / absence of the site if the development impacts rather than avoids this area. This will provide the basis for devising the next phase of management and mitigation (e.g. refinement of the layout of the proposed
74 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
development area, or one of the strategies summarised above).
5.3.3 Underground Cable Routes
It is clear from the walkover survey and the wider archaeological record that there is a moderately high potential for further culturally significant remains to be concealed in some parts of the cable route options, detailed more specifically in Section 4.4.2. Consideration must be given to the presence of known prehistoric sites indicating the potential for further sites to remain below surface in their vicinity, and for peat and intensive cultivation to have masked these remains.
As before, the avoidance of any cultural heritage sites, would be the ideal mitigation strategy. It should be possible to route cables to avoid known remains and further investigations could be targeted at areas thought to present most risk, using geophysical techniques and/or intrusive evaluations in order to establish whether or not significant remains exist. The results would enable the formulation, if shown to be required, of further management or mitigation strategies, such as avoidance, excavation or watching briefs, or may indicate that there are no further issues. If it is determined that some sites are unavoidable, a number of mitigation strategies can be adopted made for dealing with them (see list above). These are detailed in relation to each potentially impacted site in Appendix 2.
In general, basic survey techniques would be recommended to better understand and record impacted sites, aided by clearance of overgrown vegetation. In highly cultivated areas, the use of a small area of geophysical survey around the known site may be advantageous in order to rapidly assess its full extent. Where the land is very boggy, overgrown or poor, geophysical techniques may not be as suitable, but techniques such as evaluation trenching could be utilised in order to better characterise the nature of the site and to again help inform the next stage of works. For example, in areas of poor land and very rough vegetation, a small intrusive evaluation may be used on sites of moderate interest (e.g. mound sites ORCA 379, 381 and 383) or a watching brief undertaken on nearby portions of the cable route if the sites themselves are avoided (as in the vicinity of standing stone ORCA 407).
75 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Where potentially pre-enclosure field systems and groups of cultivation remains are evident (e.g. ORCA 346, 366), it would be advantageous to use general survey techniques or Google Earth to record their full extent before work proceeded. Very small scale evaluation may then be suggested in order to obtain dating and other such information from the system.
Where the development will impact on farmsteads, a detailed photographic and standing building survey might be recommended. This may lead to an escalation of works depending upon the initial findings. Avoidance of farmsteads is preferred, because while apparently 19th-century farmsteads may have low or negligible significance in themselves, it is possible that some of them may incorporate or stand on older buildings and farm sites originally founded in the Mediaeval or even Norse periods. Further research into whether there is any placename, historic or map evidence that may indicate the date of the original farm and intrusive evaluation to confirm the presence / absence of significant earlier remains is recommended as a precaution if a farmstead cannot be avoided, followed by further mitigation if required.
As there is certainly potential for prehistoric and Norse sites in the vicinity of the Canisbay Kirk, geophysical survey may be recommended in the fields closest to it, on the south side of the road, followed by further mitigations such as evaluation trenching, or the instigation of a watching brief during groundworks. The presence of a potentially prehistoric site at West Canisbay (ORCA 422) and of the broch at Gills (ORCA 20) may indicate that prehistoric settlement was spread all across this landscape, however, initial survey would only be recommended in the fields nearest the sites themselves in order to define their limits. If remains prove to be extensive, wider survey may then be recommended to help define an appropriate cable route through them and may then include the northern portion of the route between Gills and Kirkstyle.
Where areas of peat are to be disturbed, it would be beneficial to use techniques such as coring to determine the likely depth of the peat to assess the impact of development on any sites currently masked by it. Use of a watching brief or a reporting protocol along this section of the route might be recommended, as would the preparation of a management strategy for any sites uncovered.
76 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
5.4 Residual Impact
In many cases, the Rochdale Envelope approach has resulted in the over- rating of likely residual impacts. For example, the effect on the standing stone (ORCA 352) in the Hill of Rigifa’ area, since we do not know if the site is even prehistoric or has as much significance as we have assigned to it. Only further investigation can resolve this, if the site cannot be avoided. Despite this, it should be noted that with mitigation the number of cultural heritage assets that may experience a significant direct impact has been reduced from 58 to 19 (see summary in Table 10). The details of this can be seen in Appendix 2 and the accompanying Excel spreadsheet (ORCA 266 Meygen cultural heritage onshore direct EIA development area only.xls).
As has already been stated, EIA regulations consider impacts of moderate and higher significance to be significant effects.
5.4.1 Ness of Quoys
The mitigation and management strategies outlined in Section 5.2 above have reduced many of predicted impacts. The identified moderately significant residual impacts are the results of the ongoing process of investigations, which are not yet complete. Final mitigations have yet to be identified dependent on the investigation results and should lead to a further reduction in the level of residual impact, especially if sites such as the Lyrequoy Well (ORCA 242) can be avoided and intrusive evaluation shows stone remains (ORCA 414 and 416) to be of less significance than originally thought.
5.4.2 Ness of Huna
The mitigation and management strategies outlined in Section 5.2 above have reduced many of predicted impacts. The identified moderately significant residual impacts are the results of the ongoing process of investigations, which are not yet complete. Final mitigations have yet to be identified dependent on the investigation results and should lead to a further reduction in the level of residual impact, especially if the final analysis of the geophysical survey does show that the supposed Pictish village (ORCA 82) does not exist.
77 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) Residual Philip’s East Mey Hilltop Gills Gills to Quoys to West Rigifa Hill of Ness of Ness of TOTAL Impact Mains Kirkstyle Huna Canisbay Rigifa Quoys Huna Significanc North to Gills e
Severe 0 Major 352 1 Moderate 371, 374 379, 382, 397, 400 404 419, 422 64, 242, 82, 84 18 383, 389, 414, 416, 391 Minor 148, 364, 102, 139, 167 184, 185, 249, 402 260, 261, 251, 405, 150, 151, 411, 412, 417, 430 66 365, 367, 140, 163, 198, 200, 262, 264 406, 408, 152, 340, 413, 415, 368, 372, 380, 384, 399 409, 410 341, 342, 376, 378 385, 392, 343, 344, 394 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362 Negligibl 366, 369, 18, 137, 171 178, 182, 401, 403 266, 274 48, 49, 420, 426, 427, 153 65 81, 418, 44 e 370, 373, 142, 381, 193, 195, 421, 423, 428 429, 431, ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
375, 377, 386, 387, 199, 395, 424 432 388, 390, 396, 398 393 Positive 0 TOTAL 16 23 2 15 5 6 14 3 27 9 9 129
Table 10: Summary of the residual significance of potential construction impact
79 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) 5.4.3 Underground Cable Routes
The mitigation and management strategies outlined in Section 5.2 above have reduced many of predicted impacts. The identified significant residual impacts are often the results of the need ensure avoidance is agreed or to instigate further investigations to identify if further management and mitigation is necessary, which should lead to further reduction in the level of residual impact.
5.4.3.1 Philip’s Mains North
In the Philip’s Mains North area, both of the significant residual impacts (ORCA 371 and 374) are dependent on the need to avoid or investigate further.
5.4.3.2 East Mey
In the East Mey area, the five significant residual impacts (ORCA, 379, 382, 383, 389 and 391) are dependent on the need to avoid or investigate further the four mounds and stony ridge, all of which are of unknown date and function - possibly prehistoric or mediaeval. The results of further work should reduce the residual impact.
5.4.3.3 Hilltop
No significant residual impacts have been identified for the Hilltop area.
5.4.3.4 Gills
In the Gills area, the two significant residual impacts (ORCA 397 and 400) are dependent on the need to avoid or investigate further the mounds, which are of unknown date and function - possibly prehistoric or mediaeval. The results of further work should reduce the residual impact.
5.4.3.5 Gills to Kirkstyle
In the Gills to Kirkstyle area, the significant residual impact (ORCA 404) is dependent on the need to avoid or investigate further the mound, which is of unknown date and function - possibly prehistoric or mediaeval. The results of further work should reduce the residual impact. ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
5.4.3.6 Quoys to Huna
No significant residual impacts have been identified for the Quoys to Huna area.
5.4.3.7 West Canisbay to Gills
In the West Canisbay to Gills area, the two significant residual impacts are dependent on the need to avoid or investigate further the large stone slab (ORCA 419) and the mound (ORCA 422), which are of unknown date and function - possibly prehistoric or mediaeval. The results of further work should reduce the residual impact.
5.4.3.8 Rigifa’ none
No significant residual impacts have been identified for the Rigifa’ area.
5.4.3.9 Hill of Rigifa’
In the Hill of Rigifa’ area, the significant residual impact is dependent on the need to avoid or investigate further the standing stone (ORCA 352), which is of uncertain date and significance. The results of further work should reduce the residual impact.
6.0 Impacts During Operations and Maintenance
6.1 Impact
No operational and maintenance aspects of the development have been identified that will have direct effects on cultural heritage resources. The coastal process modelling indicates that there will be no increased coastal erosion (or deposition) that will affect onshore cultural heritage assets (see ES Section 9).
However, the onshore installation at Ness of Quoys or Ness of Huna may have (indirect) effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets, which should be considered as long-term, starting during the construction of the installation, but essentially constituting an operational effect that would last the lifetime of the PCC until it was decommissioned, demolished and the site
81 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
reinstated. The potential impacts on the setting of historic environment assets derive from the presence of the PCC and other buildings at each possible landfall, associated hard standing, car parking, access road and security fencing. These impacts on setting largely relate to landscape and visual factors, but may also include noise. The details of how the installations at the Ness of Huna and Ness of Quoys may appear and sit in the landscape can be found in ES Section 19, but were not finalized at the time of this assessment (September 2011).
The detailed study of predicted PCC operational noise levels, their impact and mitigation is provided in ES Section 23. No significant impacts on historic assets are predicted for the Ness of Huna PCC or the underground cable. The A-Listed Canisbay Kirk (ORCA 53) is the key historic asset for considering the impact of operational noise levels on the setting of cultural heritage assets. The kirk (called Quoys Church / Kirkstyle in Section 23) is a specifically identified receptor in the study and all impacts and mitigations strategies are detailed in that Section, leading to a negligible residual impact (Section 23.6). Therefore, this potential impact is not addressed further this section.
The setting assessment (summarized on Figures 12-15, in Appendix 2 Tables 26 and 27, and detailed on the accompanying xls spreadsheet files) considers the changes likely to result from the proposed development to the character of the landscape in how it relates to associated cultural heritage assets. This may include physical changes to the fabric of the landscape, effects on significant individual elements of the landscape, and effects on characteristic combinations or patterns of elements, all in relation to archaeology and cultural heritage. It also considers changes caused by the proposed development in the composition and character of the views to and from the cultural heritage asset, with the asset itself considered as the main receptor and visitors to it or viewing it considered as secondary receptors26. .
26 See Historic Scotland 2010 Managing Change in the Historic Environment setting
82 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
6.1.1 Ness of Quoys
181 sites were assessed within the ZTV, ranging from small post-medieval farmsteads to prehistoric burial cairns (see Figure 10, Appendix 2 Table 26 and accompanying xls spreadsheet). Eight of the sites are of high significance, 18 of moderate, 121 of low, 24 of negligible and 10 of uncertain significance. The historic and current landscape setting of these is summarised in the baseline description above, and their sensitivity in EIA Table 26 in Appendix 2.
The sites of high significance are all SAMs or A-Listed buildings, the sites of moderate significance comprise both undesignated prehistoric to mediaeval archaeological sites and post-mediaeval B and C(s) listed buildings. Sites of low importance are mostly post-medieval buildings, farmsteads and associated features, often modernised or completely ruinous if they survive at all. The setting of many sites is one of change and no longer seems to be sensitive or a significant factor in their significance in any other than in terms of general open landscape views.
It is predicted that prior to mitigation there could be an impact of major significance on the setting of two sites (the A-Listed Canisbay Kirk (ORCA 53) and the A-Listed monuments in the graveyard (ORCA 55). There could be a moderately significant impact on the setting of 16 sites, an impact of minor significance on the setting of 38 sites and a negligible impact on the setting of 125 sites (see Table 11 and Appendix 2 Table 26).
guidance note para 4.10 for this distinction
83 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA)
Site No. Site Name and Type SAM / LB Zone ES Section 19 Magnitude Significance Significance grade Viewpoint / Plate of Potential of Potential of Residual Impact Impact Impact 4-7 Castle of Mey & A 5-10km - None None None Inventoried designed Gardens & Landscape 21, 22 St John’s Point, SAM 2-5km VP23; P08 Low Minor Minor promontory fort & chapel 25 Sheepy Hillock, mound none 2-5km - Low Minor Minor 53, 55 Canisbay Kirk and A 0-2km VP11; P03 High Major Major graveyard 54 Canisbay kirk, broch none 0-2km VP11; P03 Medium Moderate Minor 59 East Canisbay Manse B 0-2km VP29; P11 Medium Moderate Minor 62 West Canisbay House B 0-2km VP15; P05 Medium Moderate Minor 64 Kirkstyle, mound none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Moderate 78 Huna House, Norse none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Minor building & midden 79 Huna House, Norse none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Minor settlement mound 82 Huna, supposed Pictish none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Minor settlement 85-89 John o’ Groats mill B and C(s) 2-5km VP7 None None None complex 242 Lyrequoy well none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Moderate 407 West Canisbay, possible none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Minor standing stone 414 Ness of Quoys, possible none 0-2km - High Moderate Moderate Cromwellian battery 416 Ness of Quoys, stone none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Moderate spread 422 Warse, mound none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Minor 475, 476 Warth Hill burial cairn SAM 2-5km VP26 Low Minor Minor ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Site No. Site Name and Type SAM / LB Zone ES Section 19 Magnitude Significance Significance grade Viewpoint / Plate of Potential of Potential of Residual Impact Impact Impact 486 Castle Mestag, Stroma SAM 2-5km VP20, P 20 Medium Moderate Minor 487 Girnieclett mound, SAM 2-5km VP18, 20, P 20 Medium Moderate Minor Stroma 488 Cairn Hill burnt mound, SAM 2-5km VP19, P 20 Low Minor Minor Stroma 489 Uppertown long cairn, None 2-5km VP19, P 20 Medium Moderate Minor Stroma 490 Stroma dovecote and B 2-5km VP19, P 20 Medium Moderate Minor burial vault Table 11: Summary of potentially significant setting impacts and impacts on statutorily designated sites by Ness of Quoys PCC
85 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) Of the statutorily protected sites, the Castle of Mey and its Inventoried designed landscape are not within the ZTV and it does not appear that the John o’ Groats mill complex (ORCA 85-89) is actually in the ZTV for the Ness of Quoys because the buildings are set down in the cut of the burn. The cairns on Warth Hill (ORCA 475, 476) and Cairn Hill (ORCA 488) are at the very edge of the ZTV, whilst only the east side of the promontory fort at St John’s Point (ORCA 21 and 22) is within the ZTV (see Figures 10 and 12) and from here the development will be in a narrow and insignificant view that is not key to the monument and will not break the horizon.
In theory, there could be a moderately significant impact on several of the sites with sensitive settings in the ZTV. However, in the 2-5km zone, the development will blend into the landscape when seen from Stroma (ORCA 486-490) even more than is indicated by the visualization shown for VP 20 (Section 19 Technical Appendix, Plate 07), which is some 2km closer to the development. Within the 2km zone, the development will be put into the background by larger buildings in the foreground for sites to the east, around Huna. South of the Ness of Quoys, the main façade of West Canisbay House (ORCA 52) is oriented to the south away from the site, and views to the site from the rear of the house are screened in summer and filtered in winter by mature sycamore. The possible standing stone of uncertain date (ORCA 407) is currently set in open fields with open views, but it is located in a slight hollow, so that the effect of the development on the visual element of its setting is limited. Low mound (ORCA 422) has open views across the area, Inner Sound, Stroma and to Orkney. However, the development area 1.5km to the northeast is so low down compared to the site that these key views will not be significantly affected.
There may in theory be a potential impact of moderate significance on the archaeological/landscape setting of some sites within or beside the original PCC and HDD development area (ORCA 54, 64, 242, 414, 416) simply because of the proximity of the development. However, these are mostly low mounds or potential subsurface archaeology and as such have no significant visual setting issues.
Potentially, the most significantly affected sites are the A-Listed Canisbay Kirk and Graveyard (ORCA 53 and 55) and the B-Listed East Canisbay Manse (ORCA 59). The two are related and the manse is designed to have ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
views to and from the kirk. The kirk is the highest and most prominent building in the area both from land and sea and is set in an open landscape, even though there has been some change to its setting over the centuries – a post-medieval farmstead and ruined schoolhouse stands next to it and it is adjacent to the main road. Many modern buildings, both houses and agricultural buildings, have also been constructed in the general area.
Initially, some concern was expressed (see Section 3.1 above) about the impact of the Ness of Quoys development location on the setting of Canisbay Kirk and Graveyard, adjacent to the W side of the area. However, during the design process MeyGen recognized that without careful design, the PCC buildings would have the potential to dominate the kirk and graveyard and interrupt both open views and the sightline between the kirk and the manse. Therefore they have engaged in a reflexive consultation process with Highland Council and Historic Scotland regarding the design and layout of the onshore installation in order to address any such concerns, which included a design workshop held in Caithness on 6th September 2011 and subsequent meetings/conference calls to discuss site layout and building design.
The results of the EIA surveys and studies and ongoing consultation have informed the project design and allowed the refinement (since EIA commencement) of the onshore Project area and design for the planning applications. These have been taken into account when assessing the residual impact. The design has resulted in Historic Scotland stating that
“the current proposals do not appear to raise significant issues for our statutory historic environment interests (i.e. scheduled monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting, Inventory designed landscapes and designated wrecks)” (e-mail dated 14th September 2011).
6.1.2 Ness of Huna
207 sites were assessed within the ZTV, ranging from small post-medieval farmsteads to prehistoric burial cairns (see Figure 11, Appendix 2 Table 26 and the accompanying xls spreadsheet). Eight of the sites are of high significance, 28 of moderate, 144 of low, 15 of negligible and 12 of uncertain
87 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
significance. The historic and current landscape setting of these is summarised in the baseline description above, and their sensitivity in EIA Table 26 in Appendix 2.
The sites of high significance are all SAMs or A-Listed buildings, the sites of moderate significance comprise both undesignated prehistoric to mediaeval archaeological sites and post-mediaeval B and C(s) listed buildings. Sites of low importance are mostly post-medieval buildings, farmsteads and associated features, often modernised or completely ruinous if they survive at all. The setting of many sites is one of change and no longer seems to be sensitive or a significant factor in their significance in any other than in terms of general open landscape views.
It is predicted that prior to mitigation there will be no impacts of major significance on the setting of any sites. There could be a moderately significant impact on the setting of 8 sites, an impact of minor significance on the setting of 61 sites and a negligible impact on the setting of 138 sites (see Table 11 and Appendix 2 Table 26).
88 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA)
Site No. Site Name and Type SAM / LB Zone Magnitude of Significance of Significance of Section 19 grade Potential Impact Potential Impact Residual Impact Viewpoint / Plate 4-7 Castle of Mey & Inventoried designed A 5-10km - None None None Gardens & Landscape 21, 22 St John’s Point, promontory fort & chapel SAM 5-10km VP23; P18 Low Minor Minor 53, 55 Canisbay Kirk and graveyard A 0-2km VP116 Low Minor Minor 59 East Canisbay Manse B 2-5km VP29 Low Minor Minor 62 West Canisbay House B 2-5km VP15; P14 Low Minor Minor 64 Kirkstyle, mound none 0-2km - Low Minor Minor 78 Huna House, Norse building & midden none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Minor 79 Huna House, Norse settlement mound none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Minor 82 Huna, supposed Pictish settlement none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Minor 85-89 John o’ Groats mill complex B 0-2km VP7 None None Negligible 414 Ness of Quoys, possible Cromwellian none 0-2km - Medium Moderate Minor battery 475, 476 Warth Hill burial cairn SAM 2-5km VP26 Low Minor Minor 486 Castle Mestag, Stroma SAM 2-5km VP20, P 17 Medium Moderate Minor 487 Girnieclett mound, Stroma SAM 2-5km VP20, P 17 Medium Moderate Minor 488 Cairn Hill burnt mound, Stroma SAM 2-5km VP20, P 17 Low Minor Negligible 489 Uppertown long cairn, Stroma None 2-5km VP20, P 17 Medium Moderate Minor 490 Stroma dovecote and burial vault B 2-5km VP20, P 17 Medium Moderate Minor Table 12: Summary of potentially significant setting impacts and impacts on statutorily designated sites by Ness of Huna PCC
Of the statutorily protected sites, the Castle of Mey and its Inventoried designed landscape are not within the ZTV and it does not appear that the John o’ Groats mill complex (ORCA 85-89) is actually in the ZTV for the Ness of Huna because the buildings are set down in the cut of the burn. The cairns on Warth Hill (ORCA 475, 476) and Cairn Hill (ORCA 488) are at the very edge of the ZTV, whilst from the promontory fort at St John’s Point (ORCA 21 and 22) the development will be in a narrow and insignificant view that is not key to the monument, will not break the horizon and will fade into the background (see Figures 11 and 13). It is predicted that there may also be an impact of minor significance on the setting of the A-Listed Canisbay Kirk and Graveyard (ORCA 53 and 55) and the B-listed East Canisbay Manse and West Canisbay House (ORCA 59 and 62). These predicted impacts are less than for the Ness of Quoys partly due to distance from the development at Huna and partly because there are more modern buildings (both houses and agricultural buildings) and trees that screen the views or force the development into the background. The interrelationship between the manse and the kirk is not affected; and the development will make little impact on the kirk being the highest and most prominent building in the area both from land and sea.
In theory, there could be a moderately significant impact on sites with sensitive settings on Stroma. However, the development will blend into the landscape when seen from Stroma (ORCA 486-490) even more than is indicated by the visualization shown for VP 20 (Section 19 Technical Appendix, Plate 07), which is some 2km closer to the development.
There may in theory be a potential impact of moderate significance on the archaeological/landscape setting of some sites within or beside the original PCC and HDD development area (ORCA 78, 79, 82, 414) simply because of the proximity (or in the case of 414 the visibility) of the development. However, the setting of the Norse settlement remains (ORCA 78 and 79) and the possible Cromwellian battery at Quoys (ORCA 414) are all west of Huna House and their settings are much compromised and views screened off by the modern development here. Geophysical investigation (ORCA 2011) conducted after this assessment has shown that the Pictish settlement may not exist, and as such may have no setting to be impacted.
During the design process MeyGen recognized that without careful design, ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
the PCC buildings would have the potential to dominate the kirk and graveyard and interrupt both open views and the sightline between the kirk and the manse. Therefore they have engaged in a reflexive consultation process with Highland Council and Historic Scotland regarding the design and layout of the onshore installation in order to address any such concerns, which included a design workshop held in Caithness on 6th September 2011 and subsequent meetings/conference calls to discuss site layout and building design.
The results of the EIA surveys and studies and ongoing consultation have informed the project design and allowed the refinement (since EIA commencement) of the onshore Project area and design for the planning applications. These have been taken into account when assessing the residual impact. The design has resulted in Historic Scotland stating that
“the current proposals do not appear to raise significant issues for our statutory historic environment interests (i.e. scheduled monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting, Inventory designed landscapes and designated wrecks)” (e-mail dated 14th September 2011).
6.1.3 Underground Cable Routes
As long as maintenance engineers are made aware of any sensitive areas, so that no ground works necessary during cable repairs impact on cultural heritage assets, then no significant impacts are identified as a result of this phase of the project in relation to the underground cables. These will not be discussed further in this section.
6.2 Mitigation
The same mitigations will be applied to both the Ness of Huna development and the Ness of Quoys development. These are:
• Reduction of overall site footprint to minimise loss of setting of cultural heritage assets;
• Siting of main PCUBs, Control Building, and other physical infrastructure within the PCC use natural topographic screening to minimise visibility – in terms of both overall visual envelope (ZTV)
91 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
and actual visibility from key heritage assets;
• Building orientation designed to minimise impact in key view: e.g. orientation of the main PCUBs has been harmonised with the open vistas when viewed from both the Canisbay Kirk and from Stroma;
• Siting, non-alignment and spacing of PCUBs to minimise additional visual confusion and avoid conflict with existing adjacent historic features and buildings;
• Building scale designed to be compatible with scale of landscape and seascape character of site and wider landscape setting;
• Distinctive building form creates strong identity and clear rationale relating to renewable marine energy source;
• Building form and finishes, include use of natural materials, designed to reflect aesthetic qualities associated with landscape and seascape character of site and wider landscape setting;
• Use of local stone walling in harmony with existing uses to help screen buildings;
• Design ensures that the prominence of Canisbay Kirk and its dominance of the local landscape is not challenged by the size and height of the buildings and ensuring that the buildings do not break the horizon when looking to them from the sea; and
• Design ensures that the key view between the kirk and the manse is not interrupted.
6.3 Residual Impact
Only the Ness of Quoys development will have a significant residual impact on cultural heritage setting (see Tables 11 and 12 above, Appendix 1 Figures 15 and 16).
The mitigation strategies outlined above in Section 6.2 result in the Ness of Huna development having a residual impact on setting of Minor or Negligible Significance (see Table 12 above). The geophysical surveys conducted in
92 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
relation to managing direct impacts at both development sites (see sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2) have identified that Site 82 at the Ness of Huna does not exist to be impacted upon (ORCA 2011).
At the Ness of Quoys, the mitigation strategies outlined in Section 6.2 result in the development having a residual impact of Minor or Negligible Significance on the majority of settings (see Table 11 above). Of the remaining 6 significant impacts, those for ORCA 64, 242, 414, 416, are due to proximity to development and the final reduced footprint and the mitigation and risk management strategies (including geophysical) for direct impacts will have the effect of further reducing the impact.
The effect on the setting of Canisbay Kirk and Graveyard will still be a material change to the setting of Major significance. However, it will not be fundamental to the setting, and with the EIA studies and consultations taken into account over the design of the PCC will be a change that is at an acceptable level (see ES Section 19, Technical Appendix Plate 03).
Historic Scotland has stated (in an e-mail dated 14th September 2011) that the proposals do not appear to raise significant issues for their statutory historic environment interests (i.e. scheduled monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting, Inventory designed landscapes and designated wrecks).
7.0 Impacts During Decommissioning
No adverse impacts have been identified during the decommissioning phase as long as there are no areas subject to groundworks that have not already been subject to disturbance during the construction and operation phases. Otherwise, this report and cultural heritage lists and maps should be consulted to ensure any adverse impacts on identified historic environment assets are avoided. In addition, a reporting protocol for the potential discovery of previously unidentified remains. This would have the effect of reducing the impact to one of negligible significance and having a positive impact in terms of gaining new archaeological and historical knowledge about the area.
If the onshore buildings are to be decommissioned and removed, and the
93 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
area fully reinstated, the effects of reinstatement are considered to be neutral since work will restore what was there before, rather than improve on what was there before.
8.0 Potential variances in Environmental Impacts
This assessment has addressed the potential impacts associated with all potential onshore development areas; however, in reality it will only be certain areas within this footprint that will be developed. Therefore the actual impacts (both direct and indirect) will be less than those predicted here.
9.0 Cumulative Impacts
MeyGen has in consultation with Marine Scotland and the Highland Council identified a list of projects which together with the MeyGen Project may result in potential cumulative impacts. The list of these projects includes details of their status at the time of the EIA. ES Section 8 Figure 8.1 shows their locations.
Having considered the information presently available in the public domain on the projects for which there is a potential for cumulative impacts, the list below indicates those with the potential to result in cumulative impacts from an Onshore Cultural Heritage perspective. The consideration of which projects could result in potential cumulative impacts is based on the results of the project specific impact assessment together with the expert judgement of the specialist consultant.
• MeyGen Limited, MeyGen Tidal Energy Project, Phase 2;
• ScottishPower Renewables UK Limited, Ness of Duncansby Tidal Energy Project;
• MORL, Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd (MORL) offshore windfarm;
• BOWL, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd (BOWL) offshore windfarm;
94 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
• SSE, Gills Bay 132 kV / 33 k V Substation Phase 1: substation and overhead cables (AC);
• SSE, Gills Bay 132 kV / 33 k V Substation Phase 2: HVDC converter station and new DC buried cable; and
• RWE npower renewables, Stroupster Windfarm.
There are unlikely to be significant cumulative effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets in the Canisbay area caused by any of the developments outlined above. No mitigation is required over and above the Project-specific mitigations.
9.1 MeyGen Tidal Energy Project Phase 2
Phase 2 of the Project will comprise the deployment of more tidal turbines offshore and associated cables to shore and onshore infrastructure. The exact geographical location, extent and nature of the onshore facilities required for Phase 2 are not yet defined and will incorporate lessons learned from and technology advancements beyond, Phase 1 of the Project. These factors will influence the potential for, nature of and significance of any cumulative impacts. From an onshore cultural heritage perspective the requirement for additional land for onshore infrastructure has the potential for increased direct impacts, although wherever possible important cultural heritage assets will be avoided. Cumulative impacts on setting will be very much dependent on the location of onshore infrastructure, but potentially may occur.
9.2 ScottishPower Renewables’ Ness of Duncansby Tidal Array
The location of the cable landfall, control building/substation compound and grid connection has yet to be defined. However, it has been stated that ‘they will be sited sensitively after taking the cultural heritage assets into account’ (ScottishPower Renewables: Proposed Ness of Duncansby Tidal Array Request for a Scoping Opinion January 2011, section 4.4.4.5). It is therefore expected that the cumulative effects will be of Minor significance.
95 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
9.3 Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution’s Gills Bay 132kV / 33kV Substation
Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution’s Gills Bay 132kV / 33kV Substation and overhead power lines – the Scoping Report for which was not available in time for this assessment. There are three potential options for the location of the substation (see Figure 20.1), which may be turned into an HVDC Converter station in Phase 2 if there is sufficient demand.
The overhead power lines will be on 11m high wooden poles and lead away from plantations in the Phillip’s Mains area out of view of Canisbay. It is therefore expected that the cumulative effects on cultural heritage setting in the Canisbay area will be of Minor significance.
The potential options for the substation / converter station location have differing cumulative effects. The location west of Philips Mains may have a major direct impact on two cultural heritage assets (ORCA 371 and 374 - see Figure 20.2). However, since the MeyGen underground cable will be designed to avoid such direct impacts, the cumulative effect is of Moderate to Minor significance.
There are unlikely to be cumulative setting effects on the setting of cultural heritage assets in the Canisbay area caused by any of the locations, since they will be screened by coniferous plantations and Rigifa Hill, assuming the buildings are not higher than the trees.
9.4 Stroupster Windfarm
This is a consented windfarm of 12 turbines to tip height of 113m. It is likely that the ZTV of this project will overlap with the ZTVs of both Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna and there may be simultaneous or successive visibility.
9.5 Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd (MORL) offshore windfarm and Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd (BOWL) offshore windfarm.
Assuming a study area of 35km radius from the outer edge of these development areas, there will be overlap with the MeyGen Phase 1 study area and dependent on the ZTVs potentially therefore a minor degree of cumulative impact may occur.
96 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
10.0 Proposed Monitoring
The construction contractors’ Environmental Clerk of Works (or similar) should monitor the construction team to avoid any accidental damage to identified cultural heritage assets. There should also be proof of any inductions and briefings required concerning such assets.
The statutory authorities will monitor the satisfactory fulfillment of any statutory conditions attached to any planning consent, which for cultural heritage issues is likely to be the Highland Council’s Historic Environment Team.
11.0 Summary and Conclusions
The rich and varied archaeological heritage of the Canisbay area is clearly evident. There are no SAMs, Listed Buildings or other statutorily designated assets within the development areas themselves. However, there are such sites close by and the setting of two of them (the A-Listed Canisbay Kirk and Graveyard (ORCA 52 and 55) and the B-Listed East Canisbay Manse (ORCA 59) are key issues. Mitigation in building design and location will ensure that the key aspects of their setting will not be lost and that the change to the setting, although significant, will be of an acceptable nature.
Both the Ness of Quoys and Ness of Huna landfall and PCC areas have potential for significant archaeology to be present. However, this is being mitigated by targeted geophysical surveys so that archaeological remains will be avoided where at all possible. In consultation with HC HET, intrusive evaluations will be conducted where remains cannot be avoided in order to establish whether or not significant remains do exist and thus identify any risks. The results could lead on to further management strategies, such as excavation or watching briefs, or may indicate that there are no further issues.
It is clear that there is a moderately high potential for further culturally significant remains to be concealed in some parts of the cable route options, and consideration will be given to the potential for further sites to remain
97 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
below surface in the vicinity of known significant sites and for peat and intensive cultivation to have masked remains. It will be possible to route the cable to avoid known remains and further investigations could be targeted at areas thought to present most risk in order to establish whether or not significant remains exist. The results would enable the formulation, if shown to be required, of further management or mitigation strategies, such as avoidance, excavation or watching briefs, or may indicate that there are no further issues. A reporting protocol for the accidental discovery of archaeological remains can also be instated.
No adverse impacts have been identified during the decommissioning phase on the assumption that there will be no new areas subject to groundworks that have not already been subject to disturbance during the construction and operation phases.
Other developments that may contribute towards a cumulative impact on onshore cultural heritage assets in the area have been identified. All seek to avoid significant cultural heritage assets where at all possible and will formulate mitigation strategies where it is not. Cumulative impacts on setting will be very much dependent on the location of onshore infrastructure, but potentially may occur.
Other than the effect on the setting of Canisbay Kirk, which will be carefully managed, it is therefore concluded that, with the appropriate mitigation strategies, the proposed development will not significantly impact onshore cultural heritage.
12.0 References
The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment’s Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Wilson, 2002)
Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) Working Group on the Setting of Cultural Heritage Features’ Setting Standards: A Review (Lambrick, 2008)
Barber J. (2006). Caithness: A River of Stone., AOC Archaeology Group, Edinburgh.
98 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Batey C.E. (1984). Caithness Coastal Survey 1980–82: Dunnet Head to Ousdale. Durham University Department of Archaology Occasional Paper 3. Durham.
Batey, C.E. (1993). ‘The Viking and Late Norse Graves of Caithness and Sutherland’ in Batey C.E., Jesch J. & Morris C.D. (1993). The Viking Age in Caithness, Orkney and the North Atlantic. EUP. Edinburgh. 148-164.
Batey C.E. (2002). ‘Viking and Late Norse re-use of broch mounds in Caithness’ in Ballin Smith B. & Banks, I. (2002). In The Shadow of the Brochs: The Iron Age in Scotland. Tempus. Stroud.
Calder J.T. (1887). History of Caithness. 2nd edn. Online transcription hosted at http://www.caithness.org/history/historyofcaithness/index.htm.
Davidson J.L. & Henshall A. (1991). The Chambered Cairns of Caithness, Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh.
Houston, A. (1996). Lest We Forget: The Parish of Canisbay. Highland News Group Ltd. Inverness.
NSA (1834-45) New Statistical Account of Scotland, vol 15. Parish of Canisbay, entry by Rev Peter Jolly, 21-34.
Omand, D. (1989) The Caithness Book. Highland Printers. Inverness.
ORCA October 2011 Inner Sound Canisbay, Caithness Geophysical Survey 2011 Final Report. Report for MeyGen Ltd.
OSA (1791-99) Old Statistical Account of Scotland, vol 9. Parish of Canisbay entry by Rev John Morison, 142-69.
Ordnance Survey County Series 1:2500 (25” to 1 mile) 1st edition 1877, Caithness-shire, sheets II.8, II.4, II.10, II.11, II. II.14, II.15, II.16; VII. 2, VII.3, VII.4, VII.6, VII.7, VII.8, VII.15, VII.6; III.1, III.5, III.9, III.10, III.11, III.13, III.14, III.15; VIII.1, VIII.2, VIII.3, VIII.5, VIII.6, VIII.7.
Ordnance Survey County Series 1:2500 (25” to 1 mile) 1st Revision (second edition) 1907, Caithness-shire sheets II.8, II.4, II.10, II.11, II. II.14, II.15, II.16; VII. 2, VII.3, VII.4, VII.6, VII.7, VII.8, VII.15, VII.6; III.1, III.5, III.9, III.10, III.11, III.13, III.14, III.15; VIII.1, VIII.2, VIII.3, VIII.5, VIII.6, VIII.7.
Ordnance Survey OS Explorer Map, 1: 25 000 (4 cm to 1 km, 2½ inches to 1 mile), 2007 edition, Thurso and John O’ Groats, sheet 451.
Pottinger M. (1993). ‘Cromwellian Soldiers in Cannesbay, 1652 to 1655’. Caithness Field Club Bulletin 1993. Wick. Consulted online at http://www.caithness.org/caithnessfieldclub/bulletins/1993/cromwellaiansoldi ers.htm.
Stanton, C., 1998. Caithness and Sutherland Landscape Character Assessment, SNH commissioned report No. 130 Available at http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/LCA/CaithnessSutherland.pdf.
99 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
Thomson, J. (1832) ‘Caithness Shire’ in The Atlas of Scotland, Edinburgh: J. Thomson & Co., http://maps.nls.uk/atlas/thomson/485.html.
100 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) 13.0 Appendix 1: Map Figures ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
102 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
103 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
104 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
105 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
106 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
107 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA) ORCA 266: MeyGen, Caithness – Onshore EIA
108 © Orkney Research Centre for Archaeology (ORCA)