Burn of Whilk Anemometer assessment FinalDraft revised LR.… · Illustration by: Mike Roy Stefan Sagrott Date of Fieldwork: November 2010 Date of Report: November 2010 OASIS No:

Burn of Whilk Anemometer

Archaeological Walkover and Desk-Based Assessment

AOC Project Number 4499_B November 2010

© AOC Archaeology Group 2010

www.aocarchaeology.com

Burn of Whilk Anemometer, Caithness

Archaeological Walkover and Desk-Based Assessment

On Behalf of: RWE npower renewables Limited Stanley Mills Stanley Perthshire PH1 4QE National Grid Reference (NGR): ND 29266 41355 AOC Project No: 4499_B Prepared by: John Barber Mike Roy Illustration by: Mike Roy Stefan Sagrott

Date of Fieldwork: November 2010 Date of Report: November 2010

OASIS No: aocarcha1-8803

Enquiries to: AOC Archaeology Group Edgefield Industrial Estate Edgefield Road Loanhead EH20 9SY Tel. 0131 440 3593 Fax. 0131 440 3422 e‐mail. [email protected]

This document has been prepared in accordance with AOC standard operating procedures. Author: John Barber/Mike Roy Date: November 2010 Approved by: Lynne Roy Date: November 2010 Draft/Final Report Stage: Draft Date: November 2010

BURN OF WHILK ANEMOMETER, CAITHNESS: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

© AOC Archaeology 2010 | PAGE 3 OF 39 | www.aocarchaeology.com

Contents Page

List of illustrations.................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of plates.............................................................................................................................................................. 4 List of appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 4 0 Non-Technical Summary............................................................................................................................ 5 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Site Location and Description........................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Planning Background ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Archaeological Background ............................................................................................................................. 6 2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................... 7 3 National and Local Planning Procedures ................................................................................................. 8 3.1 National Planning Policy Guidelines................................................................................................................. 8 3.2 Development plan policies ............................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Local Plan Policies ........................................................................................................................................... 9 4 Method of Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 10 4.1 Desk-Based Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Walkover Survey ............................................................................................................................................ 11 4.3 Standards....................................................................................................................................................... 11 4.4 Direct Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 11 4.5 Assessment of Impacts on Setting ................................................................................................................. 15 4.6 Identification of Sites for Assessment ............................................................................................................ 21 5 Cultural Heritage....................................................................................................................................... 22 5.1 Background.................................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Mesolithic to Iron Age (8000 BC – AD 450) ................................................................................................... 22 5.3 Early Medieval (AD 450 – 900) ...................................................................................................................... 23 5.4 Norse (AD 900 – 1300) .................................................................................................................................. 23 5.5 Late Medieval (AD 1300 – 1600).................................................................................................................... 24 5.6 Post-Medieval (AD 1600 – 1850) ................................................................................................................... 24 5.7 Post-Clearance (post-AD 1850) ..................................................................................................................... 25 5.8 Walkover Survey ............................................................................................................................................ 25 6 Assessment of Impacts............................................................................................................................ 26 6.1 Direct Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ 26 6.2 Indirect Impacts.............................................................................................................................................. 26 7 Mitigation................................................................................................................................................... 27 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 27 7.2 Mitigation of Direct Impacts............................................................................................................................ 27 7.3 Mitigation of indirect impacts .......................................................................................................................... 28 8 Residual Impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 28 9 References ................................................................................................................................................ 29 9.1 Bibliographic references................................................................................................................................. 29 9.2 Cartographic references................................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix 1: Site Gazetteer .................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix 2: Detailed Assessment of the impacts on the settings of protected heritage assets .................... 35 Appendix 3: Photographic Record........................................................................................................................ 38



List of illustrations Figure 1 Site location map showing archaeological and built heritage assets within 100 m of

proposed anemometer mast and access track Figure 2 Areas of peat cutting (Site 219) in proposed anemometer mast location Figure 3 Extract from map by Roy, 1747-55 Figure 4 Extract from map by Ordnance Survey, 1877

List of plates Plate 1 View of Moss of Whilk Scheduled Ancient Monument (Site 145) from east Plate 2 View along access track from ND 28902 40011 from south-east Plate 3 View from Moss of Whilk Scheduled Ancient Monument (Site 145) towards proposed access track route Plate 4 View of forestry clearing, the proposed location of the anemometer mast, from west

List of appendices Appendix 1 Site Gazetteer Appendix 2 Detailed Assessment of impacts on the setting of protected heritage assets Appendix 3 Photographic Record



0 Non-Technical Summary 0.1 AOC Archaeology Group was commissioned by RWE npower renewables to undertake an

archaeological walkover survey and Desk-Based Assessment of the site of a proposed 70 m temporary anemometer mast and associated access routes at Burn of Whilk, East Clyth, Lybster, Caithness, Highland. The site is within the local authority administrative area of Highland Council, which is advised on archaeological matters by Highland Council Archaeology Unit (HCAU). Conditional planning permission has been granted for the erection of the anemometer mast (10/03341/FUL). Condition 8 requires the implementation of a programme of archaeological work to be carried out in accordance with a specification for archaeological field survey prepared by HCAU to ensure the protection of the archaeological interest of the site.

0.2 Cartographic and bibliographic sources, including previous assessment works undertaken for the

proposed Burn of Whilk wind farm by AOC indicate that the area surrounding the proposed development has been one of considerable cultural activity from prehistory to the present day, though the area surrounding the proposed access track and anemometer mast is now covered by dense forestry plantation. The Moss of Whilk, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, stands to the west of the proposed access track, and late 19th century Ordnance Survey mapping indicates that buildings and an enclosure were located to the east of the access track route at Torr-dubh. This latter heritage asset was not visible during a walkover of the route in November 2010, but an extensive area of peat cuttings was identified in the area of the proposed anemometer mast.

0.3 In compliance with national and local planning policies, it is advised that a watching brief may be

required to be undertaken on any groundworks associated with the access route and anemometer mast in close proximity to the above heritage assets, in order to record any surviving archaeological remains that may be associated with these features

0.4 This assessment has indicated that the proposed access track and anemometer would likely

result in temporary indirect impacts of Minor significance on the setting of the Moss of Whilk Scheduled Ancient Monument.

1 Introduction 1.0 AOC Archaeology was commissioned by RWE npower renewables to undertake an

archaeological walkover survey and Desk-Based Assessment of the site of a proposed 70 m temporary anemometer mast and associated access routes at Burn of Whilk, East Clyth, Lybster, Caithness, Highland (Planning Ref. 10/03341/FUL). The site is within the local authority administrative area of Highland Council, which is advised on archaeological matters by Highland Council Archaeology Unit (HCAU). This work is in line with a Written Scheme of Investigation approved by HCAU and was designed to accord with the policies outlined in SPP (2010), PAN42 (1994) and SHEP (2009). It followed HCAU Development Guidance and Institute for Archaeologists’ standards for Desk-Based Assessments. This Desk-Based Assessment collates and assesses existing information about the archaeology and built heritage of the site (and its adjacent environs) and determines as fully as possible from the immediately available evidence the nature, survival, quality, extent and significance of any archaeological and built heritage remains within the development area.



1.1 Site Location and Description

1.1.1 The proposed development area is located at Burn of Whilk, East Clyth, Mid Clyth, Lybster. The

anemometer site is centred on National Grid Reference ND 29266 41355 (Figure 1). The site for the anemometer mast is bounded on all sides by forestry plantation. The proposed access track follows the line of an existing track running south to north from improved agricultural fields in the south, through open moorland towards the forestry plantation in the north, and then turns eastwards towards the proposed anemometer mast location.

1.1.2 The solid geology at the site is represented by the Helman Head Beds (Clythe sub group) of the

Wick Flagstone Group (part of the Caithness Flagstone Group of Middle Old Red Sandstone). Drift geology of the site is composed predominantly of Peat and Glacial Till. The site lies on the eastern extremity of unleached blanket bog soils (RWE npower renewables 2006).

1.2 Planning Background

1.2.1 The proposed anemometer site lies within forestry in a fold of the land on the east side of a ridge

that separates it visually from the coastal plain to the south, with its associated archaeological remains. The final wind farm layout, within which the anemometer works are located, has taken cognisance of the heritage sites, monuments and landscapes in the surrounding area to minimise impacts on historic setting. No physical impacts on known archaeological remains from the wind farm were identified within the original Environmental Statement and no impacts on known remains by the anemometer mast were predicted.

1.2.2 RWE npower renewables have been granted conditional planning permission for the erection of

an anemometer mast (10/03341/FUL). Condition 8 requires the implementation of a programme of archaeological work to be carried out in accordance with a specification for archaeological field survey prepared by HCAU. The reason for this condition is to ensure the protection of the archaeological interest of the site.

1.3 Archaeological Background

1.3.1 A walkover survey of the site proposed for an earlier wind farm at Warehouse, to the east of the

current application, was undertaken by Hooper (2002). A walkover survey of all non-forested land within the proposed Burn of Whilk wind farm boundary was undertaken by AOC Archaeology Group in 2004 to inform a Conservation Plan and subsequent decisions regarding turbine layout (AOC Archaeology 2004). An additional walkover survey was undertaken in 2008 to inform the Environmental Statement report (AOC Archaeology 2008) and confirm that observations made in 2004 were still applicable. Owing to the density of the forestry plantation, it was not possible to undertake a systematic walkover survey within the forested area of the site in 2004, 2008 or 2009 and as such the area in which the anemometer mast and access track is proposed had not been subject to systematic survey, with the exception of the southernmost element of the access track, which was surveyed in 2009.



1.3.2 The anemometer mast is located within an area of forestry plantation of unknown archaeological potential. Land east of the forestry is dominated by the remains of post-medieval and post-Clearance remains and represents 18th and 19th century expansion into what had been considered marginal land. On the fringes of the Burn of Whilk valley are earlier remains: a broch and three hut circles.

1.3.3 There are no previously recorded heritage assets within the site proposed for the anemometer

mast and no known heritage assets will be directly impacted by the wider wind farm proposal. The proposed wind farm and wider landscape was the subject of desk-based research undertaken as part of the EIA process which revealed over 200 heritage assets within 1 km radius of the proposal. This assessment draws upon this earlier work (AOC 2004). These assets vary hugely in scale, from assets – for example the Whilk Township – that contain several discrete monuments forming a larger whole, to single find spots. These monuments cover the span of human activity within Scotland and range from burial to settlement sites, from ritual sites to industrial monuments.

1.3.4 The lower lying ground to the south of the forestry through which the proposed access track will

pass is currently more densely occupied and is characterised by working crofts and the main north/south road. This zone is dominated by post-medieval and post-Clearance remains, although there are isolated surviving prehistoric sites, such as the broch at East Clyth.

2 Objectives 2.1 The objectives of the archaeological works were:

• to determine, using existing records, the known and potential cultural heritage baseline within the proposal area;

• to identify the cultural heritage baseline of the area through walkover survey

• to consider the potential impacts of construction and operation of the mast and associated

access on the historic environment;

• to propose arrangements for the safeguarding, where possible, and recording, where necessary, of any archaeological features or find identified;

• to assess the potential for the survival of buried archaeological remains and to propose mitigation where appropriate.



3 National and Local Planning Procedures

3.1 National Planning Policy Guidelines

3.1.1 The statutory framework for heritage in Scotland is outlined in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.

3.1.2 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), Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) and Planning Advice Notes (PAN) for Scotland. SPP Paragraphs 110-124, SHEP ‘Scottish Historic Environment Policy’ and PAN 42 ‘Archaeology – the Planning Process and Scheduled Ancient Monument Procedures' (SOEnD 1994) deal specifically with planning policy in relation to heritage. The planning guidance expresses a general presumption in favour of preserving heritage remains in situ. Their 'preservation by record' (i.e. excavation and recording, followed by analysis and publication, by qualified archaeologists) is a less desirable alternative.

3.1.3 SHEP (Historic Scotland 2009b) sets out the Scottish Executive’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 assets and also the pattern of the wider historic environment; no historic asset should be lost or radically changed without adequate consideration of its significance of all means available to manage and conserve it (1.14b).”

3.2 Development plan policies

3.2.1 The Highland Structure Plan (2001) contains planning policies relating to archaeology that generally re-iterate the national planning policies. Policies from the Structure Plan that are relevant to the archaeology and standing building remains on and surrounding the proposed development site are presented below.

Policy BC1 Preservation of archaeological sites Archaeological sites affected by development proposals should be preserved, or, in exceptional circumstances where preservation is impossible, the sites will be recorded at developers’ expense to professional standards. Provision will be made in Local Plans for the appropriate protection, preservation and enhancement of archaeological sites. Policy BC2 Archaeology, tourism and education Sympathetically developed and well-managed proposals which increase the tourism potential of archaeological sites or increase public understanding and awareness through research projects will generally be supported. Proposal BC3 Archaeological Heritage Areas Local Plans will identify and zone areas of exceptional archaeological and historic interest, and make appropriate provision for the protection and interpretation of features of interest. Policy BC5 Listed buildings and Conservation Areas



The Council will seek to preserve Highland’s buildings and groups of buildings of historic or architectural interest, some of which may be at risk from neglect, by the identification in Local Plans of opportunities for their productive and appropriate use.

3.2.2 The Highland Structure Plan Written statement (Chapter 2.15.8) states that:

Certain areas of Highland are of exceptional archaeological and historic significance by virtue of the importance and number of features, density of monuments/sites and opportunities for interpretation. In recognition of this, key areas of concentration merit appropriate zonation in Local Plans as Archaeological Heritage Areas Examples include Hill of Warehouse/Yarrows.

3.3 Local Plan Policies

3.3.1 The Caithness Local Plan adopted in September 2002, seeks to enhance the natural and cultural heritage of Caithness by protecting the integrity of landscape designations or areas, including protecting archaeological sites, landscapes, Listed Buildings and their settings.

The council will encourage appropriate tourism and educational initiatives that derive local economic and community benefit from the many archaeological and historic features throughout Caithness. More specifically Hill of Warehouse/Yarrows, Camster Strath have potential in this regard for interpretation facilities which are sympathetic to the protection of cultural and historic interests. Measures to derive economic benefit including interpretation facilities, should respect that the integrity and sympathetic protection of the archaeological resource is of paramount importance’ (Local Plan, 23).

3.3.2 The Local Plan also contains general planning policies relating to archaeology that generally re-

iterate the regional and national planning policies:

PP3 The Council will presume against development, particularly where there is significant damage to heritage, amenity or public health.



4 Method of Assessment

4.1 Desk‐Based Assessment

4.1.1 This desk-based assessment refers directly to previous assessment works undertaken as part of the EIA for the proposed Burn of Whilk Wind Farm. In addition this assessment has utilised a number of secondary and publicly available written and cartographic sources including:

• Any additional relevant information held in the Historic Environment Record (HER) in order to

identify important sites and to assess the potential of known sites. • Any additional relevant information held in the National Monuments Record Scotland (NMRS)

in order to identify important sites and to assess the potential of known sites • Published sources including articles in national, regional and local journals and relevant

unpublished documents. • The Highland Council Archives for manuscript records relating to the Burn of Whilk area. • Any additional vertical stereo aerial photographic coverage held by RCAHMS and HCAU. • All cartographic information relevant to the area in order to identify the nature, extent and

development of the remains in the vicinity with an additional aim to identify historic land use and examine the siting of old boundaries.

• Topography, land use and archaeological potential of the area through map consultation. The site walkover survey also determined any constraints to archaeological survival.

4.1.2 Data for all cultural heritage sites within 100 m of the proposed access track and anemometer

mast was gathered to establish the baseline conditions for the proposed development and surrounding area. The previous assessment works on the proposed wind farm by AOC had identified all statutory protected monuments within a 10 km radius of the proposed wind farm; this data was used to identify protected heritage assets where intervisibility between these sensitive sites and the proposed access track and anemometer mast might be possible. Due to the location of the majority of the track route and the proposed anemometer mast location within dense plantation, and the likely visually unobtrusive nature of the anemometer mast, only one potentially impacted Scheduled Ancient Monument was identified.

4.1.3 Based on the research outlined above the assessment provides a detailed assessment of the

significance of any heritage assets identified within the development area and identifies, where applicable, how that significance might be impacted upon by the proposed development. In assessing the cultural significance of this site, cognisance has been taken of the criteria set out by national institutions and enshrined in the Burra Charter.

4.1.4 The DBA provides a set of mitigation recommendations including a summary of each heritage

asset describing its heritage interest, significance of setting, assessment of significance, and predicted significance of impact. All heritage assets are shown on an overall site plan and have been recorded photographically. An assessment of areas of archaeological potential and survival was also undertaken.

4.1.5 Heritage assets requiring further investigative work to define their significance are identified.



4.2 Walkover Survey

4.2.1 The purpose of the Walkover Survey was to identify and record above ground archaeological

remains which might not previously have been recorded within the development area. The Walkover Survey was conducted in a systematic manner in order to assess the presence or absence, character, extent and condition of sites, monument and landscape features identified by the Desk-Based Assessment and to identify any further features of archaeological and historic interest not identified through the desk-based study.

4.2.2 All individual features were recorded, photographed and sketched. A hand-held GPS was used to

note the position of any surviving remains, though it should be noted that the accuracy of the GPS was limited to c. 10 m by the existence of dense forestry. Digital shapefiles have been produced, showing the full extent of individual features identified during the course of the work. All features have been marked on plans (Figures 1 and 2), at a relevant scale and tied into the Ordnance Survey grid. The proposed locations of the anemometer mast and associated access tracks are outlined on these figures. Each archaeological or historical site, monument or building referred to in the text is listed in the Gazetteer in Appendix 1. Each has been assigned a 'Site No.', which is consistent with the gazetteer of the original Environmental Assessment undertaken for the wind farm. The Gazetteer includes information regarding the type, period, grid reference, NMRS number, statutory protective designation, and other descriptive information, as derived from the consulted sources and fieldwork, for each Site No.

4.3 Standards

4.3.1 The scope of this assessment meets the requirements of current planning regulations set out in SPP (Scottish Government 2010), SHEP (Historic Scotland 2009b) and PAN42 (SOEnD 1994).

4.3.2 AOC Archaeology Group conforms to the standards of professional conduct outlined in the

Institute for Archaeologists' (IfA) 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.

4.3.3 AOC Archaeology Group is a Registered Archaeological Organisation of the IfA. This status

ensures that there is regular monitoring and approval by external peers of our internal systems, standards and skills development.

4.3.4 The location of each archaeological or historical site, monument or building listed is plotted on

Figure 1 and Figure 2, using the assigned Site No.'s. The proposed locations of the anemometer mast and associated access tracks are outlined.

4.4 Direct Impact Assessment

4.4.1 The rating of cultural heritage value of sites and monuments within the assessment area was guided by criteria used by Historic Scotland (SHEP 2009) for scheduling ancient monuments 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. The methodology used regards all heritage or archaeological remains as being sensitive to some degree and is also guided by local, regional, national and international heritage policy (e.g. various charters including the Burra Charter (Aus ICOMOS, 1999)), which defines sites and monuments as potentially comprising a very wide variety of heritage remains. In some cases a site or building which does not have a protective designation assigned to it could nonetheless still rate as having the same significance as another which is protected. This is because the selection of items for listing and scheduling is an ongoing national activity. Generally, the criteria for judging archaeological significance are gradually evolving, with an increasing trend towards including more recent types of structures. In some cases, important buildings or monuments may have been overlooked during listing, or could now be judged worthy of listing, whereas they were not previously.

4.4.2 The Historic Scotland 2006 guidance (in their Annex, Section 3) begins by asserting the need in

the first instance to establish the monument’s cultural significance in terms of some or all of the following headings: • Artistic • Archaeological • Architectural • Historic • Traditional • Aesthetic • Scientific • Social

4.4.3 The cultural value thus established will be characterised by the monument’s intrinsic, contextual

or associative characteristics, adhering to Historic Scotland’s guidance for the identification of these characteristics.

4.4.4 The criteria used to rate cultural heritage value in the assessment area are presented in Table 1

below:



Table 1 Criteria for Establishing Relative Cultural Value

Cultural Value Criteria International and National

World Heritage Sites Iconic Sites and Monuments; Scheduled Ancient Monuments (Actual and Potential); Category A Listed Buildings; Remains of national or international importance, or fine, little-altered examples of some particular period, style or type; Remains associated with nationally important historic, social or scientific developments.

Regional Category B Listed Buildings; Remains of regional or more than local importance, or major examples of some period, style or type, which may have been altered; Remains of potential national importance that have been partially damaged in a way that affects their ability to inform; Remains associated with regionally important historic, social or scientific developments.

Local 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 complex; cropmarks of indeterminate origin; Remains of regional importance that have been partially damaged or remains of national importance that have been largely damaged in a way that limits their ability to inform; Remains associated with regionally important historic, social or scientific developments.

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 thus severely restricting their ability to inform; Isolated findspots; Undesignated structures.



4.4.5 The magnitudes of the physical impacts upon sites and monuments that could be caused by a development have been rated using the classifications and criteria outlined in Table 2.

Table 2 Criteria for Classifying Magnitude of Physical Impact

Magnitude of impact

Criteria

High 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 Ancient Monument. Any alteration to a Grade A Listed Building, massive alterations to a Grade B or Grade C Listed Building

Medium 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

Low Minor detectable impacts leading to the loss of information content. Minor alterations to the baseline condition of a monument.

Marginal Very slight or barely measurable loss of information content; 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 impact anticipated.



4.4.6 The predicted significance of impact upon each monument was determined by considering its relative cultural value in conjunction with the magnitude of impact predicted on it. The method of deriving the significance of impact classifications is shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3 Method of Rating Significance of Direct Impact on Archaeological/Architectural Heritage Sites by the Proposed Development

Archaeological sensitivity/Cultural value

Magnitude of impact

Negligible Local

Regional

National International

High Low- Moderate

Moderate Moderate- Major

Major Extreme

Medium Low Low- Moderate


Major

Low Negligible Low Low- Moderate


Marginal Negligible Negligible Low Low-Moderate

Moderate

None None None None None None

The impacts recorded in highlighted cells are ‘significant’ in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999

4.5 Assessment of Impacts on Setting

4.5.1 Definition of Setting There is currently no statutory definition of the term ‘setting’. There is no established methodology or published guidance on how to assess impacts by proposed developments on the setting of archaeological sites and monuments. However, in August 2009, Historic Scotland released a consultation document as part of their Managing Change in the Historic Environment series of guidance notes intended to explain how to apply the policies contained in the Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP). This defines setting thus: • ‘Monuments, buildings, gardens and settlements were not constructed in isolation. They were

deliberately positioned with reference to the surrounding topography, resources, landscape and other monuments or buildings. These relationships will often have changed through the life of a historic structure.

• Setting can be thought of as the way in which a historic structure’s surroundings contribute to how it is experienced, understood and appreciated.

• Setting often extends beyond the immediate property boundary of a historic structure into the broader landscape’ (Historic Scotland 2009a).



4.5.2 It 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 structure; key vistas, framed by rows of trees, buildings, or natural features that give a

structure a context, whether or not intentional; the historic structure’s prominence in views throughout the surrounding area; 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’ (Historic Scotland, 2009a).

4.5.3 Collcutt (1999, 504, 509) has suggested that various aspects of setting need to be assessed

including: Intrinsic visual interest and listing visual qualities; Topographic setting, identifying visual relationships to topography and natural

features that can be linked with the function of the site or the reason for placement of the site in the landscape;

Landuse setting, identifying whether landuse is sympathetic to the site’s intellectual understanding;

Group setting including both contemporary and diachronic groupings or patterning, listing other sites, above or below ground that could assist with creating a network of relationships.

4.5.4 The concept of setting is further enshrined in national planning policy. For example SPP, advises

that: ‘Setting is more than the immediate surroundings of a site or building and, for example, may be related to the function or use of a place, or how it was intended to fit into the landscape or townscape, the view from it or how it is seen from around, or areas that are important to the protection of the place, site or building (SPP Paragraph 112).’ Where works requiring planning permission affect a scheduled monument, the protection of the monument and its setting are important considerations. Development which will have an adverse effect on a scheduled monument or the integrity of its setting should not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances. (SPP Paragraph 118).

4.5.5 It should be noted that this chapter assesses the sensitivity of the setting of cultural heritage features and the implications for the understanding and their appreciation in the modern landscape. Included in this analysis is an assessment of the existing perceived social value of each monument. The perceived social value of a monument refers to the extent to which the



public is conscious of its existence and value. Whilst it is accepted that the existing perceived social value is not a direct reflection of a monument’s inherent cultural value or of its appreciation by future observers, it is nevertheless a reflection of the existing interaction between people and place against the baseline of a monument’s current setting. Whilst current guidelines recommend that it is the monument itself that is the receptor (Linge 2007), it is people and not physical features that are ultimately affected by changes to the setting of sites they visit (See Lambrick and Hind 2005) and as such perceived social value is also judged to be relevant when assessing the sensitivity of a monument’s setting and the significance of impacts upon it.

4.5.6 Assessing Setting Sensitivity

Setting is a key issue in the case of some, but by no means all monuments. A nationally important site with high cultural value does not necessarily have a high sensitivity with respect to setting. Our evaluation of the sensitivity of a given monument and the subsequent significance of impact on its setting takes cognisance of the monument type and form, the modern landscape, the magnitude of proposed change, the perceived social value of the monument and the perceived intentionality of their builders. The assessment of the scale of any impact on a given monument is based on the extent to which it would compromise or reduce the monument’s cultural value i.e. its ability to inform this and future generations. The ‘ability-to-demonstrate’ is the key criterion used in establishing the cultural value of a monument or place as defined within the Burra Charter (AUS ICOMOS 1999). An impact on cultural value will occur if, and only if, views to or from the object of cultural value form an essential part of a monument’s ability-to-demonstrate.

4.5.7 Certain sites and monuments exist, where there is a general acceptance that their builders designed the monuments with particular intentional vistas or sightlines, perhaps incorporating or sighting across other monuments or natural features (see Renfrew & Bahn, 2001, 397; Bergh 1995; Bradley 2000). Amongst these we may include burial monuments, standing stones and stone rows; examples of all of these are found within the assessment area. Some scholars (e.g. Bergh 1995) have argued that some monuments have been sited in order that sightlines between them would have a particular significance, or that their inter-visibility was a factor in the original selection of their locations. Even single monuments could, it has been argued, have significant relationships with the physical landform. Professor Alexander Thom (1967 & 1971) argued that sight lines projected from stone rows such as the Hill of Many Stanes, south of the proposed wind farm, utilised features on the distant horizon to facilitate the precise determination of significant astronomical events. In such instances, the sight line between the monument and its horizon is arguably a characteristic of the monument itself. Thus, the positioning of a structure that caused an interruption to that sightline would clearly reduce the information content of the monument, by compromising or removing one of its fundamental characteristics. This amounts to a reduction of its ‘ability to inform’ and in consequence an impact of this type would potentially adversely diminish the cultural value of the site or monument.

4.5.8 The original Environmental Statement chapter identified four specific monument-types for which

impacts on setting could result in loss of cultural value. Cairns and stone rows may have the designed-in sightlines just described. Forts and fortified sites may have been sited to overlook extensive areas, while brochs are held by many local people to have been constructed at locations that are intervisible, as a group defensive measure.

4.5.9 Impacts on setting, in the context of monuments, can thus give rise to two distinct types of effect.

Where a direct sightline was interrupted, such impact would result in a reduction of the cultural



value of the monument. On the other hand, alterations to the quality and ‘appropriateness’ of a monument’s aesthetic setting, would not result in loss to the inherent cultural value of that monument. It should be noted that there is no direct comparison between the loss of cultural value caused by a physical intervention assessed as, for example, ‘Low’ and an impact on setting assessed as ‘Low’. In the former case there is an irretrievable loss of some cultural value whilst in the latter there is, usually, no permanent or direct loss.

4.5.10 According to the original Environmental Statement chapter no known archaeological monument

will be compromised by the wind farm in its academic ‘ability-to demonstrate’ the intentions of its original and/or authentic users (AUS ICOMOS 1999) and no sightlines, vistas or alignments built into existing archaeological monuments will be unduly affected. This holds true for the proposed anemometer mast and its access route. The assessment of indirect impacts addressed in this report thus focuses on the second type of impact on setting in which the appropriateness of a monument’s setting may be compromised but in which the overall physical and cultural value of the monument will remain intact.

4.5.11 The magnitude of indirect impacts of this second type reflect the extent to which elements of a

monument’s setting are changed by the development, and the appropriateness of that change in terms of compatibility between the site and the development.

4.5.12 The significance of effect on a monument’s setting is judged to be the product of the monument’s

sensitivity to changes in setting (Table 4) and the magnitude of the impact (Table 5). In order to provide a level of consistency, the prediction of magnitude, assessment of sensitivity and assessment of significance have been guided by consideration of pre-defined criteria. In defining these criteria, emphasis has been placed on establishing the current setting of each site and how the proposed physical changes will affect it.

4.5.13 Table 4 below details the parameters used to derive sensitivity to changes in setting. For each

monument, sensitivity is assigned as high, moderate, low or not significant, based upon consideration of these parameters and an element of professional judgement. A rationale for the derived sensitivity is provided for each monument.

Table 4: Criteria for Assessment of Sensitivity to changes in Setting

Site Details Importance of detail for assessing sensitivity 1) Site No. /Name. Unique number for each monument and name as shown in the

National Monuments Record

2) Site type Brief description of the monument type as defined in the National Monuments Record

3) Site visit conditions

Conditions on day of survey with particular reference to visibility

4) Orientation of proposed anemometer/access track

Direction in which anemometer and access track lies measured from the monument. This is of particular significance for those monuments with designed in sightlines or those which appear to have been designed to be intervisible with other monuments across the landscape in a particular direction.

5) Designation Scheduled Ancient Monument Number or Historic Building Number if applicable



Site Details Importance of detail for assessing sensitivity 6) Cultural heritage significance

National, regional, local designation category. Established for each monument as per Table 1.

7) Monument morphology

The morphology or form of a monument, together with its size, can mean that the proposed development might not affect the setting of the entire monument because there may be parts of the monument from which the development cannot be seen. Monuments are therefore categorised as being upstanding or buried, and open or enclosed.

8) Current Condition The current state of survival of a monument is of relevance to the assessment, since alterations to the physical condition may already have severed or impaired attempts at understanding its original function and its relationship to the physical landform in which it occurs.

Amenity Value

9) Geographical remoteness

The geographical remoteness of a monument can affect how frequently it is visited by either professionals or members of the public. For example, how close is the monument to modern population centres? Are there any public amenities or interpretation centres nearby? Is the monument close to public roads or footpaths that would encourage and allow the site to be easily visited?

10) Ease of access The ease of access can affect how frequently it is visited by either professionals or members of the public. How easy is it to physically visit the site. Are there any major geographical barriers such as fences, steep terrain, watercourses that prevent easy access to the site? Is the site on publicly accessible or private land?

11) Promotional /interpretive material

The existence of any promotional or interpretive aids either physically at or near the site or on websites and in tourist information centres is relevant to the assessment as it will influence and affect how the monument is identified and understood by modern visitors. The existence of promotional/interpretive aids may also serve to increase visitor frequency at a given monument.

12) Visitor frequency

The number of visitors to a monument is relevant to the assessment as it is indicative of how many people are likely to witness, or be conscious of, or experience impacts on the setting of the given monument.

Visual Sensitivity

13) Nature of original and authentic uses

When the historic structure was developed or in use, was it located to be seen from a distance, perhaps from other sites or buildings? Was it intended to have wide views over the landscape? Generally the role of site and setting was potentially of higher importance in the case of ritual monuments (e.g. barrow cemeteries), strategic and defensive monuments, and monuments designed to convey power or high status (e.g. hillforts and castles). Conversely, the setting of farms and of industrial buildings was usually less important than their primary economic functions. Typically, their location would be strongly influenced by economics, e.g. emphasising proximity to raw materials, markets, etc). Similarly, commercial premises were sited according to demographics and economics, with setting being less relevant. Therefore the uses of a monument and whether views to and from it were relevant to its function are factors in this assessment.



Site Details Importance of detail for assessing sensitivity 14) Importance of view towards proposed anemometer and access track

The importance of views towards the proposed development area from the monument either in the past or present is a key factor in understanding how changes in these views will affect the overall appropriateness of monument setting. For example, a monument with open and extensive views across the proposed anemometer mast and access track will be more sensitive to the development than one with restricted views towards the development and open views focused away from the proposed anemometer and access track.

15) Relationship and intervisibility with other key sites.

This includes key viewpoints to, from and across the setting of a monument. Depending on the monument in question these could include: entrances, specific points on approaches, routeways, farmlands, other related buildings, monuments or natural features. Some sites and monuments exist, where modern scholars argue that intervisibility with other monuments in a given landscape was/is an integral part of the function of the monument. For example, the intervisibility of a number of cairns on the skyline of a monument may be understood as a key function of these ritual sites linking the separate sites across the landscape. The impact of the proposed development may be considered to be higher if the intervisibility between such sites is interrupted by the placing of a modern turbine and as such the key relationships between monuments is of relevance to this assessment.

16) Current value of monument setting

The current character of a monument’s setting is of relevance to the assessment, since modern development is part of how a monument is experienced today. Consideration is also given to how the monument contributes to its surroundings and whether it is a prominent feature in the landscape. In some cases alterations to the surroundings may already have severed or impaired setting and its relationship to the physical landform in which it occurs. For example, if the area around a monument has been planted with forestry, its setting could be regarded as being of reduced importance. It should be noted that the general issue of the aesthetics of the landscape and the amenity of the visitor to the current setting of the monument is not considered here, but in the Landscape and Visual Assessment Report, in Chapter 7.1 of the Environmental Statement and Section 4 of this Supplementary Information Report.



4.5.14 Table 5 below details the parameters used to derive magnitude of impacts on setting. For each

monument, magnitude is assigned as high, medium, low or negligible, based upon consideration of these parameters and an element of professional judgement. A rationale for the derived magnitude of impact is provided for each monument.

Table 5: Criteria for Assessing Magnitude of Impact

Site Details Importance of detail for assessing magnitude impact

17) Proximity to access track/anemometer mast

The greater the distance the monument is from the proposed development, the more diminished the visual effects will be.

18) Complexity of landscape

The more visually complex a landscape is, the less prominent the new development will seem within it. This is because where a landscape is visually complex; the eye can be distracted by other features and will not focus exclusively on the wind farm. Visual complexity describes the extent to which a landscape varies visually and the extent to which there are various land types, land uses, and built features producing variety in the landscape.

19) Visual obstructions

This refers to the existence of any features (e.g. tree belts, forestry, landscaping or built features) that could partially or wholly obscure the wind farm from view.

4.5.15 The predicted significance of impact upon each monument was determined by considering its

relative sensitivity to setting changes in conjunction with the magnitude of impact predicted on it. A short descriptive narrative is also provided for each monument in order to summarise and justify each of the value judgements that have been made. The predicted significance of impact on setting upon each monument is shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Significance of Impact on the Setting of Monuments

Visual Sensitivity (Based on parameters outlined Table 4) Impact magnitude (Derived from Table 5.5)

Not sensitive Low Moderate High

High Minor Minor Moderate Major Medium Negligible Minor Minor Moderate Low None/Negligible Negligible Minor Minor Negligible None None Negligible Minor The impacts recorded in highlighted cells are ‘significant’ in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999

4.6 Identification of Sites for Assessment

4.6.1 As the original Environmental Statement chapter has considered the impacts of the wider wind farm development, this assessment concentrates on those impacts that are unique to the anemometer mast and associated infrastructure. As such, all heritage assets within 100 m of these proposed constructions have been identified. These heritage assets might either be directly impacted, or be in proximity to potential unknown heritage assets. In addition, only protected



heritage assets in close proximity to these works can be specifically assessed regarding potential indirect impacts on their settings, as the extant plantation limits visibility and obscures the nature of potential wider impacts. The NMRS lists five sites within 100 m of the proposed anemometer mast and access track, one of which is designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. This Scheduled Ancient Monument will have intervisibility with the proposed access route, though the extent of intervening trees suggests that the anemometer mast will not be intervisible until the removal of the forestry plantation. Figures 1 and 2 indicate the location of this monument.

4.6.2 The tabulated data sheets presented in Table 4 above were used to assess the factors judged

relevant in determining the likely scale of potential impacts on the setting of the monument by the proposed anemometer mast and access track. Notes are included in the tables to indicate why each factor is considered to be important and how it has been assessed. The factors were then assessed for the monument in the field, supported by recorded and archived data. The monument was visited in November 2010 by experienced archaeologists and a description of its baseline condition and setting was recorded. Views towards the proposed development were photographed as part of the assessment (Appendix 3). Detailed analysis of the monument is presented in Appendix 2.

5 Cultural Heritage A full list of sites identified is provided in Appendix 1 and identified on Figure 1. The following section sets the context in which these sites are found.

5.1 Background

5.1.1 It is a common feature of British archaeology that more marginal areas contain better preserved monuments than more economically viable areas. Increasingly intensive agriculture from the late medieval period onwards has levelled and removed upstanding remains in areas of better and more fertile soils whilst more marginal areas such as the proposed development area have escaped this fate.

5.1.2 The increasing marginality of the Caithness landscape over time has led to the creation of a multi-

period Relict Landscape that would not survive in the better quality and more intensively worked landscapes of Scotland. In the case of Caithness the quality and easy availability of good building stone has also contributed to the survival of structures.

5.2 Mesolithic to Iron Age (8000 BC – AD 450)

5.2.1 There are no recorded Mesolithic sites in the vicinity of the access route and anemometer mast. It is possible, however, that such sites exist within the study area; for example the Statistical Account for the adjacent parish of Wick makes reference to the frequent discovery of flint arrowheads, albeit that the locations and dates of these lithic scatters are unknown.

5.2.2 During the Neolithic period agriculture was introduced to Scotland. The period also marks the adoption of pottery and monumental architecture. Caithness, during the Mesolithic and probably the Neolithic periods was not a marginal area. The sites and monuments constructed in the Neolithic, for example, compare favourably with the best examples of their types along the Atlantic seaboard of Europe. While no confirmed prehistoric field systems were identified during



assessment of the wider wind farm area, it is possible that some of the post-medieval field systems in the area may be older or contain older elements and that vegetation or peat growth has obscured such remains. The later Bronze Age introduced the complexity of trade routes for raw materials and finished materials and the geographical position of Caithness began to tell against it. Declining climate, especially following 1500 to 1000 BC exacerbated its growing marginality, covering much of the landscape with peat.

5.2.3 Approximately 100 m to the west of the access route and 850 m south-west of the proposed

anemometer location, the Moss of Whilk (Site 145) is a scheduled mound and associated enclosure and possible pen (Plate 1). This feature is of unknown date, and it is possible that it is prehistoric in origin (or the mound may mask an earlier feature). However, it is perhaps more likely that it relates to post-medieval or later activity.

5.3 Early Medieval (AD 450 – 900)

5.3.1 The Early Medieval Period marks the start of the historic period and does not represent a cultural change but rather a change in the available evidence with the first arrival of documents and maps. The end of the period is marked by the Norse incursions.

5.3.2 This period sees the emergence of the Picts, probably an amalgamation of the native Iron Age

tribes to the north of the Forth, including the Northern and Western Isles. ‘Pictland’ as the territory is now called came under increasing pressure from contemporary peoples, the Norse to the north, the Angles to the South and the Scots to the west. There are indications that Pictland was divided into two main groupings north and south of the Mounth with the political centre of the northern region lying around the Black Isle. A document from the 12th century describes seven Pictish kingdoms and records that Caithness was called Cat or Caitt, ‘cat people’ though the text’s precise meaning is debatable. To some modern Scots, ‘Pictland’ forms part of what defines them as a culturally distinct people. Thus, the cultural values of ‘Picts’, ‘Pictish’ monuments and ‘Pictland’ are all real, even if their evidential underpinnings are less than secure.

5.3.3 There are no definite Early Medieval heritage assets within the study area around the access

track and proposed anemometer location.

5.4 Norse (AD 900 – 1300)

5.4.1 Towards the end of the 9th century Caithness and the Northern Isles came to be dominated and settled by Norse incomers. For the next four centuries Caithness formed a mainland extension of the Norwegian earldom of Orkney. The Orkneyinga Saga, a Norse text derived from this period includes several references to Caithness and indicates struggles in this region between the native people and the Norse during the 10th century. Placename elements from within Caithness suggest that the Norse settled the region a couple of generations after their occupation of the Northern Isles. The archaeological findings support this, since the Norse pagan burials in the region tend to date from no earlier than the 10th century. The name Caithness itself comes from Old Norse, Katanes, meaning 'headland of the cats'. This suggests that 'cats' was an element of the tribal name for the people of this area prior to Viking settlement. After Norse settlement in Caithness, the population of Sutherland to the south referred to Caithness as Gallaibh, meaning 'the strangers', a reference to the Norse incomers now residing there.



5.4.2 There are no known archaeological remains dating to this period within the study area surrounding the access track and the proposed anemometer location.

5.5 Late Medieval (AD 1300 – 1600)

5.5.1 The start of this period marks the end of culturally distinct Norse influence in the area as it underwent incorporation into Scotland. There are no heritage assets dating to this period within the study area surrounding the access track and proposed anemometer location.

5.6 Post‐Medieval (AD 1600 – 1850)

5.6.1 This period marks the end of medieval society across Northern Scotland partly in consequence of the Jacobite rebellion which replaced the kinship system with outright ownership and the desire of landowners to increase the cash returns on their lands. The period also covers the Enlightenment and ends with the Highland Famine.

5.6.2 The majority of the farms, field banks and clearance cairns in the area probably date from this

period. However, this simplifies a more complex picture; the New Statistical Account for Wick suggests that much of the northern and higher portion of the area studied for the original wind farm Environmental Statement chapter was wooded in the 17th century and that this was cleared to kill wolves. While it is not possible to confirm this account it does demonstrate that at the end of the 18th century much of this area was considered to have been an inhospitable place to live. The 17th and 18th century maps of the area, such as Blaeu (1654), Moll (1745) and Roy (1747-55; Figure 3) indicate that the main foci of settlement were along the coast, and quite how far inland this settlement extended is unclear.

5.6.3 From the end of the 18th century a series of agricultural improvements were put in place across

Caithness. There are accounts of increased enclosure, the draining of lochs, the digging of drains, the building of enclosures, planting of forests and the ploughing up and liming of moor to produce crops. Additionally new types of leases, crops and stock were introduced as well as carts and new ploughs. These improvements were partly undertaken to strengthen the local economy but were mainly intended to increase cash returns for landowners.

5.6.4 An increase in the population of the area accompanied these various improvements. This

population increase may simply have comprised people cleared from Sutherland. While there were clearances in Caithness it was a much more piecemeal affair than elsewhere in Scotland. It is likely that many cleared families found employment in the fishing industry which experienced a boom in the first half of the 19th century. The population of Latheron parish doubled between the late 18th century and the time of the New Statistical Account, largely due to the growth of herring fishing (Davidson 1845, 92). The effect of this population growth was to subdivide the landholdings to the point of uselessness and to make highly cramped and unhealthy living conditions. There is even mention of famine in the late 1830s because of failed harvests. The New Statistical Account mentions that in the mid-19th century peat was the major source of fuel (Davidson 1845, 113). A lack of detailed prior study increases the significance of the rural farming landscape of the 18th and 19th centuries.



5.7 Post‐Clearance (post‐AD 1850)

5.7.1 This period marks the aftermath of the Highland famine, the establishment of the Crofters Act of 1886 and the inexorable decline in Caithness’ population and industry.

5.7.2 Despite the famine and clearances the population of the area continued to grow through the 19th

century. However, the population fell through the 19th and 20th centuries. The population decline of the late 19th century may be reflected in the occupancy of structures within 100 m of the proposed access route. At the time of the 1st Edition 1:10,560 Ordnance Survey of 1877 (Figure 4) roofed buildings at Torr-dubh are shown at three locations (Sites 140, 141 and 144), though by the 2nd Edition of 1907 the buildings at Site 144 (now covered by plantation to the east of the proposed access route) were not present. None of the buildings associated with these sites are now occupied, although a sheep-wash now stands on the area of Site 140, to the east of the proposed access route. A ford (Site 142) is marked on the 1st Edition map near the proposed access route, though not on later mapping. Nearby, the existing metalled route crosses a stream, culverted with plastic piping, at approximately ND 28980 39617.

5.7.3 Following the war there was a general drive towards commercial forestry which it was hoped

would ensure a strategic supply of woodland in time of war and secondly to help to repopulate more marginal areas of Scotland. The pace of this planting picked up from the 1960s and includes the Moss of Whilk area. There has been a gradual realisation that these commercial woodlands destroy previously unknown archaeological remains and that the enormous swathes of spruce monoculture should be replaced by more biodiverse woodlands.

5.8 Walkover Survey

5.8.1 A walkover survey of the proposed access route and location for the anemometer mast was undertaken on 10th November 2010. The weather was sunny and dry, with good visibility, though this was constrained by the existence of dense plantation, which was commonly present in close proximity to the access route. The proposed access track route overlay an existing, crudely metalled, vehicular quarry and plantation access track for the majority of its length, with the exception of a roughly west/east temporary route that crossed grass and scrub within a firebreak. The proposed location of the anemometer mast lay within a large, roughly triangular opening within the plantation, covered by grass and scrub.

5.8.2 While the proposed access route to the south of the forest of the Moss of Whilk enjoyed open

views, views from the track and proposed anemometer mast location within the woodland were constrained by plantation (Plate 2). Neither the mast nor the access track would be visible beyond the area of plantation, though the Scheduled Ancient Monument of the Moss of Whilk (Site 145) was seen to stand within a clearing adjacent the proposed access track, and is intervisible with the track route (Plate 3), but not the proposed anemometer mast, which would be located beyond dense plantation at a distance of c. 0.85 km. However, the removal of this plantation would lead to open views towards the mast.

5.8.3 While no new archaeological remains were identified along the access track route, the opening

within which the anemometer mast is proposed to be located, was largely covered by a group of large, generally subrectangular, peat cuttings (Site 219). The regular shapes of these cuttings may be indicative of a relatively recent date, and it is therefore unlikely that they predate the 19th century (Figure 2; Plate 4).

5.8.4 The majority of the area through which the access track is proposed to run is likely to have been

impacted heavily by modern plantation works and the construction of the existing quarry and



plantation access track, leading to a low potential for the survival of cultural heritage remains. Areas where a greater level of survival might be expected comprise existing clearings. These include the area where the anemometer mast is proposed to be located and the area surrounding the Moss of Whilk Scheduled Ancient Monument.

6 Assessment of Impacts

6.1 Direct Impacts

6.1.1 Potential impacts on known or unknown buried archaeological remains in the case of this development proposal relate to the possibility of disturbing, removing or destroying in situ remains and artefacts during groundbreaking works (including excavation, construction and other works associated with the development) on the site. As noted above, the presence of plantations and an existing metalled track will limit the potential for the survival of unknown buried remains.

6.1.2 The archaeological assessment for the wind farm (AOC 2008) demonstrated that the proposed

development area is located on the periphery of a rich prehistoric landscape. The development area lies to the west of the monument-rich area around the Loch of Yarrows. However, only one statutory protected monument (Site 145) was identified within 100 m of the proposed access track and anemometer mast location, while five unprotected heritage assets were located within this area. One of these assets, an area of peat cutting (Site 219) identified during walkover survey in the area of the proposed anemometer mast, is likely to incur a direct impact of Medium magnitude, with some loss of information content, from the anemometer mast works. This is a site of local/negligible Cultural Value and is unlikely to be earlier than post-clearance in date; the significance of this impact is predicted to be Low-Moderate, i.e. not significant in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. The extensive nature of these cuttings may indicate that much of the original peat cover in this area has been removed; if deep peat deposits were present, there would likely be evidence for areas of deep extraction. In addition, the site of two former buildings and an enclosure at Torr-dubh (Site 144), marked on the 1st Edition 1:10,560 Ordnance Survey map appears to lie to the immediate east of the access track route, though no evidence for the buildings or enclosure were identified during the walkover survey, and it may have been largely removed by 20th century plantation. This is a late post-medieval site of local Cultural Value, and the direct impact on it from the access track is likely to be at worst Low, leading to a potential Low significance impact.

6.2 Indirect Impacts

6.2.1 Indirect impacts include potential visual effects on the settings of protected buildings and monuments. Potential visual impacts on the setting of a single Scheduled Ancient Monument by the proposed anemometer and associated work have been identified in the course of this assessment.

6.2.2 Only one site of national or potential national significance has been identified as potentially

subject to a significant impact on setting; this has been defined as Minor according to criteria specified in Table 5. Details regarding how this impact has been determined are located in Appendix 2.

6.2.3 Moss of Whilk (Site 145)

This monument survives in poor, overgrown, condition within a grass and scrub-covered opening in forestry plantation. It lies to the west of an existing forestry/quarry track, though in rough, difficult to cross, ground, with at best moderate ease of access. It has a low amenity value, suggesting a low perceived social value. The site comprises a shieling and possible ritual cairn. It



is possible that the cairn therefore had a function that would have led the setting of the monument to be of importance in its original siting. The current low quality of the monument’s setting (in forestry), however, renders it difficult to understand the potential significance of the relationship with other monuments or elements in the landscape, though the Chambered Cairns of Warehouse would probably be visible following removal of the plantation.

6.2.4 The close proximity of the proposed access track is predicted to constitute a medium magnitude of impact on the setting of this site, as construction of the track in this area is likely to comprise an upgrading of an existing quarry access route. However, given the low value of the current setting it is difficult to judge exactly how the anemometer works will affect this area. At a future date, the removal of the forestry may reinstate some important links across the landscape to the cairns of Warehouse in the north-west. Views to these monuments would feature the anemometer mast as a prominent vertical feature against a backdrop of sky. However, the mast is unlikely to be a substantial structure and would only be prominent in views in relatively close proximity to it. Based on these factors, the magnitude of change at Moss of Whilk is judged to be high. The significance of impact on the setting of this site is judged to be Minor.

7 Mitigation

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 National planning policies and planning guidance (SPP2010; PAN 42), as well as the local plan policies (Local Plan 2002, Structure Plan 2001) outlined in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this report, require a mitigation response that is designed to investigate the potential for archaeological sites within the development area and thence allow the preservation or recording of any significant remains. The preferred policy of national and local curators is that sites and monuments should be preserved in situ but that where this is not possible, excavation analysis and publication of sites and monuments may prove an acceptable alternative in some cases.

7.2 Mitigation of Direct Impacts

7.2.1 The proposed locations of the anemometer mast and access track will avoid direct impacts on previously known sites or monuments, with the possible exception of the former location of late 19th century buildings and an enclosure at Torr-dubh (Site 144), which historic mapping suggests lay to the east of the access route. While it is likely that works on the access track will avoid this asset, there is potential for a direct impact of at worst Low significance. Also, the anemometer mast and the area of access track in closest proximity to it lie within a forestry clearing where extensive areas of peat cutting (Site 219) were identified during the present walkover survey. As this peat cutting is unlikely to be of great antiquity, and disturbance is likely to be limited in area, a direct impact of Low-Moderate significance has been identified. Recording during the walkover provides a record of these remains.

7.2.2 It is advised that an archaeological watching brief may be required to be undertaken on

groundworks associated with construction of the access track and anemometer mast within the clearing where Site 219 is located. Works in this area should be designed to limit potential damage to this feature. It is also advised that an archaeological watching brief may be required to be undertaken on any groundbreaking works associated with the access track in close proximity to the former buildings and enclosure at Torr-dubh (Site 144) and the scheduled Moss of Whilk (Site 145) in order to identify and record any associated archaeological remains. In addition, it is advised that the Highland Council Archaeology Unit will require a minimum of 10 working days



notification prior to the initiation of each significant phase of monitoring work. Where any of the above works impact inadvertently on archaeological remains, the advice of the Highland Council’s Archaeology Unit must be sought in respect of any requirement for further mitigation and/or specialist reinstatement.

7.3 Mitigation of indirect impacts

7.3.1 The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment indicate that the purpose of mitigation is to reduce the impacts by ‘…employing strategies of avoidance, remediation and compensation.’ Mitigation of visual impacts is usually achieved by hard and, or, soft landscaping but in an open moorland landscape, such ‘solutions’ might prove as large an intrusion as the original visual impact. Furthermore, to achieve their screening effect, the landscaping would almost certainly be sited close to the monuments and would create a significant risk of damaging in situ archaeological remains. Thus, the sites and monuments in the viewshed of the anemometer mast are vulnerable to visual impacts and to the physical and visual impacts that might arise from the traditional methods of mitigation.

7.3.2 This assessment has identified one indirect impact from the proposed access route and

anemometer mast on the visual setting of the Moss of Whilk Scheduled Ancient Monument (Site 145). This has been identified as an impact of Minor significance. As has been noted above, however, due to the presence of forestry plantation, it is difficult to judge exactly how the anemometer works will affect this area. At a future date, the removal of the forestry may reinstate some important links across the landscape to the cairns of Warehouse in the north-west. There is no credible mitigation available for this impact. Screen planting or hard landscaping would have an even more severe visual impact on sites and monuments than the anemometer mast and access route and furthermore, would also potentially have adverse physical impacts on the landscape.

8 Residual Impacts 8.1 The proposed anemometer mast and track will impact directly and physically on one known

heritage asset (Site 219), and may impact on another (Site 144). The significance of these impacts are judged to be Low-Moderate and, at worst, Low respectively. The record of the area of peat cuttings produced during the present walkover survey and records of any remains associated with these assets identified during a watching brief on groundbreaking works in their vicinity will provide an adequate archaeological record.

8.2 There is also likely to be an indirect impact from the anemometer and access track works on the

Moss of Whilk Scheduled Ancient Monument. It is not possible to propose any realistic mitigation for this impact. It should be noted that this impact would be of a temporary nature and removal of the anemometer mast after its operating lifespan will fully redress the situation, leaving no long-term impacts.

8.3 There remains a residual threat to archaeological sites and monuments currently unknown that

could be disturbed by development works. A mitigation strategy has been set out for this which consists of a watching brief by competent archaeologists over ground disturbance that will occur during the development in the area of Site 219 and in close proximity to Sites 144 and 145. If currently unknown archaeology is encountered, its further treatment would be agreed with the archaeological advisers to the planning authority in a manner consistent with SPP and SHEP and against an assumption in favour of preservation in situ wherever possible.



9 References

9.1 Bibliographic references

AOC Archaeology Group 2004 Burn of Whilk, Wind Farm Conservation Plan. AOC Archaeology Group 2008 Burn of Whilk, Wind Farm, Caithness: Archaeological Assessment, unpublished report. Bergh, S 1995, Landscape of the Monuments.

Bradley, R The Good Stones, 2000, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Burra Charter (AUS ICOMOS, 1999) http://www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html Collcutt, S N 1999 ‘The setting of cultural heritage features’, Journal of Planning & Environment Law, June 1999, 498-513. Davidson, G 1834-45 ‘Parish of Latheron’ in The New Statistical Account of Scotland, Volume 15, 83-113. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1979 The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (AMAAA). Highland Council 2001 The Highland Structure Plan. Highland Council 2002 The Caithness Local Plan. Historic Scotland 2006 Scotland’s Historic Environment; Scottish Historic Environment Policy 1 published HS 2006. Historic Scotland 2006 Scheduling: Protecting Scotland’s nationally important monuments, Scottish Historic Environment Policy, published HS 2006.

Historic Scotland 2009a Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting, consultation draft document, August 2009.

Historic Scotland 2009b Scottish Historic Environment Policy.

Hooper, J 2000 Brabstermire and Hill of Warehouse, Caithness, Erection of Anemometer Masts: An Archaeological Assessment. Unpublished Report. Hooper, J 2002 Warehouse, Caithness, Location of Proposed Windfarm: An Archaeological Assessment. Unpublished Report. Lambrick, G and Hind I 2005 Planrach 2: Review of Cultural Heritage coverage in Environmental Impact Assessments Oxford Archaeology. The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2002 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.



Linge, L 2007 Erection of 13 turbines and associates Works, Burn of Whilk, East Clyth, Lybster, Inverness Historic Scotland correspondence with Highland Council 16thAugust 2007. Puls, A 2007 Burn of Whilk Wind Farm Memorandum on Chapter 7.2 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 27th February 2007. RCAHMS 1911 The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Constructions of Scotland. Third report and inventory of monuments and constructions in the county of Caithness, London. Renfrew C and Bahn P 2001 Archaeology: Theories Methods and Practice, Thames & Hudson. RWE npower renewables 2006 Burn of Whilk Wind Farm: Environmental Statement, Vol. 2. Sutherland, W 1794 ‘Parish of Wick’, in Statistical Account of Scotland, Part X, 1-33. Scottish Executive 1999 Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. Scottish Government 2010 Scottish Planning Policy. Scottish Office 1997 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. Scottish Office 1997 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The Scottish Office Environment Department 1994. Archaeology - the Planning Process and Scheduled Monument Procedures. Planning Advice Note PAN42. January 1994. Thom, A 1967 Megalithic sites in Britain Oxford. Thom, A 1971 Megalithic lunar observatories Oxford.

Thomson, C 1845 ‘Parish of Wick’, in The New Statistical Account of Scotland, Volume 15, 116-183.

9.2 Cartographic references

Blaeu, Joan 1654 Cathenesia, Amsterdam. Moll, Herman 1745 The Shires of Caithness and Sutherland. With Strathnavern, which is part of Sutherland Shire, London, Bowles & Bowles. Roy, 1747-55 Military Survey of Scotland. Ordnance Survey 1877 Caithness-shire Sheet XXIX, scale 1:10,560. Ordnance Survey 1877 Caithness-shire Sheet XXXIV, scale 1:10,560.

Ordnance Survey 1907 Caithness-shire, scale 1:10,560.


Walkover Survey and Desk-Based Assessment

Appendix 1: Site Gazetteer

!(Anemometer219

145

144

142

141

140

LegendAccess Track

100 m buffer

!( Anemometer Mast

Heritage Assets

Scheduled Ancient Monument

Peat cuttings

0 100 200 300 400 50050Meters

Figure 1: Site location map showing heritage assets within 100 m of proposed anemometer mast and access trackI

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 scale map with permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Officer. Crown Copyright. AOC Archaeology Group, Edgefield Industrial Estate, Loanhead, Midlothian, EH20 9SY. OS Licence No.: 100016114

(c) AOC Archaeology 2010

!(Anemometer

219

LegendAccess Track

!( Anemometer Mast

Heritage Assets

Peat cuttings

0 25 50 75 100 12512.5Meters

Figure 2: Areas of peat cutting (Site219) in proposed anemometer mast location

IReproduced from the Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 scale map with permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Officer. Crown Copyright. AOC Archaeology Group,

Edgefield Industrial Estate, Loanhead, Midlothian, EH20 9SY. OS Licence No.: 100016114

(c) AOC Archaeology 2010

Figure 3: Extract from map by Roy 1757-55

Approximatelocation of proposedaccess track andanemometer mast

Figure 4: Extract from map by Ordnance Survey, 1877 Approximate location of proposed access track and anemometer mast

Plate 1: View of Moss of Whilk Scheduled Ancient Monument (Site 145) from east

Plate 2: View along access track from ND 28902 40011 from south-east

Plate 3: View of Moss of Whilk Scheduled Ancient Monument (Site 145) towards proposed access track route

Plate 4: View of forestry clearing, the proposed location of the anemometer mast, from west

BURN OF WHILK ANEMOMETER, CAITHNESS ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Appendix 1: Site Gazetteer Site No: 140 Site name: Torr-dubh. Type of site: Buildings Status: Unprotected Grid reference: ND 2910 3944 NMRS no: n/a Hooper Site No: n/a Description: Two roofed buildings, aligned north east to South west and a small enclosure

located on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey (1871). The buildings are present on the 2nd edition (1907) Ordnance Survey. There is a sheep wash at this location on the current revision (2004).

Site No: 141 Site name: Torr-dubh. Type of site: Building Status: Unprotected Grid reference: ND 2906 3951 NMRS no: n/a Hooper Site No: n/a Description: Roofed building, aligned east to west and a fairly large enclosure located on

the 1st edition Ordnance Survey (1871). The building is present on the 2nd edition (1907) Ordnance Survey. The building appears unroofed on the current revision (2004); however, there is no enclosure.

Site No: 142 Site name: Torr-dubh. Type of site: Ford Status: Unprotected Grid reference: ND 289 396 NMRS no: n/a Hooper Site No: n/a Description: Ford located on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey (1871). The ford is not

present on the 2nd (1907) edition or current revision (2004). Site No: 144 Site name: Torr-dubh. Type of site: Building Status: Unprotected Grid reference: ND 289 399 NMRS no: n/a Hooper Site No: n/a Description: Two roofed buildings and a small enclosure located on the 1st edition

Ordnance Survey (1871). The buildings are not present on the 2nd edition


map, however, the enclosure remains. The enclosure is not visible on the present (2004) revision.

Site No. 145 Name: Moss Of Whilk Type of site: Mound; Enclosure Status: SAM No. 5799 Grid reference: ND 2852 4093 NMRS no: ND24SE 8 Hooper Site No: n/a Description: A turf-covered stony mound about 21.0m in diameter, and 1.5m maximum

height, of uncertain classification. Some 20 metres to the NE is a sub-oval enclosure measuring 17.0m x 13.0m within a peat-covered stone wall of indeterminate width. A few displaced blocks are exposed in the SW arc. This site bears some resemblance to the 'Green Hill of Clayton' (RCAHMS 1911).

Site No. 219 Name: None available Type of site: Peat cuttings Status: Unprotected Grid reference: ND 2925 4134 NMRS no: n/a Hooper Site No: n/a Description: A group of peat cuttings, generally subrectangular in plan, was identified

within a forestry clearing at the Moss of Whilk during walkover survey by AOC Archaeology in November 2010. The cuttings were seen to extend over an area of approximately 150 m east/west by 100 m north/south. The cuttings were labelled ‘A’ to ‘F’ during the survey and most commonly lay on a WNW/ESE orientation, although block ‘B’, to the south-west, was oriented roughly north/south.



Appendix 2: Detailed Assessment of the impacts on the settings of protected heritage assets

BURN OF WHILK WIND FARM, CAITHNESS: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Appendix 2: Detailed Assessment of the impacts on the settings of protected heritage assets

Site Details 1) Site No./Name 145: Moss of Whilk 2) Site type Possible cairn and shieling 3) Site visit conditions Clear, bright and dry. 4) Orientation of proposed anemometer/access track

ENE

5) Designation SAM 5799 6) Cultural heritage significance High/National 7) Monument morphology Open, upstanding 8) Current Condition Poor. The site is covered over by vegetation and difficult to locate.

Past function and extent of site are difficult to ascertain from current state of monument survival.

Amenity value 9) Geographical remoteness High 10) Ease of access Moderate. Site is located in a small clearing in the centre of dense

forestry plantation 20 m west of the central forestry track. 11)Promotional/interpretive material

The cairn is marked on OS 1:10000 maps but not on smaller scale 1:50000 maps. No other promotion or interpretive material.

12)Visitor frequency Low. Site is located within difficult to access forestry land. Visual Sensitivity 13)Type of original/former use

Domestic shieling with possible ritual cairn.

14) Importance of original/former views generally and towards proposed anemometer mast.

Low-moderate It is likely that the shieling site was a discrete functional entity. It is possible that the cairn had visual links across the landscape to other sites but this is difficult to ascertain from current forestry setting. Prior to the plantation of the forestry there would have been open views across to the proposed anemometer mast from this site. Views beyond the anemometer mast towards the chambered cairns of Warehouse on the skyline may have been important.

15) Relationship and intervisibility with other key sites

In its current setting there is no intervisibility and no discernible relationship with other sites. However, it is probable that the Chambered Cairns of Warehouse will be visible following the removal of the forestry.

16) Current value of monument setting

Low. The site is located in a small clearing in a modern forestry plantation.

17) Proximity to access track/anemometer mast

0.1 km/0.85 km.

18)Complexity of landscape Moderate. 19) Visual obstructions Forestry currently acts as a visual obstruction across the landscape,

though the view towards the proposed access track is open. Conclusion Visual sensitivity Low Impact on visual setting High Significance of impact on setting

Minor

BURN OF WHILK WIND FARM, CAITHNESS: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Discussion The current setting of the Moss of Whilk is dominated in all directions by uniform coniferous forestry plantation. The site is overgrown and ill-defined within its current setting and has a low perceived social value. However, it is probable that, in its original setting, Moss of Whilk commanded extensive views across the landscape to the Chambered Cairns of Warehouse on the skyline and as a ritual monument it is possible that these views were important in the original siting of the cairn at this location. The current low quality of the monument’s setting renders it difficult to understand the potential significance of the relationship with other monuments or elements in the landscape. Based on the factors listed above, the visual sensitivity of Moss of Whilk is judged to be low. The close proximity of the proposed access track is predicted to constitute a medium magnitude of impact on the setting of this site, as construction of the track in this area is likely to comprise an upgrading of an existing quarry access route. However, given the low value of the current setting it is difficult to judge exactly how the anemometer works will affect this area. At a future date, the removal of the forestry may re-instate some important links across the landscape to the cairns of Warehouse in the north-west. Views to these monuments would feature the anemometer mast as a prominent vertical feature against a backdrop of sky. Based on the above factors, the magnitude of change at Moss of Whilk is judged to be high. The significance of impact on the setting of this site is judged to be Minor.



Appendix 3: Photographic Record


Appendix 3: Photographic Record Digital Film No.1 Shot Detail and Site Number From 1 View along access track from ND 29031 39460 S 2 View along access track from ND 28902 40011 SE 3 View along access track from ND 28902 40011 N 4 View towards Moss of Whilk (Site 145) from access track E 5 View towards Moss of Whilk (Site 145) from access track E 6 View from Moss of Whilk (Site 145) towards access track W 7 View from Moss of Whilk (Site 145) towards access track NW 8 Detailed view of Moss of Whilk (Site 145) SE 9 Detailed view of Moss of Whilk (Site 145) SE 10 View along temporary access WSW 11 View along temporary access WSW 12 Opening around Anemometer location W 13 Opening around Anemometer location NW 14 View of western part of peat cutting E (Site 219) E 15 View of eastern part of peat cutting E (Site 219) E 16 View of peat cutting F (Site 219) E 17 View of peat cutting D (Site 219) E 18 View of peat cutting D (Site 219) SE 19 View of peat cutting D (Site 219) SE 20 View of peat cutting B (Site 219) E 21 View of peat cutting B (Site 219) S 22 View of peat cutting A (Site 219) E 23 View of peat cutting C (Site 219) E 24 View along access track from ND 28670 40890 S 25 View of opening to west of access track from ND 28810 40440 E 26 View of opening to west of access track from ND 28810 40440 N 27 Drainage ditch running east from access track at c. ND 28831 40392 W 28 Open area to north of drainage ditch and east of access track SW

AOC Archaeology Group, Edgefield Industrial Estate, Edgefield Road, Loanhead EH20 9SY

tel: 0131 440 3593 | fax: 0131 440 3422 | e-mail: [email protected]

Documents

Burn of Whilk Anemometer assessment FinalDraft revised LR.… · Illustration by: Mike Roy Stefan Sagrott Date of Fieldwork: November 2010 Date of Report: November 2010 OASIS No: