FORTH CROSSING BILL
WRITTEN EVIDENCE FROM HISTORIC SCOTLAND
Thank you for your letter of 16 November 2009 and the accompanying
documents. This letter contains Historic Scotland’s statement on the consultation
undertaken by the Promoter as a mandatory consultee under Rule 9C.8 of the
Scottish Parliament’s Standing Orders. Our comments are made for our statutory
remit for the historic environment at the national level. That is scheduled
monuments and their setting, category A listed buildings and their setting and
gardens and designed landscapes included in the Inventory. We have also
considered the impact of the underwater aspects of the proposals on the marine
historic environment. Advice on regionally and locally important sites including
unscheduled archaeology and category B and C(S) listed buildings and
conservation areas should be provided by the relevant local authorities.
For our interests at the national level, I can confirm that I am content with the
consultation undertaken by the Bill Promoter. I am also content with the weight
attached to the historic environment as part of the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) carried out for the proposed development. Historic Scotland
was invited to be part of the Environmental Reference Group (ERG) which met to
discuss environmental issues resulting from the proposal and to agree suitable
mitigation measures to reduce as far as possible any adverse impacts on the
environment. In particular, this allowed us to be clear about the significance of
potential direct impacts to the nationally important Dundas Castle and Newliston
gardens and designed landscapes and to be satisfied that the development is
unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on them.
In terms of the impact of the proposed development I am content to accept the
findings of the ES that direct impacts on scheduled monuments and category A
listed buildings have been avoided by the preferred route option chosen. As
noted above, we are satisfied with the level of direct impact predicted for the
Dundas Castle and Newliston designed landscapes. I also accept that any
impacts on the setting of scheduled monuments or category A listed buildings
have been reduced as far as possible by the mitigation measures set out in the
Environmental Statement (ES). On this basis, I have no comments to offer on the
route of the proposed new crossing or its impacts on the nationally important
heritage assets in its vicinity.
Overall, I consider that the ES is a fair reflection of our input into the EIA process.
I am content that the Environmental Statement (ES) contains sufficient
information for the historic environment at the national level and that its
conclusions of the significance of the impact of the proposed new crossing on the
heritage assets listed above is reasonable.
However, there are two minor aspects of the ES which require clarification.
Firstly, para 14.2.27 on Mitigation. This section notes that the archaeological
programme of works can reduce impacts through preservation by record. This
section appears to confuse the levels of mitigation outlined in PAN 58. We
consider that the level of an impact cannot be reduced by such compensatory
strategies. The use of the phrase ‘preservation by record’ is not a function of
mitigation archaeology. The primary purpose of an investigation within a
development context is to provide an interpretation of the archaeological remains
based on the information retrieved in the course of that investigation. Secondly, I
should take this opportunity to clarify the role of Historic Scotland in the
archaeological mitigation of trunk road schemes. Para 14.5.9 states that Historic
Scotland has the responsibility for the safeguarding of the historic environment in
relation to trunk road schemes. In fact, it is Transport Scotland which has the
overall responsibility for the safeguarding of the historic environment in relation to
major trunk road schemes. As advisors to the Scottish Ministers on the historic
environment, Historic Scotland’s role is to provide specialist advice, project
support and quality control for Transport Scotland funded archaeological
mitigation.
In terms of the draft Bill, the only recommendation that I would offer is that
Historic Scotland is added to the list of bodies to be consulted in the event of
amendments to the Code of Construction Practice (Part 9 68 (3)). I note that the
provisions of the Listed Buildings Act do not apply to the authorised building
works described in section 11 of the draft Bill. However, I am content that on the
basis of the discussions that took place through the ERG and the information
provided in the ES that there is sufficient certainty about the likely route of the
proposed new crossing to be certain about its level of impact. This has enabled
us to contribute to the formulation of appropriate mitigation strategies for the
historic environment.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss any of the issues
raised.
Adele Shaw
Environmental Impact Assessment Team Leader
22 January 2010