11.0 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE...

Transcription

1 CHAPTER ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE Introduction Methodology Baseline Assessment of Effects Mitigation Residual Effects and Conclusions Figures (Volume 2a Bound Separately) Figure 11.1 Heritage Assets within 1km of the Site Figure 11.2 Heritage Assets Considered within the Assessment Figure 11.3 Extract from Blaeu s map of 1654 Figure 11.4 Extract from William Roy s map of Lowland Scotland Figure 11.5 Extract from Thomson s map of 1832 Figure 11.6 Extract from First Edition 6 inch Ordnance Survey map of Figure 11.7 Extract from Second Edition 6 inch Ordnance Survey Map of Figure 11.8 The Royal Commission Survey of the Lochurr Archaeological Landscape Figure 11.9 Loch Knowe Viewpoint Figure Watch Knowe Viewpoint Figure Lochrinnie Mote Viewpoint Figure Brockloch Viewpoint Figure Rough Island Crannog Viewpoint Figure Maxwelton Landscape Designed Landscape Appendices Appendix 11.1 Appendix 11.2 Appendix 11.3 (Volume 3 Bound Separately) Heritage Gazetteer Guide for Contextualised Aesthetic Appreciation of monuments Plates LOCH URR WIND FARM 11 - i

2 List of Plates in Appendix 11.3 Plate 11.1: South facing view towards the application site from Lochur Hill showing Loch Urr with the site of the proposed wind farm to its south Plate 11.2: North facing view from the northern edge of the application site at Craigenvey Bridge Plate 11.3: Former site of shieling (Site 20) within modern forestry Plate 11.4: Area south of Craigenvey farmstead within which Site 197, a burnt mound, is recorded Plate 11.5: Rig and Furrow cultivation (Site 283), identified on Craigmuie Moor during the walkover survey Plate 11.6: Robbed out cairn (Site 282), identified on Craigmuie Moor during the walkover survey Plate 11.7: Penneilly Cairn (Site 65) Plate 11.8: Buildings of Fell farmstead (Site 356) Plate 11.9: Remains of cairn at Peat Rig (Site 66) from west Plate 11.10: Remains of possible farm building at Waterhead (Site 68) Plate 11.11: West facing view across Loch Urr showing Rough Island Crannog (Site 1) Plate 11.12: Southwest facing view across Loch Urr showing Rough Island Crannog (Site 1) Plate 11.13: Southeast facing view across Loch Urr showing Rough Island Crannog (Site 1) Plate 11.14: South facing view Loch Knowe Promontory (Site 2)showing rampart Plate 11.15: Southeast facing view Loch Knowe Promontory (Site 2) showing defensive ditch Plate 11.16: Southwest facing view Craigenputtock (Site 24)showing principal elevation Plate 11.17: Northeast facing view out from Craigenputtock (Site 24) Plate 11.18: West facing view Watch Knowe (Site 116), with outline of earthworks traceable beneath vegetation Plate 11.19: Northwest facing view Lochrinnie Mote (Site 120) Plate 11.20: Southeast facing view Lochrinnie Mote (Site 120) Plate 11.21: West facing view Hole Stone (Site 206) Plate 11.22: North facing view of the Scheduled enclosure at Auchenhay Bridge (Site 119) Plate 11.23: West facing view of the Scheduled remains of the tower at Brockloch (Site 121) Plate 11.24: Southwest facing view from the extreme northern corner of the Maxwelton Inventoried Designed Landscape (Site 126/ 294) Plate 11.25: Southwest facing view along the ramparts of Tynron Doon (Site 295) LOCH URR WIND FARM 11 - ii

3 11.0 ARCHAEOLOGY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE 11.1 Introduction This chapter describes the archaeological and cultural heritage effects of the Proposed Development. The assessment has been conducted by AOC Archaeology Group. The construction of the wind farm would require both groundworks and earthmoving which could potentially have direct effects upon archaeological remains which may be present on the Site. The Proposed Development could also result in indirect physical effects, e.g. from changes in drainage and effects upon the setting of cultural heritage assets, including in particular visual effects Any necessary mitigation strategies required to manage adverse effects would be developed in consultation with Dumfries and Galloway Council, who are advised on all archaeological matters by the Dumfries and Galloway Archaeology Service; the Council's Conservation Officer advises on built heritage issues Methodology Legislation and Guidance National Planning Policy The statutory framework for heritage in Scotland is outlined in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as supplemented and amended by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 and modified by the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Act The implications of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 with regard to local government planning policy are described within Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 1, Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) 2 and Planning Advice Notes (PAN) for Scotland. SPP, SHEP and PAN 2/2011 Archaeology and Planning' (Scottish Government 2014) deal specifically with 1 Scottish Government 2014, Scottish Planning Policy 2 Historic Scotland 2011, Scottish Historic Environment Policy LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-1

4 planning policy in relation to heritage. The planning guidance expresses a general presumption in favour of preserving heritage remains in situ wherever possible. Their preservation by record (i.e. through excavation and recording, followed by analysis and publication, by qualified archaeologists) is a less desirable alternative. SPP expresses the following policy principles: The planning system should: promote the care and protection of the designated and non-designated historic environment (including individual assets, related settings and the wider cultural landscape) and its contribution to sense of place, cultural identity, social well-being, economic growth, civic participation and lifelong learning; and enable positive change in the historic environment which is informed by a clear understanding of the importance of the heritage assets affected and ensure their future use. Change should be sensitively managed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the fabric and setting of the asset, and ensure that its special characteristics are protected, conserved or enhanced (Scottish Government 2014, Para 137) Paragraph 145 of SPP details the consideration of Scheduled Monuments within development management, stating: Where there is potential for a proposed development to have an adverse effect on a scheduled monument or on the integrity of its setting, permission should only be granted where there are exceptional circumstances. Where the proposal would have a direct impact on a scheduled monument, the written consent of Scottish Ministers via a separate process is required in addition to any other consents required for the development (Scottish Government 2014, Para 145) SHEP (Historic Scotland 2011) sets out the Scottish Government s policy for the sustainable management of the historic environment. Key principles of the policy note that there should be a presumption in favour of preservation of individual historic assets wherever possible and also the pattern of the wider historic environment; no historic asset should be lost or radically changed LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-2

5 without adequate consideration of its significance and of all the means available to manage and conserve it (1.14.b). Local Planning Policy A single Local Development Plan (LDP) replaced the Dumfries and Galloway Council s previous Structure and Local Plans on the 29 th of September The following historic en policies contained within the Dumfries and Galloway Council Local Development Plan are relevant to the present development (Table 11.1): Table 11.1 Cultural heritage policies contained within the Dumfries and Galloway Local Development Plan 2014 Policy No. Policy OP1: Development Considerations Policy Extract Development will be assessed against the following considerations where relevant to the scale, nature and location of the proposal:.. b) Historic Environment Development proposals should protect and/or enhance the character, appearance and setting of the region s rich historic environment principally by ensuring they are sympathetic to nearby buildings, sites and features, integrate well and complement the surrounding area. The information contained within the Council s Historic Environment Record and Scottish Historic Environment Policy, and any subsequent revised or amended document, will be a material consideration in the assessment of proposals. HE1: Listed Buildings The Council will support development that makes effective, efficient and sustainable use of listed buildings. In considering development that impacts on the character or appearance of a listed building or its setting the Council will need to be satisfied that: the layout, design, materials, scale, siting and the future use shown in any development proposals are appropriate to the character and appearance of the listed building and its setting. HE2:Conservation Areas The Council will support development within or adjacent to a conservation area that preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area and is consistent with any relevant conservation area appraisal. In LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-3

6 Policy No. Policy Extract considering such development the Council will need to be satisfied that: new development as well as alterations or other redevelopment of buildings preserves or enhances the character, appearance or setting of the conservation area through the appropriate design, use of materials, detailing, scale and general massing and arrangement of such development; the quality of views within, from and into the conservation area will be maintained or enhanced HE3: Archaeology a) The Council will support development that protects significant archaeological and historic assets, and the wider historic environment from adverse effects. In considering development proposals the Council will need to be satisfied that: the development preserves or enhances the appearance, fabric or setting of the site or asset insitu; and/or where there is uncertainty about the location, extent or significance of these assets an agreed scheme of assessment and evaluation to inform the application is included with the proposal; and/or due consideration has been given to the significance and value of the site or asset in relation to the long-term benefit and specific need for the development in the location proposed. b) Where, due to exceptional circumstances, development is to proceed and the preservation of historic assets in-situ including buildings is not possible, a scheme of mitigation involving excavation, recording, analysis, publication and archiving and any other measures appropriate to the case has been agreed with the Council. HE4: Archaeological Sensitive Areas The Council will support development that safeguards the character, archaeological interest and setting of Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (ASAs) as designated by the Council. LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-4

7 Policy No. Policy HE6: Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy Extract a) The Council will support development that protects or enhances the significant elements, specific qualities, character, integrity and setting, including key views to and from, gardens and designed landscapes included in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes or the Non Inventory List. In considering development proposals the Council will need to be satisfied that: The development protects or enhances the significant elements of the garden or landscape in-situ; and Due consideration has been given to the significance and value of the asset in relation to the long-term benefit and specific need for the development in the location proposed. b) Developers will be required to submit the results of an assessment of the impact of their proposals on the sites and their settings plus details of any potential mitigation measures. c) Proposals that would have a detrimental effect on the specific quality, character or integrity of a garden or designed landscape will not be approved unless it is demonstrated that the proposal has overriding public interest. Other Policy Dumfries and Galloway Council have long designated a range of 'Archaeologically Sensitive Areas' (ASA) as part of their planning policies and have recently provided a technical paper providing guidance on their LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-5

8 management 3. However, the Proposed Development lies considerably outwith any ASA and consequently they do not factor in this application. Planning Considerations Pertaining to the Site The setting of Listed Buildings is a competent planning matter; Section 14.2 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1997 states that when determining applications for development which could impact upon the setting of a listed building: the planning authority or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, shall 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.' A new development must not impact upon the area of a Scheduled Monument without the prior formal consent of Historic Scotland. A development may not have a direct, i.e. physical, impact upon a Scheduled Monument without Scheduled Monument Consent. Visual setting is also a key consideration when determining applications which could impact upon the settings of Scheduled Monuments, This principle is outlined in Scottish Planning Policy Paragraph 145: "Where there is potential for a proposed development to have an adverse effect on a scheduled monument or on the integrity of its setting, permission should only be granted where there are exceptional circumstances. Where a proposal would have a direct impact on a scheduled monument, the written consent of Scottish Ministers via a separate process is required in addition to any other consents required for the development As described in Chapter 5.0 the main development area will be accessed via the consented Blackcraig access track. It is considered likely that this will have been constructed by the time the Loch Urr scheme begins development. However, the effects of construction this access track have been considered as part of this assessment. 3 Dumfries and Galloway Council 2013, Technical Paper Archaeologically Sensitive Areas 4 Scottish Government 2014, Para 145 LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-6

9 Assessment Methodology Standards The scope of this assessment meets the requirements of current planning policy and advice set out in SPP, SHEP and PAN2/ AOC Archaeology Group, who have undertaken this assessment, conforms to the standards of professional conduct outlined in the Institute for Archaeologists' Code of Conduct, the IfA Code of Approved Practice for the Regulation of Contractual Arrangements in Field Archaeology, the IfA Standards and Guidance for Desk Based Assessments, Field Evaluations etc., and the British Archaeologists and Developers Liaison Group Code of Practice. AOC is a Registered Archaeological Organisation of the Institute for Archaeologists. This status ensures that there is regular monitoring and approval by external peers of our internal systems, standards and skills development. The company is ISO 9001:2008 accredited, in recognition of its Quality Management System. Data Sources The following data sources were consulted during preparation of this assessment: National Monuments Record for Scotland (NMRS) (RCAHMS, Bernard Terrace, Edinburgh). For NMRS data, aerial photographs, archive photographs, NMRS maps, various archaeological and historical publications, and unpublished archaeological reports; National Map Library (National Library of Scotland, Causewayside, Edinburgh): For old Ordnance Survey maps (1st & 2nd Edition, smalland large-scale) and pre-ordnance Survey historical maps; Historic Scotland (Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh): For Scheduled Monument data, Listed Buildings data and Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape data; Dumfries and Galloway Council Archaeology Service: For Historic Environment Record (HER) data. LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-7

10 Assessment Structure This assessment is based upon data obtained from publicly accessible archives as described in the Data Sources section above and a walkover survey. The data collection upon which the baseline assessment is based was carried out in December 2011 and updated by the same author in December 2013 and July The site records contained within the Gazetteer (Appendix 11.1) are current to December A walkover survey of the Site was undertaken in December 2011, with a walkover of an additional area around Monybuie Hill in September Each heritage asset referred to in the text is listed in the Gazetteer in Appendix Each has been assigned a 'Site No.' unique to this assessment, and the Gazetteer includes information regarding the type, period, grid reference, NMRS number, HER number, statutory protective designation, and other descriptive information, as derived from the consulted sources Each heritage asset, including archaeological or historical sites, monuments or buildings, referred to in the text is plotted on location maps (Figures 11.1 and 11.2), using the assigned Site Nos. The Proposed Development area (the Site) is outlined in red All known heritage assets located within a 1 km radius of the edge of the boundary for the Proposed Development have been included in the assessment. The aim of this is to help predict whether any similar hitherto unknown archaeological remains are likely to be impacted by the Proposed Development. assets, including Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Inventoried Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Inventoried Battlefields and Scheduled Monuments, within 5 km of the Site have also been identified with an aim of assessing potential visual impacts upon the setting of these monuments. Other designated assets, set further afield, highlighted by either Historic Scotland or Dumfries and Galloway Archaeology Service, have also been considered in the final assessment. Figure 11.1 records heritage assets located within a 1 km assessment area surrounding the Site, while Figure 11.2 shows designated heritage assets included within this assessment. LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-8

11 Glossary of heritage terminology used in the assessment Heritage asset Those parts of the historic environment that have significance and are worthy of consideration in planning matters are referred to as heritage assets. Heritage assets include standing, buried or submerged remains, buildings, parks and gardens and areas, sites and landscapes including designated sites and those identified by the local planning authority. World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, protected wreck sites, Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Inventory Battlefields and Conservation Areas are all heritage assets. Monument A monument is a heritage asset visible at ground level that by its survival holds the potential to inform this and future generations about persons, actions, periods, or events in the past 5. Site A site is a heritage asset, or arrangement of heritage assets, not now visible at ground surface 6 made, caused or installed by human activity, that by its survival holds the potential to inform this and future generations about persons, actions, periods, or events in the past A conceptual site is one for which the physical link between some important cultural or historical event and the surviving landscape is not represented by any material remains. This may be because there never were any physical deposits or structures associated with the event or because these have subsequently been lost. Many battlefield sites are conceptual sites. The Battle of Bannockburn, for example, has extremely high cultural value for Scots but its precise location remains unknown: indeed, five separate locations on the carse to the south and east of Stirling have been proposed with great and 5 A monument can also be located within a site, for instance a field of buried debris associated with the construction, use and destruction or abandonment of the monument, or further remains originally associated with it which are now buried. However sites are not monuments, in terms of the definitions used here. 6 Sites may be revealed by the use of special techniques like aerial photography or geophysical survey. LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-9

12 equal conviction by separate authors in the recent past. The absence of physical remains does not reduce the cultural value of conceptual sites because the collective, if imprecise, memories of a people establish their values. Conceptual sites are commonly, perhaps usually, Cultural Landscapes (below). Setting SPP defines setting as being more than the immediate surroundings of a site or buildings, and may be related to the function or use of a place, or how it was intended to fit into the landscape of [sic.] townscape, the view from it or how it is seen from areas round about, or areas that are important to the protection of the place site or building (Scottish G overnment, 2014, 75) In defining setting in this way SPP accords with the Xi an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas which was adopted by the 15th General Assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in October The Xi an definition of setting states that: 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 In October 2010, Historic Scotland released a guidance document on setting as part of their Managing Change in the Historic Environment series of guidance notes. The document is intended to explain how to apply the policies contained in the SHEP. This document defines setting thus: Setting should be thought of as the way in which the surroundings of a historic asset or place contribute to how it is experienced, understood and appreciated. 7 ICOMOS 2005, (International Council on Monuments and Sites) Xi'an Declaration on the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-10

13 Monuments, buildings, gardens and settlements were not constructed in isolation. They were often 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 asset or place. Setting often extends beyond the immediate property boundary of a historic structure into the broader landscape Scottish Historic Environment Policy also states that: The setting of a historic structure can incorporate a range of factors, not all of which will apply to every case. These include: current landscape or townscape context; visual envelope, incorporating views to, from and across the historic asset or place; key vistas, framed by rows of trees, buildings, or natural features that give an asset or place a context, whether intentional or not; the prominence of the historic asset or place 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 9. 8 Historic Scotland 2010, 3) LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-11

14 Cultural Significance (value) & Importance The definition of cultural significance is readily accepted by heritage professionals both in Britain and internationally and was first fully outlined in the Burra Charter 10 which states in article one that cultural significance or cultural heritage value means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations (Article 1.2). This sentiment has since been adopted by heritage organisations including Historic Scotland and in their Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) they note that to have cultural significance a monument must have a particular artistic; archaeological; architectural; historic; traditional (factors listed in the 1979 Act); aesthetic; scientific; [or] social [significance] for past, present or future generations All heritage assets have some significance; however some assets are judged to be more important than others. The extent of that importance is determined by establishing the asset s capacity to inform present or future generations about the past. In the case of many heritage assets their importance has already been established through the scheduling, listing and inventory processes applied by Historic Scotland. Visual sensitivity A monument s visual sensitivity refers to its capacity to retain its ability to inform this and future generations in the face of changes to its setting. For example, monuments with high visual sensitivity will be vulnerable to changes which affect their setting and even slight changes may reduce their information content. Less visually sensitive monuments will be able to accommodate fairly drastic changes which affect their setting without losing their ability to inform. Aesthetics The formal and rational recording of the physical parameters of the monument and its surrounding landform, including the observer s emotional response to 9 Historic Scotland 2010, ICOMOS 1999, (International Council on Monuments and Sites) The Burra Charter 11 Historic Scotland 2011, 71 LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-12

15 it, sets out the framework from within which an aesthetic appreciation can be developed. This approach is well established in critical artistic and architectural aesthetics and is formalised in Hegel s wheel 12. The philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel ( ), in his consideration of a philosophy of art, and in an attempt to avoid the biases of contemporary zeitgeist recommended a contextualisation of works of art taking cognisance of criteria such as the social, economic, political, historical and technological backgrounds from which the work of art originated. Contemporary Appreciation Contemporary appreciation refers to an acquired cultural value. This value may bear no relation to the intended or authentic significance of a monument or indeed its ability to inform this and future generations about the past. Such an appreciation may result from a perceived zeitgeist, with the monument having gained value due to its accordance with popular modern sentiment or visual appreciation Contemporary appreciation can mean that a monument has gained some intangible cultural heritage value, being thus identified by persons or groups of persons as being part of their cultural heritage, whether or not this meaning in any way reflects the original or authentic meaning of the monument. Intangible cultural heritage is defined by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage 13. Contemporary appreciation may also cause the over or under valuation of a monument by placing more or less value on the monument. This concept is similar to that of associative cultural landscapes where powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations [are placed upon] the natural element [of the landscape] rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent Fernie, E, 1995 Art History and its Methods a Critical Anthology 13 UNESCO 2003, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 4, Article 2.1) 14 UNESCO 2009, World Heritage Cultural Landscapes LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-13

16 While contemporary appreciation should be considered a factor when assessing impacts upon a monument s setting; it should be considered second to the impact upon the monument s cultural significance or value. Furthermore, contemporary appreciation should not necessarily be a determining factor in deciding whether or not visual impacts upon setting are of such a high significance as to be deemed unacceptable Factors which define a monument s Setting, Cultural Value, Visual Sensitivity, Aesthetics and Contemporary Appreciation are made clear in Appendix 11.2, which lays out the criteria used when undertaking site visits to assess the potential effects of a development upon the settings of designated heritage assets. These factors will have been considered when assessing potential visual impacts upon the setting of statutory protected monuments and landscapes and identifiable non-statutory monuments and landscapes of national importance as identified by the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) for the Proposed Development which is described in further detail within Chapter 6.0 Landscape and Visual. Walkover Surveys A walkover survey of the development site was undertaken by AOC in December 2011 in order to relate the existing landscape to research findings and to identify possible hitherto unrecorded heritage assets. The site was systematically surveyed and a photographic record (Plates 11.1 to 11.7 contained in Appendix 11.3) was maintained of all previously known and newly identified heritage assets within the development site. A hand-held GPS was used to note the position of any surviving previously unrecorded remains on the Site A walkover survey of an additional area, around Monybuie Hill, added to the Proposed Development area since 2011 was undertaken in September 2014 (Plates ), in order to extend the 2011 survey area. Assessment of Significance / Assessment Criteria Direct Impacts - Establishing Cultural Value The rating of significance of the culture heritage assets within the Site has been guided by criteria used by Historic Scotland for scheduling monuments LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-14

17 and classifying listed buildings. Monuments are generally considered for scheduling based upon factors such as age, rarity, condition and archaeological context, while listed buildings are designated and categorised based upon similar criteria as well as technical innovation/virtuosity, architectural design and associations with well-known architects, historical persons or events. In some cases, a site or building which does not have a protective designation assigned to it could nonetheless still is rated as having the same significance as another one which is protected. This is because the selection of items for listing and scheduling is an ongoing national activity. Generally, the criteria for judging heritage significance are gradually evolving, with an increasing trend towards including more recent types of structures. In some cases, important heritage assets may have been overlooked during the designation process, or could now be judged worthy of designation, whereas they were not previously The criteria used to rate importance of heritage assets in the Site and within 1 km of the Site are presented in Table 11.2 below. Table 11.2 Criteria for establishing relative importance of heritage assets Asset Importance International and National Regional Local Criteria World Heritage Sites; Iconic Sites and Monuments; Scheduled Monuments (Actual and Potential); Category A Listed Buildings; Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes; Inventory Battlefields; Remains of national or international importance, or fine, little-altered examples of some particular period, style or type Category B Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Remains of regional or more than local importance, or major examples of some period, style or type, which may have been altered; Remains of national importance that have been partially damaged. Category C Listed Buildings; Remains of local importance, lesser examples of any period, style or type, as originally constructed or altered, and simple, traditional sites, which group well with other significant remains, or are part of a planned group such as an estate or an industrial LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-15

18 Asset Importance Criteria complex; Cropmarks of indeterminate origin; Remains of regional importance that have been partially damaged or remains of national importance that have been largely damaged. Negligible Relatively numerous types of remains, of some local importance; Findspots of artefacts that have no definite archaeological remains known in their context; Remains of local importance that have been largely damaged; Isolated findspots; Undesignated structures. Direct Impacts - Establishing Magnitude of Impact The Magnitude of the physical effect upon heritage assets caused by the development has been rated using the classifications and criteria outlined in Table 11.3 below. Table 11.3 Criteria for classifying the magnitude of physical impact Physical Impact High Medium Low Marginal Criteria Major loss of information content resulting from total or large-scale removal of deposits from a site whether or not the site is associated with a monument. Major alteration of a monument s baseline condition. Any physical alteration to a Scheduled Monument. Any physical alteration to a Category A Listed Building; massive alterations to a Category B or Category C Listed Building. Moderate loss of information content resulting from material alteration of the baseline conditions by removal of part of a site whether or not the site is associated with a monument. Slight alteration of a monument s baseline condition. Minor detectable effects leading to the loss of information content. Minor alterations to the baseline condition of a monument. Very slight or barely measurable loss of information content; LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-16

19 Physical Impact Criteria Loss of a small percentage of the area of a site s peripheral deposits. Very slight and reversible alterations to a monument. None No physical effect anticipated. Direct Impacts - Establishing Significance of Impact The predicted level of effect upon each asset was determined by considering its importance in conjunction with the magnitude of effect predicted on it. The method of deriving the level of effect classifications is shown in Table 11.4 below. Those effects of Moderate or above are generally considered to be significant and are highlighted in grey in Table Table 11.4 Criteria for classifying the level of physical effects Importance of Heritage Asset Magnitude Negligible Local Regional National International of Effect High Minor- Moderate Moderate- Major Extreme Moderate Major Medium Minor Minor- Moderate Moderate- Major Moderate Major Low Negligible Minor Minor- Moderate Moderate Moderate- Major Marginal Negligible Negligible Minor Minor- Moderate Moderate None None None None None None Indirect Impacts The predicted significance of visual effect upon the settings of Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and other statutory monuments and nonstatutory monuments of national importance was determined by considering the asset s relative visual sensitivity, taking into consideration its cultural value, in conjunction with the magnitude of visual effect predicted on it. The method of establishing relative visual sensitivity is outlined in Table 11.5 below. LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-17

20 Table 11.5 Criteria for establishing relative visual sensitivity Sensitivity* High Medium Low Marginal None Definition A monument which retains an overtly intended or authentic relationship with its visual setting and the surrounding landscape. In particular ritual monuments which have constructed sightlines to and/or from them or structures intended to be visually dominant within a wide landscape area i.e. castles, tower houses, prominent forts etc. A monument, the current understanding of which, relies heavily on its modern aesthetic setting regardless of whether or not this was intended by the original constructors or authentic users of the monument. A monument which had overtly intended authentic relationship with its visual setting and the surrounding landscape but where that relationship has been moderately compromised either by previous modern intrusion affecting the setting or landscape or whereby the monument itself is in such a state of disrepair that the relationship cannot be fully determined. A monument, the current understanding of which, relies partially on its modern aesthetic setting regardless of whether or not this was intended by the original constructors or authentic users of the monument. A monument which had an overtly intended authentic relationship with its visual setting and the surrounding landscape but where that relationship has been significantly compromised either by previous modern intrusion to the setting or landscape or whereby the monument itself is in such a state of disrepair that the relationship cannot be determined. A monument whose placement within the landscape was not determined by visual setting but by some other factor whether that be industrial, agricultural or simply functional, etc**. A monument whose placement within the landscape was not determined by visual setting but by some other factor whether that be industrial, agricultural or simply functional etc; and is additionally in such a state of disrepair that its relationship to its setting cannot be determined. A site whose remains are located fully below the current ground surface (i.e. crop mark sites), and subsequently for which neither the full extent nor significance of the site itself nor its setting can be LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-18

21 Sensitivity* Definition determined without archaeological investigation. * Note that the determination of a monument s sensitivity is first and foremost reliant upon the determination of its setting; i.e. a country house may have a high sensitivity within its own landscaped park or garden but its level of sensitivity may be less when considered within the wider landscape area. **While the immediate setting of such monuments is clearly significant, their relationship to the wider landscape is less sensitive to visual change. Where the immediate setting of such sites is to be impacted by development this will be taken into consideration The method of classifying the magnitude of visual impact is shown in Table 11.6 below. Table 11.6 Criteria for classifying magnitude of visual effect Visual Effect High Medium Criteria Direct and substantial visual effect on a significant sightline to or from a ritual monument or prominent fort; Direct severance of the relationship between a monument and its setting where that monument has a Low, Medium or High visual sensitivity; Major alteration to the penumbral or close settings of a Scheduled Monument; Major visual imposition within a Cultural Landscape; Major visual imposition within or affecting an Iconic Site or Monument. Oblique visual impact on an axis adjacent to a significant sightline to or from a ritual monument but where the significant sightline of the monument is not obscured; Major visual imposition affecting glacis of a prominent fort (based on the proportion of the glacis that would be obscured); Partial severance of the relationship between a monument and its setting where that monument has a Low, Medium or High visual sensitivity; Significant alteration to the setting of a Scheduled Monument of Medium to High visual sensitivity or significant alteration to the setting of a Category A, B or C Listed Building of Medium to High visual sensitivity beyond those elements of the setting which directly contribute to the understanding of the cultural value of the monument; Significant but not major visual imposition within a Cultural Landscape. LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-19

22 Visual Effect Low Marginal None Criteria Peripheral visual effect on a significant sightline to or from a ritual monument; Insignificant alteration to the setting of a Scheduled Monument of Medium to High visual sensitivity or insignificant alteration to the setting of a Category A, B or C Listed Building of Medium to High visual sensitivity beyond those elements of the setting which directly contribute to the understanding of the cultural value of the monument; Minor visual imposition with a Cultural Landscape. All other visual effects. No intervisibility The predicted level of visual effect upon the setting of each monument was determined by considering its visual sensitivity, taking cognisance of its cultural value, in conjunction with the magnitude of visual impact predicted on it. The method of deriving the level of impact classifications is shown in Table 11.7 below. Those effects of Moderate or above are generally considered to be significant and are highlighted in grey in Table Table 11.7 Levels of effects of visual impacts on the cultural value of monuments Relative Visual Sensitivity Effect Marginal Low Medium High Magnitude High Minor Minor- Moderate Major Moderate Medium Negligible Minor Minor- Moderate Moderate Low None/Negligible Negligible Minor Minor- Moderate Marginal None None Negligible Minor Limitations This assessment is based upon data obtained from publicly accessible archives as described in the Data Sources section above and listed in the Bibliography at the end of this report. The desk-based research was complemented by a walkover survey of the Site, coupled with site visits for the visual impact assessment. The data collection was finalised in two stages: LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-20

23 December 2013 for Site No s, up to Site 294, and July 2014 for Site above this. The site records contained within the Gazetteer (Appendix 11.1) are current to these dates. LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-21

24 11.3 Baseline Archaeological and Historical Evidence Context The site of the Proposed Development is currently occupied by large tracts of commercial forestry and upland moorland. Records held by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS) suggests that some areas currently clear of trees have been occupied by plantations in the recent past. Historic map evidence supported by data held by the National Monuments Record Scotland (NMRS) indicated that, prior to its partial forestation the area was occupied by sparse isolated farming settlements of medieval and post-medieval date, many of which have now been abandoned. This is suggestive of an economy based on animal husbandry complemented by more limited cultivation Undesignated upstanding cairn monuments are known on the Site including around 80 cairns grouped together on Craigenvey Moor (Site 14). The dating of these cairns is problematic, some are clearly clearance cairns resulting from the clearance of ground for agriculture, potentially during the Neolithic and Bronze Age, or relating to later medieval or post-medieval phases of clearance. Other cairns may be Neolithic or Bronze Age burial mounds. Burnt mounds, extensive deposits of heat affected stone, banked into monuments, have been recorded at a variety of locations within the application area including Craigenputtock Moor, Castramon Hill and Muttonhole. These monuments result from the burning of stones in order to heat water and predominantly date from the Bronze Age. They are often located near water courses and are sometimes associated with other archaeological remains Elements of the Site were previously examined in the early 1990s during archaeological surveys undertaken in advance of afforestation (Page , Edinburgh University Centre for Archaeology (EUCFA) and RACHMS 15 Page, J, 1990, Craigenvey (Dunscore Parish), Discovery Excavation Scotland, p EUCFA, 1991, Craigenvey (Dunscore Parish): cairnfields, White Isle Earthwork, Discovery Excavation Scotland, p15 LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-22

25 ). The results of these investigations were incorporated into the NMRS. The most extensive of these surveys, the Glenesslin and Nithsdale Survey (RCAHMS 1994), discussed in Sections , covered an area of the land to the north of Loch Urr which has now been excluded from the development area. Undated Evidence Three sites cannot, on present evidence, be dated with any degree of certainty. A sub-circular stone platform (Site 9) with a second bank-like feature to its east on a stony hillside within the Site at Craigenvey Moor was surveyed by Edinburgh University who noted that both features must be considered very dubious given the nature of the terrain 18. Beyond the Site the remains of at least nine structures on Castramon Moor (Site 96) and a cropmark known from aerial photographs at Lamb Rig (Site 115) are similarly undated. Prehistoric Evidence (8500BC-AD43) Rough Island an artificial island lake dwelling (Site 1) is located off the eastern shores of Loch Urr within the waters of the loch (outwith the boundary of the Site); Rough Island is a Scheduled Monument. The dating of the island is uncertain and it has in the past been ascribed to either the early historic or medieval periods. The origin of Rough Island is consequently unclear; pottery evidence suggests that it was occupied, or at least utilised, during the Medieval period, although it could potentially have originated as an Iron Age crannog, as is the case of many other such sites in Galloway (Cavers pers. comm.). Finds of worked flint and stone balls reported from the site could potentially indicate a prehistoric date. The island is linked to the shoreline by an artificial stone causeway which passes over a second, smaller artificial island halfway along its length A small promontory fort, Loch Knowe (Site 2) is located on the northern shore of Loch Urr. Enclosed by a wall which survives to a height of up to 1 m and a 17 RACHMS 1994, Glenesslin Nithsdale an Archaeological Survey 18 EUCFA 1991 LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-23

26 ditch around 9 m in width, this small defensive site has been previously impacted by a concrete slipway and is included on Dumfries and Galloway Council s Non Statutory List of Sites of National Importance At least ten burnt mounds arranged in two distinct groups (Sites 4 and 5) are located to the north of the promontory fort, straddling the modern road to the north of the Site. A possible hut circle is reported by the NMRS as a component of Site 3, an area of multi-period remains, although it is not recorded in detail The White Isle peninsula, which extends northwards into the Loch Urr from its southern shore, is bisected at its neck by a well-defined rampart, up to 500 m long, enclosing a three hectare area (Site 10). Excavations by Corrie in 1906 found a rough stone pavement extending along the rear of the rampart; the rampart itself is quite substantial surviving to a height of 3m at its western end. Possibly an Iron Age defended settlement, the White Isle is included on Dumfries and Galloway Council s Non Statutory List of Sites of National Importance Several canoes, in a poor state of preservation were reportedly found near the Kirkcudbright outlet of Loch Urr many years before 1927 (Site 12). Now lost, the date of these boats is unknown although they were presumably prehistoric dug out log boats. A further dugout vessel, possibly a canoe, was also identified during a condition survey of Rough Island in This vessel remains in situ in the submerged area of the monument An extensive cairn field, grouped into distinct clusters, survives on Craigenvey Moor, located southwest of Loch Urr within the Site. The largest cluster contains approximately 80 mounds of which 52 are grouped together (Site 14), while groups of three cairns (Site 16), 31 cairns (Site 17), and 27 Cairns (Site 19) have been recorded elsewhere on the moor. One of the mounds within Site 14 (Site 15) has been interpreted in the past as a hut-circle, although it is now believed to be a robbed out cairn. Similarly a monument originally recorded as a corn dryer (Site 18), is now believed to be a partially LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-24

27 demolished cairn 19. Although the majority of the cairns range between 3 and 5 metres in diameter, one of the cairns within Site 19 measures 7 metres in diameter and is 0.4 m high. Two further very small cairns have been recorded to the west of Craigenvey Moor at Black Mark (Site 21). The dating of the Craigenvey cairn field is uncertain Three burnt mounds, of presumed Bronze Age date are known within the southern part of the Site at Craigenputtock (Sites 22 and 23) and Craigenputtock Moor (Site 25). The largest of the mounds (Site 22) is quite extensive, measuring 11.6 x 6.7 m and surviving to a height of 0.5m. To the east of Craigenputtock a further burnt mound (Site 31) and at least three cairns (Site 30) are recorded at Hawk Craig. While the burnt mound is probably Bronze Age in date, the dating of the cairns is less clear and they may be associated with the remains of a nearby building (included within Site 30) which is presumably of medieval or later origin. Further burnt mounds are known at Craigenvey (Site 197) and to the north of the Site at Lochurr (Site 198) and Craes Hill (Site 199) North of Hawk Craig remains include a C-shaped bank and several cairns (Site 33). Two C-shaped burnt mounds (Sites 34 and 35) are recorded on the slopes of Castramon Hill, Site 35 lying slightly to the east of the Site within the 1 km assessment area. The dating of these remains is uncertain; although they are presumably of prehistoric date both the burnt mounds lie close to the remains of shieling huts of medieval or later date (also recorded under Sites 34 and 35). A possible explanation for this is the proximity of both sets of features to water sources. Similarly, two burnt mounds recorded to the north of Castramon Hill on the banks of a burn at Muttonhole, are also located close to the remains of two shieling huts (all included under Site 36), while a further burnt mound is recorded beside a tributary of Shillingland Burn at Muttonhole (Site 103) A possible prehistoric settlement is recorded by the NMRS at Castramon Moor (Site 37), which reports the remains of three circular houses, characteristic of Bronze or Iron Age homesteads within a stone banked enclosure. The field 19 RCAHMS NMRS No: NX78SE.13 LOCH URR WIND FARM 11-25