5. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

Transcription

1 5. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 5.1 Executive Summary A desk-based assessment was carried out for the proposed site which lies within an area rich in cropmark sites, with some of the most significant early prehistoric evidence discovered in Scotland in recent years recorded in the locality. Despite this, the site is itself archaeologically sterile, having been extensively quarried to supply the adjacent Lafarge Cement Works. The only cultural heritage issues relate to indirect impacts to sites in the vicinity of the development. These cannot be easily mitigated, and as such are simply identified and assessed. Chief in these are the scheduled ancient monuments along the ridge to south of the quarry, in which the development will sit. It is not considered that the development will be of more than moderate significance to the cultural heritage, as the development is situated adjacent to the Lafarge Cement Works, and as such will form a contiguous extension of it, thus minimising visual impact to surrounding sites. 5.2 Introduction The main aim of this Chapter is to establish the presence/absence, date, character and quality of any cultural heritage resources surviving within or near to the development area, and to assess the likely significant impacts of the proposed development upon them. The results of this study will be used to inform the mitigation strategy for this aspect of the proposed development. Cultural Heritage resources include: Scheduled Ancient Monuments; other archaeological sites; Listed Buildings; other buildings of historic or architectural importance (and recorded on the Sites and Monuments Record maintained by East Lothian Council Archaeology Service); and Conservation Areas and Designed Landscapes. 5.3 Methodology Guidance The following guidelines have been used in the preparation of this assessment: Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Desk Based Assessments, Institute of Field Archaeologists (1999) outlines the requirements for carrying out desk-based assessments to nationally recognised standards. It outlines the recommended sources of information for such assessments and the analysis required; National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 5: Archaeology and Planning, Scottish Executive (1994). This details the role of Sites and Monuments Records in providing the necessary information to assess the level of threat to a finite archaeological resource. NPPG5 also emphasises the presumption to preserve archaeological remains in situ wherever possible, either through 90

2 mutual agreement or formal conditions. Early consultation with local authorities is stressed as a means to guide mitigation, and the need to provide further information either in the form of desk-based assessment or intrusive evaluation, as a means of providing specific information on a development site where a lack of information exists; Planning Advice Note (PAN) 42: Archaeology, The Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures (1994) provides advice on the handling of archaeological matters within the planning process; NPPG 18: Planning and the Historic Environment (1999), provides guidance on the relationship of development to various historic interests such as Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas; Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, Historic Scotland (1998) raises issues of setting and those related to the wider historic environment; Legislation Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act (1979) as amended by the National Heritage Act (1983) provides Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) with protection. Scheduling is administered by Historic Scotland, who maintains a list of all SAMs and enforce the protection thereof. Scheduled Monument Consent is required for works that affect or alter SAMs, with the exception of some agricultural activities; Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act A list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest is maintained by Historic Scotland. Development affecting the character of such designated features is subject to listed building consent via the Planning Authority under the Act; and Historic Park and Gardens have received recognition under the National Heritage Act (1983). A list (The Inventory of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland) of such designated sites is maintained by Scottish Natural Heritage. Such designation is not the same as affording statutory protection. Desk-Based Assessment A desk-based study of the proposed development area was undertaken, involving the examination of all available information sources relevant to the area to establish the baseline conditions for the site and its environs. The following sources of information were consulted: East Lothian Council Sites and Monuments Record (SMR); The National Monuments Record for Scotland (NMRS) and aerial photographs, held by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS); Historic Maps, held by the National Map Library of Scotland (NLS); Data on Listed Buildings, and Scheduled Ancient Monuments, held by Historic Scotland; and Data on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes held on the Inventory maintained by Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland. 91

3 Sites numbered in the text either refer to the NMRS code (e.g. NT55SW 2), for nonstatutorily protected sites or the Listing or Scheduling Index number (generally a 4 or 5 digit number). Different site identifications are used by East Lothian SMR and no cross-referencing information to NMRS codes was supplied, although the majority of site records within the SMR will be duplicates of NMRS data. Study Area The study area was defined as being the land within the development area. Further data on sites within the vicinity of the development area was collected, to address possible impact to setting. These categories were as follows: Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings Grade A and B, Conservation Areas and Historic Gardens/Designed Landscapes to 5km of the site boundary; and Sites and Monuments records for up to 2km of the application boundary. Site Survey Whilst usually a site walkover would be carried out, due to the sterile nature of the development area, it was decided on this occasion that this was not required. Similarly, no intrusive investigations were carried out. Consultations East Lothian Council and Historic Scotland were contacted, as statutory consultees. East Lothian Council confirmed that there were no archaeological issues within the site. Historic Scotland noted that a large number of listed buildings, scheduled monuments and one Historic Garden and Designed Landscape (Broxmouth Park) fall within 5km of the site, and that these should be addressed for potential indirect effects. It was also noted that other sites may be affected outside of 5km. Impact Assessment The following system is used for assessing the importance of individual sites, the significance of potential effects of development and hence whether it merits special consideration and/or mitigation measures. Firstly the sensitivity of each site or monument in question must be assessed. Following on from that an assessment is made of the potential effect of development on each monument. By cross-referencing the two, an assessment of the significance of the effect of development upon the monuments is undertaken. It should be noted that in the absence of clear guidance on the assessment of the effects of development on the historic environment in particular of this type of development on the historic environment the following methodology has been developed. It aims to objectively assess the level of significance of individual cultural heritage features, the level of impact the development would have on these features, and therefore the overall significance of any effects of the development on the cultural heritage resource. The methodologies used have been developed in accordance with established frameworks and guidance including NPPG5: Archaeology and Planning, as well as internationally recognised conservation guidelines such as The Burra Charter. Paramount in this is the presumption to conserve wherever possible, ideally by preservation in situ and is an appropriate setting. 92

4 Assessment of Importance Initial assessment of importance defines the sensitivity of the cultural heritage features recorded within the study. Current assessments of importance are based around the listing and scheduling criteria currently employed by national curatorial bodies. They identify the level of importance international, national, regional, local or other of each cultural heritage feature, and thus their sensitivity to disturbance. This is an imprecise tool, given that it relies on a subjective assessment of each feature. It does, however, give a framework by which to gauge sensitivity and promote further discussion. It is possible that under certain circumstances the assessment will give rise to anomalies, such as features of local importance being of greater sensitivity or those of national importance being of lesser sensitivity. This will be clearly communicated in the text, where appropriate. The following table shows the generally accepted levels of importance given to cultural heritage features of varying designations: TABLE 5.1 LEVELS OF IMPORTANCE/SENSITIVITY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE FIGURES Importance/Sensitivity Site Types International/ Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs) National Inventory Status Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes Category A listed buildings Outstanding Conservation Areas World Heritage Sites Regional Archaeological sites of Regional Importance Category B Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Local Archaeological sites of Local Importance Category C(s) Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Lesser Other archaeological sites; findspots Unlisted buildings and townscapes of some historic or architectural interest Assessment Criteria The following criteria have been derived from those used by English Heritage and Historic Scotland for scheduling and listing purposes, and defines the grounds on which the assessment of importance is made. These are not exhaustive, and other criteria may be applicable. It should be noted that there are no clear definitions for archaeological sites of regional or local importance; neither are their criteria for defining the varying levels of importance of Conservation Areas. Survival: the quality of the survival of a site can be of importance, and the survival potential of below- and above-ground remains is crucial to the importance of the site. Period: whether the site is a good example of its period, or whether it shows evidence of long-term or multi-period use. Contemporary sites of different types also complement each other in terms of the information and evidence they show. Group Value: the value of a single site is enhanced greatly by being part of an associated group of related sites. In such cases preservation of not just the group, but also the context of the group should be seriously considered. 93

5 Rarity: some sites, due to the overall rarity of the type, merit raised importance despite not appearing to be particularly good examples. Situation: some sites are more abundant in different geographical areas than others, and accordingly may have higher potential value if geographically more rare. Diversity of Form: whether the style is different from others of its type in terms of style or function perhaps, or according to regional variations. Multiperiod/Single Period: sites showing evidence of successive reuse can have special value because they may contain particularly fine evidence of phasing and stratigraphy. Likewise, a single period site will generally have more evidence of the different functions carried out within it through having well-preserved archaeological relationships. Good examples of both site types are important in terms of their overall informational value. Documentation: a site may have particularly extensive supplementary information, such as charters or estate maps, which informs and enhances the overall understanding of it, yet cannot be seen through archaeological research. This information can serve to flesh out the evidence gathered by other means. Potential: the site may be viewed as having significant potential for providing further information on the past, or predictions may suggest that undiscovered deposits may have high informational value. Amenity Value: the site may be easily accessible by the general public, and its preservation may therefore be of benefit as an amenity. The above list points out that group value is of considerable weight: groups of sites, such as features that were planned to have intervisibility with other monuments within the landscape have a particular value, even without statutory designation. Such sites include beacons, prehistoric ritual monuments, fortifications or preserved landscapes. Assessment of Effect Impacts upon the archaeological resource base are predominantly permanent adverse impacts when they result from the loss of elements of the resource base as a consequence of development-related activities. There may occasionally be temporary adverse impacts when the setting of a site or monument is affected by construction activities or permanent adverse impacts when such settings are affected by the new development itself. With regard to the historic built environment, welldesigned development can result in permanent beneficial impacts where the setting of a historic building is enhanced. Effects of development can be both direct and indirect. Direct effects include any potentially damaging operations, such as ground disturbance, in the immediate vicinity of a cultural heritage feature. Indirect effects are mainly visual or noiserelated, and affect cultural heritage features over a much wider area in these cases it is very important to clearly state the significance of the cultural heritage features in question. 94

6 Direct Effects In general, ground disturbance to archaeological sites destroys any buried remains, hence current legislation and guidance tends towards preservation in situ. However, the vulnerability of sites may vary according to the activity they are subjected to: in the most extreme cases, indirect disturbance, such as changes in the water table, vehicles crossing sites, vibration or other indirect activities can inadvertently cause damage to the most fragile sites. Of particular note for this study are the following monument types: Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Listed Buildings within the development area; extensive sites, such as farmsteads, field systems or settlements, which may have their remains and setting affected; and sites not detected by the desktop study. Indirect Effects The effect of large-scale developments can be felt over a much greater area than the development area itself, in particular within areas of low building density. Furthermore, development within visual range of SAMs, Designed Landscapes, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas can fundamentally change the setting of these statutorily protected cultural heritage features, and is therefore of concern. This assessment takes into account cultural heritage features outside the development boundary, in order to create an assessment in line with the methodologies used in the Landscape and Visual Chapter. A calculation of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) has been used to identify those cultural heritage features that would be most affected by the development, and the consequent effect on setting. Given that the ZTV data only takes into account basic topography, and not local variation such as tree growth or buildings, this number is likely to be further reduced in reality. On the basis of guidance from PAN45 7, a general relationship between distance and visibility of this particular development within an open landscape has been defined as follows: to 2km the development is a prominent feature within the landscape; and 2-5km the development is a relatively prominent feature within the landscape. Following the above definitions, effect diminishes with distance; therefore sites closer to and in full view of the development will be most affected. Similarly, those sites that stand within an open landscape or where viewpoints were an explicit intention of their design are more likely to be affected than those where aspect was of less importance in their original siting. In this way, follies, estates, castles and other imposing structures are most likely to be affected, as opposed to industrial buildings or other more functional structures. For the purposes of this assessment, Category A listed buildings, Designed Landscapes, SAMs and Conservation Areas are all considered to be of National Importance. Category B and C (S) listed buildings are considered to be of regional and local importance respectively. Nationally important cultural heritage features are considered to have their setting meaningfully affected up to a range of 5km. 95

7 Regionally important cultural heritage features will have their setting meaningfully affected to a range of 3km. Locally important cultural heritage features are not considered to have settings that require addressing in detail. Assessment of Magnitude of Effect The magnitude of each noted effect is assessed, in order to determine the likely outcome of development upon each cultural heritage feature. The following table shows the definitions used in determining the magnitude of effect, both direct and indirect. TABLE 5.2 DEFINITIONS OF MAGNITUDE OF EFFECT Levels of Definition (direct effects) Definition (indirect effects) Magnitude High Total or major physical loss to cultural heritage feature Fundamental changes to character or setting of the cultural heritage feature Medium Moderate physical damage to cultural heritage feature; does not fundamentally change feature Partial alteration or loss of character or setting of cultural heritage feature Low Minor physical damage to cultural Minor intrusion on setting or loss of heritage feature or immediate character of cultural heritage feature surroundings Negligible Barely perceptible or no change to baseline condition Barely perceptible or no change to baseline condition Assessment of Significance The final assessment of significance refers to the significance of the effects to the receptors (the individual monuments) rather than the cultural significance of the monuments themselves: this is to assess the overall effect of the development against the importance of the monuments and the magnitude of the effects of the development. The table below offers a summary of the criteria for judging the potential significance of effect, both direct and indirect, on sites identified in the course of this study. It is intended as a broad guide, with further justification and analysis being carried out as necessary for each site. As such, effects may vary slightly from the table, although justification for this will always be presented. Effects predicted as being of major or moderate significance equate to potentially significant impacts in current EIA guidelines. TABLE 5.3 COMPARATIVE TABLE FOR ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE OF EFFECT Sensitivity of Receptor Magnitude of effect International/national Regional Local Lesser High Major Major Moderate Minor Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible 96

8 5.4 Baseline Assessment Sites within the Application Area Overview The following data shows that the sites within the area were typical of the rich prehistoric archaeological remains predominant in the locality of Oxwellmains and Dunbar; however, since quarrying has reduced the site by up to 30m in depth, no remains survive within the development area. The archaeological work within the quarry shows that where remains existed, they were in generally good condition, although this varies widely: mainly according to cultivation patterns, since most identified sites survive below the ploughsoil in arable fields. The discovery in 2003 of a Mesolithic house to north of the quarry (NT77NW 86) shows that this was a favoured area of settlement from earliest prehistory, and that the low ground just inland from the coast was well settled and cultivated. TABLE 5.4 SUMMARY OF SITES WITHIN THE APPLICATION AREA No NMRS NGR Name Description 1 NT77NW 18 NT Dryburn Bridge Palisaded enclosure 2 NT77NW 25 NT Dryburn Bridge Possible ring-ditch 3a NT77NW 30 NT Dryburn Bridge Arrowhead 3b NT77NW 30 NT Curvilinear features: possible ring ditch 3c NT77NW 30 NT Roundhouse 3d NT77NW 30 NT Roundhouses & associated material 4 NT77NW 61 NT Dry Burn Food vessel All sites within the application area are shown within Figure 5.1. Cartographic The earliest record of the area is Adair s 1682 map of the area. It shows the farms of Meikle Pinkerton and East Barns, but does not have further detail. His 1725 map shows East Barns as being several buildings, rather than a single one, and a clearly defined road passing immediately to north of it. Tayor and Skinners atlas (1775) shows no more detail, apart from noting ownership of Meikle Pinkerton or East Barns as belonging to Sandelands Esq. Forrest s 1799 map shows much more detail: Sandelands Esq is noted against Barnyhill, which lies to the west and alongside East Barns, which itself includes note of a manse and meeting house. Also associated with the settlement is a pigeon cot. A lime quarry sits slightly to the west, halfway in between East Barns and Oxwell Mains, which is connected to Meikle Pinkerton and Pinkerton by several winding roads. A building, notated draw kill sits at a crossroads, together with a well, in between Oxwell Mains and Pinkerton, with a further quarry slightly to the north. The Ainslie map (1821) does not have sufficient detail to show any of the buildings noted on Forrest s map, however, it still shows the road network reasonably clearly. Thomson s 1822 map is of a similar scale, although it does not have the level of notation of Forrest s map. It does show Barnyhill as the major settlement of the group of Barnyhill, East Barns, Meikle Pinkerton and Oxwell Mains. 97

9 Sharp, Greenwood and Fowler (1825) show Pinkerton as Little Pinkerton, and three windmills stand in an east-west running line to the north of the crossroads, where three buildings are noted, with one being a lime kiln. Their later 1844 map shows ostensibly the same information, with the addition of the North British Railway running immediately to north of the windmills. The OS First Edition ( ) shows the same information, however, the battle site of Pinkerton Hill has been renamed as the Battle of Dunbar, and moved from south of Little Pinkerton to immediately north of Oxwell Mains. The reason for this may have been that the original battle site was erroneously associated with General Leslie s Covenanter encampment on Doon Hill prior to the Battle of Dunbar (1650), and that it stood within a hillfort site, presumably of Iron Age date. Interestingly, Forrest notes the Battle of Pinkerton Hill as occurring in 1646, as do Sharp, Greenwood and Fowler, whilst Ainslie asserts it as occurring in The OS 2 nd and Popular Editions (1895 and 1922 respectively) show no further definition or changes. The Third Edition map (current) however, shows major changes, in that quarrying has now reduced the ground level over a considerable, rectangular shaped area of ground sandwiched between the A1 and the railway, and which includes the study area within this quarried area. Some historic map extracts are shown within Figure 5.2. National Monuments Record Four entries in the NMRS lie within or immediately adjacent to the application boundary: all of these entries relate to the quarry within which the Facility is to be sited. Three of these relate to finds uncovered in the course, or prior to, quarrying. The palisaded enclosure at Dryburn Bridge (site 1) was identified in 1974 and rescue excavations were undertaken in 1978 and This showed the presence of eight circular features (probably structures) within an oval enclosure 85m by 50m. The palisade had two main entrances, approximately 50m apart, and showed evidence of repair within its lifespan. Four crouched burials were discovered in close association with the palisade, and were dated to 2210 ± 70 b.p. Six further similar burials were identified within the enclosure. In addition to this, evidence for a period of later occupation of the site was discovered on the site. The site was excavated in advance of quarrying activities, together with site 2, and therefore no longer survives. A palisaded enclosure (site 3a) was identified from aerial photography in 1999 as measuring 35-40m in diameter with a further sub-circular cropmark within its SE quadrant. This was investigated in detail in 2001, when five further concentrations were located during evaluations. Three further discrete areas within the quarry were examined in 2005: a possible palisaded enclosure (3b), an Iron Age roundhouse with stone slab base (3c) and a concentration of further roundhouses (3c), as well as a stray barb and tang stone arrowhead (3a). These were excavated prior to quarrying took place. Site 4 is a food vessel, discovered in 1992 and donated to the National Museum. Aerial Photographic Coverage The aerial photographic collection housed at RCAHMS was studied for further archaeological remains within the development area. Nothing was noted past the identification noted in the NMRS. Most of the photographs showed quarrying extending across the site. 98

10 Sites Outwith the Application Area Overview A study was made of the sites up to 5km from the development area. Due to landscaping and topography, it was decided to reduce the limit of study of the effect of development to a 2km radius of the proposed site. Two A-listed, 15 B-listed and 7 C(S) listed buildings lie within 2km of the boundary of the site, along with 14 Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The Designed Landscape of Broxmouth Park partially sits within 2km of the site. 13 A-listed, 145 B-listed and 59 C(S) listed buildings lie between 2km and 5km from the site, together with 33 scheduled monuments. As mentioned above, the application lies within an area rich in archaeological remains from every period. Several scheduled Iron Age hillforts and palisaded enclosures lie to south of the quarry, with further earlier enclosed and unenclosed settlements being noted along the lower ground to the north. The wide-ranging dates for these settlements from the late Mesolithic to Iron Age shows that the area was in constant favour throughout prehistory as a place to settle and cultivate. It is worth noting that the trial trenching carried out in advance of quarrying activities outwith the application area has been mixed in its success: 132ha of ground on the western portion of the quarry was evaluated in 2005 and several known and substantial sites (NT77NW 19, 25 and 41) were not located. However, the remains of a stone-built and paved Iron Age roundhouse were noted at NT , with areas of rubble nearby possibly corresponding to or masking the remains of more. Further postholes and a curvilinear feature were recorded at NT : these suggested the remains of a further round house or houses. A rare example of an Anglian hall-house is situated at Doon Hill (SAM 90098, NGR NT686755), situated on the spur of Doon Hill. The nearest equivalent site excavated in northern Britain is the royal Anglian site of Yeavering in Northumberland. The site contained two successive halls, situated within a polygonal palisaded enclosure. A fire destroyed the first hall, which was very similar in style to the Oswald phase hall at Yeavering, and is therefore considered to be from around AD 640, and which appeared to have been successively repaired, with a corresponding lifespan of possibly a century, before final destruction. Its construction, which consisted of a 75 long building with very obtusely V-shaped gable ends and internal partitioning suggested a possible Anglian (pre-saxon) date from its style, which was very different from the rectangular building that succeeded it, despite Hall B s very deliberate and exact reuse of the footprint. The site had originally been a cremation cemetery, and some later inhumation burials were present outside the palisade. It shows the typical reuse of prestigious sites by ruling elites, attempting to legitimise land claims following conquest. Listed Buildings As detailed above, there are a great number of listed buildings within the study area, as Dunbar falls within 5km of the site. Only the A and B-listed buildings have been included in this assessment, as they are deemed to be of at least regional importance by the listing criteria. The locally important, or C(S) listed buildings, are not widely considered to have setting as such. Buildings in an urban environment, 99

11 such as Dunbar, are less likely to have an appreciable effect on their setting, as setting constitutes their immediate environs and is inward-looking, as opposed to the wide views associated with country houses. Of these, several stand out as being close to the site, and within the ZTV, and are therefore likely to experience an effect as a result of the proposed development. These are summarised in the Table 5.5. Scheduled Ancient Monuments The great majority of scheduled monuments in the vicinity of the development area are cropmark features, recorded from aerial photography. As such, their amenity value and the ability to identify any intentional setting is very limited, given that they are no longer upstanding monuments, assessed as schedulable primarily on the grounds of their preservation and informational value. Hence these features have been identified as features unlikely to experience negative indirect impacts as a result of the proposal. The scheduled monuments identified as being likely to sustain a measurable indirect impact are those that are in some way upstanding features, generally indicating some level of amenity value. At present there is no known intentionality to the archaeological landscape of the area: it primarily consists of agricultural settlement and defensive structures, which indicate little in the way of intervisibility or ritual intent necessary to prove interconnection, and therefore a conscious element of setting. Amenity in this refers to there being sufficient visible remains to allow interpretation by visitors of the site, and which could be used as a basis for making links to other broadly contemporary sites in the landscape. Using this premise, many of the sites have been excluded from the assessment and the monuments identified as being most at risk of indirect effects are identified below within Table 5.5. Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes One Designed Landscape sits within 5km of the application boundary: Broxmouth Park. About one third of its area is within this distance of the site. It has been fully assessed in the Landscape and Visual Chapter, and more specifically within viewpoint 2; however, it appears that the landscape has been designed to be inwardlooking, with high walls and trees characterising it. It is not therefore considered as sustaining a substantial effect from the proposal. TABLE 5.5 SUMMARY OF AFFECTED SITES WITHIN 5KM OF THE APPLICATION AREA Index no NGR Name Description 5847 NT Glen Cottage, promontory fort 250m WNW of Promontory fort (SAM) 5844 NT Meikle Pinkerton, fort 500m S of Fort (SAM) 5895 NT Thurston, fort 800m NW of Fort (SAM) 1474 NT Broxmouth Park, South Lodge A-listed building Broxmouth Park Designed Landscape, part of B- listed building complex 1470 NT NT Thurston Home Farm A-listed building 1465 NT Barns Ness, Lighthouse B-listed building 1475 NT Oxwell Mains Windmill B-listed building 739 NT Easter Broomhouse, standing stone Standing stone (SAM) 766 NT Dunbar Castle & fort Castle & fort (SAM) 773 NT Innerwick Castle Castle (SAM) 5764 NT Doon Hill, forts Forts (SAM) 100

12 TABLE 5.5 SUMMARY OF AFFECTED SITES WITHIN 5KM OF THE APPLICATION AREA Index no NGR Name Description 5767 NT Spott Dod, fort Fort (SAM) 5836 NT Easter Broomhouse, promontory fort 400m S of Promontory fort (SAM) 5771 NT Innerwick Castle, fort and ring ditch Fort and ring ditch (SAM) NT Doon Hill, hall, Innerwick Hall (SAM) NT Dunbar Parish Church A-listed building NT Bowerhouse A-listed building All cultural heritage sites within the 5km radius are shown on Figure Impact Assessment and Mitigation Direct impacts The quarry in which the Facility is to be sited has been the subject of several intensive archaeological excavations and other recording programmes. Any remains found were recorded on excavation, rather than being left in situ, on the understanding that the quarrying would destroy all evidence of previous activity on the site. Following quarrying, the area has been restored or landfilled. Due to the intensive removal of material, and subsequent restoration or landfilling, no remains are thought to exist anywhere within the footprint of the quarry; in which this development is to be sited. Hence this development will have a negligible impact upon any cultural heritage remains within the development area, on the basis that the area is archaeologically sterile. Indirect Impacts Overview Various sites outwith the development area will be affected by the proposed development, although the effects will be purely visual. The ZTV data shows that the main views of the Facility will be from south of the site, with visibility towards the foothills of the Lammermuirs being the main focus: consequently those hillforts and other SAMs that occupy the skyline will be most affected by this development. The Landscape and Visual Chapter of this assessment has concluded that the large developments of the Torness Power Station and the Lafarge Cement Works are within proportion to the surrounding, open landscape, and whilst it is acknowledged that this is only a general indication of the area s capacity for change, it is thought that the landscape can easily tolerate the introduction of another development of broadly similar size to the Lafarge Cement Works. The development itself will be immediately adjacent to the existing Cement Works, and of a slightly smaller scale. This will have the effect of slightly extending the size of the Cement Works complex, rather than introducing an entirely new feature into the landscape. The development will take the form of several relatively low buildings, with an 80m high chimney stack being the most prominent feature. Given the above, it is considered as having a low to negligible effect to the viewer, who is unlikely to perceive a significant change in the overall character of the area. 101

13 It should also be noted that the ongoing restoration of the quarry site will be having a moderately beneficial effect on the quality of views afforded from the south, and as such offsets the development to some extent. Overall, it is thought that the impact of development will be low to negligible, leading to the conclusion that the significance of the impacts will be moderate to negligible. Sites within 2km of the Application Boundary Studies of the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) data shows that Glen Cottage promontory fort lies outside the ZTV of the development, and therefore will sustain no impact. Meikle Pinkerton and Thurston Forts occupy adjacent locations on Pinkerton Hill they have a commanding view of the landscape to the north of the Lammermuir Hills, and overlook the existing Lafarge Cement Works and quarry. While they are likely to sustain a medium magnitude of effect, given the proximity of the site to the Lafarge Cement Works, which is already a prominent feature within the landscape and in direct view of the two forts, the overall magnitude of effect of the development has been downgraded to low, given that the change is relatively minor, and consequently it has been assessed as being of moderate to minor significance. The designed landscape of Broxmouth Park has been fully assessed in the Landscape and Visual Chapter, where it is shown that the Park is primarily inwardlooking, being surrounded by a high wall and having limited views to the landscape beyond the boundaries. Therefore it is considered that the development will have a low magnitude of impact and therefore be of low significance. The A-listed South Lodge of Broxmouth Park is likely to have an unobscured view of the site. It is a square building with a dormered first floor which dates from around As the view is likely to be unobscured, the impact is likely to be significant. However, as a lodge house, its frontal aspect will be towards the road (S), rather than the side, and so the impact is slightly moderated as the development will face the east side elevation and development will be viewed through the structures of the Lafarge Cement Works. It is therefore considered that the overall magnitude of effect will be low to negligible, and hence the significance of the effect will be minor. Analysis of the ZTV with underlying map data shows that whilst Thurston Home Farm lies within the ZTV, it is likely to have views obscured by woodland to the north-west, so is considered to sustain a negligible effect, and thus be of negligible significance. Barns Ness lighthouse and cottages have a clear view of the proposed development, and as such are likely to sustain a medium effect, which, given its listing status, is likely to result in an effect of moderate significance. However, considering that lighthouses, by virtue of their function as functional coastal buildings, are primarily seaward-facing, it is suggested that this be moderated to an overall effect of moderate to minor significance. Oxwell Mains windmill is situated very close to the site. It is a B-listed structure, however, it is in a poor state of repair and is unlikely to be the subject of restoration in the foreseeable future: therefore its significance largely relates to its archaeological potential, as opposed to any amenity or architectural value. It is considered to therefore be of local sensitivity and will sustain a low magnitude of effect as a 102

14 result of viewing the site through the existing Lafarge Cement Works: hence the significance of the effect is likely to be negligible. Sites between 2 and 5km of the application boundary Dunbar Castle does not fall within the ZTV and so will sustain no impact. Innerwick Castle and Innerwick Castle fort and ring ditch are adjacent monuments which will be identically impacted upon by the proposal. The development will lie in front of the existing Lafarge Cement Works, in relation to these two monuments, and thus the resultant change in impact when compared with the status quo will be low to negligible. It is therefore considered that the overall significance of the impact will be minor. Doon Hill fort lies on the edge or outwith the ZTV only the eastern edge of the monument will have a view of the site, and at that it will be the chimney stack. As such, the overall magnitude of effect is deemed to be low, with the corresponding significance of the impact being moderate to minor. Spot Dod fort lies outside the ZTV and therefore will sustain no impact. The ZTV shows that Easter Broomhouse promontory fort and Easter Broomhouse Standing stone both have relatively unobstructed views across to the site. The view from the fort is likely to be partially mitigated by existing planting to the south side of Spott Burn, to the SE of the scheduled area (the protected area), which will mitigate the impact substantially. The overall effect is, therefore, thought to be medium to low, and the overall significance moderate to minor. Doon Hill Hall lies on the edge of the ZTV. It is a Property in Care, administered and managed by Historic Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Ministers, and is promoted as a tourist attraction. As such it is a sensitive monument with amenity value. The development will appear as an extension to the existing Lafarge Cement Works, and therefore there will be a minor intrusion into the setting of the monument: hence the development will be of low magnitude, despite the sensitivity of the monument. It is therefore considered that this monument will sustain an effect of moderate to minor significance. Dunbar Parish church lies within the town centre and will be largely screened from the development by other buildings. It also appears to lie in a small pocket of nonvisibility, and is therefore considered that the development will have no significant impact. Bowerhouse will be obscured from the site by current planting, and whilst it falls within the ZTV of the site, it is thought to sustain no significant impact. Cumulative Impacts The proposed development will increase the number of non-agricultural developments in the area, however, the buildings will be placed adjacent to the Lafarge Cement Works, therefore limiting the cumulative impact of the proposal on the surrounding area and the setting of SAMs. It should also be noted that the main views (south to north) overlook not only the Lafarge Cement Works, but also the Torness Nuclear Power Station. Depending on the view, the development will slightly increase the size of one of the two complexes, rather than adding a third focus to the landscape. It is considered that the development will, therefore, have a 103

15 low cumulative effect. Consequently, it is considered that the cumulative effect will have a moderate to minor adverse impact on the setting of statutorily protected sites and buildings within the ZTV of the site. 5.6 Mitigation No mitigation is suggested for the site itself, as archaeological mitigation (in the form of preservation by record ) has been carried out in advance of quarrying works. To mitigate the indirect effects of this development is very difficult, however, the siting of the development adjacent to the Lafarge Cement Works shows that mitigation has already been carried out, by aiming to minimise the visual impact of the proposal in the first instance. In addition, there is limited scope for the introduction of screening belts to block the view to residential properties, such as South Lodge and Thurston Home Farm. Mitigation for the upland scheduled monuments is more problematic, as these typically have commanding views of the countryside, and were intentionally sited with that in mind. Since none of these are public amenities, with the exception of Doon Hill (a property in care, managed by Historic Scotland), this is less of an issue. Furthermore, Doon Hill lies over 2km from the development, on the very edge of the ZTV and is therefore considered to experience a lesser impact than other closer monuments. In these cases, no mitigation has been proposed. TABLE 5.6 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR KEY SITES OUTSIDE THE APPLICATION AREA Name Significance of Mitigation Effect following mitigation effect before mitigation Meikle Pinkerton, Moderate to minor None suggested Moderate to minor fort 500m S of Thurston, fort Moderate to minor None suggested Moderate to minor 800m NW of Broxmouth Park Minor Possible planting to Negligible screen site Broxmouth Park, Minor None suggested Minor South Lodge Thurston Home Farm Minor to negligible Possible planting to screen site, retain Negligible Barns Ness lighthouse & cottages Oxwell Mains windmill Innerwick Castle, fort & ring ditch Moderate to minor existing planting Possible planting to screen cottages Moderate to minor Negligible None suggested Negligible Minor Possible planting if Minor to negligible deemed necessary Doon Hill fort Moderate to minor None suggested Moderate to minor Easter Broomhouse promontory fort Moderate to minor Possible planting if deemed necessary Moderate to minor or negligible (depending on decision) Easter Broomhouse standing stone Moderate to minor Possible planting if deemed necessary Moderate to minor or negligible (depending on decision) Doon Hill hall Moderate to minor None suggested Moderate to minor 104

16 5.7 Statement of Significance As a result of quarrying work on the site, no cultural heritage remains survive within the proposed development area, and hence the development will have no significant direct effect. Several cultural heritage features within the locality of the proposal will be affected, and where possible the significance of the impacts has already been reduced by the careful siting of the proposal adjacent to existing industrial structures, and where agreements can be reached, could be further reduced by planting schemes. The significance of these impacts varies from moderate to negligible, with the majority of impacts being of no more than minor significance. The cumulative effect on cultural heritage sites within 5km is considered to be of minor significance, given that there are two large industrial complexes already visible within the area (Torness Power Station and the Lafarge Cement Works), and the proposed development will visually constitute little more than an extension to the existing Lafarge Cement Works. 105

17

18 Manuscript edition of John Adair's map of East Lothian (1682) W. Forrest's Map of Haddingtonshire (1799) Drawing ref: s:data\5612sgp\drawings\5612sgp_007 - Historic maps.cdr Sharp, Greenwood & Fowlers' Map of the county of Haddington (1844) Ordnance Survey 1st Edition Map ( ) Crown copyright. Licence number AL Timberbush Bernard Street Leith Edinburgh EH6 6QH T F E rpsed2@rpsgroup.com W Client: Project: Viridor Waste Management Ltd Energy from Waste Facility, Oxwellmains Landfill Title: Historic Map Extracts Date: 17/07/07 Scale: nts Original paper size: A3 Drawn: kag Checked: sn Job No: SGP5612 Figure No: Rev: 5.2

19