Newton Marina Volume 1: Environmental Impact Assessment...

Newton Marina

Volume 1: Environmental Impact Assessment Report

December 2018

Newton Marina


Client: Stornoway Port Authority

Document number: 8048

Project number: 670526

Status: Final

Author: Various

Reviewer:

Date of issue: 14 December 2018

Filename: Volume 1 – EIA Report

Glasgow Aberdeen Inverness Edinburgh

Craighall Business Park

8 Eagle Street

Glasgow

G4 9XA

0141 341 5040

[email protected]

www.envirocentre.co.uk

Banchory Business

Centre

Burn O’Bennie Road

Banchory

AB31 5ZU

01330 826 596

Alder House

Cradlehall Business Park

Inverness

IV2 5GH

01463 794 212

Suite 114

Gyleview House

3 Redheughs Rigg

Edinburgh

EH12 9DQ

0131 516 9530

This report has been prepared by EnviroCentre Limited with all reasonable skill and care, within the terms of the

Contract with Stornoway Port Authority (“the Client”).

[Redacted]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.envirocentre.co.uk/

Stornoway Port Authority December 2018

Newton Marina; Volume 1: Environmental Impact Assessment Report

i

Contents Preface ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1.2 Background to Proposed Development .................................................................................................. 3 1.3 The Applicant .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Objectives and EIA Context ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Key Terms ................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.7 The Project Team .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.8 Structure of the EIAR ............................................................................................................................... 8

2 Chapter 2: Proposed Development ............................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Site Description ..................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Description of the Proposed Development ........................................................................................... 12 2.4 Construction Details .............................................................................................................................. 14 2.5 Alternatives Considered and Design Evolution ..................................................................................... 20

3 Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and Scoping ..................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 General EIA Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 23 3.3 EIA Regulations 2017 ............................................................................................................................. 24 3.4 The EIA Process ..................................................................................................................................... 24 3.5 Scoping as part of the EIA Process ........................................................................................................ 26 3.6 Scoping Requests and Opinions ............................................................................................................ 27 3.7 Final Content and Structure of the EIA Report...................................................................................... 30

4 Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual ................................................................................................................... 32 4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Scoping and Consultation ...................................................................................................................... 33 4.3 Policy, Legislation and Guidance ........................................................................................................... 35 4.4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 36 4.5 Baseline ................................................................................................................................................. 47 4.6 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 55 4.7 Summary of Effects ............................................................................................................................... 86 4.8 Statement of Significance ..................................................................................................................... 87

5 Chapter 5: Marine Ecology ............................................................................................................................ 88 5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 88 5.2 Scoping and Consultation ...................................................................................................................... 88 5.3 Policy, Legislation and Guidance ........................................................................................................... 95 5.4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 96 5.5 Baseline ............................................................................................................................................... 101 5.6 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 104 5.7 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 105 5.8 Mitigation and Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 120 5.9 Residual Effects ................................................................................................................................... 123 5.10 Statement of Significance ................................................................................................................... 126

6 Chapter 6: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology ............................................................................................ 127 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 127 6.2 Scoping and Consultation .................................................................................................................... 127 6.3 Policy, Legislation and Guidance ......................................................................................................... 129 6.4 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 131 6.5 Baseline ............................................................................................................................................... 136



ii

6.6 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 141 6.7 Mitigation and Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 146 6.8 Residual Effects ................................................................................................................................... 147 6.9 Statement of Significance ................................................................................................................... 147

7 Chapter 7: Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 148 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 148 7.2 Scoping and Consultation .................................................................................................................... 148 7.3 Policy, Legislation and Guidance ......................................................................................................... 150 7.4 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 150 7.5 Baseline ............................................................................................................................................... 157 7.6 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 159 7.7 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................ 170 7.8 Residual Effects ................................................................................................................................... 170 7.9 Statement of Significance ................................................................................................................... 170

8 Chapter 8: Water Environment ................................................................................................................... 172 8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 172 8.2 Scoping and Consultation .................................................................................................................... 172 8.3 Policy, Legislation and Guidance ......................................................................................................... 175 8.4 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 176 8.5 Baseline ............................................................................................................................................... 179 8.6 Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................................. 184 8.7 Mitigation and Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 190 8.8 Residual Effects ................................................................................................................................... 194 8.9 Statement of Significance ................................................................................................................... 200

9 Chapter 9: Traffic and Transport ................................................................................................................. 201 9.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 201 9.2 Scoping and Consultation .................................................................................................................... 201 9.3 Policy, Legislation and Guidance ......................................................................................................... 203 9.4 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 203 9.5 Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 204 9.6 Baseline ............................................................................................................................................... 206 9.7 Cumulative Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 220 9.8 Mitigation and Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 223 9.9 Residual Effects ................................................................................................................................... 223 9.10 Statement of Significance ................................................................................................................... 224

10 Chapter 10: Other Issues ............................................................................................................................. 225 10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 225 10.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 225 10.3 Socio-Economic ................................................................................................................................... 227 10.4 Property Matters ................................................................................................................................. 231 10.5 Population and Human Health ............................................................................................................ 231 10.6 General Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 234 10.7 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 236 10.8 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................... 237 10.9 Navigational Considerations ............................................................................................................... 237 10.10 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 239

11 Chapter 11: Schedule of Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 241 11.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 241 11.2 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................... 241

12 Chapter 12: Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 255 12.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 255 12.2 Landscape and Visual .......................................................................................................................... 255



iii

12.3 Marine Ecology .................................................................................................................................... 255 12.4 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology ..................................................................................................... 255 12.5 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 255 12.6 Water, Soils and Coastal Processes ..................................................................................................... 256 12.7 Traffic and Transport ........................................................................................................................... 256 12.8 Other Issues......................................................................................................................................... 256



1

PREFACE

This Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) has been prepared under the Marine Works

(Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (“the marine EIA Regulations”) and the

Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport)

Regulations 2017 (“the Miscellaneous EIA Regulations). It accompanies marine licence applications for dredging,

disposal and construction to Marine Scotland, and an application to Transport Scotland for a Harbour Revision

Order (HRO). Further planning applications will be made to Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (CnES) in due process.

In response to the success of the existing marina, Stornoway Inner Harbour Marina (which has been full to

capacity since opening in 2014), the proposed development of Newton Marina at the site of Goat Island will

provide berthing for an additional 75 vessels. Goat Island is bounded to the north, west and south by Stornoway

Harbour, whilst being joined to the rest of Stornoway by Battery Point Causeway. The proposed development

includes provision for reclamation via both land based and water based dredging, construction of a quay wall,

pontoons, slipway, breakwater and boat hoist, areas for overwintering and storage of yachts, , boat sheds for

rent, and 40 spaces for parking for pontoon and slipway users. Full details of the proposed development are

contained within Chapter 2: Proposed Development.

This EIAR reports the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which has been co-ordinated and

written by EnviroCentre Ltd, with specialist input from the following consultants. All authors contributing to this

EIAR are competent experts in the context of EIA Regulations. Further information verifying the expertise of the

project team is found within section 1.7 of this EIAR.

Table 1: Project Team

Organisation/Consultant Project Role

Barton Willmore Planning and Consultation

Doug Harman Landscape Planning Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)

EnviroCentre Ltd Project Management, EIA Co-ordination, Marine

Ecology, Water Environment and Soils, Airborne

Noise

Headland Archaeology Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

Irwin Carr Consulting Underwater Noise Modelling

RPS Sediment and Wave Modelling

Systra Traffic and Transport

Wallace Stone Project Engineering and Design

This EIAR comprises the following elements:


o Providing a detailed description of the proposed development and its potentially significant

environmental effects, detailing alternative options where applicable, reporting the findings of the



2

EIA, as well as any proposed mitigation measures and providing other relevant background

information

Volume 2: Figures

o Including figures and plans relating to individual chapters of Volume 1

Volume 3: Technical Appendices

o Containing detailed technical reports and baseline studies which act as background reports to Volume

1.

The following documents have also been prepared to support the application. These form part of the overall

submission, but they do not form a physical part of the EIAR:

Non-Technical Summary (NTS) – this provides an overview of the proposed development and summarises

the findings of the EIA and any key mitigation measures proposed, in an easily accessible format;

Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report – this provides information on the community engagement

which has been undertaken prior to this submission with regards to the proposed development, and

details public engagement initiatives and attitudes towards the proposed development. This covers

marine pre-application requirements under the Marine Licence (Pre-Application Consultation) (Scotland)

Regulations 2013 ;

Applications for Marine Licences – these applications for dredging and construction in the marine

environment are required to consent activities below Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) and are

accompanied by a Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) appraisal.

Members of the public can view the NTS and the full EIAR at the following deposit copy locations:

Stornoway Library

19 Cromwell Street

Stornoway

HS1 2DA

Electronic copies of the NTS are available for free from the following contact, whilst digital copies of the full EIAR

on disc can be obtained for £10. Full hard copies of the EIAR can be supplied for £500 per copy.

Development Manager

Stornoway Port Authority

Amity House

Esplanade Quay

Stornoway

HS1 2XS

[Redacted]



3

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Stornoway Port Authority (SPA, hereafter referred to as the Applicant) have appointed EnviroCentre Ltd to

undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment of their proposed Newton Marina development at Goat Island,

Stornoway. This Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) comprises the written findings of the EIA

process. The EIA has been prepared under relevant EIA legislation to accompany applications for marine

construction and dredging and disposal licences, and a Harbour Revision Order (HRO). The relevant Regulations

which underpin this EIAR are listed below and these are further discussed within section 1.5, and within Chapter

3: EIA Methodology and Scoping of this EIAR.

The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (‘the Marine EIA

Regulations’); and

The Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways

and Transport) Regulations 2017 (the ‘Miscellaneous EIA Regulations’).

The applications seek consent for the formation of a new marina comprising space for 75 vessels, and associated

facilities at Goat Island, Stornoway. The proposed development includes provision for reclamation, dredging,

construction of a quay wall, pontoons, slipway, breakwater and boat hoist, areas for overwintering and storage

of yachts, boat sheds for rent, and 40 spaces for parking for pontoon and slipway users (‘the proposed

development’). Full details of the proposed development are contained within Chapter 2: Proposed

Development.

The scope of the EIA originally included assessment of additional building elements on the reclaimed land,

including a new workshop for boat building and maintenance. CnES have been consulted throughout the

assessment process in respect of being the Competent Authority for terrestrial matters, and assessment was

subsequently undertaken to an extent which incorporates the end use of the proposed development, for

example incorporating future uses such as a the new boat building/repair facility within the Landscape and Visual

assessment (Chapter 4). However, following development decisions by the Applicant and advice from Regulators,

an application for planning permission is not being sought at this time. Separate applications for the boat

workshop and additional boat storage sheds will be submitted at a later date. This EIAR contains some description

and assessment of end-use upon which further assessment may be based, and gives Regulators some indication

of the likely effects of those developments which are subject to future planning applications. This is reflected

within Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and Scoping and within each chapter.

Accordingly, the EIAR is concerned with providing environmental evidence to support marine licencing and HRO.

Full description of the proposed development is contained within Chapter 2: Proposed Development of this EIAR,

with the regulatory context set out within section 1.5 and Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and Scoping.

1.2 Background to Proposed Development

Marine tourism is already a prominent cultural asset in Stornoway providing a solid foundation for future growth.

Stornoway is the focus of a £53 million per year tourism sector in the Western Isles. Previous studies have

demonstrated that a shortage of yacht berths and limited amenities are however constraining potential growth

in Stornoway. Presently, the 8o-berth marina off Cromwell Street is full to capacity since opening in 2014. The

proposed development aims to provide additional storage and berthing space for local people as well as facilities

to encourage further visitors to the island.



4

The proposed development was therefore identified within the Applicant’s Masterplan for Stornoway, dated

March 2017. . This formed a masterplan which set out proposed land use and a growth strategy in the harbour

area for the next 20 years. Whilst this does not represent adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) by

Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (CnES), it represents a long term plan for the future of the port and was subject to

public consultation on 13th and 14th December 2016. The Port Authority is concurrently progressing the

development of the proposed Deep Water Port on the western shore of the Harbour for which the Application

is seeking concurrent consents under a separate, but linked EIA.

The Applicant is aware that Newton Marina is crucial to the economic future of Stornoway and the Outer

Hebrides, in terms of its industrial and marine tourism functions. Whilst it is not the purpose of this EIAR to set

out a full needs case, aspirations for the proposed development are driven by economic opportunities for the

town, and will support job creation (further details of which are contained within Chapter 10: Other Issues).

This EIAR sets out the environmental studies and assessment undertaken to provide an examination of the likely

significant effects

1.3 The Applicant

Stornoway Port is the primary port for the Western Isles and is one of the busiest ports on the west coast of

Scotland. The Port is central to the economy of the island, facilitating the lifeline ferry service and supporting

almost all economic activities from fishing and aquaculture, to construction, retail and marine leisure.

The Port is run by the Applicant, a Trust Port, with a Board contributing a range of skills and experience. With the

Applicant being a Trust Port, it is an independent statutory body run by the Board, which is committed to

supporting activities that will benefit the local community, both socially and economically. It is not a private

business nor is it a public body. The Applicant is currently responsible for the administration, maintenance and

improvement of the Port under its statutory limits.

1.4 Regulatory Context

As described within section 1.1 and within Chapter 2: Proposed Development, the proposed development

transcends two separate regulatory regimes, with two different EIA Regulations to consider. The proposed

development and its components are delineated into the various consenting regimes, and therefore the

corresponding EIA Regulations, on Figure 2.3 within Volume 2 of this EIAR.

As set out within Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and Scoping, two separate Scoping Opinions were sought from

CnES and Marine Scotland in September 2017 and December 2017 respectively, prior to the decision to deal with

terrestrial matters at a later stage. Transport Scotland, as responsible authority for determining Harbour Revision

Orders (HRO), were also consulted in respect of the Miscellaneous EIA Regulations pertaining to HRO and a letter

requesting a Screening Opinion was sent to Transport Scotland in December 2017.

Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and Scoping discusses how the views of all consultees have been factored into

assessment, as well as in more detail within each individual chapter. Each chapter discusses those impacts which

are related to the marine environment, to the terrestrial environment, or both.

1.5 Objectives and EIA Context

The purpose of an EIA is to identify and evaluate the likely significant effects of a proposed development on the

environment and to identify measures to mitigate or manage any significant adverse effects before a planning

application or marine licence is determined. The EIA process provides an opportunity to ‘design out’ adverse



5

effects wherever possible. Where adverse effects cannot be designed out, mitigation measures can be proposed

to avoid, compensate or reduce significant environmental effects to an acceptable level. EIA is an iterative

process which allows feedback from stakeholder consultation and the results from baseline studies to be fed into

the design process of the development.

The EIA carried out in relation to the proposed development has been undertaken by specialist environmental

and technical consultants on the basis of project information supplied by the Applicant and their engineers and

following consultation with statutory consultees, other bodies and members of the public.

The objectives of the EIAR are:

To establish a robust environmental baseline upon which to base environmental assessment,

incorporating field surveys, desk study and consultation;

To provide an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development and to

determine which of these, if any, are likely to result in a significant effect on the receiving environment;

and

Where significant effects are predicted, to determine mitigation measures to reduce the residual effects

to acceptable levels.

The results and findings of the EIA are presented in this EIAR. The environmental information presented is derived

through a systematic process of identification, prediction and evaluation of the likely significant environmental

effects of the proposed development.

Schedule 4 of the Marine EIA Regulations requires that the following information is provided:

A description of the location of development, its physical characteristics and land-use requirements

during construction and operation;

A description of the main characteristics of the operational phase of the development;

An estimate of residues and emissions produced during the construction and operation phases;

A description of reasonable alternatives, and an indication of the main reasons for selecting the chosen

option, including a comparison of the environmental effects;

A description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and an outline of the likely

evolution thereof without implementation of the development as far as reasonable;

A description of environmental receptors likely to be significantly affected by the development;

A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment;

A description of the forecasting methods or evidence used to identify and assess the significant effects;

A description of the measures envisaged to mitigate significant effects;

A description of expected significant adverse effects deriving from the vulnerability of the development

to risks of major accidents and/or disaster; and

A non-technical summary of the aforementioned information.

This EIAR meets these requirements within each technical chapter where applicable, with the primary description

of development comprising Chapter 2: Proposed Development, and a description of how the EIA Regulations

have been addressed within Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and Scoping.

1.6 Key Terms

To ensure clarity and consistency through the EIAR, the following key terms have been used:

‘the proposed development’ refers to the construction of the proposed development as described in

Chapter 2: Proposed Development;



6

‘the site’ is the land and sea bound by the red-line boundary in which the proposed development lies, and

is illustrated within Figure 1.1 within Volume 2 of this EIAR;

The ‘Study area’ is the area over which desk based or field assessments have been undertaken and are

identified within each chapter. The core study area varies depending on the nature of the potential effects

within each discipline, as informed by professional guidance and best practice regarding EIA. All of the

core study areas cover the site, and are described within the methodology section of the relevant chapters

within this EIAR.

1.7 The Project Team

The EIAR has been undertaken by a team of competent experts as per Regulation 6(5) of the Marine EIA

Regulations and Regulation 3, Schedule 1, 3(f)(i) of the Miscellaneous EIA Regulations. As per the guidance

contained within Planning Advice Note 1/2017, the EIA Report must be accompanied by a statement outlining

relevant expertise or qualifications sufficient to demonstrate this is the case.

Accordingly, Table 1.1 details those with responsibility for undertaking this EIA Report, along with their relevant

qualifications and expertise.

Table 1.1: Competent Expertise

Item / Role Lead Author and

Reviewer

Number of

years’

experience

Qualifications and Professional

Memberships

Inputs to EIA Process

EIA Project Manager /

Co-ordinator

10 MA (Hons), MSc, Registered EIA Practitioner

with Institute of Environmental Management

and Assessment

EIA Reviewer 29 PhD, Chartered Geologist, Fellow of the

Geological Society

Project Advisor 45 PhD, Fellow of the Royal Academy of

Engineering, Fellow of the Institution of Civil

Engineers, Fellow of Chartered Institution of

Waste Management, Chartered

Environmentalist

Engineering Input 40 BSc (Hons), Member of Institute of Civil

Engineers, Fellow of the Association for

Consultancy and Engineering, Fellow of the

Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders,

Chartered Engineer


Chapter 1:

Introduction



and Assessment (PIEMA) Chapter 2: Proposed

Development

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]



7


Reviewer

Number of

years’

experience


Memberships

Chapter 3: EIA

Methodology and

Scoping

Chapter 4: Landscape

and Visual

16 MSc, Chartered Member of the Landscape

Institute

Chapter 5: Marine

Ecology

(Lead

Author)

10 BSc, Member of the Chartered Institute of

Ecology and Environmental Management

(Reviewer)

32 BSc, MSc, Member of the Association of Environmental and Ecological Clerk of Works, Fellow of the Chartered Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management and Vice President for Scotland and a member of the Governing Board.

(Underwater

Noise Modelling)

3 BSc, MSc, GradD

Chapter 6: Cultural

Heritage and

Archaeology

(Lead

Author)

20 MA (Hons), Licenced Archaeologist (ROI),

Member of Chartered Institute for

Archaeologists

(Reviewer)

35 BA (Hons), MA, PhD, Member of the

Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, Fellow

of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland

Chapter 7: Noise (Lead

Author)

7 MA (Hons), Member of the Institute of

Acoustics

(Reviewer)

31 Bsc (Hons) Environmental Health, MPhil

Contaminated Land Management

Chapter 8: Water

Environment and

Soils

(Lead Author)

7 BSc, MSc

(Reviewer)

20 BEng, PhD, Member of the British

Hydrological Society

(Coastal

Modelling)

40 BSc (Hons) C Eng, Fellow of The Institution of

Engineers of Ireland, Fellow of Irish Academy

of Ireland, Member of the Institution

of Civil Engineers, Member of the Institution

of Structural Engineers

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]



8


Reviewer

Number of

years’

experience


Memberships

Chapter 9: Traffic and

Transport

(Author)

2 MA (Hons), Member of the Chartered

Institute of Highways and Transportation

(Reviewer)

14 BEng, Chartered Member of Chartered

Institute of Logistics and Transportation,

Member of the Chartered Institute of

Highway and Transportation

(Project Director)

18 BEng (Hons), CEng, PhD, Member of Institute

of Civil Engineers

Chapter 10: Other

Issues



and Assessment (PIEMA) Chapter 11: Schedule

of Mitigation

Chapter 12:

Conclusions

1.8 Structure of the EIAR

The EIAR is presented within three volumes, which are set out within Table 1.2 below:

Table 1.2: Structure of the ES

Item Description Author


Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter sets the context for the EIA and

introduces the development in a broad context

EnviroCentre

Chapter 2: Proposed

Development

This chapter sets out the development

description upon which the environmental

assessment is based, as well as examining

design and alternatives considered.

EnviroCentre (with

engineering design by

Wallace Stone)

Chapter 3: EIA Methodology

and Scoping

This chapter introduces the EIA methodology

by which the proposed development was

designed, along with an outline of how the

EIAR has responded to comments throughout

Scoping and consultation.

EnviroCentre

Chapter 4: Landscape and

Visual

This chapter sets out the predicted effects

upon local landscape and seascape, as well as a

visual assessment of the proposed

Landscape Planning

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]



9


development upon sensitive receptors in

proximity to the site.

Chapter 5: Marine Ecology This chapter assesses effects upon marine

ecology from engineering works in the water

environment, and is informed in part by

underwater noise modelling and sediment

dispersion modelling.

EnviroCentre (with inputs

from RPS and Irwin Carr

Consulting)

Chapter 6: Cultural Heritage

and Archaeology

This chapter discusses the cultural heritage

baseline and the potential for archaeological

remains within and in proximity to the site, as

well as the potential effects upon these

receptors in relation to the development.

Headland Archaeology

Chapter 7: Noise This chapter deals with airborne noise as a

result of the proposed development with

regards to construction and operational noise.

EnviroCentre

Chapter 8: Water

Environment, Soils and

Coastal Processes

Chapter 8 assesses the impact of the proposed

development upon the water environment,

including water quality and pollution, coastal

processes and wave modelling. It also assesses

the treatment of peat in relation to landward

proposals.

EnviroCentre (with inputs

from RPS)

Chapter 9: Traffic and

Transport

This chapter sets out baseline and predicted

traffic in relation to the proposed development

and assesses the capacity of the road network

to carry traffic associated with the proposed

development.

Systra

Chapter 10: Other Issues This chapter covers areas of the environment

which are important to note but have not been

identified as having potentially significant

effects throughout the Scoping process (as

detailed within Chapter 3: EIA Methodology

and Scoping). These include socio-economics,

population and human health, utilities and

recreation.

EnviroCentre (with input

from the Applicant)

Chapter 11: Schedule of

Mitigation

This chapter sets out a summary of all

mitigation measures proposed within the EIAR

within a schedule which can then be used to

inform planning conditions and/or a

construction environmental management plan

(CEMP).

EnviroCentre

Chapter 12: Conclusions This chapter summarises the key findings of the

EIAR, discusses CEMP principles, and provides a

EnviroCentre



10


Statement of Significance in relation to the

proposed development.

Volume 2: Figures This volume provides the figures relevant to

each chapter within Volume 1 and is provided

as a standalone volume to aid comparative

assessment.

All

Volume 3: Technical

Appendices

This volume provides the relevant technical

background papers and studies which have

informed each chapter.

All

The following documents have also been prepared to accompany the planning application, which do not form

part of the EIAR but are nevertheless associated with it.

Applications for Marine Licences – these applications for dredging and construction in the marine

environment are required to consent activities below Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) and are

accompanied by a Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) appraisal where appropriate.

Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report – this provides information on the community engagement

which has been undertaken prior to this submission with regards to proposed development, and details

public engagement initiatives and attitudes towards the proposed development; and

Non-Technical Summary (NTS) – this provides an overview of the proposed development, and

summarises the findings of the ES and key mitigation measures proposed, in an understandable and easy

to read format.



11

2 CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Introduction

This chapter sets out the details of the proposed development upon which this EIAR is based. It is supplemented

by Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 within Volume 3 of this EIAR, which demonstrate site layout, consenting

context and drainage arrangements. The Applicant, with various commercial partners, is currently undergoing

other developments within its Stornoway Port Authority Masterplan (2016)1. As part of this, a new Macduff

seafood processing facility to replace to facility described below will be undertaken under separate cover and

does not form part of this application.

Similarly, it should also be noted that this EIA has been prepared to accord with a multi-consent process as

described within Chapter 1: Introduction and Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and Scoping. Subsequent to the

preparation of this EIAR, the decision was made by the Applicant to omit the new boat building/maintenance

shed (referred to hereafter as ‘the boatyard building’) and other proposed new buildings on the reclaimed land

from the initial applications for consent. The Applicant will submit a planning application to CnES at a later date.

However, in the interests of demonstrating a ‘worst case’ EIAR chapter, potential development components

which would be subject to planning application(s) in the future have been assessed in an outline manner within

the appropriate technical chapters, chiefly the ‘boatyard building’ which is proposed in future to provide a

covered space for boat building and maintenance.

In order to cover the maximum possible extent of all works, the decision was made early on in the EIA process

to set the EIA boundary (as shown on all figures) to the maximum possible extent to allow flexibility of consenting

mechanisms, and accordingly this red line covers areas (such as the existing uses on Goat Island) within which

development is not currently being applied for. The proposed development components and the associated

consenting mechanism are therefore outlined within Figure 2.1 and 2.2 within the context of this extended site

boundary.

The information within this chapter has been supplied by project engineers Wallace Stone and prepared by

EnviroCentre.

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 Site Location and Description

The proposed development site is situated within Newton Basin, immediately to the south of Stornoway within the Stornoway Harbour embayment. Newton Basin is a small tidal bay partially enclosed by Goat Island. The proposed development involves dredging and reclamation of land to form a new marina and associated infrastructure and facilities at Goat Island, which is situated at the southern end of Stornoway and centred on grid reference 142660, 93214 (eastings/northings) as demonstrated on Figure 1.1 within Volume 2 of this EIAR (hereafter known as ‘the site’). The total area within the boundary used for the purposes of this EIAR comprises a total of 7.97 hectares (ha), with its approximate centre point at 142696, 932269. Goat Island presently comprises a collection of workshops, yard space and a seafood processing factory and is approximately 400m at its longest point from north-west to south-east. It is positioned between approximately

1 Stornoway Port Authority (2016): Stornoway Port Authority Masterplan. Available at: http://www.outerhebridesfisheriestrust.org.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2017/01/Draft-Masterplan-for-Stornoway-Port.pdf

http://www.outerhebridesfisheriestrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Draft-Masterplan-for-Stornoway-Port.pdf

http://www.outerhebridesfisheriestrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Draft-Masterplan-for-Stornoway-Port.pdf



12

0m and 4m above sea level. It is bounded to the north, west and south by Stornoway Harbour, whilst being joined

to the rest of Stornoway by the 240m long and 3.5m wide ‘Battery Point’ causeway. Stornoway Coastguard

Station is situated approximately half way along the causeway, and SSE’s Battery Point power station neighbours

the site approximately 395m to the east. The nearest residential dwellings are located on Newton Street (approx.

160m to the north), with other dwellings on Seaview Terrace (approx. 320m to the north-east), Island Road

(approx. 250m to the north) and Inaclete Road (approx. 265m to the north). Stornoway Ferry Terminal is situated

approximately 300m north-west of the proposed development. Present further along the coastline to the north-

west are South Beach Quay, No.2 Pier and beyond that, No. 1 Pier and Esplanade Quay. The tidal embayment of

Stornoway Harbour extends up to 3km in length, and around 1.5km in width at its widest point, covering an area

of approximately 3km2.

The causeway, Battery Point, serves as the only vehicular route onto Goat Island and links it to Newton Street, a

residential street between the Battery Point junction and the junction with Ferry Road to the west. Spanning

approximately 3.5m, Battery Point has one current passing place close to the Stornoway Coastguard Station

which is situated approximately 170m to the east of Goat Island. Battery Point has a speed limit of 15 miles per

hour (mph).

Areas of the site are currently part of the marine environment, with the plans for reclamation and dredging taking place within these areas. The main area of reclamation is primarily in the intertidal area between Mean High Water Springs and Mean Low Water Springs, with the delineation between the two set out within Figure 2.2.

2.2.2 Existing Uses

The existing uses at Goat Island are industrial. They comprise a commercial boat slipway operated by the

Applicant, a seafood processing facility, a number of engineering workshops which are used for a boat repair and

renovation workshop, with facilities existing to repair vessels on the slipway. Local car parking is present on Goat

Island, available for employees of these facilities.

Whilst it is possible to walk, cycle or drive onto Goat Island as a member of the public, most of the area is private

due to the industrial uses noted above.

2.3 Description of the Proposed Development

2.3.1 Need for the Proposed Development

The existing marina, (i.e. the Stornoway Inner Harbour Marina at Cromwell Street), has been virtually full since

it opened in 2014 with 83 berths being occupied all year round. In response to the success of the existing marina,

the proposed development has been proposed to provide berthing for an additional 75 vessels and relieve the

pressure over the summer months for berths for visiting yachts. It is proposed that up to 50 of the berthing

spaces could be provided to meet local demand, with the remaining berths reserved for visiting use.

With this as the basis for proposed development, future planned developments include a new boat workshop to

allow boat building and repair under cover and additional boat storage sheds. The reclaimed land could also

provide space for a water sports clubhouse building, as well as providing ancillary buildings.

With water depth of around 3m at lowest tide, proposed berths will be able to accommodate vessels up to 15m

in length and with a draft of up to 2.8m. A new slipway as described within section 2.3.2 below will also allow

further recreational access to the water for local clubs and boat owners, to supplement the existing public

slipway at Cuddy Point, which is not useable at low tide.



13

2.3.2 Summary of Component Parts

In summary, the proposed development contains the following components:

Reclamation of land along the north side of Goat Island (approx. 1.81 ha) behind a concrete retaining

wall, and subsequent formation of a level development platform;

Excavation of material won by dredging from both sea and land, dredged to up to 3m Chart Datum (CD);

Formation of a new rock-armoured breakwater of up to 75m in length and 20m wide at its base;

Formation of a proposed slipway for the launch of vessels to be 50m long and 8m wide with rock

armouring on its sides, with a width at the base of its structure varying between 10m and 25m, dredge

depth will taper from 3m below CD to 1.5m below CD at the slipway;

Formation of a pontoon installation comprising a 100m long floating access walkway of 3m width, with

three walkway legs around 60m long and 2.5m wide, and finger piers on either side, and a 24m long and

1.5m wide access bridge connecting to the shore;

Installation of a boat lift structure to facilitate boat repair and overwintering of vessels of up to 80

tonnes in weight;

A new rock armoured passing place on the western side of Battery Point, with a surfaced area of 0.01ha;

Service provision for the berths, including power, water, waste collection, toilets, showers and other

ancillary services;

Up to 20 boat storage bays of up to 20m long, and 15 boat storage bays of up to 15m long (on land);

Provision for 40 car parking spaces for marina users; and

Two boat sheds of 12.5m in length, 5m wide and 6m high, to replace the existing boat sheds.

Further details of these component parts including the methodology relating to their construction are contained

within section 2.4.

As explained within section 2.1, the Applicant is not current seeking consent for the new boatyard building

demonstrated within landscape and visual assessment; this development will be subject to a future planning

application.

2.3.3 Component parts by Consenting Regime

The Scoping Responses received from both CnES and Marine Scotland as contained within Technical Appendix

3.1 and discussed within Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and Scoping, requested that the proposed development

components are clearly delineated by consenting regime. Table 2.1 below separates these components as per

this advice.

Table 2.1: Proposed Development Components by Consenting Regime

Proposed Development

Component

Consenting Regime Consenting Authority

Dredging Marine Licence – Dredge and

Disposal

Marine Scotland

HRO Transport Scotland

Reclamation of land Marine Licence – Construction Marine Scotland




14


Component

Consenting Regime Consenting Authority

Formation of reinforced retaining

wall and foundations

Marine Licence – Construction Marine Scotland

Formation of breakwater



Formation of Slipway Marine Licence – Construction Marine Scotland


Formation of marina structure,

pontoons and walkways



Boat hoist HRO Transport Scotland

Boat Storage Bays HRO Transport Scotland

2x boat sheds HRO Transport Scotland

Passing Place HRO Transport Scotland

Extension of road HRO Transport Scotland

Car parking HRO Transport Scotland

2.4 Construction Details

2.4.1 Construction Details by Component

2.4.1.1 Introduction

This section details the components of the proposed development and how they will be constructed, based on

information provided by consulting Civil Engineers, Wallace Stone. General layout arrangements are

demonstrated on Figure 2.1 within Volume 2 of this EIAR.

2.4.1.2 Dredging, Earthworks and Preparatory Works

The preferred method of constructing the reclamation, breakwater and slipway is to make use of as much as

possible of the material dredged to form the entrance channel and marina basin, minimising the amount of

dredgings deposited at sea.

The method(s) to be used for dredging will not be not known until the contractor has been appointed. This EIA

has considered the various dredging options, as set out below, for the purpose of assessment. Where relevant,

this EIA assesses the impacts of all methods, or where applicable, the environmental ‘worst-case’ option.

Backhoe dredging



15

A backhoe dredger would be mounted on a barge within the basin. The dredged material would be deposited on

a separate barge which would transport the dredged material to the reclamation area.

Long reach backhoe dredging from a bund

This would involve building a bund of imported rock fill along the basin area with a conventional land-based

excavator. A long reach backhoe dredger would be located on the bund. The material thus won would be

transported by dumper truck, which would deposit material behind the retaining wall. An excavator then spreads

the material out over the reclamation area. Should this method be employed, the bund would be transported

around the basin as required once each area of excavation was complete.

Cutter suction dredger

In the deeper entrance channel area, and, most likely, the bulk of the dredge, it is expected that a small cutter

suction dredger would excavate in from the outside, pumping the uprisings directly by pipeline to the reclamation

area. Cutter suction dredging works by employing floating plant to break up and suck up material, delivering it

with water through a pipe to the reclamation area, behind a retaining wall. The material would settle out and

then be spread for use.

In all cases, unsuitable material will be stockpiled on site to allow it to drain and consolidate. Good quality

material will be placed and compacted to form the reclamation, the core of the sheltering breakwater, and the

core of the slipway. The main length, adjacent to the pontoons, will be supported by a reinforced concrete

retaining wall on a rock bund foundation.

Once the side slopes have been dressed to a suitable gradient, imported armour stone would be placed to protect

the core material from erosion. The reclaimed area would be formed by delivering dredge material next to the

final placement area and then grading it with an excavator. Pre-cast concrete units will be lowered into place by

crane to form a retaining wall around the outer edge of reclamation. The top of foundation is at +2.5m CD level,

with the foundation approximately 3m deep.

The total dredged volume in the entrance channel and marina basin is 100,000m³. While the exact volume

dredged by each of the methods outlined above is uncertain and would be clarified post-consent, it is anticipated

that all material dredged by the cutter suction dredger (up to 80,000m³), excavated by land-based plant (up to

50,000m³), and imported for the access bund and armouring (up to 15,000m³), will be re-used in the construction

of the new works. Ground investigation has confirmed that, with the exception of a band of soft silt at the lower

0.5m of the dredge, all the dredged material will be suitable for reclamation. The soft silt (estimated at up to

20,000m³) will be deposited at sea in the licensed disposal area to the east of Arnish Peninsula. The Best

Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) included with the dredge and disposal licence application sets out the

chemical testing which has been applied to the sediments, whilst Technical Appendix 8.1 contains details of the

geophysical characteristics of the dredge area.

It should be noted that the maximum duration that cutter suction dredging may be carried out at night is four

months, assuming that a combination of backhoe and cutter suction methods are used. If the cutter suction

method is solely used, the duration of night-time dredging is reduced to two months.

2.4.1.3 Marina Pontoons

The marina will be formed from a 100m long floating access walkway and three walkway legs, each around 60m

long and with finger pier berths on either side. With water depth of 3m at lowest tide, the berths will be able to

accommodate vessels up to 15m length. Smaller boats will berth on the shore side of the access walkway which

will be linked to the shore by a 24m long and 1.5m wide bridge. All walkways will be secured in place by vertical

cantilevered steel tube piles.



16

Services at the pontoon berths will include power, water and Wi-Fi. There will also be a collection point for

sewage waste, and for general waste. Supporting services will be provided on the reclamation.

2.4.1.4 Breakwater, Slipway and Boat Hoist

A 75m long and 20m wide rubble-mound breakwater to provide shelter for the proposed marina is proposed at

the western edge of the proposed development, with rock armoured revetted slopes on its western and eastern

perimeters. The breakwater would be constructed via the dumping and placing of imported rock, with plant

moving out progressively as the full height of the breakwater is achieved.

A concrete-surfaced slipway with a useable area of 50m in length and 8m in width is proposed. The overall width

of the slipway structure, including the rock armour revetments will vary between 10m and 25m. Maximum

dredge depth will remain at 3m below CD and taper to 1.5m below CD at site of the slipway. It would be used for

the launching and recovery of small boats from trailers, and provides additional slipway capacity for recreational

use in addition to the existing slipway at Cuddy Point. The sides would be rock armoured and revetted. Elements

below the mid-tide level would be provided via excavation and placement of precast concrete sections whilst

above the mid-tide level, in-situ concrete would be used. A line of pontoons is proposed along the east side of

the slipway to provide a temporary mooring for boats following launching. These pontoons will be secured to

steel stanchions fixed to the concrete slipway.

A boat hoist support structure is proposed, comprising two steel beams 30m long, 0.7m deep and 1.2m wide

supported on 10 steel bearing piles of 508mm in diameter, driven into the bed of the harbour, and protected on

its east side by a pontoon fender, to allow the use of a boat hoist to recover and launch vessels up to 80 tonnes

in weight

2.4.1.5 Reclamation Area, Levels, Drainage and Passing Place

The reclamation area would be accessed from the east of Goat Island via tarmac-surfaced bellmouths connecting

to the existing road. This area will provide boat storage for approximately 35 boats and 40 parking spaces for

marina users. The western part of the reclaimed area is intended as the site for the new boat

building/maintenance workshop, for which planning consent will be sought at a later date.

The reclamation area will be drained to the basin via the permeable surfacing. . The surface water drainage will

be designed to ensure that there are no untreated surface water discharges directly to surrounding coastal

waters. It is proposed to replicate natural drainage around construction areas and to use source control to deal

with rainwater in proximity to where it hits the ground in line with current SuDS guidance. The 110m2 passing

place to the north and bellmouth access points to the reclamation area would be drained by an impermeable

surfacing connected to existing road drainage. General drainage layout is demonstrated on Figure 2.3 within

Volume 2 of this EIAR. The reclamation area would be situated at levels of between 6.7m and 7.2m CD (9.41m

and 9.91m AOD), as demonstrated within the HRO documentation submitted as part of the consent application.

A foul drainage infrastructure will be installed and connected to the existing Scottish Water foul drainage

pumping station located on Goat Island. From this point, there is a Scottish Water sewer running under the

causeway.

During construction, measures will be put in place to avoid sediment being washed from the construction

compound and storage areas. Foul drainage from the site will either be contained in a closed system and disposed

of at a suitable off-site facility or directed via a temporary connection to the Scottish Water foul drainage system

(subject to the consent of Scottish Water).

Existing boat storage sheds and their associated guide rails on Goat Island would be removed, with two new

proposed boat sheds to be constructed upon the reclamation. The new sheds would be of approximately 12.5m

long and 5m wide and 6m in height (to the ridge), with corrugated roof, roof lights, and a 4.5m x 4m roller door.



17

2.4.1.6 Piling

Pontoon Anchor Piles

The pontoons will be secured in place by steel piles installed into sockets drilled into the bed material and grouted

in place. The work is expected to take around two weeks, with one or two piles installed per day, from a barge,

using an excavator adapted with specialist equipment.

The actual drilling of the socket and insertion of the pile normally takes no longer than 15 minutes, and is

preceded by lengthy preparation, accurate positioning, and pitching of the pile, and followed by bracing of the

pile exactly vertical, and grouting up the socket. There will be 15 piles, each 15.5m in length and 508mm in

diameter.

Boat Hoist Support Piles

The boat hoist structure consists of two parallel heavy beams, 10m apart, each supported on five steel tubular

piles, driven through the bed deposits to rock. It is expected that the lifting of these piles will be undertaken

using a heavy crane positioned at the edge of the reclamation and capable of reaching the outermost locations,

30m out from the shore.

Temporary works guides or a specialist barge may be used to support the piles as they are driven. Each pile will

first be driven as far as possible using a vibrating hammer. It will then be driven to refusal (indicating the

achievement of the required bearing capacity) using an impact hammer.

The work is programmed to occupy three weeks, but the actual driving of piles will only occur over a small fraction

of this time. For each pile, the vibro hammer is unlikely to be in use for longer than 10 minutes, and the impact

hammer no longer than 5 minutes.

As with the pontoon piles, the rest of the time will be occupied by installing and mooring temporary works, crane

and barge, careful positioning of each pile, and cutting off the distorted top section of the pile after driving. There

will be 10 piles in this operation, approximately 16m in length and 508mm in diameter. As with the pontoon

anchor piles, the noisy driving activities occupy a very small fraction of the overall piling operation, and is further

discussed within Chapter 5: Marine Ecology.

2.4.2 Construction Phasing

It is estimated that the marina development as described in 2.4.1 above would take 14 months to construct. The

proposed development will be indicatively phased as follows within Table 2.2. Any assumptions used within the

relevant assessments throughout this EIAR have also been included. Where timing is Month 1-3 for example, this

implies a 3 month construction period.

Table 2.2: Construction Phasing and Assumptions


Component

Timing Assumptions

Construct reinforced retaining wall

and foundations

Month 1-3 Assumed that work would be undertaken from

Monday morning (07.00) to Saturday lunchtime

(13.00), with potential for night-time working.

However within this time the actual construction

period would be determined by low tide, and

restricted to periods between 12.00 and 16.00



18


Component

Timing Assumptions

and 0.00 and 4.00 over a 4 day period, every 2

weeks.

Infill retention bunds Month 1-3 This would occur between the hours of 0.700 to

19.00 between Monday and Friday and until 13.00

on Saturday.

Dredging and Reclamation Month 4-7 The options outlined above within section 2.4.1.2

suggest that a combination of backhoe dredging

or cutter suction dredging may be used, with

backhoe dredging occurring from a land based

bund and cutter suction from the water. Cutter

suction would work 24 hours a day, whilst land

based bund dredging would operate between

07.00 and 20.00. The fill material would then be

compacted using vibrating rollers during daytime

hours.

It should be noted that the maximum duration

that cutter suction dredging may be carried out at

night is four months, assuming that a combination

of backhoe and cutter suction methods are

used. If the cutter suction method is solely used,

the duration of night-time dredging is reduced to

two months.

Construct breakwater Month 7-8 This would take place between 07.00 and 19.00

Monday to Friday and 07.00 to 13.00 on

Saturdays.

Construct access ramp (between

reclaimed land and existing SPA

slipway)

Month 8-9 This would take place between 07.00 and 18.00

Monday to Friday, and 07.00 to 13.00 on

Saturdays.

Place rock armouring (breakwater,

slipway and reclamation area)



Saturdays.

Piling Month 9-11 This would take place between 07.00 and 19.00


Saturdays.

Construct slipway Month 9-11 This is dependent upon tidal levels. Above mid-

tide level would occur 07.00 to 19.00 whilst below

mid-tide level work would be restricted to periods

between 12.00 and 16.00 and 0.00 and 4.00 over

a 4 day period, every 2 weeks.



19


Component

Timing Assumptions

Install drainage and sewage Month 10-11 This would take place between 07.00 and 18.00


Saturdays.

Construct dock structure / boat lift Month 12-13 This would take place between 07.00 and 18.00


Saturdays.

Construct pontoons Month 12 -13 This would take place between 07.00 and 18.00


Saturdays.

Surfacing of development

platform



Saturdays.

Installation of power, water and

wi-fi



Saturdays.

Services to pontoons Month 14 This would take place between 07.00 and 20.00


Saturdays.

Installation of replacement small

boatsheds



Saturdays.

The timings above have been used within assessments contained within Chapter 7: Noise and Chapter 9: Traffic

and Transport, along with other detailed assumptions which are referred to as appropriate within those chapters.

2.4.3 Cumulative Considerations

Cumulatively, the proposed development is the beginning of a series of proposed developments by the Applicant

which aim to realise the aspirations of previous Port Masterplans. The Applicant intends to subsequently apply

for consent for the following schemes:

Stornoway Deep Water Port, a large, new deep water port situated on the western shore of Stornoway

Bay for the purposes of attracting cruise vessels, decommissioning work and facilitating the wind

industry. This forms a cumulative consideration and is proposed to take up to 18 months to build. There

would likely be an element of delay incorporated into the commencement of the proposed

development and commencement of the Deep Water Port, and accordingly it is not anticipated that the

main dredging and piling activities would overlap;

Fish Processing Facility, Goat Island –This will be the subject of a separate planning application. This has

been considered cumulatively where appropriate (Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual, Chapter 7: Noise

and Chapter 8: Water, Coastal Processes and Soils). Construction is expected to take up to 12 months;

New Boatyard Building and other buildings on the Newton Marina reclamation – the boatyard building

is proposed to be approximately 16m in height above finished ground level; this development was



20

included in pre-application consultations for this application. As discussed within this EIAR, planning

permission will now be sought separately however assessment remains in situ of these buildings where

already undertaken, in order to provide an understanding of potential impacts. This is considered to

span up to 9 months to construct and would follow the construction of the marina itself, and therefore

impacts would be additive in nature.

In addition, Scottish & Southern Energy Networks have received planning permission in principle (CnES reference

16/00146) for the interconnector station at Arnish Point to facilitate the HVDC interconnector, exporting

electricity to the mainland and facilitating the renewables industry on the island. A building of up to 33m AOD

has been consented in principle. It is not known at the time of writing how, when detailed proposals for the

station will be taken forward, and indeed what the detailed timescales are for construction. Therefore, the SSE

interconnector station has been appraised within this EIAR in outline only, within Chapter 4: Landscape and

Visual.

Similarly, a seaweed processing factory has also been consented on Arnish Point (CnES reference 17/00340), for

which the cumulative considerations have been included within Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual. Timescales for

construction are also unknown at the time of writing.

2.5 Alternatives Considered and Design Evolution

The Marine EIA Regulations contain a requirement to look at alternatives considered in respect of decisions made

which are relevant to the design, siting and assessment of the proposed development.

2.5.1 Alternatives Considered

Alternative considerations can be multi-faceted, including alternative developments, alternative locations,

alternative development components and alternative construction methods, including a ‘do nothing’ scenario.

The below offers a synopsis of alternatives considered throughout the development process.

2.5.1.1 Do Nothing

Under a ‘do nothing’ scenario, environmental baseline would continue to develop upon current parameters, with

climate change forecasts bringing gradual increases in sea levels and marine mammal behaviour, with the visual

baseline maintaining the industrial appearance of Goat Island but with greater separation between Goat Island

and Newton Street (than ‘with development’). Socio-economic advantages as discussed within Chapter 10: Other

Issues would not be realised.

The ‘do nothing’ scenario was not considered a viable option within the EIA, given the need case for the proposed

development as highlighted within section 2.3.1.

2.5.1.2 Alternative Locations

During development of the 2017 Port Masterplan, consideration was given to locating the new public slipway

and associated facilities (such as the future water sports clubhouse) in the Upper Inner Harbour, at Bayhead,

next to the existing marina. This was rejected due to the low depth of water and lack of manoeuvring space at

Bayhead.

In terms of considerations regarding the location of the proposed development at Goat Island, it was considered

that expanding to the north (as opposed to the south) of Goat Island, whilst potentially developing the marina

closer to built development, would allow for a more natural sheltered marina and create less disruption during

construction to vessels using Stornoway Harbour.

Accordingly, no alternative location was considered viable and was considered within this EIAR.



21

2.5.1.3 Alternative Development Components and Methods

Design evolution has occurred throughout project inception, which allows examination of alternatives within

this. Key design changes or selected options include:

Disposal and re-use options;

Positioning of dredge area;

Timing of works;

Slipway design; and

Retaining wall design.

Disposal and Re-use

The excavation of up to 100,000m3 of excavated material has been derived from site investigation works carried

out by Causeway Geotechnical in April 2018, constituting a conservative estimate that 80% of material would be

re-used, with up to 20,000m3 to be disposed at a licenced facility. Design evolution of the scheme caused the

realignment of the entrance channel, in order to avoid a high area of bedrock projecting into the dredge.

The Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) appraisal was carried out as part of the dredge and disposal

Marine Licence. This discusses the available options for use of material. Several options were explored, such as

re-use elsewhere, beach nourishment, landfill disposal, recycling, land incineration, use for agriculture, and

aquatic disposal to the sea bed. Given the silty properties of the material, beach nourishment would not be

appropriate. There is no suitable dry dock or harbour nearby for infilling. The dredged material consists of non-

combustible material and therefore land incineration is not an option. To apply the material to agricultural land

would require detailed chemical analysis and treatment, and the availability of land is limited within a reasonable

haulage distance. Therefore, the most environmentally and commercially viable option is to re-use the material

within the reclamation and dispose of any surplus to licenced facility HEO035 south of Stornoway Harbour.

Timing of Works

To represent the worst case scenario, the cumulative scenario of multiple developments being constructed and

operational at Goat Island as well as the proposed Deep Water Port has been applied. However following an

iterative approach to the assessment of noise-generated activities, the Applicant has agreed that no concurrent

dredging works would be scheduled where activities occur both at the proposed development and the Deep

Water Port to protect the amenity of local residents.

Slipway Design

Feedback on the design of the slipway was received during the pre-application consultation. Consultees

requested that the slipway be widened due to the anticipated pattern of use by the water sports clubs. As a

result, the width was increased from 5m to 8m. In addition, consultees identified a need for facilities to moor

boats immediate after launching and prior to recovery. This has been addressed by addition of pontoons to the

east of the slipway.

Retaining wall design

Wallace Stone, consulting engineers, took the decision to incorporate a change from a sloping edge protected

with armour stone to a concrete retaining wall, resulting in less need for imported armour stone, and hence

fewer HGV movements.

Addition of boat hoist structure

The initial proposal was for the new slipway to be wide enough to accommodate a boat hoist, which would travel

into the water to remove boats for winter storage or maintenance. This would have required a slipway with a



22

useable width of 20m. The design was changed to include a boat hoist structure on the grounds that this would

be safer in operational terms than taking a hoist onto a slip



23

3 CHAPTER 3: EIA METHODOLOGY AND SCOPING

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of an EIA is to identify and evaluate the likely significant effects of a proposed development on the

environment and to identify measures to mitigate or manage any significant adverse effects before a planning

application is determined. The EIA process provides an opportunity to ‘design out’ adverse effects wherever

possible. Where adverse effects cannot be designed out, mitigation measures can be proposed to avoid,

compensate or reduce significant environmental effects to an acceptable level. EIA is an iterative process which

allows feedback from stakeholder consultation and the results from baseline studies to be fed into the design

process of the proposed development.

In determining the requirement for an EIA, Schedule 1 of the Marine EIA Regulations sets out the types of

development for which EIA is a mandatory requirement, whilst Schedule 2 lists the projects where the need for

EIA is judged on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether a proposal is likely to cause significant

environmental effects or is located in a sensitive area as defined by the EIA Regulations.

In this instance, the proposed development is considered to constitute Schedule 2 development as defined by

the Marine EIA Regulations as it falls under Part 10, Regulation 2 (1) “Construction of harbours and port

installations including fishing harbours, where the area of work exceeds 1 hectare”. Regulation 12(a) specifies

marinas with “the area of the enclosed water surface exceed(ing) 1000 m²” as being Schedule 2 development.

By virtue of its nature, size and location, the proposed development could potentially have (if unmitigated)

significant adverse effects on the environment.. Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations specifies the information that

should be included in an EIAR, and this chapter discusses where and how the EIAR meets the requirements of

the EIA Regulations and the scoping exercise.

3.2 General EIA Methodology

Whilst each environmental topic discussed within the EIAR establishes its own methodology based upon good

practice and relevant industry guidance, there is a basic methodological frame which is applied to EIA chapters.

This EIAR identifies, describes and assesses the likely significant impacts and their effects of the proposed

development on the environment, both direct and indirect. The EIA process involves the following key stages:

Baseline studies – identification of existing environmental conditions through review of existing

information, monitoring and field studies as required, to provide a baseline against which to assess the

likely impacts of the proposed development;

Potential impacts – identification of potential impacts or change and the resulting effects across the

construction and operational phase (although decommissioning is specified in the EIA Regulations, it is

inappropriate to the proposed development), in relation to the design mitigation already implemented

and where applicable, taking alternatives into account;

Significance Assessment – evaluation of the effects, resulting from identified potential impacts, to

determine their significance, both positively and negatively, and incorporating cumulative effects; and

Residual Effects – identification of residual effects assuming successful implementation of mitigation.

For consistency where possible, the same headings have been used within the technical sections of this EIAR.



24

3.3 EIA Regulations 2017

As the proposed development is seeking consent under both multiple consenting regimes, and the Scoping

process was commenced after the date the new Regulations were adopted (16th May 2017), the 2017 Regulations

supersede the 2011 Regulations across all elements of this project.

Following guidance set out in the Scottish Government’s Planning Advice Note 1/2017, this EIAR follows the

amendments and additions to the EIA Regulations. Notable additions to the EIA Regulations include:

The requirement for the EIA to be based upon the Scoping Opinion which was provided (Regulation

5(3));

A requirement to consider a comparison of environmental effects when considering alternatives

(Regulation 5(2) (d));

A replacement of the environmental factors to be considered as been amended from ‘human being’ to

‘population and human health’, and ‘flora and fauna’ replaced by ‘biodiversity’ (Schedule 4(4)).

Discussion of the relevant baseline and predicted evolution of that baseline in the absence of the

proposed development (Schedule 4(3));

Cumulative assessment should take place in relation to existing and/or approved development

(Schedule 3(1)(b)); and

The requirement for a Competent Authority to include a ‘reasoned conclusion’ on the significant effects

upon the environment within the Decision Notice published (Regulation 29(2)).

This EIAR discusses each of these points in turn within the relevant assessments, where applicable. It is the aim

of the EIAR to allow sufficient information to allow both Competent Authorities to meet a ‘reasoned conclusion’

on the significance of effects.

3.4 The EIA Process

3.4.1 Sensitivity/Importance of Receptors

The sensitivity of the baseline conditions/receptors was defined according to the relative importance of existing

environmental features on or in the vicinity of the site, or by the sensitivity of receptors which would potentially

be affected by the proposed development.

Criteria for the determination of sensitivity (e.g. high, medium or low) or of importance (e.g. international,

national, regional or authority area) were established for each topic assessment based on prescribed guidance,

legislation, statutory designation and/or professional judgement. The criteria for each environmental parameter

are provided in the relevant specialist chapters of this EIAR and may differ between technical topics dependent

upon guidance which defines that approach (e.g. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental

Management).

3.4.2 Magnitude of Impact/Change

The methods for predicting the nature and magnitude of potential impacts vary according to the subject area.

Quantitative methods of assessment can predict values that can be compared against published thresholds and

indicative criteria in Government guidance and standards. However, it is not always possible to ascribe values to

environmental assessments and therefore qualitative assessments are sometimes used. Such assessments rely

on previous experience and professional judgement. The methodologies used for assessing each topic area are

described within the specialist chapters of this EIAR.



25

In general terms, the magnitude of impact on environmental baseline conditions was identified through detailed

consideration of the proposed development, taking due cognisance of any legislative or policy standards or

guidelines, and/or the following factors:

The degree to which the environment is affected, e.g. whether the quality is enhanced or impaired;

The scale or degree of change from the existing situation;

Whether the impact is temporary or permanent, indirect or direct, short-term, medium-term or long-

term; and

Any in-combination effects and potential cumulative effects.

In some cases the likelihood of impact occurrence may also be relevant and, where this is a determining feature

of the assessment, this is clearly stated.

3.4.3 Significance of Effect

Significant effects are predicted where important resources, or numerous or sensitive receptors, could be subject

to impacts of considerable magnitude. Effects are unlikely to be significant where low value or non-sensitive

resources are subject to minor effects.

The criteria for determining the significance of an effect has been developed giving due regard to the following,

where applicable;

Sensitivity, importance or value of the resource or receptor;

Extent and magnitude and duration of the impact; and

Performance against environmental quality standards.

The criteria and assessment methodology used for each topic considered within this EIAR are set out within the

‘Methodology’ section of the respective EIAR chapter.

Unless otherwise stated, reported effects are considered to be adverse. It is however possible that some effects

may be positive and these are stated and explained where appropriate.

The EIAR reports on the significance of the environmental effects as per the EIA Regulations. Although a

significant effect does not always have to equate to an unacceptable effect, in order to ensure impartiality the

EIAR does not comment on acceptability. The Planning Statement which accompanies this application (but is

separate to the EIA process) makes a judgement on the acceptability of significant effects.

3.4.4 Design Mitigation and Residual Mitigation

There is a widely accepted strategy for mitigation outlined in Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2013 (and continued

within Planning Circular 1/2017) which has been followed when considering the environmental effects of the

proposed development. This comprises (in order of preference): avoidance, reduction and offsetting. Through

the evolution of the design, the Applicant has sought to identify appropriate mitigation measures and strategies

as part of the proposed development.

Design mitigation is integral to providing an environmentally robust development whereby suggestions for

mitigation have been taken into the design by SPA prior to ‘design freeze’. This in-built mitigation represents,

where applicable, environmental good practice and places a responsibility upon the Applicant to provide

environmentally sustainable design solutions. Design rationale is further discussed within a section within each

EIAR chapter that comments on design mitigation incorporated into the development, and therefore individual

assessments, before assessment is carried out. Therefore, where design mitigation has been employed, the



26

impact assessment is carried out with this design mitigation in place as it forms a constituent part of the proposed

development. Residual effects are generally then the effects that follow the assessment of proposed

development with design incorporated.

Where complete avoidance of significant effects was not feasible during refinement of the site design, additional

measures are identified in the relevant specialist chapters to reduce or offset effects where practical to do so. If

no design mitigation has been identified, the assessment assumes no design mitigation and therefore effects are

prior to any mitigation.

Residual effects of the proposed development are those that remain, assuming successful implementation of the

identified mitigation measures. All remaining effects of the proposed development, following the application of

mitigation measures, are summarised clearly and their significance stated, within the ‘Residual Effects’ section

of each specialist chapter.

Where applicable, the EIAR also reports measures for enhancement which would be enshrined by

planning/marine licence condition.

3.4.5 Cumulative Impact Assessment

Consideration of cumulative effects is a requirement of the EIA Regulations. By definition these are effects that

result from incremental changes caused by past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions together with the

proposed development. There are different types of cumulative effects (such as in-combination and sequential

effects) and typically cumulative impact assessment is a key part of the EIA process which are assessed

throughout each chapter. The developments which are incorporated into cumulative assessment are clearly

highlighted within each technical chapter.

Cumulative assessment was discussed within the EIA Scoping Opinions issued by CnES and Marine Scotland. At

the time of Scoping Report preparation, it was unknown whether or not the Deep Water Port and Newton Marina

sites would come forward together simultaneously. However, it is now accepted that both sites will come into

the consenting system at the same time and accordingly, this EIAR includes cumulative consideration of the

proposed development at Deep Water Port where applicable. Details of proposed phasing for both sites is

included within Chapter 2: Proposed Development. It must be noted that as this EIAR, as well as that for the

other concurrent scheme promoted by the Applicant, the Deep Water Port, comprise documents which support

planning permission in principle, then exact construction dates cannot be accurately determined. Where

applicable, for example within Chapter 5: Marine Ecology and Chapter 7: Noise, the EIAR takes a precautionary

approach assuming that impacts of both schemes will interact with each other unless otherwise stated.

In addition to the Deep Water Port, any cumulative effects of the proposed new Fish Processing Factory (to

replace that already existing on Goat Island, and being promoted separately by the Applicant) have been

incorporated into Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual and Chapter 7: Noise. As previously mentioned, assessments

also incorporate those proposed elements on top of the reclamation for which consent is not being sought at

this time, for example the boatyard building and watersports clubhouse which appear within Chapter 4:

Landscape and Visual, and associated figures within Volume 2.

3.5 Scoping as part of the EIA Process

Schedule 1 of the Marine EIA Regulations lists developments for which an EIA must be undertaken where there

are likely to be significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as the nature, size or location of

a proposed development. Given the size and scale of the proposed development, the Applicant made the

decision to voluntarily bypass EIA Screening and instead move directly to EIA Scoping.



27

The sections below therefore sets out the EIA Scoping process and accordingly documents how the EIAR was

shaped into what is currently included and offers rationale to why other topics have been excluded, based on

the likelihood of likely potential significant effects.

3.6 Scoping Requests and Opinions

3.6.1 Requests and Responses

As discussed previous within this EIAR, consultation and Scoping Responses were sought from CnES, Marine

Scotland and Transport Scotland prior to the decision to omit those elements requiring planning consent.

Therefore, where applicable and as it contains relevant baseline for future potential uses, discussion and

assessment relating to CnES’ Scoping Opinion has been left in situ within this EIAR.

A request for a formal Scoping Opinion was submitted to CnES on 1st September 2017 under Part 10 (g),

Regulation 2(1) of the TCPA EIA Regulations. This was accompanied by an EIA Scoping Report provided to assist

the Council and statutory and non-statutory consultees to form an opinion upon the likelihood of potentially

significant environmental effects and hence the topics to be assessed in the EIA (i.e. those topics where

significant environmental effects could potentially result if unmitigated). The Scoping Report also provided an

opportunity for consultees to comment upon suggested methodologies for technical assessment.

A Scoping Opinion was provided by CnES dated 3rd November 2017 and is included within Technical Appendix

3.1 of this EIAR. A further Scoping Request was submitted to Marine Scotland and Transport Scotland on 14th

December 2017 in respect of those elements of the proposed development being carried out below Mean Low

Water Springs (MLWS) and therefore within the jurisdiction of those authorities in respect of marine licencing

and Harbour Revision Order (HRO). A marine-based Scoping Opinion was provided by Marine Scotland on 9th

March 2018 and is also included within Technical Appendix 3.1 within Volume 3 of this EIAR.

As a HRO will be sought under the Harbours Act 1964 (“the 1964 Act”), a Screening Opinion was also required

from Transport Scotland under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of the 1964 Act. Transport Scotland, on behalf of the

Scottish Ministers, deemed that the proposed development falls within paragraph 8(b) of Annex 1 to the

Directive 2011/92/EU (as amended) and therefore EIA is required. Transport Scotland also issued a ‘deferral

direction’ under paragraph 20D of Schedule 3 of the 1964 Act which requests that Marine Scotland act as the

Competent Authority in matters related to the Miscellaneous EIA Regulations.

The primary issues addressed throughout the Scoping Responses from both CnES and Marine Scotland are set

out within Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 below, along with discussion of where these issues have been addressed, or

where applicable why they have been Scoped out of the EIA. Table 3.1 discusses wider EIA implications, whilst

Table 3.2 directs the reader to where technical issues have been addressed. Where the same issue has been

raised by more than one consultation body, it has only been referred to once in order to avoid duplication.

Further information is available within each technical chapter regarding where this information is held within

that chapter.



28

Table 3.1: Summary of Scoping Responses – general EIA considerations

Environmental

Topic

Organisation Scoping comment How and where addressed?

General EIA Issues / Engineering

Phasing CnES Details of the proposed phasing of other

port masterplan projects should be

included in the EIA. This will inform the

extent to which cumulative assessment

with other projects is required to be

addressed within any particular EIA

report.

The proposed development

takes cognisance of other

elements of the SPA

masterplan being taken

forward simultaneously.

Details on the approach used

in the cumulative

assessment is contained

within section 3.4.5 of this

chapter.

Regulatory

regimes

CnES We ask that the EIA report include clear guidance setting out which elements of the project are covered by each of the regulatory regimes.

Chapter 3: Proposed

Development delineates

project features into each

regulatory regime.

Alternatives CnES The EIA Regulations requires all EIA

Reports to include information on the

main alternatives studied and an

indication of the main reasons for

choosing the selected option, with

reference to the environmental effects.

Chapter 3: Proposed

Development explores

project alternatives

including options regarding

dredging, piling,

disposal/treatment, and

micro-siting.

The location of the proposed

development was

considered during the

development of the

Applicant’s 2017 Port Master

Plan.

Cumulative

development

CnES A scoping report has been received for the other proposed development (the Deep Water Port), so it is assumed these two projects will be taken forward first and there is potential for overlap. If it is determined that there will be overlap, the EIA should include an assessment of the cumulative impact of the Project with other planned developments. Details of the proposed phasing of these two projects, and assumptions for other port masterplan projects, should be included in the EIA. Existing industry on Goat Island, in particular the Fish

Cumulative impact has been

considered within each

specialist chapter as

appropriate, with the

overview of cumulative

approach contained within

section 3.4.5.

All chapters note cumulative

impact where applicable

regarding the interaction

with the proposed

development.



29

Environmental

Topic

Organisation Scoping comment How and where addressed?

Processing Facility (Young’s Seafood), should be included within assessments for noise, ecology, and marine safety. Cumulative assessment should include marine activity as well as land-based.

Dredge

material

Marine

Scotland / SEPA

SEPA note that detail is required on the

disposal options of waste generated, and

what alternatives are available to

minimise dredging works. Not all dredge

material will be used to infill the land

reclamation, and in order to minimise the

potential effects, the applicant should

consider the following:

Sediment contamination;

Correct disposal of hazardous waste;

Storage of chemicals and hydrocarbons in secondary containment;

Adequate spill response equipment on site;

Installation of adequate surface water management facilities;

Regular maintenance to be undertaken on equipment; and

Designated wash down areas for concrete contamination and tools.

Chapter 8: Water

Environment, Soils and

Coastal Processes contains

discussion of waste disposal

options, in conjunction with

the Best Practicable

Environmental Option

(BPEO) assessment required

as part of the marine

licencing process. Mitigation

is provided within this

chapter which allows good

practice measures to be

secured by the

implementation of a

Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP),

likely secured by planning

condition.

Subject-specific comments are included within Table 3.2 as per the below. Full descriptions and rationale for how

and where the comments are addressed are contained within the relevant EIAR chapter.

Table 3.2: Subject-specific Scoping issues

Environmental

topic

Consultee(s) Issues raised / discussed Where Addressed

Landscape and

visual

CnES Construction impacts, approach to

Stornoway Harbour, viewpoint

selection regarding Stornoway

Conservation Area.

Chapter 4: Landscape and

Visual discusses full

methodology and discussions

with CnES regarding landscape

and visual viewpoint selection.

Marine Ecology CnES, SNH, Marine

Scotland, Outer

Hebrides Fisheries

Trust

Impacts upon candidate SAC and

proposed Marine Protection Area,

Otters, underwater noise impacts

upon cetaceans and seals,

Chapter 5: Marine Ecology and

associated Technical

Appendices 5.1 to 5.6 within



30

Environmental

topic

Consultee(s) Issues raised / discussed Where Addressed

underwater physical impacts, fish

and birds.

Volume 3 of this EIAR discuss

these issues in full.

Cultural Heritage CnES and HES Elements considered included

marine archaeology, relevant

mitigation protocols, and setting in

relation to Stornoway Conservation

and Lews Castle Listed Building,

and its designated gardens.

Chapter 6: Cultural Heritage

and Archaeology discusses the

impacts upon the cultural

heritage and archaeological

resources in Stornoway and

the direct area, whilst

referring to the visualisations

produced for the landscape

and visual assessment also.

Noise CnES Sensitive receptors should be

incorporated into construction and

operational assessment.

Chapter 7: Noise deals with

terrestrial noise in relation to

impacts upon residential and

other sensitive receptors.

Water, Soils and

Coastal

Processes

CnES, SEPA, Marine

Scotland

Impacts and proposals for surface

water and foul drainage, impacts

upon freshwater, pollution

impacts, Scottish water assets,

flood risk, soils, water

management, wave modelling and

coastal geomorphology were all

raised as items to consider within

the EIAR.

Chapter 8: Water, Soils and

Coastal Processes of the EIAR

and the associated Technical

Appendices discuss these

items in full.

Traffic and

Transport

CnES CnES raised issues surrounding

construction effects, car parking,

and route capacity.

These issues are scoped in and

are dealt with within Chapter

9: Traffic and Transport.

Other Issues CnES, Marine

Scotland, Maritime

Coastguard

Agency, Royal

Yachting

Association,

Northern

Lighthouse Board

Issues raised within Scoping

included scoping out air quality,

navigational safety, recreational

use, climate change, population

and human health, and major

accidents and disasters.

Chapter 10: Other Issues,

scopes out air quality and

natural disasters and discusses

those other topics raised.

3.7 Final Content and Structure of the EIA Report

Accordingly based on the above summary of consultation responses and initial baseline collection, it was possible

to complete the EIA with a clear focus on the main topics requiring full and detailed impact assessment. These

topics are listed below and this Volume contains a chapter for each:

Landscape and Visual;



31

Marine Ecology;

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology;

Noise;

Water, Soils and Coastal Processes;

Traffic and Transport; and

Other Issues.

For clarity, air quality and ornithology have been scoped out of EIA assessment, with it being assumed that any

air quality related (non-significant) impacts could be secured by condition at the post-consent stage.

The chapters which are scoped in are supported by technical assessment reports where necessary and which

comprise Volume 3: Technical Appendices of the EIAR. Those environmental topics which are not considered at

EIA level given the either the level of project information available at this stage, or based upon an unlikely event

of significant effects, are included for information within Chapter 10: Other Issues. This includes discussion of

human health and population, recreation, socio-economics, navigation and utilities.

The EIAR also contains chapters on the schedule of mitigation associated with the EIA (Chapter 11: Schedule of

Mitigation) and a brief chapter (Chapter 12: Conclusions) which summarises the EIA and contains a statement of

significance.



32

4 CHAPTER 4: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL

4.1 Introduction

This Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) Chapter sets out a Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment (LVIA) of the Newton Marina project [‘the proposed development’]. It considers the likely significant

effects during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development, as described in detail

within Chapter 2: Proposed Development, on the landscape and visual resources of the site and surrounding

study area. The LVIA has been undertaken by Douglas Harman Landscape Planning (DHLP). Douglas Harman is a

sole practitioner and Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute (CMLI).

For the purposes of the EIAR it should be noted that in the interests of demonstrating the full future extent of

effects within this EIAR chapter, potential development components which would be subject to planning

application(s) in the future i.e. the Boatyard Workshop and Watersports Clubhouse; are not seeking permission

at this time but have been accounted for within this EIA.

As an overview, the objectives of this chapter are to:

provide a summary description of the scoping and consultation responses relating to landscape and

visual issues;

identify the main landscape related policy, legislation and guidance;

describe the assessment methodology and significance criteria used to inform the assessment process;

identify and assess the landscape, coastal and visual baseline conditions;

identify and evaluate the potential landscape, coastal and visual effects, including direct, indirect and

cumulative, based on the worst case parameters as currently known;

identify broad design principles for subsequent project development and other mitigation measures

that may be appropriate to address likely residual significant effects; and

evaluate any residual effects remaining, following the implementation of any further mitigation

measures suggested.

This LVIA has been informed by a desk-based analysis of existing data and other information gathered through a

comprehensive field survey. Based on a 5 km study area, as illustrated on Figure 4.1 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, the

assessment identifies the baseline against which the effects of the proposed development are assessed, and

concentrates on predicting the likely significant effects during the operational phase.

Although inter-related, landscape effects are assessed separately to the effects on views and visual amenity.

Landscape effects consider the fabric, character and quality of the site and surrounding landscape and are

concerned with:

landscape elements (e.g. hedgerows, trees and woodlands);

landscape character (local and regional distinctiveness); and

special interests (e.g. designations, conservation areas and cultural associations).

As part of the landscape assessment, a focused coastal assessment is also provided. Coastal character is made

up of the often narrow margin of the coastal edge, its immediate hinterland, and the sea. These three key

components of coastal character include what is commonly known as ‘seascape’.

Visual effects are primarily concerned with the changes in people’s views through intrusion or obstruction and

whether important opportunities to enjoy views may be improved or reduced.



33

To inform the assessment, the following figures (see Volume 2 of this EIAR) are referenced throughout this

chapter:

Figure 4.1: Study Area;

Figure 4.2: Landscape Character;

Figure 4.3: Coastal Character;

Figure 4.4: Designations;

Figure 4.5: Recreational Routes;

Figure 4.6: Zone of Theoretical Visibility;

Figure 4.7: Viewpoints with Zone of Theoretical Visibility;

Figure 4.8: Landscape Character with Zone of Theoretical Visibility;

Figure 4.9: Coastal Character with Zone of Theoretical Visibility;

Figure 4.10: Designations with Zone of Theoretical Visibility;

Figure 4.11: Recreational Routes with Zone of Theoretical Visibility; and

Figures 4.12 – 4.33: Viewpoint Annotations.

4.2 Scoping and Consultation

The Scoping Report identified the need for an assessment of landscape and visual effects as part of an EIAR to

accompany the planning application. Responses to the Scoping Report and other consultations undertaken as

part of this process are summarised in Table 4.1. All comments referring to the proposed viewpoint selection

have also been taken into account when identifying the final viewpoint locations (see Table 4.13).

Table 4.1: Summary of Consultation Responses

Organisation Consultation Response How and where addressed

SNH Within the formal Scoping Response, SNH stated

that:

“In our view the proposed development does not

raise any concerns with regard to landscape impacts

of national importance. In addition the report

correctly identifies there are no landscape

designations on site (or likely to be affected to be

affected by the development). The report

recommends that a LVIA is undertaken as part of an

EIA. We welcome that commitment as a matter of

best practice for a development of this nature

however we have no comment to make on it focus.

The methodology proposed looks to be appropriate.”

No specific action required although in

suggesting viewpoint locations, further

subsequent consultation with SNH was

undertaken (see below).

In addition to consultation on the Scoping Report,

SNH were consulted via email on 9th March 2018

regarding the suitability of seven proposed

viewpoint locations.

In response, SNH note that CnES are best placed to

advise on the suitability of viewpoint locations and

on considering CnES’s response (see below), SNH

have nothing further to add.

All further viewpoint consultation was

undertaken with CnES (see below).



34


Comhairle

nan Eilean

Siar (CnES)

CnES stated within the formal Scoping Response

that:

a) “It is agreed that a Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment based on the site and immediate

surroundings should be scoped into the EIA, using

the methodology and guidance identified.

b) The proposal site is not within any areas

designated for its landscape value. Although the

development is likely to have a degree of adverse

landscape and visual impact during its

construction, the construction impacts are

accepted as transitionary and the EIA focus

should be to ensure that through careful design

of the various elements that there will be no

significant long term landscape or visual impacts.

c) It is recommended that in addition to the ‘key

views and visual receptors’ identified in the

scoping report that fuller consideration is given

to the importance of the approach to Stornoway

Harbour. It is a key gateway to the islands, where

a significant amount of residents and visitors

arrive by ferry. The Deep Water Port at Arnish will

form a major component of their ‘first

impression’ of Stornoway, the Isle of Lewis and

the wider Outer Hebrides. It is recommended that

consideration is given to the views from the ferry

on approach and from the ferry terminal as a

viewpoint.

d) A ZTV will identify key viewpoints in the wider

landscape. It is suggested that a small number of

viewpoints are identified within the Stornoway

Conservation Area and in particular the Castle

Grounds.”

a) In undertaking an assessment of the

landscape surrounding the site, a

study area of 5 km has been

selected to ensure that all

characteristics associated with the

site’s surroundings have been

adequately considered.

b) Although effects during the

construction phase are identified

(see Section 4.6.6), in order to

minimise any long-term adverse

effects, the assessment focuses on

the landscape and visual effects

during the operational phase (see

Section 4.6.7) and the associated

iterative design process (see Section

4.6,2).

c) As part of the detailed assessment,

boat work was undertaken to

identify a viewpoint from the route

of the ferry that represent the worst

case views of visitors to the

harbour. From the harbour side, a

viewpoint is also located on South

Beach and further one at the ferry

terminal.

d) Prior to the field assessment, a ZTV

analysis was undertaken (see Figure

4.6 within Volume 2 of this EIAR) to

aid the identification of the

viewpoints. Within the Stornoway

Conservation Area, three

viewpoints have been selected,

including two from within the

grounds of Lews Castle Garden and

Designed Landscape.

In addition to consultation on the Scoping Report,

CnES were consulted via email on 9th March 2018

regarding the suitability of seven proposed

viewpoint locations.

In response, CnES suggested that proposed

viewpoints 1-5 (see Table 4.13) were suitable

locations to include within the assessment. The

location of viewpoint 6 (Newmarket) should be

reconsidered and given the screening of intervening

buildings, a suggested viewpoint on Lewis Street did

not merit inclusion.

On undertaking further field survey, it

was agreed with CnES (via email on the

1st May, 2018) that the following

viewpoints should be included in the

assessment:

frontage of Lews Castle;

Ferry terminal;

Lewis War Memorial;

lolaire Monument car park; and

Sandwick bay.



35


Other viewpoints that CnES suggested be

considered were:

frontage of Lews Castle;

Lady Matheson’s Monument;

Goathill road;

Pier No.1;

lolaire Monument/car park;

ferry terminal roundabout;

Newton road parking bays;

ferry terminal car park;

Sandwick Cemetery; and

Lewis War Memorial.

4.3 Policy, Legislation and Guidance

4.3.1 Landscape Policy Context

As detailed in the Planning Statement of the EIAR, the development plan relevant to this application consists of

The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (2012). The emerging Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2 is

currently undergoing examination by Scottish Ministers and there is a Notice to Adopt, with the LDP2 likely to be

adopted formally in Autumn 2018.

A key objective of the current plan is to ensure ‘an attractive place enjoyed by residents and visitors where our

outstanding natural, built and cultural heritage is valued’. As part of this, the plan notes the following context to

landscape policy:

the landscapes of the Outer Hebrides are a valuable resource for our island communities, shaping the

distinctiveness and identity of place, the cultural heritage and the quality of people’s everyday lives;

encompassing some of Scotland’s most scenic images, they are a unique asset and offer a competitive

advantage in an international market place;

as a critical element of the ‘tourism product’ they underpin a growth industry for the islands and the

contribution they make to the wider economy is being increasingly recognised and valued;

the Plan has a key role to play in managing change in the landscape whilst maintaining and enhancing

distinctive character landscapes; and

by integrating landscape considerations with wider economic development aspirations, the Plan can

proactively support development that will contribute to sustainable economic growth.

The policy framework sets out criteria in which to assess the landscape acceptability of the proposed

development. In the context of wider social and economic policy, key landscape considerations are identified as:

development proposals must demonstrate a satisfactory quality of siting, scale and design that respects

and reflects the characteristics of the surroundings; and

development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local

area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained.



36

4.3.2 Policy Guidance

In addressing landscape policy, the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (Richards, 1998) describes in

detail the key characteristics that make the landscape of the Outer Hebrides distinctive. The local plan notes that

the consideration of landscape character by an applicant should inform and direct a proposal so that it can be

sited and designed to best relate to the character of the landscape. When considering a development proposal,

it is recommended that reference is made to the full Western Isles LCA report.

4.4 Methodology

4.4.1 Approach and Guidance

This LVIA follows the approach as set out in the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA)2

and other current best practice guidance where relevant3. It aims to identify, predict and evaluate the key effects

of the proposed development on the landscape and visual resources of the study area. In line with best practice,

landscape and visual effects are considered separately throughout.

As a brief overview, the assessment involved a combination of desk study, computer analysis, field work and

interpretation using professional judgement. The site and surrounding area have been visited to gain a clear

understanding of the landscape and the likely effects of the proposed development. Fieldwork was undertaken

during periods of good visibility during February and April of 2018, by a Chartered Member of the Landscape

Institute.

4.4.2 The Study Area and Viewpoint Selection

To ensure the extent of any potential significant effects are fully considered, the assessment is based on a 5 km

study area. In selecting assessment viewpoints, a map showing the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV), based on

computer manipulation of a digital terrain model, was prepared. This indicates areas from which the proposed

development may theoretically be seen and enabled the assessment to be focused upon those locations that are

most likely to be affected.

The ZTV, as illustrated on Figure 4.6 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, is based solely on topography (5 m contours) and

identifies the maximum theoretical visibility of the proposed development. When interpreting the ZTV, it is

important to bear the following points in mind:

the map is based on the potential visibility of a proposed boat workshop building at 15.6 m to ridge

height which taking into account ground levels, is 19.7 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) or 18.0 m Above

Chart Datum (ACD). The ZTV also illustrates the potential visibility of moored boats within the proposed

marina, based on an indicative mast height of 20 m AOD;

the ZTV does not consider visibility of other proposed infrastructure such as the breakwater, pontoons,

clubhouse, business units and boat hoist as these elements have a lower profile than the boat workshop

building and boat masts. By basing the ZTV on the tallest indicative components therefore, the model

is based on the worst case visibility of the proposed development;

the map does not account for any screening effects provided by vegetation, buildings or minor

landforms, which are not contained within the digital terrain model;

2 Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2013), ‘The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, version 3’ 3 Countryside Agency and SNH (2002), ‘Landscape Character Assessment Guidance for England and Scotland’ 3 SNH (2017) ‘Guidance Note – Coastal Character Assessment’



37

the map does not take the orientation of the viewer into account, for example when travelling in a

vehicle; and

the map does not convey the likely nature or magnitude of visual effects of the proposed development,

which can only be determined by further assessment, including fieldwork.

As a result, the visibility shown on the ZTV map is more extensive than would actually be visible on the ground,

but where the ZTV indicates no visibility, the proposed boat workshop building and/or boat masts would not be

seen.

The viewpoints used for this assessment (see Figure 4.7 and Table 4.13) were selected according to the criteria

set out in the best practice guidance4 where relevant. Note that not all these criteria necessarily apply to all

viewpoints:

publicly accessible;

reasonably high potential number of viewers or being of particular significance to the viewer(s) affected;

range of viewing distances (i.e. short, medium and long distance views) and elevations;

range of viewing experiences (i.e. static views, for example from settlements, recognised viewpoints,

car parks or points along sequential views, for example from roads, walking and cycling routes);

range of view types, (e.g. panoramas, glimpses);

views with different extents of the development visible; and

locations with potential cumulative views of the proposed development and other relevant

developments.

The viewpoints have been selected to offer the clearest view within the vicinity of the chosen point where

potentially significant effects are likely to occur. Viewpoints have been excluded where the ZTV indicates that

the proposed development would not be visible, or where the viewpoint is too distant for any potentially

significant effects to occur. The viewpoint selection has been informed by extensive field work and subsequently

refined through consultation with CnES5. The final list of viewpoints used to inform this LVIA are listed in Table

4.13.

4.4.3 Landscape Resources

Landscape resources within the study area that could be affected by the proposed development include:

physical resources, such as landform, landcover, tracks, watercourses, etc.;

landscape character types;

landscape designations i.e. Lews Castle Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL); and

other recreational, natural or cultural heritage interests that contribute to landscape character.

The landscape baseline (see Section 4.5) establishes the physical components of the landscape that may be

directly affected by the proposed development (i.e. those within the site), as well as the landscape resources

within the wider study area from which the proposed development could be visible. The ZTV analysis and field

assessment studies have been used to check the potential visibility of the landscape resources within the study

area.

4.4.4 Coastal Character

In addition to landscape character, this LVIA also provides an assessment of coastal character. Coastal character

is made up of the often narrow margin of the coastal edge, its immediate hinterland, and the sea. These three

4 SNH (2017), ‘Visual Representation of Wind Farms, Good Practice Guidance’ 5 Email correspondence received from Morag Ferguson (26/03/2018 and 01/05/2018)



38

key components of coastal character include what is commonly known as ‘seascape’ which refers to “an area, as

perceived by people, from land, sea or air, where the sea is a key element of the physical environment” (Council

of Europe, 2000). ‘Seascape’ is a widely used term which is included in the definition of landscape within the

European Landscape Convention.

In describing coastal character, there is no published report (similar to the Western Isles Landscape Character

Assessment) on which to base this assessment on. In addressing this, a local assessment has been undertaken

specifically for this LVIA, based on best practice guidance6.

In understanding coastal character, the process focused on identifying areas of distinct character defined on the

basis of:

physical landform, degree of enclosure or openness, and an assessment of horizontal and vertical scale;

degree of influence of the sea and ‘maritime’ qualities on both the landscape and coast of the area,

including coastal dynamics;

shape, scale and degree of fragmentation of the coastline;

presence of human artefacts, distribution of settlement, pattern and degree of human activity;

landscape features, including historic features and their setting;

experience of the coast, landscape and seascape, including the degree of remoteness and potential

opportunity to appreciate wildness; and

visual catchments.

4.4.5 Visual Resources

Visual receptors are defined as those individuals or groups of people within the study area who may have views

towards the site and are likely to be affected by the proposed development. The main groups of visual receptors

in this case are considered to be:

residents in Stornoway and other main settlements in the surrounding landscape;

walkers and other recreational users along Core Paths and other footpath routes;

tourists and visitors in and around Stornoway;

road users; and

ferry and boat users.

The visual baseline (see Section 4.5) establishes the parts of the study area from which the proposed

development may be visible; the viewpoints from which different groups of people may experience views of the

proposed development, and the approximate number of people who will be affected by the changes in views or

visual amenity.

4.4.6 Assessment of Predicted Effects

Having established the baseline conditions, the assessment of landscape and visual effects was undertaken.

Initially, the assessment focused on a viewpoint assessment to establish the potential effects on the landscape

and visual resources experienced at specific locations. The field work was informed by a range of maps,

photographs, the ZTV analysis and computer-generated photo annotations. The method used to create the

photographs, is based wherever possible/relevant on best practice guidance7.

Existing and predicted views from each of the viewpoints were assessed in order to identify, predict and evaluate

the potential effects arising from the proposed development. Wherever possible, identified effects are

6 Scottish Natural Heritage (2017) ‘Guidance note – Coastal Character Assessment’. 7 SNH (2017). ‘Visual Representation of Windfarms Guidance.’



39

quantified and the prediction of magnitude and assessment of significance of the landscape and visual effects is

based on pre-defined criteria in order to provide greater consistency. Note that these criteria are not used as

prescriptive tools, and the methodology and analysis of potential effects at any particular location allows for the

exercise of professional judgement. In practice, all factors need to be considered in combination and applied

using careful judgement, particularly in terms of the relative weight given to each. In some instances, one

criterion may be considered to have a determining effect.

In addition to the viewpoint assessment, field work was also undertaken to inform the general assessment of the

landscape and visual receptors as identified in the baseline assessment. The findings of the detailed viewpoint

assessment were also used to inform the general assessment of landscape and visual effects within the wider

study area.

The criteria used in this assessment have been based upon paragraph 3.26 of the GLVIA, which recommends that

factors affecting the sensitivity of the receptor (susceptibility and value), and those affecting the magnitude of

the effect (size, extent, duration and reversibility) are each assessed separately. Throughout the assessment,

landscape and visual effects are also considered separately. The description of effects takes account of changing

seasonal conditions and the effects of on-going changes to the landscape over time, such as the predicted growth

of vegetation or woodland operations.

4.4.7 Duration and Reversibility of Effects

The construction phase of the physical marina (the buildings on the reclamation would be subject to separate

timescales) is likely to take approximately 14 months, as described within Chapter 2: Proposed Development.

Effects due to construction are considered to be short-term, whilst effects arising during the operational phase

would be long-term and in some cases, permanent.

4.4.8 Significance of Effects

All EIA Regulations require that the significance of each effect is identified. The degree of significance of effects

on landscape resources and visual receptors is determined from a combined evaluation of the sensitivity of the

receptor and the magnitude of the effect.

Table 4.2: Determining Significance of Effects

Sensitivity of receptor

Magnitude of effect High Medium Low

Very large substantial major moderate-major

Large major moderate-major moderate

Medium moderate-major moderate moderate-minor

Small moderate moderate-minor minor

Negligible moderate-minor minor negligible

Table 4.2 shows how the significance of the landscape effect increases from negligible to substantial with

increasing landscape receptor sensitivity and with greater magnitude of effect. The most substantial effects



40

would occur where a receptor of highest sensitivity is affected by an effect of very large magnitude. Conversely,

negligible effects would result where a receptor of lowest sensitivity is affected by an effect of negligible

magnitude. Between these two extremes the significance of effect would vary continuously and the significance

of any one effect is determined by professional judgement, taking into account all the relevant factors.

The assessment of significance of the landscape and visual effects is based on pre-defined criteria. Tables 4.3 to

4.8 provide a framework that helps to ensure consistency and transparency in the decision-making process but

are not used as prescriptive tools, allowing for the exercise of professional judgement in determining sensitivity,

magnitude and significance.

The assessment of general effects and the detailed viewpoint assessments (see section 4.6) provide further

details of how the significance of effects has been determined in each case. Where overall effects are predicted

to be moderate-major, major or substantial, these are considered to be significant in terms of EIA regulations

(shaded grey in Table 4.2).

4.4.9 Positive and Negative Effects

Negative effects result in a direct loss of physical resources, weaken key characteristics, negatively affect the

integrity of landscape designations or result in a reduction in visual amenity. Positive effects occur where a

development replaces physical resources, strengthens the landscape characteristics or improves the visual

amenity.

Changes to undeveloped coastal landscapes, for example, that involve the construction of engineered man-made

objects of a modest or large-scale generally have a negative effect on character, although this effect can be

mitigated by the contribution to the landscape that a development may make in its own right, usually by virtue

of good design, even if it is in contrast to the existing character.

Changes to views and visual amenity can be more subjective, in that people may like or dislike what they see, or

may be used to seeing nearby development of similar nature and therefore more ambivalent about them.

Whether the visual effect is perceived as positive or negative depends upon individual preferences, the context

in which a person experiences the view, and upon their attitude towards this type of development in general. It

should be recognised therefore that some people may be more neutral or ambivalent in their opinions about the

proposed changes in views.

Considering the existing composition of light industrial units located on Goat Island, the proposed development

could in some instances, improve the overall visual appearance of built development in the locality. Conversely,

the introduction of a relatively large boat workshop building could potentially, have adverse effects on the

appreciation of views across the harbour. The introduction of moored boats could also be seen to result in an

increase of ‘visual clutter’ within parts of the open view and the introduction of built development and activity

on reclaimed land would lead to the loss of open water. Although a large proportion of attendees consulted at

recent public exhibitions were of the opinion that proposed development would result in improvements to the

area, this assessment adopts a precautionary approach and assumes that all operational effects are adverse,

unless otherwise stated.

4.4.10 Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects result directly from the proposed development itself. Indirect effects are consequential changes

resulting from a development, such as changes to moorland vegetation following the restoration of new access

tracks.



41

4.4.11 Acceptability of Effects

The proposed development could be considered by some, to be an unacceptable intrusion in the landscape, but

be seen as an essential contributor to the local economy. It is not the effects on the landscape that change but

the judgements about the acceptability of those effects.

Acceptability is therefore a matter for the decision maker to determine, taking into account the overall balance

of environmental benefits and effects of the proposed development, on the basis all of the available evidence.

The GLVIA notes in paragraph 2.17 that “it is for the competent authority to judge the balance of weight between

policy considerations and the effects that such proposals may have.”

There are no specific accepted, legal requirements or published criteria to use as a basis on which to judge

whether a change in the landscape, or in a view, is acceptable. Nor is there any published guidance on

establishing a threshold, beyond which further changes should be prevented. This LVIA sets out, in an impartial

way, the nature and extent of landscape and visual effects that are likely to result from the proposed

development and does not draw conclusions as to acceptability.

4.4.12 Landscape Effects

Landscape effects arise from changes to the physical components of the landscape, its character and how this is

experienced. The significance of landscape effects is assessed by considering the sensitivity of the landscape

receptors and the magnitude of the landscape effect.

4.4.12.1 Sensitivity of Landscape Receptors

The GLVIA indicates that landscape receptors need to be assessed firstly in terms of their sensitivity, combining

judgements of their susceptibility to the type of proposal and the value attached to the landscape.

Best practice guidance – Topic paper 6 (Scottish Natural Heritage and Countryside Agency 2004, page 3) states

that “Sensitivity is related…to landscape character and how vulnerable this is to change…Landscapes which are

highly sensitive are at risk of having their key characteristics fundamentally altered by development, leading to

a change to a different landscape character i.e. one with a different set of key characteristics. Sensitivity is

assessed by considering the physical characteristics and the perceptual characteristics of landscapes in the light

of particular forms of development.”

These aspects of sensitivity distinguish one Landscape Character Type (LCT) from another, but it is important to

recognise that sensitivity can also vary across a particular LCT. Some landscape assessments provide information

concerning the sensitivity of LCTs to different types of development although in the case, no information is

available.

This LVIA therefore includes an assessment of factors affecting the susceptibility of the landscape to the changes

brought about by the proposed development. Table 4.3 sets out attributes of landscape character that have

been considered in assessing susceptibility, adapted from best practice guidance.

Table 4.3: Landscape Susceptibility

Susceptibility Lower Higher

Scale Large-scale or vast Intimate or small-scale

Landform Flat, smooth, regular, rolling, gently undulating, or flowing landform

Dramatic, steep, mountainous, rugged, or complex landform with prominent peaks or ridges



42

Susceptibility Lower Higher

Diversity Simple or uniform, e.g. Moorland or forestry plantations

Complex or diverse, variety of land cover

Landcover pattern and line

Sweeping lines, or indistinct or irregular patterns

Strong and regular linear features, geometric or rectilinear patterns, or planned landscapes

Settlement and infrastructure

Frequent masts, pylons, industrial elements, modern buildings, infrastructure, settlements or main roads

No obvious modern settlement, buildings, infrastructure or main roads

Perception of landscape change

Modern or clearly dynamic showing obvious land use changes

Little or no land use changes, or with obvious historical continuity

Tranquillity Busy, with evidence of human activity, noise or regular movement

Remote or tranquil with strong sense of stillness or solitude

Settings and skylines Low lying areas that do not tend to feature in views from populated areas or main transport routes

Areas with topographic features that define the setting, backdrop, outlook or skyline of populated areas or main transport routes

4.4.12.2 Landscape Value

The assessment takes as its starting point the recognised value of the landscape, for example, as identified by

landscape designations.

In addition, the assessment considers the following factors, in order to identify how the relative landscape value

may vary at the local scale. The factors set out in Table 4.4 are adapted from paragraphs 5.28-5.31 of the GLVIA

and other guidance (Scottish Natural Heritage and Countryside Agency 2004 Figure 1b).

Table 4.4: Landscape Value

Factors affecting Landscape Value

Condition/intactness The degree to which the landscape is unified or intact

Scenic quality The extent to which the landscape appeals, primarily to the visual senses

Perceptual aspects The degree to which the landscape is recognised for perceptual qualities, such as its sense of remoteness

Rarity The presence of unusual elements or features in the landscape or the presence of an unusual LCT

Representativeness The degree to which the landscape contains important examples of elements or features, or is of a particular character that is considered important

Conservation interests Cultural or natural heritage interests that add to the value of the landscape and/or are of value in themselves

Recreational value Evidence of recreational activity where experience of the landscape is important, such as recognised scenic routes

Associations Recognised cultural or historical associations that contribute to perceptions of the natural beauty of the landscape



43

4.4.12.3 Magnitude of Landscape Effects

Each effect on landscape receptors is also assessed in terms of its size or scale, the geographical extent of the

area influenced and its duration and reversibility.

Size or Scale of Effect

This is judged using the factors set out in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Size or Scale of Landscape Effect

Class Criteria

Very large Highly obvious change, affecting the majority of the key characteristics and defining the experience of the landscape

Large Obvious change, affecting many key characteristics and the experience of the landscape

Medium Noticeable but not obvious change, affecting some key characteristics and the experience of the landscape

Small Minor change, affecting some characteristics and the experience of the landscape slightly

Negligible Little perceptible change

Geographical Extent of Effect

The geographical area over which the landscape effects would be experienced (regional, local or restricted to the

site) is also taken into account. This is distinct from the scale of the change. For example, a small change to the

landscape over a large geographical area could be comparable to a very large change affecting a much more

localised area.

Significance of Landscape Effects

The assessment of significance is based on professional judgement, considering both the sensitivity of the

receptor and the predicted magnitude of effect resulting from the Development, as described in Section 4.1.9.

Major loss of landscape features or characteristics across an extensive area that are important to the integrity of

a nationally valued landscape are likely to be of greatest significance. Short-term effects on landscape features

or characteristics over a restricted part of a landscape of lower value are likely to be of least significance.

4.4.13 Visual Effects

Visual effects result from the changes in the content or character of views and visual amenity, due to changes in

the landscape. The assessment of visual effects takes account of both the sensitivity of the visual receptors

(individuals or groups of people) and the magnitude of the change on their views and visual amenity.

4.4.13.1 Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

The sensitivity of each visual receptor is assessed in terms of susceptibility to change in views or visual amenity

as well as the value attached to particular views.



44

4.4.13.2 Susceptibility to Change

People generally have differing responses to views and visual amenity depending on the context (e.g. location,

time of day, degree of exposure), and their purpose for being in a particular place (e.g. whether for recreation,

travelling through the area, residence or employment). Susceptibility to change is therefore a function of:

the occupation or activity of people experiencing the view or visual amenity; and

the extent to which their attention or interest may be focused on the landscape around them.

Table 4.6 illustrates some examples of the relative susceptibility of some of the key visual receptors within the

Study Area. Note that different individuals or groups of people at one location may have different levels of

susceptibility.

Table 4.6: Examples of Susceptibility to Change in Views or Visual Amenity

High Medium Low

Residents within dwellings or curtilage

People at their place of work, where views are an important part of the setting, such as a countryside ranger

People at their place of work whose attention is likely to be focused on their work or activity, not on their surroundings

Users of recognised footpaths paths, whose attention or interest is likely to be focused on the landscape or on particular views

- People engaged in active outdoor sports or recreation and less likely to focus on the view

Road and ferry users where appreciation of the landscape is an important part of the experience, such as recognised scenic routes

Road users likely to be travelling for other purposes than just the view, such as commuter routes

-

Visitors to heritage assets or to other attractions, such as recognised beauty spots, where views of the surroundings are an important part of the experience

- -

4.4.13.3 Value attached to particular views

Judgments are also be made about the value attached to views, based on the following considerations:

recognised value – such as views from heritage assets or designated landscapes;

inclusion in guidebooks or on tourist maps, the facilities provided for visitors or references to the view

in literature or art; and

the relative number of people who are likely to experience the view.

People that are more susceptible to change at viewpoints of recognised value are more likely to be significantly

affected by any given change.

4.4.13.4 Magnitude of Visual Effect

The magnitude of the visual effect resulting from the proposed development is evaluated in terms of size or

scale, geographical extent, duration and reversibility.

Size or Scale of Effect



45

This is based on the interpretation of a combination of a range of factors, described in Table 4.7. Some of these

are largely quantifiable and include:

distance and direction of the viewpoint from the proposed development;

extent of the proposed development visible from the viewpoint;

scale of the change in the view, including the proportion of the field of view occupied by the proposed

development;

degree of contrast with the existing landscape elements and characteristics in terms of background,

form, pattern, scale, movement, colour, texture, mass, line or height;

the relative amount of time during which the effect would be experienced and whether views would be

full, partial or glimpses; and

orientation of receptors in relation to the proposed development, e.g. whether views are oblique or

direct.

Table 4.7: Size or Scale of Visual Effect

Class Description Appearance in field of vision

Very large Dominant Commanding, controlling the view

Creation/removal of a dominant visual focus

Highly uncharacteristic elements or pattern introduced

Most of the view affected

Large Prominent Major change to the view, striking, sharp, unmistakable, easily seen

Creation/removal of major visual focus

Uncharacteristic elements or pattern introduced

Large proportion of the view affected

Medium Conspicuous Noticeable change to the view, distinct, clearly visible, well defined

Creation or removal of a visual focus that may compete

Some elements of the Development fit the existing pattern

Some of the view affected

Small Apparent Minor change to the view but still evident

Little change to focus of the view

Fits intrinsic visual composition

Little of the view affected

Negligible Inconspicuous No real change to perception of the view

Weak, not legible, hardly discernible

Geographical Extent

The extent over which the changes would be visible is also taken into account.

4.4.13.5 Significance of Visual Effects

The degree of significance of effects on visual receptors is determined from a combined evaluation of the

sensitivity of the visual receptor and the magnitude of the visual effect, as described in paragraph 4.1.9.



46

Effects are more likely to be significant on people who are particularly sensitive to changes in views and visual

amenity, or who experience effects at important viewpoints, or from recognised scenic routes. Large scale

changes which introduce new, discordant or intrusive elements into the view are also more likely to be significant

than small changes or changes involving features already present within the view.

4.4.14 Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects primarily arise from changes brought about by one development in conjunction with those of

another although to an extent, other built development and infrastructure in the surrounding landscape could

also have an influence. The cumulative effect on the landscape and visual resources depends upon a range of

factors including:

the distance between individual developments;

the distance over which they are visible;

the overall character of the landscape and its sensitivity to the proposed development;

the siting and design of the individual developments; and

the way in which the landscape is experienced.

4.4.14.1 Approach

The emphasis of this cumulative assessment is on the additional changes that the proposed development may

bring to the cumulative situation of other existing, consented and proposed developments. The approach used

to determine cumulative effects draws from guidance on cumulative impact assessment (Scottish Natural

Heritage 2012).

The viewpoint annotations (see Figures 4.23-33 in volume 2 of this EIAR) were used to understand the likely

cumulative effects arising as a result of the proposed development, in combination with other relevant proposed

and contested developments. The analysis distinguishes two types of static cumulative effects:

Those arising from simultaneous visibility, where there are two or more developments visible within a

50 degree field of view from a single location; and

Successive effects, where two developments are visible from one location but not within the same 50

degree field of view, so that viewers must move their head to see both or all developments.

The assessment also considers sequential cumulative effects. These effects occur when moving from one area

to another, for instance when travelling along a road, when two or more developments are visible at the same,

or at different times, in sequence.

4.4.14.2 Magnitude of Cumulative Effect

Cumulative landscape and visual effects result from changes to the baseline landscape or visual resources. The

principle of cumulative change allows for the proposed development to have a different magnitude of (non-

cumulative) effect to the magnitude of cumulative effect on a given receptor. The magnitude of cumulative

effect arising from the proposed development takes account of the following largely quantifiable parameters:

the number of proposed developments visible;

the scale and extent of developments;

the direction and pattern of proposed developments; and

the landscape setting, context and degree of separation between developments.

The cumulative assessment evaluates the magnitude of cumulative effect arising at each viewpoint as a result of

the purposed development and draws conclusions about wider cumulative landscape and visual effects, based

on fieldwork and the ZTV analysis.



47

4.4.14.3 Significance of Cumulative Effect

The significance of the cumulative effect identified is assessed in relation to the sensitivity and importance or

value of the receptor and the predicted magnitude and extent of change (see Table 4.2).

The most significant cumulative landscape effects would change landscape character to such an extent as to have

a major effect on its key characteristics or transform it to a different landscape type, where development ‘tip the

balance’ through any collective effect.

Higher levels of significance may arise due to:

developments that are close to the proposal and are clearly visible together in views from the selected

viewpoints; and/or

developments that are highly intervisible - even though individual developments may be at some

distance from viewpoints, and when viewed individually not particularly significant, the overall

combined cumulative effect on a viewer at a particular viewpoint may be more significant.

The most significant effects would arise where some or all proposed developments result in a large degree of

change, affecting a sensitive or important receptor, such as people visiting a well-known scenic viewpoint.

4.5 Baseline

4.5.1 Overview

This baseline study establishes the existing landscape and visual resource against which the effects of the

proposed development are predicted. It describes the site and its setting, including its landscape and coastal

character, and assesses sensitivity to change. Visual receptors such as residents, road users and those

undertaking recreational activity, are also assessed. Following on from this, a selection of viewpoints has been

identified to help inform the assessment of landscape and visual effects.

4.5.2 Study Area

On the basis of the desk study and field work undertaken, it is considered that significant effects are very unlikely

to occur beyond 5 km from the site of the proposed development. Furthermore, taking into account that

theoretical visibility on terrestrial areas is almost entirely contained to within 5 km (see Figure 4.6 in Volume 2

of this EIAR), a study area of 5 km is considered appropriate for the purposes of this assessment.

4.5.3 Overview of the Site and Surrounding Landscape

The proposed development site is situated within Newton Basin, immediately to the south of Stornoway town

centre within the Stornoway Harbour embayment. Newton Basin is a small tidal bay partially enclosed by Goat

Island.

The proposed development is concerned with the reclamation of land to form a new marina and associated

infrastructure and facilities at Goat Island, as demonstrated on Figure 1.1 within Volume 2 of this EIAR. The total

area within the boundary used for the purposes of this EIAR comprises a total of 7.97 hectares (ha).

Goat Island presently comprises a collection of workshops, yard space and seafood processing units and is

approximately 400 m at its longest point from north-west to south-east. It is positioned between approximately

0m and 4 m above sea level. It is bounded to the north, west and south by Stornoway Harbour, whilst being

joined to the rest of Stornoway by the 240 m long and 3.5 m wide ‘Battery Point’ causeway. Stornoway

Coastguard Station is situated approximately half way along the causeway, and SSE’s Battery Point power station

neighbours the site approximately 395 m to the east. The nearest residential dwellings are located on Newton



48

Street (approx. 160 m to the north), with other dwellings on Seaview Terrace (approx. 320 m to the north-

east),Island Road (approx. 250 m to the north) and Inaclete Road (approx. 265 m to the north). Stornoway Ferry

Terminal is situated approximately 300m north-west of the proposed development. Present further along the

coastline to the north-west are South Beach Quay, No.2 Wharf and beyond that King Edward Wharf and

Esplanade Quay. The tidal embayment of Stornoway Harbour extends up to 3 km in length, and around 1.5km in

width at its widest point, covering an area of approximately 3 km2.

The causeway, Battery Point, serves as the only vehicular route onto Goat Island and links it to Newton Street, a

residential street between the Battery Point junction and the junction with Ferry Road to the west. Spanning

approximately 3.5 m, Battery Point has one current passing place close to the Stornoway Coastguard Station

which is situated approximately 170 m to the east of Goat Island. Battery Point has a speed limit of 15 miles per

hour (mph).

Areas of the site are currently part of the marine environment, with the plans for reclamation and dredging taking

place within these areas. The main area of reclamation is primarily in the intertidal area between Mean High

Water Springs and Mean Low Water Springs.

4.5.4 Landscape Character

The landscape character of the study area has been mapped and described based on information contained

within the Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (Richards, 1998) and as illustrated on Figure 4.2 in

Volume 2 of this EIAR, the proposed development is located immediately to the south of the Crofting One

landscape character type (LCT). This extends across much of the north-eastern part of the study area and includes

the town of Stornoway, and the surrounding pattern of crofting landscapes and associated settlement.

Two other main LCTs make up the study area with extensive Boggy Moorland to the north and west, and Rocky

Moorland to the south. Table 4.8 sets out the key characteristics of each LCT within the study area and based on

an assessment of susceptibility to change and landscape value, its overall sensitivity.

Table 4.8: Landscape Character

LCT Key Characteristics Sensitivity

Crofting One

Long sweeping gentle slopes often domed, ending in long curving sandy beaches to the seaward and merging evenly into boggy moorland elsewhere. Occasional small, steep sided river valleys dissect the even outlines. Low skylines ‘toothed’ with croft houses and other buildings are characteristic.

The scale of this landscape is large with open views common place. Only occasionally does the landform variation combine to give more imitate scale. The exposed nature of this landscape means that is often more open to the weather.

Visual diversity within this landscape is largely derived from land use management patterns. Contrasts between croft inbye and outbye are often sharp, with little or no transition between managed grassland and moorlands.

Rectangular field pattern overlies the gently rolling landscape. The smaller scale of this field pattern, divided by post and wire fences is not sufficiently strong to override the underlying large scale character.

Within the croft inbye there is often a graduation of intensity of land-use, from potentially cropable land to solely grazing ground. This and differing grazing regimes between croft strips produce a range of colours and textures.

In some areas, occasional fields of hay, silage or root crops create more divers e patterns of colour and texture which contribute an element of seasonal variety.

Medium



49


The repetitive pattern of croft houses, backed by crofting strips within the linear arrangement of crofting townships is a strong, unifying feature to this landscape. In linear settlements, views to the sea or open moorland behind give a perception of rural remoteness.

In grid-type settlements where buildings can be viewed beyond others, the perception is of more expansive and often widespread habitation.

The similar size, shape and arrangement of croft houses within the townships act as a strong unifying feature. Original croft houses are usually sited adjacent to the road, and have a simple pitched roof and dual aspect.

More recent croft houses are often sited behind the original house. Modern croft houses tend to be of larger size with more complex forms and multiple aspects. This results in a more complex pattern of settlement in some townships.

The character of the traditional croft house has evolved from the use of local building materials and traditional building methods. The use of local materials and traditional building methods and craftsmen reinforces the local distinctiveness of individual crofting townships.

Many of the more recent croft houses are constructed from 'off-the-peg' kits. These houses are constructed from a diverse range of building materials and constructional techniques, creating a character which relates more strongly to the particular kit manufacturer, rather than the croft's particular locality.

Boggy Moorland

This landscape is characterised by large scale, gently undulating peat moorlands, indented with numerous large and small rounded lochs, which are frequently interconnected by narrow, slow moving rivers. Loch edges are highlighted by their deep, dark peat margins and rivers are cut into smaller peat edged valleys. Occasional small shallow sided hills rise from these gently undulating surroundings.

Where Boggy Moorland extends to the coast, it often terminates in sea cliffs with eroded gullies cut into it. The perception of this coastal edge is dominated by the foreground, with the sea as a background, as it is only very close to the coastal edge that the cliff landscape can be experienced.

Relatively few elements contribute to this character type, and these tend to be simple and contrasting. The muted tones of moorland vegetation, gently rolling topography, frequent reflective water bodies, and inland locations of much of the boggy moorlands, combine to give these areas a remote upland character, which is unusual in a lowland area.

Across much of the boggy moor there exists natural patterns of water bodies, flows and eroding peat hags, but these can only be experienced from the air, or higher ground. Cultural elements of diversity, such as peat cuttings, roads, sheilings (often ruined) and re-seeds, are often confined to the edges of extensive tracts of this character type, creating a perception of more extensive human influence than is perceived from the air.

Boggy moorlands are predominantly an uninhabited landscape, with very occasional small groups of isolated croft houses sited low in the landscape, taking advantage of any shelter afforded by landform.

High

Rocky Moorland

This type is characterised by smooth dip slopes which combine with rocky convexities to create a rocky and stepped landscape. Inland rocky moor tends to merge with boggy moor or mountain massif where it extends to the shoreline, it forms a coastline of convex landforms dipping into deep water.

The irregular topography of rocky knolls interlocked with peaty moorland vegetation and occasional small lochans in the hollows creates a landscape

High



50


with considerable diversity of form and texture. Both vertical and horizontal scales are medium. Long views are obtained from high points and internal views are short, creating an overall medium scale landscape.

Landcover is predominantly open heather moorland and damp, rough grassland which extends around, and occasionally over the rocky knolls. The muted tones of this heather moorland vegetation are subtle mixtures of greens, greys and browns.

Cultural elements of diversity often fringe the edges of the rocky moorlands. Here, drier knolls sometimes exhibit evidence of earlier occupation by man, in the form of ruined walls and buildings. Between rugged knolls, the upward sweep of some even slopes is emphasised by abandoned valley bed cultivations and the lower, flatter slopes between knolls are often criss-crossed with the geometry of actively worked peat banks, particularly near roads.

Rocky moorlands are predominantly uninhabited landscapes with occasional isolated croft houses occurring in coastal locations, sheltered within the landform and frequently associated with a small natural harbour.

4.5.5 Coastal Character

Given the coastal location of the proposed development, the potential effects on coastal character are a key

consideration. Coastal character is made up of the often narrow margin of the coastal edge, its immediate

hinterland, and the sea. A Coastal Character Assessment therefore examines coastal influences in more detail

than a Landscape Character Assessment. These three key components of coastal character include what is

commonly known as ‘seascape’ which refers to “an area, as perceived by people, from land, sea or air, where the

sea is a key element of the physical environment” (Council of Europe, 2000).

In describing coastal character, there is no published report (similar to the Western Isles Landscape Character

Assessment) on which to base this assessment on. In addressing this, a local assessment has been undertaken

based on best practice guidance8. This focuses on the coastal character area (CCA) in which the proposed

development is located (Stornoway Harbour CCA) and where the large majority of theoretical visibility is

predicted (see Figure 4.9 in volume 2 of the EIAR). Table 4.9 sets out an overview its characteristics and its

associated sensitivity change.

Table 4.9: Coastal Character

CCA Key Characteristics Sensitivity

Stornoway

Harbour

Visual and physical enclosure is provided by the natural form of the harbour and the containment of surrounding low rising ground.

Dominated by the open expanse of the sea, the area has a strong sense of openness and a horizontal form.

Although sheltered from the exposure of the North Sea, the influence of tides (up to 5m) marine traffic and weather contribute to a dynamic and constantly changing marine environment.

Natural/topographic features include the mouths of the Glen and Creed rivers, , Goat Island, Arnish Point and Sandwick Bay.

Along western parts, the coastline has a strong semi-natural and undeveloped character composed of rocky outcrops and reefs, shingle shore, low rocky cliffs and undulating moorland slopes.

Medium to high

8 Scottish Natural Heritage (2017) ‘Guidance note – Coastal Character Assessment’.



51

CCA Key Characteristics Sensitivity

In contrast, the eastern coastline has a prevailing developed character, dominated by the busy town of Stornoway, its associated port and crofting landscapes further east.

Key landscape features include the Arnish Lighthouse located on the low-lying headland of Arnish Point, the historic core of Stornoway and the wooded grounds of Lews Castle.

Along western parts, the coast has a prevailing experience of naturalness, relatively tranquillity and sense of detachment from major settlement.

Along the eastern coast, extensive development in and around Stornoway underpin a busy and noisy experience.

As illustrated on Figure 4.3 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, a small part of one other CCA is located in the study area.

This is:

Arnish Approaches Coastline - high sensitivity.

4.5.6 Landscape Designations

4.5.6.1 Gardens and Designed Landscapes

The study area generally benefits from an attractive landscape and scenic quality and as illustrated on Figure 4.4

in Volume 2 of the ES, the largely wooded grounds of Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park are designated a Garden

and Designed Landscape (GDL). GDLs are nationally important landscapes whose grounds are consciously laid

out for artistic effect. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) selects nationally important sites for the Inventory

under the terms of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Due to their national

significance, GDLs are assessed as having a high sensitivity to change. Table 4.10 sets out a summary description

of the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park GDL, based on the HES inventory.

Table 4.10: Landscape Designations

Designation Description Sensitivity

Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL)

Summary

A prime example of a mid-late 19th century ornamental and estate landscape, rare on Lewis, laid out with coastal and riverside carriage drives and walks. The designed landscape comprises a series of distinctive wooded parklands contrasting dramatically with the prevailing openness of the island landscape.

The main landscape components of the designation are:

A wide range of architectural features (e.g. Castle, lodges, bridges,

tower, memorial and boundary/sea walls);

Drives and approaches;

Parkland; and

Mixed woodlands

Location and landscape setting

Lews Castle is situated on the north-west side of Stornoway Harbour

overlooking the town. It commands panoramic views and is prominent on

the sea approach to Lewis. The Castle is situated mid-way on the east-facing,

heavily wooded hillside and dominates views from Stornoway. Views from

High



52

Designation Description Sensitivity

Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park overlook Stornoway, the inner harbour and

town. Extensive views are obtained from the summit of Cnoc Croich across

to Lews Castle, the island's hinterland and Glumlaig Harbour.

The policy woodlands of 240 ha extend westwards to the A859 Balallan-

Stornoway Road and southwards to the Greeta River (or River Creed). Thus

Cnoc Croich and the coastline north of Greeta Island and Greeta estuary lie

within the extent of the designed landscape.

The designed landscape reached its present extent by the mid-19th century

and, despite several design changes and developments within the grounds,

remains unchanged. The limiting factor in extending the designed landscape

further was the availability of imported topsoil for woodland and shrub

planting.

Importance

Of its seven evaluation criteria, the following are assessed as ‘outstanding’:

Work of Art;

Historical;

Horticultural, Arboricultural, Silvicultural;

Architectural; and

Scenic.

4.5.7 Stornoway Conservation Area

Although not specifically a landscape designation, the landscape setting of the Stornoway Conservation Area (as

illustrated on Figure 4.4 in Volume 2 of this EIAR) is relevant to this assessment. The Conservation Area Appraisal

(2005) recognises the importance of the town’s historic core and separated by the River Creed, the influence of

the wooded grounds of Lews Castle in providing a very distinctive setting and dramatic sense of arrival to the

town.

A detailed assessment on the cultural significance of the designation is set out Chapter 6 of this ES although as

part of this LVIA, effects on setting are considered as part of the landscape assessment. As a locally important

designation, the sensitivity of its setting is assessed as medium-high.

4.5.8 Settlement

As detailed in section 4.5.3, the town of Stornoway and its associates pattern of settled crofts and townships

dominates the northern part of the study area. All residential receptors are assessed as having a high

susceptibility to change and considering the relatively high scenic quality of their surrounding landscape, a view

towards the Site of high value. Overall sensitivity is therefore high. The main settlements to be considered in

assessing effects on residents are set out in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11: Settlements

Route Sensitivity

Stornoway High

Plasterfield High

Sandwick High



53

Route Sensitivity

Lower Sandwick High

Ceann nam Buailtean High

Holm High

Melbost High

Steinis High

Laxdale High

Newmarket High

An Gleann Ur High

Grianan High

Marybank High

Tong High

4.5.9 Roads

Radiating from Stornoway, there is a relatively busy network of main roads within the study area and considering

their partial importance as tourist routes, the overall sensitivity of those travelling along them is assessed as

medium-high. The main roads to be considered in assessing effects on those travelling along them are listed in

Table 4.12.

4.5.10 Recreational Routes

As illustrated on Figure 4.5 in Volume 2 of the EIAR, a network of footpaths within the grounds of Lews Castle

and Lady Lever Park are designated Core Paths. These form a 23.3 km route designated for their circular,

landscape, cultural and natural enjoyment. Located on the fringes of the town, there are other sections of a

‘wider footpath network’ that provide local access to surrounding settlements.

In addition to footpaths, the Stornoway to Ullapool ferry is an important recreational route for those visiting the

island. The passenger ferry can operate up to 14 times a week and when travelling from the mainland, the ferry

passes by the north of the site and terminates at the harbour within the town. The port also attracts a number

of cruise ships and other recreational craft that pass along the ferry route (see Figure 4.5). Table 4.12 sets out

the recreational routes to be considered in assessing effects on those travelling along them.

Table 4.12: Road and Recreational Routes

Route Sensitivity

A866 Medium-high

A857 Medium-high

A858 Medium-high

A859 Medium-high

Ferry High

Lewis Castle Grounds Core Paths High



54

Route Sensitivity

Wider path network Medium-high

4.5.11 Other Recreational Users

In addition to those recreational routes identified in the preceding section, the town is also a popular visitor

destination and with its many hotels and other accommodation types, is frequently used a base to explore the

island. Considering the importance of the scenic quality to a large number of recreational users, overall sensitivity

of all visitors and tourists is assessed as high.

4.5.12 Viewpoint Selection

Based on the preceding identification and assessment of landscape and visual receptors, the following 11

viewpoints (see Figure 4.7 in Volume 2 of this EIAR) have been selected to undertake a detailed investigation of

landscape and visual effects. These represent the typical views experienced by a variety of visual receptors, at

varying distances across the study area.

The viewpoints have been selected as those which are sensitive to change and where open views towards the

site are generally experienced. The locations have been carefully selected to demonstrate the worst case

scenario and in identifying these, a detailed analysis of the surrounding landscape was undertaken to establish

the visibility of the site.

Table 4.13: Viewpoint Selection

Viewpoint location

LANDSCAPE VISUAL

LCT/CCA

(in which VP is located)

Sensitivity Receptor Sensitivity

1. Cuddy Point Boggy Moorland LCT

Stornoway Harbour CCA High Visitors/recreational users High

2. South Beach Crofting One LCT

Stornoway Harbour CCA Medium-high

Residents High

Visitors High

Road Users Medium-high

3. Newton Street

Crofting One LCT

Stornoway Harbour CCA Medium

Residents High

Visitors High

Road Users Medium-high

4. Harbour (offshore)

Stornoway Harbour CCA High Visitors/recreational users High

5. Lower Sandwick

Crofting One LCT

Stornoway Harbour CCA Medium-high

Residents High

Recreational users High

6. Newmarket Crofting One LCT Medium Residents Medium-high

Road users Medium-high

7. Lews Castle Boggy Moorland LCT

Stornoway Harbour CCA High Visitors High



55

Viewpoint location

LANDSCAPE VISUAL

LCT/CCA

(in which VP is located)

Sensitivity Receptor Sensitivity

8. Ferry Terminal

Crofting One LCT

Stornoway Harbour CCA Medium Visitors High

9. Lewis War Memorial

Crofting One LCT Medium Visitors High

10. Iolaire Monument Car Park

Crofting One LCT

Stornoway Harbour CCA Medium-high Visitors High

11. Sandwick Bay Crofting One LCT

Stornoway Harbour CCA Medium-high Recreational users High

4.5.13 Cumulative Baseline

As noted in Section 4.4.6, the cumulative assessment focuses on the additional changes that the proposed

development may bring to a baseline of other consented and proposed built developments. Those to be

considered are:

1. Deep Water Port – (currently proposed);

2. Seaweed Processing Factory – detailed planning permission consented (ref: 14/00151); and

3. Interconnector Converter Station – planning permission in principle consented (ref: 16/00146).

In addition to the above proposed and consented developments, a fish processing factory is also proposed on

Goat Island although at present, no planning application has been submitted. Whilst an indicative representation

of the fish processing factory has been included in the 'model view' within the accompanying photo annotations

(see Figures 4.12-4.22 within Volume 2), it has not been explicitly considered within the cumulative assessment.

In addition to its tentative status, the purpose of this LVIA is to focus on any likely significant effects and to this

end, it is considered that its potential addition to the cumulative baseline would not result in any notable changes

to findings of the cumulative assessment. In practice, the addition of a fish processing factory in close proximity

to a cluster of existing buildings on Goat Island would be screened or partially screened by intervening buildings

from most locations.

4.6 Impact Assessment

4.6.1 Overview

This section addresses all landscape and visual effects predicted during the construction and operational phase

of the proposed development, taking into account any embedded mitigation measures designed to minimise

adverse effects. This is presented in the following sub-sections:

Design Mitigation

Assessment Parameters and Assumptions

Zone of Theoretical Visibility

Viewpoint Assessment

Landscape and visual effects during construction phase

Landscape and visual effects during operational phase

Cumulative effects

Construction Phase



56

Landscape effects (physical landscape resources, landscape character, coastal character and

landscape designations)

Visual effects (residents, recreational users and road users)

Operational Phase



Visual effects (residents, recreational users and road users)

Cumulative Assessment



Visual effects (residents, recreational users and road users).

4.6.2 Design Mitigation

The site selection and outline design of the proposed development are described in full within Chapter 2 of this

EIAR. This has evolved as part of an iterative process that aims to provide an optimal design in environmental

terms, but also takes into account technical and economic factors. As part of this, objectives to minimise any

adverse landscape and visual effects are of fundamental importance and in developing these, a review of relevant

policy, the landscape character assessment and the findings of a field survey have all been considered.

To help ensure that the proposed development integrates positively with its sensitive landscape and coastal

setting, the following landscape design and mitigation measures have been embedded in the outline project

proposals:

The location of the new marina was selected following a public consultation exercise in 2016 on the emerging

Port Masterplan. Newton was chosen on the grounds of suitability both in marine engineering terms and also

proximity to the town, to ensure good access to town centre services for visiting craft and easy access for local

users.

The new boat workshop (to be included in subsequent applications) has been located at the level of the reclaimed

land, rather than at the level of the existing boat workshop; this reduces the effective height of the building. A

ramp is proposed between the existing commercial slipway and the new boat workshop to allow engineering

plant to travel between the two locations. The height of the new workshop is the lowest possible to

accommodate boats of the anticipated size (10m from keel to top of wheelhouse).

The proposed cladding for the new boat workshop will be light in colour, to minimise visual impact.

In addition to above measures, it is also envisaged that further mitigation measures regarding the exact layout

and location of development, and building materials and dimensions would be further developed as part of

further consent applications. If consented, other landscape mitigation measures would also be incorporated into

a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

4.6.3 Assessment Parameters and Assumptions

The purpose of this impact assessment is to establish the environmental principles based on worst case

parameters as currently known. In doing so, the impact assessment is based on the following assumptions:

reclamation of land along the north side of Goat Island behind a concrete retaining wall, and subsequent

formation of a level development platform. The proposed dredge works would take place across an area

of 2.28 ha, with 100,000 m3 of dredged material removed;

formation of a new rock-armoured 70 m long breakwater;



57

at a height of 19.7 m AOD, a proposed boatyard building would cover an area of 1,172.5 m2;

indicative watersports buildings and other ancillary buildings including facilities for marina users such

as toilets, showers and other services;

a proposed yacht storage area (200 m2) would accommodate up to 20 crafts, with an area (150m2) for

15 smaller craft;

a proposed marina would accommodate up to 75 craft; 60 of these would be for yachts and 15 berths

for smaller vessels;

installation of a boat lift structure to facilitate boat repair and overwintering of vessels;

a 50 m long proposed slipway would cover an area of 330 m2;

a proposed floating access walkway would be 100 m in length;

a proposed shore side linking access bridge would be 24 m in length;

3 proposed pontoons would be 60 m in length;

a proposed car park would accommodate 40 parking spaces, accessed by an extended access road and

passing places from Battery Point;

other storage sheds for rent;

once operational, the assessment recognises that yachts and smaller craft would be frequently moving

in and of out the harbour;

once operational, the assessment recognises that parts of the site would be busy with general activity;

and

once operational, the assessment recognises that parts of the site would be used for car parking, with

frequent movements of traffic along the causeway and nearby roads.

4.6.4 Zone of Theoretical Visibility

Figure 4.6 in Volume 2 of this EIAR illustrates the zone of theoretical visibility (ZTV) of a proposed boat workshop

building at 15.6 m to ridge height (19.7 m AOD) and an indicative mast height (20 m AOD) of moored boats.

Overall, this demonstrates that from the large majority of the study area, there would be no views of the boat

workshop building and/or boat masts.

Most notably, due to the screening effect of rising ground that contains the harbour, all of the largely

undeveloped moorland across the south and western parts of the study area are outside of theoretical visibility.

The majority of the crofting landscapes to the north and east of Stornoway are also outside of the ZTV.

The extent of the boat workshop ZTV is almost identical to extent of the boat mast ZTV and in general, theoretical

visibility is focused on the landscape and seascape within 2 km from the site. This includes most of the harbour,

the town of Stornoway and the crofting landscapes to the east. The western parts of the Lews Castle and Lady

Lever Park GDL, and most of the moorlands to the south, are however, outside of the ZTV.

Beyond 2 km from the site, the ZTV is mostly restricted to area centred on the settlement of Newmarket and to

the north-east; a band of theoretical visibility extending across parts of the coastal sands and muds that contain

the Abhainn Lacasdail burn. Further south, the landscape in and around Stornoway Airport is outside of the

theoretical views.

In considering the ZTV, it is important to note that this does not take into account the screening effect of minor

variations in landform, built development, trees and woodlands, and other vegetation and manmade features.

In practice therefore, it is very likely that extensive built development in around the town of Stornoway would

notably restrict the opportunity for open views towards the site and associated proposed development.

Although the ZTV does do not consider the potential visibility of other proposed infrastructure such as the

breakwater, slipway, clubhouse and business units, due to their lower-lying nature in relation to the height of

the boat workshop building, the extent of any theoretical visibility of these elements would be less than the ZTV



58

illustrates. In assessing effects however, the visibility of all of the main parts of the proposed development is

considered in the Viewpoint Assessment (see Section 4.6.5).

4.6.5 Viewpoint Assessment

The Viewpoint Assessment provides a detailed understanding of landscape/coastal, visual and cumulative effects

predicted at 11 representative viewpoint locations (see Table 4.13 in this chapter and Figure 4.7 in Volume 2 of

this EIAR). For each viewpoint, an annotated photograph has been prepared (see Figures 4.12 – 4.22 in Volume

2 of this EIAR) which indicatively illustrate the main parts of the proposed development that could be visible.

These are the:

breakwater;

moored boats alongside pontoons;

boat hoist;

boat workshop building;

business units;

water sports clubhouse;

slipway; and

marina wall.

In addition to the above, Figures 4.12 – 4.22 also set out a ‘model view’ which illustrate the location of existing

buildings on Goat Island, and proposed fish processing plant that is subject to a separate planning application.

As well as providing an assessment from specific locations, the viewpoint findings are also used to inform the

general assessment of landscape, coastal and visual effects during the construction and operational phases (see

Section 4.6). Where landscape/coastal effects are identified at each viewpoint, no conclusion on the overall

significance are provided as this requires an analysis of the overall extent of any changes experienced across each

landscape receptor.

VIEWPOINT 1 - Cuddy Point (see Figure 4.12)

Grid reference: NB 41927 32795

View direction: 1500

Distance to nearest part of Development: 0.7 km

Landscape Character Type: Boggy Moorland

Coastal Character Area: Stornoway Harbour CCA

Landscape designations: Lews Castle GDL & Stornoway Conservation Area

Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 3 m AOD, the viewpoint is located in a public car park, near to the water’s edge at Cuddy Point, within the grounds of the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park GDL and the Stornoway Conservation Area. The car park is a popular resting place to view the harbour and it provides access to the nearby castle and its associated network of footpaths, a café and a community owned slipway.

Current view:

Looking south-east towards the site, the foreground view is dominated by the open expanse of sea within the inner harbour. Beyond the water to the left of view, a cluster of buildings associated with the port are situated above the Esplanade quayside. The quay extends toward the centre of view above which, a complex and diverse composition of built development and port infrastructure is prominent. This includes a large hoist, the ferry terminal building, a raised walkway and several tall lighting columns. Above the end of the pier in the centre of view, a cluster of industrial units are visible on Goat Island. In more distant views out to sea, the



59


Arnish Lighthouse, located on the low-lying headland of Arnish Point, forms a visual focus on the skyline above the inner harbour and to its right, a large industrial building (BiFab plant) is prominent on the skyline.

This 500 view forms part of a wider 1800 view across the harbour where further to the right, a series of rocky cliffs and slopes provide a relatively low-lying sense of enclosure to the harbour. In the foreground, the policy woodlands in the grounds of Lews Castle provide a distinctive setting to the town and inner harbour.

Landscape/coastal sensitivity:

The viewpoint is located within the Boggy Moorland LCT (high sensitivity) although in stark contrast to the typical character of large scale, gently undulating peat moorlands, indented with numerous large and small rounded lochs that define this LCT, the character of the local landscape is heavily influenced by the dense coverage of designed policy woodlands in the grounds of the nearby castle. As such, the coastal character area in which the viewpoint is located (Stornoway Harbour CCA) is more relevant to consider. Taking into account the composition of largely undeveloped cliffs backed by semi-natural moorland slopes, the influence of the wooded castle grounds and the open views across the inner harbour, sensitivity is assessed as high.

Visual sensitivity:

Visitors/recreational users - high susceptibility.

The scenic views across the harbour of those using the car park are an important part of the experience at a popular location – high value.

With a high susceptibility and value, the overall sensitivity of visitors and recreational users is assessed as high.

Assessment of Predicted Effects

Parts of proposed development potentially visible:

In the centre of view, the boat workshop building would be visible above an intervening pier and possibly sometimes, a movable boat hoist. The masts of some moored boats would also be just visible above the pier and esplanade although other parts of the proposed development, including the breakwater, clubhouse and business units would be screened from view by a large intervening hoist and storage containers on the pier.

Construction effects:

Views of construction activity would be focused on the dredging of the seabed and construction of the boat workshop building. These operations on land and sea would result in quite localised but noticeable views of construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity and movement of large vehicles. The magnitude of landscape/coastal and visual effect is assessed as small-medium and considering activity would be experienced in the context of the busy port and nearby town centre activity, a moderate (adverse) and not significant visual effect is predicted.

Landscape/coastal effects (operational):

During the operational stages of the proposed development, the main changes that would result are from the introduction of the boat workshop building and the presence of moored and moving boats. Although the proposed boat workshop building would be larger in scale than the existing buildings on Goat Island, it would be characteristic to its locality and the wider the context of a busy port and extensive town centre development. Considering the dominance of the existing operational port, the relatively small increase in additional moving and static boats would also be characteristic.

Overall, the changes would only be minor, affecting some characteristics and the experience of the landscape slightly. Consequently, the magnitude of landscape/coastal effect is predicted to be small (adverse).

Visual effects (operational):

During the operational stages, some parts of the proposed development would be quite noticeable in view, particularly the boat workshop situated on the skyline of Goat Island. However, there would little change to the focus of the view and the various parts of visible development would very much fit the intrinsic composition of existing port development and infrastructure. Taken collectively, the proposed development and associated activity would only occupy a relatively small part of the 500 view and overall, the magnitude of visual effect is assessed as small, resulting in a moderate (adverse) and not significant effect.

Cumulative effects:



60


As illustrated on Figure 4.23 (see Volume 2 of the EIAR), a consented seaweed processing factory building would be visible on the skyline of Arnish Point in between the Arnish Lighthouse and the existing BiFab plant building and to the right of this, a proposed converter building. To the far right of view, some areas of rock extraction associated with the proposed Deep Water Port development would be visible although some parts of the extraction would be screened by intervening landform. A large part of the development platform and all of the associated linkspan and finger pier would be visible where it extends into the harbour although most, or possibly all, of the port building (depending on its exact location) is likely to be screened from view by intervening rising ground.

On the basis that the proposed Deep Water Port is consented and constructed and the consented seaweed factory and converter building are also constructed, the introduction of these developments would establish a baseline of further industrial development along the western side of the harbour. Although the proposed development would slightly increase the extent of visible development, it would not bring development closer and in general, any increase in activity would be characteristic and viewed against a backdrop of large scale port activity and industrial development and infrastructure.

Overall therefore, the magnitude of cumulative effect is assessed as small, resulting in a moderate (adverse) and not significant visual effect.

Summary

Significance of temporary construction visual effects Moderate (adverse) – not significant

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (construction) Small-medium (adverse)

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (operational) Small (adverse)

Significance of visual effects (operational) Moderate (adverse) – not significant

Significance of cumulative effects Moderate (adverse) – not significant

VIEWPOINT 2 - South Beach (see Figure 4.13)




Landscape Character Type: Crofting One


Landscape designations: Stornoway Conservation Area

Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 5 m AOD, the viewpoint is located on a waterside pavement alongside South Beach, in between two piers in Stornoway Harbour. With a town centre location, South Beach is very busy with passing traffic and visitors to the town. Forming the southern edge to the Stornoway Conservation Area, nearby residential dwellings and shops along South Beach provide an attractive frontage and setting to the harbour.

Current view:

Looking south-east towards the site, a nearby pier extends into the inner harbour above which, a complex and diverse composition of built development and port infrastructure is prominent. This includes a large hoist, ferry terminal buildings, a raised walkway and several tall lighting columns. To the right of view, a large industrial building (BiFab plant) is prominent on the skyline of the low-lying headland of Arnish Point and further to its right, a backdrop of rocky coastline and undulating moorland slopes contain the western side of the harbour.

This 500 view forms part of a wider 1800 across the harbour with the wooded grounds of Lews Castle to the right of view, contrasting with the busy town centre to the left.



61



The viewpoint is located within the Crofting One LCT (medium sensitivity) although in stark contrast to the characteristic and repetitive pattern of croft houses, backed by crofting strips within the linear arrangement of crofting townships set amongst exposed boggy moorland, the local landscape is dominated by the historic core of Stornoway. In relation to coastal character, the viewpoint is located within the Stornoway Harbour CCA and at this point, the surrounding area is very busy with activity, and is characterised by extensive town centre development and harbour infrastructure. Taking into account the Conservation Area status, sensitivity is therefore assessed as medium-high.

Visual sensitivity:

Visitors/residents - high susceptibility.

The scenic views across the harbour experienced by nearby residents along South Beach and a large number of visitors to the town are an important part of their visual amenity – high value.

With a high susceptibility and value, the overall sensitivity of visitors and residential is assessed as high.

Road users - medium susceptibility.

Although some road users are travelling for commuting purposes, the busy road network in and around the town is also used for tourism purposes where the experience of scenic views are an important factor – high value.

With a medium susceptibility and high value, the overall sensitivity of road users is assessed as medium-high.



In the centre of view, most of the boat workshop building would be visible above an intervening pier and to its left, part of the watersports clubhouse building. The masts of some moored boats would also be visible above the pier although all other parts of the proposed development would be screened from view by intervening port related buildings and infrastructure.


Views of construction activity would be largely limited to the site of the boat workshop and watersports clubhouse buildings although the movement of vehicles and other some activity might be evident amongst intervening buildings and infrastructure across other parts of the site. Any water based activity concerning the dredging of the seabed and construction of the breakwater would however be screened from view and overall, construction activity would only affect a small part of the view. The magnitude of landscape/coastal and visual effect is assessed as small and considering activity would be experienced in the context of the busy port and nearby town centre activity, a moderate (adverse) and not significant visual effect is predicted.


During the operational stages, the main changes that would result are from the introduction of the boat workshop and watersports buildings, and the presence of moored and moving boats. However, the boat workshop building would be smaller in scale than most nearby buildings, most notably, the two large ferry terminal buildings. Although some boats will also be evident, they would be viewed in context of a composition of other taller vertical elements and considering the dominance of the existing operational port, the small increase in additional moving and static boats would be characteristic.

Overall, the changes would only be minor, affecting some characteristics and the experience of the landscape very slightly. Consequently, the magnitude of landscape/coastal effect is predicted to be negligible-small (neutral).


During the operational stages, the introduction of the boat workshop and watersports buildings would lead to little change to the existing view. There would be no change to its focus and the various parts of the proposed development that would be visible would very much fit the intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure. Taken collectively, the parts of visible development and activity would only occupy a very small part of the 500 view. Overall, the magnitude of visual effect is assessed as negligible-small



62


and considering the dominance of the busy port and nearby town centre, the effect is judged to be minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant.

Cumulative effects:

As illustrated on Figure 4.24 (see Volume 2 of the ES), a consented seaweed processing factory building would be visible on the skyline of Arnish Point and to the right of the existing BiFab plant building, a proposed connector building. To the far right of view, some areas of rock extraction associated with the proposed Deep Water Port development would be visible although some parts would be screened by intervening landform. A large part of the development platform and all of the associated linkspan and finger pier would be visible where it extends into the harbour although most, or possibly all, of the port building (depending on its exact location) is likely to be screened from view by intervening rising ground.

On the basis that the proposed Deep Water Port is consented and constructed and the consented seaweed factory and converter building are also constructed, the introduction of these developments would establish a baseline of further industrial development along the western side of the harbour. The proposed development would only result in a very slight increase in the extent of visible development and it would not bring development closer. In general, any increase in activity would be characteristic and viewed against a backdrop of large scale port activity and industrial development and infrastructure.

Overall therefore, the magnitude of cumulative effect is assessed as negligible, resulting in a minor-moderate (adverse) not significant visual effect.

Summary


Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (construction) Small (adverse)

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (operational) Negligible-small (adverse)

Significance of visual effects (operational) Minor-moderate (adverse) – not significant

Significance of cumulative effects Minor-moderate (adverse) – not significant

VIEWPOINT 3 - Newton Street (see Figure 4.14)






Landscape designations: None

Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 5 m AOD, the viewpoint is located at a small area of public greenspace, alongside the eastern end of Newton Street. A row of residential dwellings along the street look onto the Newton Basin where a nearby causeway leads towards a coastguard station and industrial units on Goat Island. With a public bench, the viewpoint is a popular location for residents and visitors walking along the water’s edge to rest and enjoy the view across the harbour.

Current view:

Looking south-west towards the site, the view is centred on the partially enclosed water of Newton Basin. To the left of view, a causeway leads towards a cluster of industrial units on the nearby Goat Island and to the right of these; a harbour wall shelters the basin from the main part of the inner harbour. Beyond Goat Island, open moorland slopes to the left of view and the wooded grounds of Lews Castle to the right provide a containing backdrop to the harbour. This 500 view forms part of a wider 1800 view of the port and town with



63


the wooded grounds of the castle providing a distinctive backdrop to the right whilst to left; a nearby coastguard station is very noticeable with a power station prominent on Battery Point beyond.


The viewpoint is located within the Crofting One LCT although as the characteristic and repetitive pattern of croft houses, backed by crofting strips within the linear arrangement of crofting townships set amongst exposed boggy moorland are not reflected here, coastal character is more relevant to consider. Located within the Stornoway Harbour CCA, the surrounding area is very busy with activity, and is characterised by extensive town centre development and harbour infrastructure. As the viewpoint is outside of the Conservation Area, sensitivity is therefore assessed as medium.

Visual sensitivity:

Visitors/residents - high susceptibility.

The scenic views across the harbour experienced by nearby residents along Newton Street and a large number of visitors to the town are an important part of their visual amenity – high value.

With a high susceptibility and value, the overall sensitivity of visitors and residential is assessed as high.





Parts of proposed development potentially visible: All parts of the proposed development including the breakwater, boat workshop, business units, watersports clubhouse, boat hoist, slipway, pontoons and associated moored boats would be visible in close proximity.


All construction activity, including the dredging of the seabed and the reclamation of land would be highly obvious. These operations on land and sea would result in widespread views of construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity and movement of large vehicles experienced in close proximity. The magnitude of landscape/coastal and visual effect is assessed as large, resulting in a major (adverse) and significant visual effect.


During the operational stages, the introduction of a marina and several buildings and associated activity in the nearby backdrop would be very obvious. The boat workshop would appear larger in scale than the existing buildings on Goat Island and to some degree; it would contrast with the vertical scale of landform in the backdrop. However, considering the existing cluster of industrial units on Goat Island, the introduction of buildings would be characteristic to the locality. Furthermore, it is very likely that the introduction of a marina and associated buildings behind would result in some positive changes in landscape/coastal character as the exiting industrial buildings would be partially screened from view. Considering the nearby presence of the existing operational port, the addition of moving and static boats would also be characteristic.

Overall, the changes would be very obvious, affecting some key characteristics and the experience of the landscape. Consequently, the magnitude of landscape/coastal effect is predicted to be medium-large (adverse).


The introduction of an operational marina and associated built development and activity would be viewed in very close proximity and taken collectively; it would occupy a very large part of the 500 view. The marina could detract from open views of the water and in places, views of the largely undeveloped backdrop of moorland slopes and the wooded grounds of Lews Castle. However, the various parts of the proposed development would fit the wider intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure and in some instances, would improve the existing visual amenity towards light industrial units on Goat Island.



64


Overall, the magnitude of visual effect is assessed as medium-large and considering the visual influence of the busy port and nearby town centre, the effect is judged to be moderate-major (adverse) and significant.

Cumulative effects:

As illustrated on Figure 4.25 (see Volume 2 of the EIAR), a very small part of a consented seaweed processing factory building on the skyline of Arnish Point would be visible behind the coastguard building (left of view) and to the right of the existing BiFab plant building, a proposed converter building. Towards the centre of view, the proposed Deep Water Port development would be visible above an intervening causeway including large areas of rock extraction, most of the port building and a large part of the development platform and associated linkspan and finger pier.

On the basis that the proposed Deep Water Port is consented and constructed and the consented seaweed factory and converter building are also constructed, the introduction of these developments would establish a baseline of further industrial development in the backdrop to Newton Basin. Although the proposed development would result in a very noticeable increase in the extent of nearby visible development, it would be characteristic and viewed against a backdrop and wider context of large scale port activity, industrial development and infrastructure.

Overall therefore, the magnitude of cumulative effect is assessed as medium, resulting in a moderate-major (adverse) and significant visual effect.

Summary

Significance of temporary construction visual effects Major (adverse) - significant

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (construction) Large (adverse)

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (operational) Medium-large (adverse)

Significance of visual effects (operational) Moderate-major (adverse) - significant

Significance of cumulative effects Moderate-major (adverse) - significant

VIEWPOINT 4 - Harbour, offshore (see Figure 4.15)




Coastal Character Type: Stornoway Harbour


Baseline Assessment

Context:

The viewpoint is located in close proximity to the site within Stornoway harbour, along the approximate route of the Stornoway to Ullapool ferry. With two daily departures and arrivals, the viewpoint therefore represents an important gateway to the town experienced by a large number of visitors, and those undertaking other water-based activity in the harbour.

Current view:

Looking north-east towards the nearby site, the short range view is focused across the water towards Goat Island and an associated harbour wall. A cluster of industrial buildings are prominent on Goat Island and to the left of these, a power station is very noticeable above the harbour wall. To the left of view, some residential dwellings along Newton Street are visible in the backdrop and part of Sandwick Bay and Lower Sandwick are also visible in longer views to the right.

This 500 view forms part of a wider 3600 of the harbour and nearby town. To the south-east, the Arnish Lighthouse, located on the low-lying headland of Arnish Point, forms a visual focus on the skyline and to its right, a large industrial building (BiFab plant) is also prominent. Views to the south and south-west are focused across the harbour towards a backdrop of largely undeveloped moorland slopes and to the north; the town of



65


Stornoway and associated port are viewed against a distinctive wooded backdrop of Lews Castle further to the west.


The viewpoint is located within the Stornoway Harbour CCA where the influence of the nearby town and port exert a busy experience and a developed character. Sensitivity is assessed as medium.

Visual sensitivity:


The scenic views across the harbour experienced by a large number of visitors to the town are an important part of their visual amenity – high value.



Parts of proposed development potentially visible: The breakwater and boat workshop building would be viewed in close proximity, as would the outer parts of the pontoons and associated moored boats. The business units would be partially screened by intervening built development on Goat Island and the harbour wall would also screen most of the lower-lying parts of the site from view.


Some construction activity, including the dredging of the seabed and the construction of the breakwater and boat workshop building would be very obvious. These operations on land and sea would result in widespread views of construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity and movement of large vehicles experienced in close proximity. The magnitude of coastal and visual effect is assessed as large, resulting in a major (adverse) and sigingcant visual effect.


During the operational stages, the introduction of a marina and the boat workshop building would be very noticeable. The boat workshop would appear much larger in scale than the existing buildings on Goat Island and to some degree; it would contrast with the scale of the island’s landform. However, considering the existing cluster of industrial units on Goat Island, the introduction of this would be characteristic to the locality. Furthermore, it is very likely that the introduction of the marina and other associated buildings and infrastructure behind the moored boats would result in some positive changes to the exiting industrial influence of buildings on Goat Island and the power station on Battery Point. Furthermore, considering the nearby presence of the existing operational port, the addition of moving and static boats would be characteristic and the engineered nature of the breakwater would also relate to the adjacent existing harbour wall.

Overall, the changes would be noticeable, affecting some key characteristics and the experience of the landscape. Consequently, the magnitude of landscape/coastal effect is predicted to be medium (adverse).


The introduction of an operational marina and associated built development and activity would be viewed in very close proximity and taken collectively; it would occupy a large part of the 500 view. Although the boat workshop building would be prominent in view, it would have a visual relationship with the existing buildings on Goat Island. The various parts of the proposed development would also fit the wider intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure and in some instances, would improve the existing visual amenity towards light industrial units on Goat Island and the power station on Battery Point.


Cumulative effects:

As illustrated on Figure 4.26b (see Volume 2 of the EIAR), a consented seaweed processing factory building, a consented converter building and the proposed Deep Water Port development would all be visible in successive views to the south-west.



66


On the basis that the proposed Deep Water Port is consented and constructed and the consented seaweed factory and converter building are also constructed, the introduction of these developments would establish a baseline of further industrial development in the backdrop to the site. Although the proposed development would result in a noticeable increase in the extent of nearby visible development, it would be characteristic and experienced against in context of surrounding large scale port activity, industrial development and infrastructure.


Summary


Magnitude of landscape effects (construction) Large (adverse)

Magnitude of landscape effects (operational) Medium (adverse)



VIEWPOINT 5 - Lower Sandwick (see Figure 4.16)







Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 6 m AOD, the viewpoint is located on the end of a small headland to the south of Lower Sandwick. A relatively well trodden informal footpath leads around the headland and links with a designated footpath route around Sandwick Bay. Several residential dwellings are located in close proximity to the north, some of which have open views towards the site.

Current view:

Looking north-west towards the site, the foreground view is dominated by the open expanse of the inner harbour. In the centre and right of view, the eye is drawn across Sandwick Bay towards views of the port and town and in particular, a prominent power station on battery point. The Lewis War Memorial is also visible on the skyline above the town. To the left of view, woodland slopes and undulating moorland provide a containing backdrop to the inner harbour. This 500 view forms part of a wider 1800 view where to the south, views of open sea are framed by the nearby rock coastline and Arnish Point at the mouth of the harbour.


The viewpoint is located within the Crofting One LCT (medium sensitivity) where the characteristic and repetitive pattern of croft houses, backed by crofting strips within the linear arrangement of crofting townships set amongst exposed boggy moorland are clearly apparent. In terms of coastal character, the viewpoint is located within the Stornoway Harbour CCA, where the composition of open sea, rocky coastline, slopes of semi-natural vegetation and sandy beach contribute to a sense of relative remoteness and naturalness. Considering these factors, sensitivity is assessed as medium-high.

Visual sensitivity:

Recreational users/residents - high susceptibility.



67


The scenic views across the harbour experienced by a relatively small number of nearby residents and those undertaking informal recreational activity along the coast are an important part of their visual amenity – medium-high value.

With a high susceptibility and medium-high value, the overall sensitivity is assessed as high.



The boat workshop building, business units and water sports clubhouse would all be visible immediately to the right of the existing cluster of buildings on Goat Island. The masts of some moored boats would also be visible and sometimes, the movable boat hoist. The pontoons, breakwater and other lower-lying infrastructure within Newton Basin would however be screened from view by an intervening causeway and some proposed buildings as noted above.


Construction activity would be focused on views of the boat workshop, business unit and water sports clubhouse buildings. Although some construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity and movement of large vehicles would be noticeable, these would be experienced within a context of nearby industrial development. The magnitude of landscape/coastal and visual effect is assessed as small-medium and considering the influence of the busy town and port in the nearby backdrop to the site, the visual effect is judged to be moderate (adverse) and not significant.


During the operational stages of the proposed development, the main change would result from the introduction of some noticeable buildings although considering the existing cluster of industrial units on Goat Island, these would be characteristic to their locality. It is also very likely that the proposed development would result in some positive changes to the exiting industrial influence of buildings on Goat Island and the power station on Battery Point. Furthermore, considering the nearby presence of the existing operational port, the addition of moving and static boats would be characteristic to the local landscape.

Overall, there would be a minor change, affecting some characteristics and the experience of the landscape slightly. The magnitude of landscape/coastal effect is therefore predicted to be small (adverse).


Occupying a relatively small part of the 500 view, the introduction of an operational marina and associated built development and activity would be viewed in the backdrop to Sandwick Bay. Although the boat workshop building in particular would be noticeable, it would have a visual relationship with the existing buildings on Goat Island and appearing much smaller than the nearby power station building on Battery Point. The various parts of the proposed development would also fit the wider intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure and in some instances, would improve the existing visual amenity towards the light industrial units on Goat Island. There would be little change to the focus of view and views across the open harbour and the backdrop of woodland and moorland would be largely unaffected.

Overall, the magnitude of visual effect is assessed as small, resulting in a moderate (adverse) and not significant effect.

Cumulative effects:

In successive views to the south-west, as illustrated on Figure 4.27b (see Volume 2 of the EIAR), a consented seaweed processing factory building would visible amongst the existing cluster of the BiFab plant on Arnish Point and in close proximity to the right, a proposed connector building would be visible against a backdrop of rising ground. Further right, the proposed Deep Water Port development would occupy a large part of the view with large areas of rock extraction, the port building and the development platform and associated linkspan and finger pier all visible.

On the basis that the proposed Deep Water Port is consented and constructed and the consented seaweed factory and converter building are also constructed, the introduction of these developments would establish a baseline of further industrial development in the wider backdrop to the site. The proposed development would only result in a relatively small increase in the extent of visible development, and experienced within a



68


context of nearby port activity, industrial development and part of the town centre; any cumulative changes would be characteristic to their locality.

Overall therefore, the magnitude of cumulative effect is assessed as negligible-small, resulting in a minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant visual effect.

Summary






VIEWPOINT 6 - Newmarket (see Figure 4.17)





Coastal Character Area: N/A


Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 35 m AOD, the viewpoint is located alongside busy A857 that passes through the residential settlement of Newmarket, on the northern fringes of Stornoway. In addition to representing the views of main road users, several residential dwellings are located in close proximity, some of which have open views towards the site.

Current view:

Looking south towards the site, the foreground view is dominated by built development alongside the main road. Beyond some sloping fields in the middle ground, views of extensive development across Stornoway are back by relatively distant views of rising moorland and open sea.

Landscape sensitivity:

The viewpoint is located within the Crofting One LCT (medium sensitivity) where the characteristic and repetitive pattern of croft houses, backed by crofting strips within the linear arrangement of crofting townships set amongst exposed boggy moorland are clearly apparent. Sensitivity is therefore assessed as medium.

Visual sensitivity:

Residents - high susceptibility.

The views across the town experienced by several nearby residents along Newton Street and a large number of visitors to the town are part of their visual amenity – medium value.

With a high susceptibility and medium value, the overall sensitivity of residential is assessed as medium-high.







69

VIEWPOINT 6 - Newmarket (see Figure 4.17)


A small part of the boat workshop building would visible above intervening built development although all

other parts of the proposed development would be screened from view.


Construction of the upper parts of the boat workshop building would be just evident although most construction activity would be screened from view. The magnitude of landscape and visual effect is assessed as none-negligible and considering the influence of the extensive development and activity across the view, the visual effect is judged to be negligible (adverse) and not significant.

Landscape effects (operational):

The introduction of the boat workshop building would result in a very small increase in built development and considering the context of extensive surrounding development, the magnitude of landscape effect is assessed as none-negligible (adverse).


With built development extending across most of the view, the changes resulting from the introduction of the boat workshop would be very difficult to discern. The magnitude of visual effect is assessed as none-negligible, resulting in a negligible (adverse) and not significant visual effect.

Cumulative effects:

As illustrated on Figure 4.28 (see Volume 2 of the EIAR), a consented converter building and a very small part of the rock extraction associated with the proposed Deep Water Port development would be just evident above the town. With a hardly discernible increase in built development, the magnitude of cumulative effect is assessed as none-negligible, resulting in a negligible (adverse) and not significant visual effect.

Summary

Significance of temporary construction visual effects Negligible (adverse) – not significant

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (construction) None-negligible (adverse)

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (operational) None-negligible (adverse)

Significance of visual effects (operational) Negligible (adverse) – not significant

Significance of cumulative effects Negligible (adverse) – not significant

VIEWPOINT 7 - Lews Castle (see Figure 4.18)




Landscape Character Type: Boggy Moorland


Landscape designations: Lews Castle GDL & Stornoway Conservation Area

Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 24 m AOD, the viewpoint is located in front of Lews Castle, within the grounds of the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Deigned Landscape (GDL) and the Stornoway Conservation Area. With a nearby museum, café and an extensive network of Core Paths that lead through the wooded grounds, the castle is a very popular visitor attraction and an important part of the town’s natural and cultural heritage.

Current view:



70


Looking south-east towards the site and framed by surrounding trees, the view is focused on part of the town’s historic core, the picturesque inner harbour and the open sea beyond. A cluster of industrial buildings on Goat Island are visible above the historic core and in the backdrop to the right of view, a large industrial building (BiFab plant) is prominent on the skyline of the low-lying headland of Arnish Point. Most of the wider view is restricted by nearby trees and vegetation.


The viewpoint is located within the Boggy Moorland LCT (high sensitivity) although in stark contrast to the typical character of large scale, gently undulating peat moorlands, indented with numerous large and small rounded lochs that define this LCT, the character of the local landscape is heavily influenced by the dense coverage of designed policy woodlands in the grounds of the nearby castle. As such, the coastal character area in which the viewpoint is located (Stornoway Harbour CCA) is more relevant to consider and taking into account the influence of the wooded castle grounds and the open views across the inner harbour, sensitivity is assessed as high.

Visual sensitivity:


The scenic views across the harbour of those visiting the castle and its associated attractions are an important part of the experience at a very popular location – high value.




In the centre of view, the upper parts of the boat workshop building and the business units would be visible above intervening buildings and further to the left, the water sports clubhouse would be partially screened by intervening trees. The masts of some boats would also be visible although all other parts of the proposed development would be screened from view.


Construction activity would be focused on views of the boat workshop, business unit and water sports clubhouse buildings. Although some construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity and movement of large vehicles would be noticeable, these would be experienced within a context of surrounding development and busy activity. Most ground-based activity would also be screened from view. The magnitude of landscape/coastal and visual effect is assessed as small-medium and considering the influence of the busy town and port, the visual effect is judged to be moderate (adverse) and not significant.


During the operational stages of the proposed development, the main change would result from the introduction of some noticeable buildings although considering the existing cluster of industrial units on Goat Island, these would be characteristic to their locality. It is also very likely that the proposed development would result in some positive changes to the exiting industrial influence of buildings on Goat Island and considering the nearby presence of the existing operational port, the addition of moving and static boats would be characteristic to the local landscape.

Overall, there would be a minor change, affecting some characteristics and the experience of the landscape slightly. The magnitude of landscape/coastal effect is therefore predicted to be small (adverse).


Occupying a relatively small part of the 500 view, the introduction of an operational marina and associated built development and activity would be viewed in context of the town centre and nearby port. Although the boat workshop building would be noticeable, particularly where it breaks the skyline, it would have a visual relationship with the existing buildings on Goat Island. The various parts of the proposed development would also fit the wider intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure and in some instances, would improve the existing visual amenity towards the light industrial units on Goat Island. There would be little change to the focus of view and the views across the harbour and open sea beyond are largely unaffected.



71


Overall, the magnitude of visual effect is assessed as small-medium, resulting in a moderate (adverse) and not significant effect.

Cumulative effects:

As illustrated on Figure 4.29 (see Volume 2 of the EIAR), a consented seaweed processing factory building would visible on Arnish Point. Further to the right of view, a proposed connector building and parts of the Deep Water Port Development would be quite difficult to discern through nearby intervening trees.

On the basis that the proposed Deep Water Port is consented and constructed and the consented seaweed factory and converter building are also constructed, the introduction of these developments would establish a baseline of further industrial development in the backdrop to the site. The proposed development would only result in a relatively small increase in the extent of visible development, and experienced within a context of nearby port activity, industrial development and part of the town centre; any cumulative changes would be characteristic to their locality.


Summary






VIEWPOINT 8 - Ferry Terminal (see Figure 4.19)

Grid reference: 42428 32576






Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 4 m AOD, the viewpoint is located at the water’s edge, immediately to south of the ferry terminal building and next to the passenger’s car park. With a town centre location, the local area is very busy with activity and accommodates the passing of a large number of ferry passengers and other visitors to the town.

Current view:

Looking south-east towards the nearby site, the view is centred towards a cluster of industrial buildings on Goat Island. To the right of these buildings, a harbour wall partially contains the inshore waters of Newton Basin and to the left; a causeway leads towards Newton Street. Above the causeway, a low rising headland that accommodates the settlement of Lower Sandwick is visible in the backdrop and to the far left, a section of sloping rock armour that protects the nearby carpark (out of view) is visible in the foreground. Beyond the harbour wall to the right of view, the containing backdrop to the harbour is dominated by rocky a coastline below undulating moorland slopes. To the left of these slopes, a large industrial building (BiFab plant) is prominent on the low-lying skyline of Arnish Point. This 500 view forms part of a wider 900 contained by the pier to the right and the car park to the left.




72


The viewpoint is located within the Crofting One LCT (medium sensitivity) although in stark contrast to the characteristic and repetitive pattern of croft houses, backed by crofting strips within the linear arrangement of crofting townships set amongst exposed boggy moorland, the local landscape is dominated by the busy town centre. In relation to coastal character, the viewpoint is located within the Stornoway Harbour CCA and at this point, the surrounding area is very busy with activity, and is characterised by extensive town centre development and harbour infrastructure. Sensitivity is therefore assessed as medium.

Visual sensitivity:

Visitors/ferry passengers - high susceptibility.

The scenic views across the harbour experienced by a large number of ferry passengers and visitors to the town are an important part of their visual amenity – high value.

With a high susceptibility and value, the overall sensitivity of visitors and ferry passengers is assessed as high.


Parts of proposed development potentially visible: All parts of the proposed development including the breakwater, boat workshop, business units, watersports clubhouse, boat hoist, slipway, pontoons and associated moored boats would be visible in close proximity.


All construction activity, including the dredging of the seabed and the reclamation of land would be highly obvious. These operations on land and sea would result in widespread views of construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity and movement of large vehicles experienced in close proximity. The magnitude of landscape/coastal and visual effect is assessed as large, resulting in a major (adverse) and sigingcant visual effect.


During the operational stages, the introduction of a marina and several buildings and associated activity in the nearby backdrop would be very obvious. The boat workshop would appear larger in scale than the existing buildings on Goat Island and to some degree; it would contrast with the vertical scale of the landform. However, considering the existing cluster of industrial units on Goat Island, the introduction of buildings would be characteristic to the locality. Furthermore, it is very likely that the introduction of a marina and associated buildings behind would result in some positive changes in landscape/coastal character as the exiting industrial buildings would be partially screened from view. Considering the nearby presence of the existing operational port, the addition of moving and static boats would also be characteristic.

Overall, the changes would be very obvious, affecting some key characteristics and the experience of the landscape. Consequently, the magnitude of landscape/coastal effect is predicted to be medium-large (adverse).


The introduction of an operational marina and associated built development and activity would be viewed in very close proximity and taken collectively; it would occupy a very large part of the 500 view. The marina could detract from open views of the water although the various parts of the proposed development would fit the wider intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure. In some instances, the proposed development would also improve the existing visual amenity towards light industrial units on Goat Island.


Cumulative effects:

As illustrated on Figure 4.30 (see Volume 2 of the EIAR), a consented seaweed processing factory building on the skyline of Arnish Point would be visible and to the right of the existing BiFab plant building, a proposed converter building. Towards the right of view, the proposed Deep Water Port development would be visible including large areas of rock extraction, some of the port building and a large part of the development platform and associated linkspan and finger pier.



73


On the basis that the proposed Deep Water Port is consented and constructed and the consented seaweed factory and converter building are also constructed, the introduction of these developments would establish a baseline of further industrial development in the backdrop to Newton Basin. Although the proposed development would result in a very noticeable increase in the extent of nearby visible development, it would be characteristic and viewed against a backdrop and wider context of large scale port activity, industrial development and infrastructure.

Overall therefore, the magnitude of cumulative effect is assessed as medium, resulting in a moderate-major (adverse) and significant visual effect.

Summary


Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (construction) Large (adverse)

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (operational) Medium-large (adverse)


Significance of cumulative effects Moderate-major (adverse) - significant

VIEWPOINT 9 - Lewis War Memorial (see Figure 4.20)





Coastal Character Area: N/A


Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 57 m AOD, this elevated viewpoint is located alongside the Lewis War Memorial, at the western edge of Stornoway. Commemorating those who lost their lives in World War 1, the memorial takes the form of a distinctive Scottish Baronial Tower that rises to a height of 26 m. With panoramic views over the town and the sea beyond, the viewpoint is a popular visitor attraction.

Current view:

Looking south-east towards the site, the foreground drops quite steeply away towards a rising middle ground of a golf course set within the wooded grounds of Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park GDL. To the left of this, the lower-lying town of Stornoway with the Eye Peninsula and open sea beyond forms a strong visual focus. Above the golf course to the right of view, the moorland slopes along the western of the harbour (out of view) provide a rising backdrop. This 500 view forms part of a wider 1800 view of surrounding moorlands.

Landscape sensitivity:

The viewpoint is located within the Crofting One LCT (medium sensitivity) where the characteristic and repetitive pattern of croft houses, backed by crofting strips within the linear arrangement of crofting townships set amongst exposed boggy moorland are apparent in the wider view although considering its elevation and the scenic quality of views, sensitivity is assessed as medium-high.

Visual sensitivity:

Visitors - high susceptibility.

The panoramic scenic views of those visiting the memorial are an important part of the experience at a popular cultural attraction – high value.

With a high susceptibility and value, the overall sensitivity of visitors is assessed as high.



74

VIEWPOINT 9 - Lewis War Memorial (see Figure 4.20)


All parts of the proposed development would be screened from view by an intervening wooded ridge within the grounds of Lews Castle.


As no construction activity would be visible, the effect is assessed as none.


As no parts of the proposed development would be visible, the magnitude of landscape effect is assessed as none.


As no parts of the proposed development would be visible, the visual effect is assessed as none.

Cumulative effects:

As no parts of the proposed development would be visible, the cumulative effect is assessed as none.

Summary

Significance of temporary construction visual effects None - not significant

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (construction) None - not significant

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (operational) None - not significant

Significance of visual effects (operational) None - not significant

Significance of cumulative effects None - not significant

VIEWPOINT 10 - Iolaire Monument Car Park (see Figure 4.16)







Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 18 m AOD, the viewpoint is located at the edge of a visitor car park that serves a nearby Iolaire monument. Accessed by a short section of footpath, the monument commemorates the lives of those lost through the tragic sinking of the lolaire yacht that was carrying soldiers back home to the island soon after the end of World War 1. Views towards the site from the monument are partially curtailed by intervening rising ground. Although the monument is sign-posted from the main road, considering the small size of the car park, it would only appear to attract a relatively small number of visitors.

Current view:

Looking north-east towards the site, a foreground of gently undulating rough grass gives way to an open view across Stornoway harbour. Beyond the water, extensive development across the town of Stornoway forms a visual focus to the middle and right of view. To the left of view in contrast, wooded and moorland slopes provide a distinctive undeveloped backdrop to the harbour. This 500 view forms part of a wider 1800 view of the harbour and open sea beyond.




75



Visual sensitivity:

Visitors - high susceptibility.

The panoramic scenic views of those visiting the memorial are an important part of the experience at an important cultural attraction – high value.

With a high susceptibility and value, the overall sensitivity of visitors is assessed as high.



In the backdrop to the harbour, the boat workshop building, business units and water sports clubhouse would all be visible immediately to the right of the existing cluster of buildings on Goat Island. The masts of some moored boats would also be visible and sometimes, the movable boat hoist. The pontoons, breakwater and most other lower-lying infrastructure within Newton Basin would however be screened from view by an intervening causeway and some proposed buildings as noted above.


Construction activity would be focused on views of the boat workshop, business unit and water sports clubhouse buildings. Although some construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity and movement of large vehicles would be quite noticeable, these would be experienced within a context of nearby industrial development. The magnitude of landscape/coastal and visual effect is assessed as small and considering the influence of the busy town and port in the nearby backdrop to the site, the visual effect is judged to be moderate (adverse) and not significant.


During the operational stages of the proposed development, the main change would result from the introduction of some quite noticeable buildings although considering the existing cluster of industrial units on Goat Island, these would be characteristic to their locality. It is also very likely that the proposed development would result in some positive changes to the exiting industrial influence of buildings on Goat Island and the power station on Battery Point. Furthermore, considering the nearby presence of the existing operational port, the addition of moving and static boats would be characteristic to the local landscape.

Overall, there would be a minor change, affecting some characteristics and the experience of the landscape very slightly. The magnitude of landscape/coastal effect is therefore predicted to be negligible-small (adverse).


Occupying a relatively small part of the 500 view, the introduction of an operational marina and associated built development and activity would be viewed in the backdrop to the harbour. Although the boat workshop building in particular would be quite noticeable, it would have a visual relationship with the existing buildings on Goat Island and appearing much smaller than the nearby power station building on Battery Point and some other large buildings in the town. The various parts of the proposed development would also fit the wider intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure and in some instances, would improve the existing visual amenity towards the light industrial units on Goat Island. There would be little change to the focus of view and views across the open harbour and the backdrop of woodland and moorland would be largely unaffected.

Overall, the magnitude of visual effect is assessed as negligible-small, resulting in a minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant effect.

Cumulative effects:

In successive views to the west, as illustrated on Figure 4.32b (see Volume 2 of the EIAR), part of a consented connector building would visible amongst the existing cluster of the BiFab plant on Arnish Point and in close



76


proximity to the right, a consented seaweed processing factory building be visible against a backdrop of rising ground. Further right, the proposed Deep Water Port development would occupy a large part of the view with large areas of rock extraction, the port building and the development platform and associated linkspan and finger pier all visible.

On the basis that the proposed Deep Water Port is consented and constructed and the consented seaweed factory and converter building are also constructed, the introduction of these developments would establish a baseline of further industrial development in the wider backdrop to the site. The proposed development would only result in a very small increase in the extent of visible development, and experienced within a context of nearby port activity, industrial development and the busy town centre; any cumulative changes would be characteristic to their locality.

Overall therefore, the magnitude of cumulative effect is assessed as negligible, resulting in a minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant visual effect.

Summary


Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (construction) Small (adverse)

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (operational) Negligible-small (adverse)

Significance of visual effects (operational) Minor-moderate (adverse) – not significant


VIEWPOINT 11 - Sandwick Bay (see Figure 4.22)







Baseline Assessment

Context:

At an elevation of approximately 3 m AOD, the viewpoint is located alongside a picnic bench on a popular footpath route that leads around the shore of Sandwick Bay. Behind the footpath, a cemetery is located on gently rising ground with some residential dwellings beyond. Although the viewpoint is just beyond the ZTV, it has been included to demonstrate the screening effect of battery point and to assess the impact of the proposed Deep Water Port.

Current view:

Looking west towards the site, the foreground view is composed of the inshore waters of the harbour, contained by a gently sloping beach along the inner part of Sandwick Bay. In the middle ground, Battery Point extends into the harbour, forming a low-lying sense of enclosure to the western end of the bay. A series of residential dwellings are located on the headland behind which, a power station is prominent in view. In the backdrop to this, the wooded slopes in the grounds of Lews Castle rise above the town. To the left of view, rocky reefs extend from Battery Pont into the open harbour and in the backdrop; undulating moorland slopes contain the western side of the harbour.

This 500 view forms part of a wider 1800 view of the harbour where further to the left, the settlement of Lower Sandwick is situated on a low-lying small headland that contains the eastern end of the bay. At the mouth of the harbour, the Arnish Lighthouse and a large industrial building (BiFab plant) are situated on Arnish Point, with some views of the open sea beyond.




77

VIEWPOINT 11 - Sandwick Bay (see Figure 4.22)


Visual sensitivity:

Recreational users - high susceptibility.

The scenic views across the harbour experienced by a relatively large number those undertaking informal recreational activity along the coast are an important part of their visual amenity – high value.

With a high susceptibility and value, the overall sensitivity is assessed as high.


All parts of the proposed development would be screened from view by intervening rising ground and associated built development on Battery Point.


As no construction activity would be visible, the effect is assessed as none.


As no parts of the proposed development would be visible, the magnitude of landscape effect is assessed as none.


As no parts of the proposed development would be visible, the visual effect is assessed as none.

Cumulative effects:

As no parts of the proposed development would be visible, the cumulative effect is assessed as none.

Summary

Significance of temporary construction visual effects None - not significant

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (construction) None - not significant

Magnitude of landscape/coastal effects (operational) None - not significant

Significance of visual effects (operational) None - not significant

Significance of cumulative effects None - not significant

4.6.6 Construction Phase

4.6.6.1 Physical Landscape Resources

During the 14 month construction phase of the physical marina (the buildings on the reclamation would be

subject to separate timescales), the preferred method of constructing the reclamation, breakwater and slipway

is to make use of as much as possible of the material dredged to form the entrance channel and marina basin,

minimising the amount of dredgings deposited at sea. The total dredged volume in the entrance channel and

marina basin would be approximately 100,000 m³. It is anticipated that all material dredged by the cutter suction

dredger (up to 90,000 m³), excavated by land-based plant (up to 50,000 m³), and imported for the access bund

and armouring (up to 15,000 m³), would be re-used in the construction of the new works.

The reclamation area, measuring approximately 1.57 ha, would be accessed from the end of the Goat Island

causeway and would accommodate a range of buildings and uses associated with the marina. The marina would



78

be formed from a 100 m long floating access walkway and three walkway legs, each around 60 m long and with

finger pier berths on either side.

Considering that all construction activity would take place on brownfield land, reclaimed land and open water,

there are no existing distinctive landscape features that would be lost during the construction phase. However,

taking into account the disturbance and loss of some open water within Newton Basin, the magnitude of direct

effect on the landscape/coastal resources of the site is predicted to be small-medium. With a medium-high

landscape/coastal sensitivity, the effect would be moderate (adverse) and not significant.

4.6.6.2 Landscape Character

As detailed in Section 4.5.4, the study area covers three main landscape character types (LCTs) and the indirect

landscape effect on these are assessed as follows:

Crofting One LCT

The site is located immediately to the south of the Crofting One LCT and for those viewpoints located within this

LCT, a large magnitude of landscape effect is predicted during the construction phase from viewpoints 3 (Newton

Street) and 8 (Ferry Terminal) and from viewpoint 5 (Lower Sandwick), small-medium. From viewpoints 2 (South

Beach) and 10 (Iolaire Monument Car Park), the magnitude of landscape effect would reduce to small, with a

negligible-none at viewpoint 6 (Newmarket). From viewpoint 9 (Lewis War Memorial) and 11 (Sandwick Bay), the

effect would be none.

Although the magnitude of landscape effect experienced at a particular location is an important factor to

consider, in determining the overall significance of effect, the extent of change experienced across a landscape

is also considered. As illustrated on Figure 4.8 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, theoretically visibility across the Crofting

One LCT is largely restricted to areas within 2 km from site, with most of the landscape further to the north and

east outside of the ZTV. Furthermore, from within the large majority of the built environment where theoretical

visibility is predicted, intervening buildings would screen views of construction activity. In practice therefore, the

overall extent of open views to the site is relatively limited.

Nonetheless, from those parts of the LCT with open views across Newton Basin, some very localised significant

effects would be experienced (see viewpoints 3 and 8) but considering the relatively small proportion of the

landscape affected and the decreasing magnitude of effect with distance, the overall magnitude is assessed as

small. With a medium sensitivity, the effect would therefore be minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant.

Boggy Moorland LCT

Viewpoints 1 (Cuddy Point) and 7 (Lews Castle) are both located within the Boggy Moorland LCT and from these

locations, a small-medium magnitude of landscape effect is predicted during the construction phase. However,

only a very small proportion of the entire LCT, focused on some coastal areas, would be affected (see Figure 4.8

in Volume 2 of this EIAR) and from nearly all parts of this landscape, there would be no views of construction

activity. Overall therefore, the magnitude of effect is predicted to be negligible and considering its high

sensitivity, a moderate-minor (adverse) and not significant effect is likely to be experienced.

Rocky Moorland LCT

Although there are no viewpoints located within this LCT, only a very small part, focused on small areas of some

coastal slopes, is within theoretical visibility (see Figure 4.8). As nearly all of the landscape would be unaffected

by views of construction activity, the magnitude of effect is predicted to be negligible, resulting in a moderate-

minor (adverse) and not significant effect.



79

4.6.6.3 Coastal Character

As detailed in Section 4.5.5, the study area covers two coastal character areas (CCAs) and the indirect effect on

these are assessed as follows:

Stornoway Harbour

Of the 11 viewpoints assessed, nine of these are within the Stornoway Harbour CCA and from viewpoints 3

(Newton Street), 4 (Harbour-offshore) and 8 (Ferry Terminal), the magnitude of landscape/coastal effect

predicted during the construction phase is judged to be large. From these locations, there would be close up

views of construction activity concerning the dredging of the seabed, reclamation of land and construction of

buildings and other infrastructure. These complex and relatively large scale engineering operations on land and

sea would result in relatively widespread views of construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity

and movement of large vehicles.

From the remaining six viewpoints within the CCA, a small-medium magnitude of effect is predicted from

viewpoints 1, 5 and 7, small from viewpoints 2 and 10, and from viewpoint 11, the effect would be none.

As illustrated on Figure 4.9 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, nearly all of the CCA is within theoretical visibility and

considering the prevailing open nature of the coastline, large parts would experience some views of construction

activity, particularly to the west of the site. However, it is important to recognise that any activity would be

experienced within a context of the nearby operational port and busy town centre development activity. Overall

therefore, the magnitude of effect is judged to be small-medium, and with a medium-high sensitivity, the effect

would be moderate (adverse) and not significant.

Arnish Approaches

As illustrated on Figure 4.9, parts of the Arnish Approaches CCA are within theoretical visibility although

considering the location of the intervening buildings on Arnish Point; it is likely that activity from many areas

along the coast would be screened from view. With a high sensitivity, the overall magnitude of effect is predicted

to be negligible, resulting in a moderate-minor (adverse) and not significant effect.

4.6.6.4 Landscape Designations

Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park GDL

The detailed assessments at viewpoints 1 (Cuddy Point) and 7 (Lews Castle) provide a worst case understanding

of landscape effects on the GDL during the construction phase and from both locations, a small-medium

magnitude of effect is predicted. As illustrated on Figure 4.10 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, the large majority of the

designation is outside of theoretical visibility and from most parts within the ZTV, the dense coverage of

surrounding policy woodlands would tend to screen views towards the site.

As most parts of the designation would be unaffected, the overall magnitude of effect is judged to be negligible-

small and considering any views of activity would be experienced in context of the nearby operational port and

busy town centre, with a high sensitivity, effects on the GDL are judged to be minor-moderate (adverse) and not

significant.

Stornoway Conservation Area

Viewpoints 1 (Cuddy Point), 2 (South Beach) and 7 (Lews Castle) all provide an understanding of how the setting

of the Conservation Area would be affected and from these locations, a small or small-medium magnitude of

effect is predicted. As not all parts of the setting are affected however, particularly as result of the screening

effect of intervening built development, the overall magnitude of effect is judged to be negligible-small and

considering a medium-high sensitivity, a minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant effect is predicted.



80

4.6.6.5 Residents

Newton Street

Considering the findings of the Viewpoint Assessment at viewpoint 3 (Newton Street), it is very likely that from

the south facing rooms of all dwellings along South Beach that face the marina, residents would experience views

of construction activity, including dredging of the seabed and the reclamation of land across much of their view.

With relatively large scale engineering operations taking place with associated infrastructure, storage of

materials and movement of large vehicles, the magnitude of visual effect is assessed as large. Considering their

high sensitivity, visual effects on residents are judged to be major (adverse) and significant.

South Beach

For those residents in close proximity to viewpoint 2 (South Beach), it is very likely that views of construction

activity would be largely limited to the site of the boat workshop and watersports clubhouse buildings although

the movement of vehicles and other some activity might be evident amongst intervening buildings and

infrastructure across other parts of the site. As any activity would only occupy a relatively small part of the view

and experienced amongst intervening development and infrastructure associated with the existing operational

port, the magnitude of visual effect is assessed as small. With a high sensitivity, effects on residents are predicted

to be moderate (adverse) and not significant.

Lower Sandwick

From viewpoint 5 (Lower Sandwick), a small-medium magnitude of visual effect is predicted where views of

construction activity would tend to be focused on the boat workshop, business unit and water sports clubhouse

buildings. Although some construction infrastructure, storage of materials, noise, activity and movement of large

vehicles would be noticeable, these would be experienced within a context of nearby industrial development

and views of the nearby town. Considering these factors, the visual effect is judged to be moderate (adverse)

and not significant.

Other settlements

Table 4.11 identifies all main settlements with the study area and some of these, including Melbost, Steinis, and

Laxdale, are outside of the ZTV. For those settlements within theoretical visibility, the large majority of views

towards the site would be screened by intervening built development, including those within Stornoway.

Considering the distance of these settlements to the site and the very limited scope for open views of

construction activity, the overall visual effect on all these settlements is judged to be not significant.

4.6.6.6 Recreational Users

Lewis Castle Grounds Core Paths

As illustrated on Figure 4.11 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, approximately half of the Core Path Network in the grounds

of Lews Castle is outside of the ZTV. From the large majority of footpaths within theoretical visibility, the dense

coverage of surrounding woodlands would tend to screen any construction activity from view. From some short

open sections of path near to the castle however, glimpsed views, similar to those at viewpoint 7 (Lews Castle)

would be experienced.

Consequently, where any open views of construction activity experienced, the localised effect on walkers is likely

to be moderate (not significant) although considering the short duration of these when walking through the

grounds of the castle, the overall visual effect on the Core Path network is judged to be minor-moderate

(adverse) and not significant.

Wider path network



81

From the section of wider path network that leads across Battery Point and around Sandwick Bay, walkers near

to the site (to the south of the power station) would experience views of construction activity in close proximity.

From this short section, effects are likely be significant although considering that most of the path that leads

around Sandwick Bay is outside of the ZTV, effects on walkers when travelling the entire route are judged to be

not significant.

From the section of path to the east of Lower Sandwick, considering the distance of this route from the site and

the limited nature of intermittent visibility, effects are also predicted to be not significant.

Ferry passengers

As detailed in the assessment at viewpoint 4 (Harbour), ferry passengers and other boat users would experience

some close up views of construction activity including the dredging of the seabed and the construction of the

breakwater and boat workshop building when passing near to the site. Consequently, a localised major (adverse)

and significant is predicated. A major (adverse) and significant effect would also be experienced from the ferry

terminal (viewpoint 8).

However, views of any construction activity when sailing near to Arnish Point and the open sea beyond would

be experienced at over 1 km from the site and in context of other existing port and town centre activity. As such,

the overall visual effect on ferry passengers travelling along the entire route is judged to be not significant.

4.6.6.7 Road Users

When travelling along the main roads as listed in Table 4.12, taking into account the limited extent of theoretical

visibility along these routes and the screening effect of intervening built development, effects on all road users

are judged to be not significant.

4.6.7 Operational Phase

4.6.7.1 Scope

This section sets out an assessment of the predicted long term effects of the proposed development during its

operational phase. In addition to desk and field work undertaken across the study area, this has been informed

by the findings of the preceding Viewpoint Assessment and associated annotated photos (see Figures 4.12 – 4.22

in Volume 2 of this EIAR).

4.6.7.2 Landscape Character

As detailed in Section 4.5.4, the study area covers three main landscape character types (LCTs) and the indirect

landscape effect on these are assessed as follows:

Crofting One LCT

For those viewpoints located within the Crofting One LCT, a medium-large magnitude of landscape effect is

predicted during the operational phase from viewpoints 3 (Newton Street) and 8 (Ferry Terminal). From

viewpoint 5 (Lower Sandwick) a small magnitude of effect is predicted, reducing to negligible-small at viewpoints

2 (South Beach) and 10 (Iolaire Monument Car Park). From viewpoint 6 (Newmarket), a none-negligible

magnitude of effect is likely and from viewpoints 9 (Lewis War Memorial) and 11 (Sandwick Bay), the no

landscape changes would be experienced.

In considering the extent of change experienced across this LCT, Figure 4.8 in Volume 2 of this EIAR illustrates

that theoretically visibility is largely restricted to areas within 2 km from site, with most of the landscape further

to the north and east outside of the ZTV. Where theoretical visibility is predicted across parts of Stornoway and

surrounding settlements, the opportunity for open views in practice is very limited due to the screening effect



82

of intervening built development. Overall therefore, the extent of change experienced across the landscape is

relatively limited.

From those parts of the LCT where there would be open views of the operational marina, these would be

experienced in context of a busy and partially settled landscape where the operational port and extensive

development in and Stornoway exert a strong influence. Although the semi-natural character along parts of the

rocky coastline to the east of the LCT and some long views from higher ground would be affected to a very limited

degree, most of the key characteristics (as detailed in Table 4.8) would remain unaffected.

Considering all of these factors, the magnitude of effect is predicted to be negligible-small and with a medium

sensitivity, the overall effect is assessed as minor (adverse) and not significant.

Boggy Moorland LCT

Viewpoints 1 (Cuddy Point) and 7 (Lews Castle) are both located within the Boggy Moorland LCT and from these

locations, a small magnitude of landscape effect is predicted. The main change that would result is from the

introduction of some noticeable buildings, particularly the boat workshop building, although considering the

existing cluster of industrial units on Goat Island, these would be characteristic to their locality. It is also very

likely that the proposed development would result in some positive changes to the exiting industrial influence of

buildings on Goat Island and considering the nearby presence of the existing operational port, the addition of

moving and static boats would be characteristic to the local landscape.

Overall, only a very small proportion of the entire LCT would be affected (see Figure 4.8 in Volume 2 of this EIAR)

as from nearly all parts, there would be no views of the operational marina. Furthermore, most of the key

characteristics (as detailed in Table 4.8) would remain unaffected. Overall therefore, the magnitude of effect is

predicted to be negligible and considering its high sensitivity, a minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant

effect.

Rocky Moorland LCT

Although there are no viewpoints located within this LCT, only a very small part along some coastal slopes is

within theoretical visibility (see Figure 4.8). As nearly all of the landscape would be unaffected by views of

operational development and activity, the magnitude of effect is predicted to be negligible, resulting in a minor-

moderate (adverse) and not significant effect.

4.6.7.3 Coastal Character

As detailed in Section 4.5.5, the study area covers two coastal character areas (CCAs) and the indirect effect on

these are assessed as follows:

Stornoway Harbour

As illustrated on Figure 4.9, nearly all of the CCA is within theoretical visibility and considering the prevailing open

nature of the coastline, most parts would experience some effects from the operation of the proposed

development. Of the 11 viewpoints assessed, nine of these are within the Stornoway Harbour CCA and from

these, the magnitude of landscape/coastal effect ranges from medium-large at viewpoints 3 and 8, medium at

viewpoint 4, small at viewpoints 1, 5 and 7, to negligible-small at viewpoints 2 and 10. From viewpoint 11, the

proposed development would be screened from view.

As detailed in the preceding Viewpoint Assessment, the main effects on coastal character would result from an

increase in built development and associated activity, some which would be located on reclaimed land. In close

proximity to the site, the boat workshop would appear larger in scale than the existing buildings on Goat Island

and to some degree; it would contrast with the vertical scale of the landform.



83

However, considering the existing cluster of industrial units on Goat Island, the introduction of buildings would

be characteristic to the locality. Furthermore, it is very likely that the introduction of a marina and associated

buildings would result in some positive changes in landscape/coastal character as in some instances, the existing

industrial buildings would be partially screened from view or their setting influenced by development of a non

industrial nature. Considering the nearby presence of the existing operational port, the addition of moving and

static boats would also be characteristic to this part of the coast.

Overall therefore, the magnitude of effect is judged to be small, and with a medium-high sensitivity, long term

effects would be minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant.

Arnish Approaches

As illustrated on Figure 4.9 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, some parts of the Arnish Approaches CCA are within

theoretical visibility although considering the location of the intervening buildings on Arnish Point; it is likely that

the proposed development from some areas along the coast would be screened from view. Where any

development or activity would be evident, it would be experienced within a context of the busy port and town.

Furthermore, as most of the rocky coastline that extends further south would not experience any effects from

operational development, most of its key characteristics would remain intact. With a high sensitivity, the overall

magnitude of effect is predicted to be negligible, resulting in a minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant

effect.

4.6.7.4 Landscape Designations

Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park GDL

As illustrated on Figure 4.10 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, most of the designation is outside of theoretical visibility

and for the large majority of those parts within the ZTV, the dense coverage of surrounding policy woodlands

would tend to screen views towards the site. For those parts within the ZTV, the detailed assessments at

viewpoints 1 (Cuddy Point) and 7 (Lews Castle) provide a worst case understanding of landscape effects and from

both locations, a small magnitude of effect is predicted.

Although the harbour is important to the setting of the designation, the GDL citation (as detailed Table 4.10)

recognises that open views from Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park overlook Stornoway, the inner harbour and

the town. In this context, the proposed developed would be characteristic and viewed in the backdrop to the

harbour, with a good degree of separation to the grounds of the castle.

Taking all factors into account, the overall magnitude of effect is judged to be negligible and with a high

sensitivity, effects are judged to minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant.

Stornoway Conservation Area

Viewpoints 1 (Cuddy Point), 2 (South Beach) and 7 (Lews Castle) provide an understanding of how the setting of

the Conservation Area would be affected. From viewpoints 1 and 7, a small magnitude of effect is predicted,

reducing to negligible-small at viewpoint 2. As not all parts of the setting are affected however, particularly as

result of the screening effect of intervening built development, the overall magnitude of effect is judged to be

negligible and considering a medium-high sensitivity, a minor (adverse) and not significant effect is predicted.

4.6.7.5 Residents

Newton Street

Considering the findings of the Viewpoint Assessment, it is very likely that from the south facing rooms of some

dwellings along South Beach near to viewpoint 3 (Newton Street), residents would experience views of the

operational marina and associated built development and activity in very close proximity, occupying a very large



84

part of the 500 view. The marina could detract from open views of the water and in places, views of the largely

undeveloped backdrop of moorland slopes and the wooded grounds of Lews Castle. However, the various parts

of the proposed development would fit the wider intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and

infrastructure.

Considering their high sensitivity, visual effects on some residents along Newton Street with open views towards

the site are judged to be moderate-major (adverse) and significant. However, considering the existing

composition of light industrial units located on Goat Island, the proposed development could in some instances,

improve the overall visual appearance of built development in the locality.

South Beach

For those residents in close proximity to viewpoint 2 (South Beach), it is very likely that views of the boat

workshop and watersports buildings would lead to little change to the existing view. There would be no change

to its focus and the various parts of the proposed development that would be visible would very much fit the

intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure. Taken collectively, the parts of visible

development and activity would only occupy a very small part of the 500 view. Overall, the magnitude of visual

effect is assessed as negligible-small and considering the dominance of the busy port and nearby town centre,

the effect is judged to be minor-moderate (adverse) and not significant.

Lower Sandwick

From viewpoint 5 (Lower Sandwick), relatively limited parts of the proposed development would be viewed in

the backdrop to Sandwick Bay. Although the boat workshop building in particular would be noticeable, it would

have a visual relationship with the existing buildings on Goat Island and appearing much smaller than the nearby

power station building on Battery Point. The various parts of the proposed development would also fit the wider

intrinsic composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure and in some instances, would improve

the existing visual amenity towards the light industrial units on Goat Island. There would be little change to the

focus of view and views across the open harbour and the backdrop of woodland and moorland would be largely

unaffected.

Overall, the magnitude of visual effect is assessed as small, resulting in a moderate (adverse) and not significant

effect.

Other settlements

Table 4.11 identifies all main settlements with the study area and some of these, including Melbost, Steinis, and

Laxdale, are outside of the ZTV. For those settlements within theoretical visibility, the large majority of views

towards the site would be screened by intervening built development, including those within Stornoway.

Considering the distance of these settlements to the site and the very limited scope for open views of the

proposed development, the overall visual effect on all these settlements is judged to be not significant.

4.6.7.6 Recreational Users

Lewis Castle Grounds Core Paths

As illustrated on Figure 4.11 in Volume 2 of this EIAR, the majority of the Core Path Network in the grounds of

Lews Castle is outside of the ZTV. For the large majority of paths within theoretical visibility, the dense coverage

of surrounding woodlands would tend to the proposed from view. From some small sections near to castle

however, glimpses views, resulting in similar effects to those predicted from viewpoint 7 (Lews Castle) would be

experienced.

Where any open views are experienced, some parts of the operational marina and associated built development

and activity would be viewed in context of the town centre and nearby port. Although the boat workshop building



85

would be noticeable, particularly where it breaks the skyline, it would have a visual relationship with the existing

buildings on Goat Island. The various parts of the proposed development would also fit the wider intrinsic

composition of surrounding port development and infrastructure and in some instances, would improve the

existing visual amenity towards the light industrial units on Goat Island. There would be little change to the focus

of view and the views across the harbour and open sea beyond are largely unaffected.

Consequently, where any open views of the proposed development are experienced, the localised effect on

walkers is likely to be moderate (not significant) although considering the short duration of these when walking

through the grounds of the castle, the overall visual effect on the Core Path network is judged to be minor-

moderate (adverse) and not significant.

Wider path network

From the section of wider path network that leads across Battery Point and around Sandwick Bay, walkers near

to the site (to the south of the power station) would experience views of the proposed development in close

proximity. From this short section, effects are likely be significant although considering that most of the path that

leads around Sandwick Bay is outside of the ZTV, effects on walkers when travelling the entire route are judged

to be not significant.

From the section of path to the east of Lower Sandwick, considering the distance of this route from the site and

the limited nature of intermittent visibility, effects are also predicted to be not significant.

Ferry passengers

As detailed in the assessment at viewpoint 4 (Harbour), ferry passengers and other boat users would experience

some close up views of the proposed development, occupying a large part of the 500 view. Although the boat

workshop building would be prominent in view, it would have a visual relationship with the existing buildings on

Goat Island. The various parts of the proposed development would also fit the wider intrinsic composition of

surrounding port development and infrastructure and in some instances, would improve the existing visual

amenity towards light industrial units on Goat Island and the power station on Battery Point.

Consequently, a localised moderate-major (adverse) and significant is predicated. A moderate-major (adverse)

and significant effect would also be experienced from the ferry terminal (viewpoint 8).

However, views of the proposed development when sailing near to Arnish Point and the open sea beyond would

be experienced at over 1 km from the site and in context of other existing port and town centre activity. As such,

the overall visual effect on ferry passengers travelling along the entire route is judged to be not significant.

Road Users

When travelling along the main roads as listed in Table 4.12, taking into account the limited extent of theoretical

visibility along these routes and the screening effect of intervening built development, effects on all road users

are judged to be not significant.

4.6.8 Cumulative Assessment

As detailed in preceding Viewpoint Assessment, significant cumulative effects are only predicted at the following

two locations:

Viewpoint 3: Newton Street - moderate-major (adverse); and

Viewpoint 8: Ferry Terminal - moderate-major (adverse).



86

On the basis that the proposed Deep Water Port is consented and constructed and the consented seaweed

factory and converter building are also constructed, any significant effects are largely due to the proposed

development introducing a very noticeable increase in built development viewed in close proximity. However,

the extent of any such effect is very localised and experienced against a backdrop and wider context of large

scale port activity, industrial development and infrastructure.

In considering the findings of the Viewpoint Assessment and the general assessment of landscape and visual

effects, no significant cumulative effects are predicted on any other landscape and visual receptors, apart from

those visual receptors at viewpoints 3 and 8.

4.7 Summary of Effects

4.7.1 Assessment Context

The study area generally benefits from a high landscape and scenic quality. In particular, the wooded grounds of

Lews Castle, designated a nationally important Garden and Designed Landscape, provide a distinctive setting to

the town and its associated harbour. Along the western coastline, the containing backdrop to the harbour is

dominated by undulating moorland slopes and with a rocky coastal edge below, it exhibits a strong semi-

character. The town is also a very popular visitor destination and in addition to those working and living in the

local area, the scenic views across the harbour are an integral part of visitor’s visual amenity.

Although much of the western side of the harbour has a prevailing undeveloped character, the busy town and

port of Stornoway, and a network of busy main roads and settlements scattered across much of the landscape

to the north and east, exert a very strong influence on the character of the study area.

Section 4.6 of this Chapter sets out a detailed assessment of the landscape, visual and cumulative effects

predicted during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. As noted in Section

4.4.9, where overall effects are predicted to be moderate-major, major or substantial, these are considered to

be significant in terms of EIA regulations.

4.7.2 Summary of Significant Effects - Construction Phase

During the 14 months temporary construction phase of the physical marina (the buildings on the reclamation

would be subject to separate timescales), significant visual effects are predicted on the receptors at the following

viewpoint locations:

Viewpoint 3: Newton Street - residents and visitors;

Viewpoint 4: Harbour (offshore) - visitors and recreational users; and

Viewpoint 8: Ferry Terminal – visitors.

In relation to the landscape/coastal effects during the construction phase, these are judged to be not significant

on all receptors.

4.7.3 Summary of Significant Effects - Operational Phase

During the long term operational phase, significant visual effects are predicted on the receptors at the following

viewpoint locations:

Viewpoint 3: Newton Street - residents and visitors;

Viewpoint 4: Harbour (offshore) - visitors and recreational users; and



87


In relation to the landscape/coastal effects during the operational phase, these are judged to be not significant

on all receptors.

During the long term operational phase, significant cumulative effects are predicted on the receptors at the

following viewpoint locations:

Viewpoint 3: Newton Street - residents and visitors; and


4.8 Statement of Significance

Although some significant visual and cumulative effects are predicted during the construction and operational

phases, these are very localised in extent. However, considering the existing composition of light industrial units

located on Goat Island, the proposed development could in some instances, improve the overall visual

appearance and associated visual amenity of existing industrial development in the locality.

The Viewpoint Assessment also reflects the worst case scenario as the viewpoint locations were carefully

selected to ensure these provide the most open views towards the site. In many instances, due to the screening

effect of nearby intervening built development and vegetation, the experience of any significant visual effect is

often restricted to a very small part of the locality.

Furthermore, where significant adverse visual effects have been identified as part of the Viewpoint Assessment,

these are all within approximately 300 m from the site and considering the scale of the proposed development,

significant effects would generally be expected for a project of this nature.

It is important to recognise that no long term significant landscape effects on any landscape character types or

the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Garden and Designed Landscape are predicted. In many cases, the proposed

development would also result in some positive changes to coastal character whereby the existing prevailing

industrial character of Goat Island would be heavily influenced by amenity and recreational use with associated

improvements in the design of some built development.

In determining the acceptability of the proposed development therefore, it is important to consider the proposed development would be characteristic to its locality and any changes experienced within a context of a busy nearby operational port and other town centre development and activity. The proposed development would have a strong landscape and visual relationship with the existing buildings on Goat Island and compliment the wider intrinsic composition of surrounding port development.



88

5 CHAPTER 5: MARINE ECOLOGY

5.1 Introduction

EnviroCentre Ltd was commissioned by the Applicant to undertake an Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) of the

proposed development, in order to identify and describe any likely significant effects arising from it. This chapter

details the specialist studies undertaken and the results of the assessment. The assessment has been carried out

according to the latest guidance from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

(CIEEM)9 by experienced and competent ecologists who are all Members of CIEEM and follow its Code of

Professional Conduct. It is supplemented by the figures contained within Volume 2: Figures and the baseline

survey reports contained within Volume 3: Technical Appendices of this EcIA, including the following:

Technical Appendix 5.1: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA);

Technical Appendix 5.2: Marine Mammal Protection Plan (MMPP);

Technical Appendix 5.3: Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA);

Technical Appendix 5.4: Underwater Noise Report (undertaken by

Technical Appendix 5.5: Otter Report;

Technical Appendix 5.6: Fisheries Baseline Report; and

Technical Appendix 8.2: Hydraulic Assessment

Figure 1.1 in Volume 2 shows the site boundary, which is referred to as ‘the site’ throughout this chapter. Details

of the site and the proposed development are provided in Chapter 2: Proposed Development.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

Identify and describe all potentially significant ecological effects associated with the proposed

development;

Set out the mitigation measures required to ensure compliance with nature conservation legislation and

to address any potentially significant ecological effects;

Identify how mitigation measures will be secured;

Provide an assessment of the significance of any residual effects; and

Set out the requirements for post-construction monitoring.


Based on the results of the initial desk-based assessments and the PEA carried out in May 2017 (Technical

Appendix 5.1: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal in Volume 3 of this EIAR), the proposed scope of the EcIA included

the following habitats and species:

• Habitats and vegetation;

• Ancient woodland;

• Birds;

• Marine mammals;

• Fish;

• Otter (Lutra lutra);

• Bats.

9 CIEEM (2016). Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd edition. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. Available at:

https://www.cieem.net/data/files/Website_Downloads/Guidelines_for_Ecological_Impact_Assessment_2015.pdf

[Redacted]

https://www.cieem.net/data/files/Website_Downloads/Guidelines_for_Ecological_Impact_Assessment_2015.pdf



89

Based on the results of the PEA (Technical Appendix 5.1: PEA in Volume 3 of this EIAR), the following designated

sites, ancient woodlands, habitats and species were scoped out of the assessment for the following reasons.

Designations in their context to the site are illustrated within Figure 1.2 within Volume 2:

Tong Saltings Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - it is not anticipated that there will be any potential

impacts on this site due to its distance from the proposed development.

Lewis Peatlands Special Area of Conservation (SAC)/Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar Site - it is not

anticipated that there will be any potential impacts on this site due to their distance from the proposed

development. The site is upstream of the proposed development and its qualifying SAC features

(standing water, oligotrophic lakes and ponds and blanket bog) are not predicted to be affected.

Terrestrial Habitat – it is not anticipated that there will be any potential impacts on the following

habitats: standing open water, coastal grassland, boulders/rocks, shingle/cobbles, buildings. It is not

anticipated that there will be any significant effects during construction relating to terrestrial ecology;

protected or notable faunal species, vegetation and habitats or any impacts post completion that need

to be considered further.

Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) - no ancient woodland is present within the site boundary of the proposed development, and none is present within 2km of the proposed development boundary.

Birds - given the habitats on site, and from a review of relevant literature, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in any potential impacts on birds. The habitats recorded on site do not provide optimal conditions for the vast majority of bird species noted as Western Isles LBAP Priority species. There is the potential for the site to support small numbers of over-wintering waders such as Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) and Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima) where rocky foreshore habitat exists. The harbour itself could support numbers of diver and grebe species, although the Birds of the Outer Hebrides website states that the main wintering areas for these species on Lewis are Broad Bay, Valtos and Braigh, the nearest of which is approximately 3.5km from the proposed development.

Humpback whale – humpback whale sightings off Stornoway are rare, with isolated records almost

exclusively in waters deeper than 200m. Since July 2017, one sighting of one humpback whale was

recorded approximately 10km south west of the proposed development. As this species is far-ranging

from the proposed development it is not predicted to be impacted.

Bottlenose dolphin - although bottlenose dolphin have been noted as occurring within Stornoway

Harbour, larger schools of bottlenose dolphin tend to occur in deeper waters and the number of

sightings in proximity to the proposed development is significantly lower compared to other species.

Since July 2017 the closest sighting of bottlenose dolphin submitted to the Hebridean Whale and

Dolphin Trust (HWDT) Whale Track database was approximately 55km east of the site, off the Scottish

mainland, therefore bottlenose dolphin are not predicted to be impacted by the proposed

development.

Lamprey – electro-fishing data from the Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust (OHFT) provides no evidence to

suggest that there are any populations of river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) or sea lamprey

(Petromyzon marinus) within the Bayhead River (known locally as the Glen River and hereafter referred

to as such) or the River Creed.

Otter - no otter resting places or other field evidence of otter were identified within the survey area.

There is suitable habitat present therefore standard mitigation measures would be followed to protect

this species during the construction and operation of the proposed development.

Bats – there is no suitable roosting habitat for bats on the site and the foraging and commuting habitat

for bats on the site is of low suitability10. Due to the nature of the works (mainly piling and dredging)

bats are not predicted to be affected by the proposed development.

10 Collins, J. (Ed.) (2016). Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd edn). The Bat Conservation Trust, London. Table 4.1: Guidelines for assessing the potential suitability of proposed development sites for bats, based on the presence of habitat features within the

landscape, to be applied using professional judgement.



90

In order to finalise and agree the scope of the EcIA, a Scoping Report was prepared and a Scoping Request was

submitted to CnES in September 2017 and to Marine Scotland in December 2017. A summary of the relevant

scoping responses is provided in Table 5.1 below:



Scottish Natural

Heritage (SNH)

We are in agreement with the report’s

recommendations on what should be

scoped in to (and out of) the EIA Report.

The principal marine natural heritage

issue arising from this development

which will require further consideration

in the EIA Report is the potential effect

of drilling/piling noise on marine

mammals, particularly cetaceans,

including harbour porpoise within Inner

Hebrides and the Minches candidate

SAC and the North East Lewis proposed

Marine Protected Area (MPA).

The impacts of noise generating activities on

marine mammals are assessed in section

5.72.

An HRA screening exercise has been

undertaken and is presented in Technical

Appendix 5.3.

We recommend that the MMPP

considers impact on all of the above

cetacean species and seals (including

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus),

Short-beaked common dolphin

(Delphinus delphis), Killer whale

(Orcinus orca), Minke whale

(Balaenoptera acutorostrata),

Humpback whale (Megaptera

novaeangliae), Bottlenose dolphin

(Tursiops truncatus) as well as Harbour

porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Grey

(Halichoerus grypus) and Harbour

(Phoca vitulina) seals.

Technical Appendix 5.2: Marine Mammal

Protection Plan and section 5.7 of this

document consider the impact on all the

species listed by SNH.

SNH have advised that it is likely that the

proposed development will have a

significant environmental effect on

harbour porpoise. If porpoise are too

close to an intense noise source when it

is initiated, hearing damage can occur.

Disturbance to porpoise can occur over

tens of kilometres from activities that

generate a significant degree of

underwater noise.

The impacts on harbour porpoise are

assessed in section 5.7.2.

We are in agreement that impacts on

birds can be scoped out of further

assessment.

Birds are not included in the assessment.

The EIA must contain sufficient

information for the Scottish Ministers to

carry out an Appropriate Assessment

under the Habitats Regulations 1994.



Appendix 5.3.



91


SNH noted that the noise model should

be extended to consider all impacts

upon cetaceans and seals that occur

regularly in the North Minch. The model

should inform the MMPP.

All species noted by SNH are covered within

the underwater noise model (within

Technical Appendix 5.4) with respect to

impacts within Newton Basin only. The

MMPP is based on the outcomes of the

modelling and is presented in Technical

Appendix 5.2: Marine Mammal Protection

Plan.

CnES It is agreed that Birds should be scoped

out of the EIA and Marine mammals and

Fish scoped in. It is advised that

Terrestrial mammals (otters) are scoped

back in to the EIA to ensure the impacts

on otters have been fully considered.

Particular regard should be had to the

impacts of noise generating activities on

Marine Mammals.

Birds are not included in the assessment.

Marine mammals and fish are included in the

assessment.

For the reasons provided within Technical

Appendix 5.5 and within section 5.1 of this

chapter, otters are scoped out.

The impacts of noise generating activities on

marine mammals are assessed in section

5.7.2.

CnES will be required to consider the

effect of the proposal on the cSAC (Inner

Hebrides and the Minches) before it can

be consented by undertaking a HRA.



Appendix 5.3.

The EIA should identify ‘underwater

noise’ as a potentially significant effect

with regard to marine mammals under

‘Ecology’ and include relevant

underwater noise assessments and

proposed mitigation measures to

ensure there is sufficient information to

inform the HRA. The EIA must include a

MMPP which has been informed by a

Marine Mammal Observation Protocol

(MMOP).

Underwater noise has been considered as a

potential significant effect on marine

mammals and is assessed in section 5.7.2.



Appendix 5.3.

The MMPP is provided in Technical Appendix

5.2.

Impacts on salmon should include risks

and mitigation measures related to loss

of habitat, impacts of sediment

suspension in the water column and

sediment transportation within the bay

and upriver from dredging operations.

Noise generated by construction

operations including, blasting and

dredging may also impact on wild fish

and consideration requires to be given

to the impacts of noise on fish entering

the bay en route to the Creed and Glen

River systems.

The assessment of impacts on salmon,

including loss of habitat, sediment

suspension, and noise, is presented in section

5.7.2. The assessment was based on the

results presented within Chapter 8: Water,

Soils and Coastal Processes and Technical

Appendix 5.4: Underwater Noise Report.



92


A scoping report has been received for

Deep Water Port so it is assumed these

two projects will be taken forward first

and there is potential for overlap. If it is

determined that there will be overlap,

the EIA should include an assessment of

the cumulative impact of the Project

with other planned developments.

Details of the proposed phasing of these

two projects, and assumptions for other

port masterplan projects, should be

included in the EIA. Issues of particular

concern include noise, ecology, and

marine safety. Cumulative assessment

should include marine activity as well as

land-based.

A cumulative impact assessment has been

undertaken, which includes the Deep Water

Port, and this is presented in section 5.7.4.

Marine Scotland A quantitative noise model should be

used.

The Underwater Noise Study is presented in

Technical Appendix 5.4.

The example (of underwater noise

assessment) provided does not include

assessment of piling activities, which

Marine Scotland recommend should be

the focus of the noise assessment, as

these will be the noisiest activity

undertaken. Dredging activities should

also be included as they will generate

noise, but note that dredging and

disposal work also has the potential to

cause non-acoustic injury to marine

mammals, and this should be addressed

in the assessment and in mitigation

actions.

The Underwater Noise Study includes an

assessment of piling and dredging activities

and is presented in Technical Appendix 5.4.

The assessments of dredging and disposal

noise and non-acoustic impacts are

presented in section 5.7.2.

The species of concern in this

development area include those in the

example report, but also cover

cetaceans, which are highly dependent

upon hearing, including echolocation, to

find food and navigate their

environment. In particular, the

assessment should consider effects to

the harbour porpoise feature of the

Inner Hebrides and the Minches cSAC,

although several other cetacean species

are also known to use the waters in the

area.

The impacts on harbour porpoise are

assessed in section 5.7.2.



Appendix 5.3.



93


Marine Scotland recommend that the

applicant undertakes a European

Protected Species (EPS) risk assessment

and applies for an EPS licence once

more details of the project are available.

The EPS licence is required and it is discussed

in more detail in section 5 of the MMPP

presented in Technical Appendix 5.2. An EPS

licence application will be issued to Marine

Scotland once all other relevant consents

have been granted and when sufficient

information is available to satisfy the three

EPS licence tests as follows:

Does the proposal have a licensable

purpose?

Is there no satisfactory alternative?

Would the actions be detrimental to

Favourable Conservation Status of

the species concerned?

Outward migrating salmon smolts and

returning adult salmon and sea trout

may be present in the work area and the

best information on when they are likely

to be present or are present will come

from local fisheries bodies such as the

local Fisheries Trust and Angling Club, or

any direct observations. What is being

recommended for marine mammals

regarding underwater noise will also

cover the needs of diadromous fish.

An extensive consultation exercise has been

undertaken with the relevant fisheries

organisations and the data obtained is

presented in Technical Appendix 5.6.

The assessment of impacts on fish is


There may need to be consideration of

whether high levels of suspended

sediment which can be injurious to

salmonids may be generated by

dredging and disposal work and

whether mitigation actions to address

this may be needed

The assessment of impacts on fish is


The final scope of the ecological impact assessment includes the following elements, which are further described

in the sections below:

• A description of the zone of influence of the proposed development;

• The identification of key ecological impacts that should be addressed through project design; and

• A list of the important ecological features to be considered in the EcIA.

5.2.1 Zone of Influence

The CIEEM Guidelines identify the zone of influence as the area over which ecological features may be subject to

significant effects as a result of the proposed development and associated activities. This is likely to extend

beyond the project site, for example where there are ecological or hydrological links beyond the site boundaries.

Activities associated with the construction, operation (best and worst-case operating conditions),

decommissioning and restoration phases should be separately identified. The zone of influence will vary for

different ecological features depending on their sensitivity to an environmental change. It may be appropriate



94

to identify different zones of influence for different features. The features affected could include habitats,

species, and ecosystems and the processes on which they depend.

The scoping exercise narrowed down the important ecological features. The zone of influence has been set for

each one (see section 5.2.3 below).

5.2.2 Key Potential Ecological Impacts

The proposed development would comprise the following main activities prior to, during and after the

construction period, which could potentially have a significant negative impact on ecology in the absence of

effective mitigation:

Construction phase

Underwater noise from dredging;

Underwater noise from piling;

• Pollution to a water body (fuel leaks and spills/ sediment runoff/ erosion);

Sediment dispersal;

Access and travel on/off-site, including temporary access routes for construction vehicles and vessels;

Acoustic disturbance and vibration from construction activities;

Areas for plant maintenance and for storage of oils, fuels and chemicals;

Structural works for new building and engineering;

Movement of materials to/from or within a site; and

Lighting.

Operational phase

• Maintenance dredging;

• Underwater noise; and

• Increase in vessel movement.

5.2.3 Important Ecological Features

Table 5-2 below lists the Important Ecological Features (IEFs) and their respective zones of influence.

Table 5.2: IEFs and Zones of Influence

IEF Zone of Influence

North East Lewis pMPA Within the pMPA boundaries.

Inner Hebrides and The Minches cSAC

Within the furthest extent from the proposed development where noise

affects harbour porpoise.

Atlantic salmon Within the migratory path to the River Creed through the proposed

development.

Sea trout Within the migratory path to the River Creed and Glen River through the


European eel Within the migratory path to the River Creed and Glen River through the


Harbour porpoise Within the Newton Basin (approximately 850m from piling activities) and the

furthest extent of where noise effects marine mammals.

Risso’s dolphin Within the Newton Basin (approximately 850m from piling activities) and the


Short beaked common dolphin Within the Newton Basin (approximately 850m from piling activities) and the




95

IEF Zone of Influence

Killer whale Within the Newton Basin (approximately 850m from piling activities) and the


Minke whale Within the Newton Basin (approximately 850m from piling activities) and the


Grey seal Within the Newton Basin (approximately 850m from piling activities) and the


Harbour seal Within the Newton Basin (approximately 850m from piling activities) and the



The compilation of this chapter has taken cognisance of the legislation, planning policies, conservation initiatives

and general guidance presented in Table 5-3 below.

Table 5.3: Legislation, Planning Policies, Conservation Initiatives and General Guidance Related to Ecology

Scope Document

International International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species

European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (The Habitats Directive)

Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2014/52/EU) on assessing the potential effects of projects on the environment

National (UK) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (WCA)

Scottish The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendments (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (The Habitats Regulations)

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017

The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017

The Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbours, Highways and Transport) Regulations 2017

The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (NCA)

The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 (WANE)

Planning Policy & Other Advice Documents

BS 42020:2013: Biodiversity Code of Practice for Planning and Development 2013

Scottish Biodiversity List

Western Isles LBAP

The Scottish Biodiversity Strategy 2004 and 2013

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014

Outer Hebrides Development Plan (2012). The Outer Hebrides Development Plan 2 is currently undergoing examination by Scottish Ministers.

CIEEM (2016) Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland: Terrestrial, Freshwater and Coastal, 2nd edition

The regulatory and policy context most relevant to ecology is described below.



96

5.3.1 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species

The IUCN Red List provides taxonomic, conservation status and distribution information on plants, fungi and

animals that have been globally evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. This system is designed

to determine the relative risk of extinction, and the main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to catalogue and

highlight those plants and animals that are facing a higher risk of global extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically

Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). The IUCN Red List also includes information on plants, fungi and

animals that are categorized as Extinct or Extinct in the Wild; on taxa that cannot be evaluated because of

insufficient information (i.e., are Data Deficient); and on plants, fungi and animals that are either close to meeting

the threatened thresholds or that would be threatened were it not for an ongoing taxon-specific conservation

programme (i.e., are Near Threatened).

5.3.2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and

Fauna (The Habitats Directive)

Adopted in 1992, the Habitats Directive aims to promote the maintenance of biodiversity, taking account of

economic, social, cultural and regional requirements. It forms the cornerstone of Europe's nature conservation

policy with the Birds Directive and establishes the EU wide Natura 2000 ecological network of protected areas,

safeguarded against potentially damaging developments.

Over 1,000 animal and plant species, as well as 200 habitat types, listed in the Directive's Annexes are protected

in various ways:

Annex II species (about 900): core areas of their habitat are designated as Sites of Community

Importance (SCIs) and included in the Natura 2000 network. These sites must be managed in accordance

with the ecological needs of the species.

Annex IV species (over 400, including many Annex II species): a strict protection regime must be applied

across their entire natural range within the EU, both within and outside Natura 2000 sites.

Annex V species (over 90): Member States must ensure that their exploitation and taking in the wild is

compatible with maintaining them in a favourable conservation status.

5.4 Methodology

5.4.1 Desk Study

In order to anticipate the potential ecological sensitivities at the site, a desk study was conducted as part of

scoping. This included:

Data on statutory designated sites available through SNH Sitelink website11 for statutory designated

sites up to 5km from the site;

Data on non-statutory designated sites available through CnES and the LDP12 (up to 2km from the site);

Records of Ancient Woodland available through Sketchmap13 (up to 2km from the site);

Records from the CnES Council Biodiversity Officer;

Records from Scottish Badgers;

Collation of existing 2007 and 2010 electro-fishing survey data from the River Creed;

Literature review of the 2011 Glen River Catchment Action Plan;

11 SNH (n.d.). SiteLink. Retrieved from http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/ 12 The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (2012) available at:: https://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/media/1643/outer-hebrides-local-development-plan.pdf 13 Sketchmap available here: http://sketchmap.co.uk/. Accessed in April 2017



97

Records from the Outer Hebrides Fisheries Trust;

Records from Seawatch Foundation14;

Records from About Scotland’s Nature: Marine Mammals SNH15;

Scottish Government Designated Sites: Seal Haul out Sites16

Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC)17;

The HWDT Whale Track18,

Local records from Outer Hebrides Biological Recording Database19

UK BAP20;

Western Isles LBAP21; and

Scottish Biodiversity List (SBL)22.

5.4.2 Field Studies

All surveys were undertaken by experienced surveyors according to guidance provided by CIEEM, endorsed by

SNH, and the established methods for each survey. All surveyors are members of CIEEM. Complete details of the

latter are provided in the appropriate reports included in the appendices as follows:

Technical Appendix 5.1: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; and

Technical Appendix 5.5: Otter Report.

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) was completed prior to the receipt of the Scoping Opinion and

included a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and surveys for bats and otter. Technical Appendix 5.5 provides further detail

on the desk study results for otter and the otter survey undertaken in February 2018.

5.4.3 Evaluation of Important Ecological Features

The evaluations are applied to those sites, habitats and species that have been scoped in to the assessment and

those that are predicted to be affected by the proposed development. These are termed Important Ecological

Features (IEFs).

European, national and local governments and specialist organisations have together identified a large number

of sites, habitats and species that provide the key focus for biodiversity conservation in the UK and Ireland,

supported by policy and legislation. These provide an objective starting point for identifying the important

ecological features that need to be considered. Table 5-4 shows a procedure for determining the geographical

level of importance of site designations, habitats and species. Where a feature is important at more than one

level in the table, its overriding importance is that of the highest level. Usually only the highest level of legal

protection is listed.

Table 5.4: Geographical Level of IEFs

14 Seawatch Foundation Cetaceans of Western Scotland available at: http://seawatchfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/WesternScotland.pdf last accessed February 2018 15 SNH About Scotland’s Nature: Marine Mammals available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/mammals/marine-mammals/ February 2018 16 Scottish Government seal Haul-out maps available at: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine-environment/species/19887/20814/maps last

accessed March 2018 17 WDC sightings data available at: http://www.whaledolphintrust.co.uk/sightings-recent-sightings.asp last accessed February 2018 18 HWDT sightings data available at: http://www.whaledolphintrust.co.uk/sightings.asp last accessed February 2018 19 https://www.ohbr.org.uk/database.php 20 JNCC (n.d.). The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Retrieved from http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ukbap 21 Western Isles LBAP here http://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/biodiversity/documents/Biodiversity%20Audit%202002.pdf Accessed in April 2017 22 Scottish Government (2013, April). Scottish Biodiversity List. http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Wildlife-Habitats/16118/Biodiversitylist/SBL.

http://seawatchfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/WesternScotland.pdf

http://seawatchfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/WesternScotland.pdf

http://www.snh.gov.uk/about-scotlands-nature/species/mammals/marine-mammals/

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine-environment/species/19887/20814/maps

http://www.whaledolphintrust.co.uk/sightings-recent-sightings.asp

http://www.whaledolphintrust.co.uk/sightings.asp



98

Level of

Importance

Sites Habitats Species

International Designated, candidate or proposed SAC, SPAs and Ramsar sites; UNESCO (Ecological) World Heritage Sites; UNESCO Biosphere Reserves; Biogenetic Reserves.

A viable area of habitat included in Annex I of the EC Habitats Directive; a habitat area that is critical for a part of the life cycle of an internationally important species.

A European Protected Species; an IUCN Red Data Book species that is globally Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered; a Category An internationally important bryophyte assemblage23.

National (UK) SSSI/Areas of Scientific Interest (ASSI); National Nature Reserves (NNR); Nature Conservation Review Sites; Marine Conservation Zones (MCZ) (UK offshore).

A viable area of priority habitat listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP)24; an area of habitat fulfilling the criteria for designation as an SSSI/ASSI or MCZ; a habitat area that is critical for a part of the life cycle of a nationally important species.

An IUCN Red Data Book species that is Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered in the UK; a species that is Rare in the UK (<15 10km grid squares); a priority species in the UKBAP25; a Schedule 5 (animal) or Schedule 8 (plant) species included in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; a Category A nationally important bryophyte assemblage26.

National

(Scotland)

National Parks; MPA; Marine Consultation Areas

Habitats of principal importance for biodiversity in Scotland27.

Species of principal importance for biodiversity in Scotland28.

Regional Regional Parks Regional Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)29 habitats noted as requiring protection.

A species that is Nationally Scarce in the UK (present in 16-100 10km grid squares); a species that is included in the Regional LBAP30; an assemblage of regionally scarce species.

County /

Metropolitan

Local Nature Reserves; Wildlife Trust Reserves; Woodland Trust Sites; Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Sites; Local Wildlife Sites.

Western Isles LBAP31 habitats noted as requiring protection; semi-natural, ancient woodland >0.25ha in extent.

A species that is included in the Western Isles LBAP32; an assemblage of species that are scarce at the county level.

Local Semi-natural, ancient woodland <0.25ha in

Species as defined by Local Authority lists (CnES priority

23 Averis, A.B.G, Genney, D.R, Hodgetts, N.G, Rothero, G.P. & Bainbridge, I.P. 2012. Bryological assessment for hydroelectric schemes in the west highlands – 2nd edition. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 449b (available online at www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/449b.pdf) 24 The UK BAP lists of priority habitats and species have been superseded by the country biodiversity lists, but they are a useful reference source. 25 The UK BAP lists of priority habitats and species have been superseded by the country biodiversity lists, but they are a useful reference source. 26 Averis, A.B.G, Genney, D.R, Hodgetts, N.G, Rothero, G.P. & Bainbridge, I.P. 2012. Bryological assessment for hydroelectric schemes in the west

highlands – 2nd edition. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 449b (available online at www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/449b.pdf) 27 These are all the habitats that were identified as requiring action in the UKBAP and continue to be regarded as conservation priorities in the

subsequent UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, including any additions. 28 These are all the species that were identified as requiring action in the UKBAP and continue to be regarded as conservation priorities in the subsequent UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework, including any additions. 29 There is no applicable Regional LBAP. 30 There is no applicable Regional LBAP. 31 Western Isles LBAP here http://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/biodiversity/documents/Biodiversity%20Audit%202002.pdf 32 Western Isles LBAP here http://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/biodiversity/documents/Biodiversity%20Audit%202002.pdf

http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/449b.pdf

http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/449b.pdf



99

Level of

Importance

Sites Habitats Species

extent; diverse or ecologically valuable hedgerow network; semi-natural habitats that are unique or important in the local area; flushes, springs and base rich rock that support bryophyte assemblages that are widespread but localised to these habitats.

species are listed in the LBAP24).

5.4.4 Impact Assessment

The assessment of impacts describes how the baseline conditions would change as a result of the project and its

associated activities and from other developments. The term ‘impact’ is used commonly throughout the EIA

process and is usually defined as a change experienced by a receptor (this can be positive, neutral or negative).

The term ‘effect’ is commonly used at the conclusion of the EIA process and is usually defined as the

consequences for the receptor of an impact after mitigation measures have been taken into account. The EIA

Regulations specifically require all likely significant effects to be considered. Therefore, impacts and effects are

described separately and the effects for the IEFs are assessed as being either significant or not according to the

importance of the IEF.

Assessment Criteria - Magnitude

The CIEEM guidance states that when describing changes/activities and positive or negative impacts on

ecosystem structure and function, reference should be made to the following parameters:

• Magnitude;

• Extent;

• Duration;

• Reversibility; and

• Timing and frequency.

Magnitude: refers to the size, amount, intensity and volume of an impact, determined on a quantitative basis if

possible, but typically expressed in terms of relative severity, such as major, moderate, low or negligible. Extent,

duration, reversibility, timing and frequency of the impact can be assessed separately but they tie in to determine

the overall magnitude.

Extent: the area of which the impact occurs. When the IEF is the habitat itself, magnitude and extent may be

synonymous.

Duration: the time for which the impact is expected to last prior to recovery or replacement of the IEF. This is

defined in relation to ecological characteristics, rather than human timeframes. The duration of an activity may

differ from the duration of the resulting impact caused by the activity and this is taken into account.

Reversibility: an irreversible (permanent) impact is one from which recovery is not possible within a reasonable

timescale or for which there is no reasonable chance of action being taken to reverse it. A reversible (temporary)

impact is one from which spontaneous recovery is possible or for which effective mitigation is possible and an

enforceable commitment has been made.



100

Timing and frequency: the number of times an activity occurs will influence the resulting impact. The timing of

an activity or change may cause an impact if it happens to coincide with critical life-stages or seasons.

Criteria for describing the magnitude of an impact are presented in Table 5-5 below:

Table 5.5: Criteria for Describing Magnitude of Impact

Magnitude Description

Major Total or major loss or alteration to the IEF, such that it will be fundamentally changed and may be lost from the site altogether; and/or loss of a very high or high proportion of the known population or range of the IEF.

Moderate Loss or alteration to the IEF, such that it will be partially changed; and/or loss of a moderate proportion of the known population or range of the IEF.

Low Minor shift away from the existing or predicted future baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss or alteration will be discernible but the condition of the IEF will be similar to the pre-development conditions; and/or having a minor impact on the known population or range of the IEF.

Negligible Very slight change from the existing or predicted future baseline conditions. Change barely discernible, approximating to the ‘no change’ situation; and/or having a negligible impact on the known population or range of the IEF.

Assessment Criteria – Significance

Significance is a concept related to the weight that is attached to effects when decisions are made. For the

purposes of EcIA, a ‘significant effect’ is an effect that either supports or undermines biodiversity conservation

objectives for IEFs. In broad terms, significant effects encompass effects on the structure and function of defined

sites, habitats or ecosystems and the conservation status of habitats and species (including extent, abundance

and distribution).

Significant effects are quantified with reference to an appropriate geographic scale (see Table 5-4 above). The

CIEEM guidance has one ‘level of importance’ and a geographical ‘scale of significance’. This is to deal with the

fact that the geographical scale at which the effect is significant is not necessarily the same as the geographic

level of importance of the IEF.

Professional judgement is used to determine the significance of effects.

Assessment Criteria – Confidence in Predictions

CIEEM does not cover levels of confidence in predictions, therefore an approach has been adopted based on

river conservation evaluation33. A simple, qualitative index based on professional judgement is assigned to each

predicted effect as follows:

A: high confidence.

B: intermediate confidence.

C: low confidence.

Factors influencing confidence include:

• The frequency and effort of field sampling;

• Constraints to the field survey;

• The completeness of the data (field and desk);

• The age of the data (although recent data are not necessarily always more reliable than old data);

• The state of scientific knowledge relating to the predicted effects of development activities on the IEF

(the accuracy of the magnitude assessment); and

33 SERCON: System for Evaluating Rivers for Conservation, Version 2, Technical Manual. Scottish Natural Heritage (2001).



101

• The accuracy of the assessment of significance.

Cumulative Assessment

Significant cumulative effects can result from the individually insignificant but collectively significant effects of

actions taking place over a period of time or concentrated in a location, for example:

• Additive / incremental: multiple activities/projects (each with potentially insignificant effects) added

together to give rise to a significant effect due to their proximity in time and space; or

• Associated / connected - a development activity ‘enables’ another development activity e.g. phased

development as part of separate planning applications. Associated developments may include different

aspects of the project which may be authorised under different consent processes.

The Stornoway Deep Water Port was scoped in to be assessed cumulatively with the proposed development.

The Applicant is also proposing a new fish processing factory on Goat Island under a separate application. Given

the likely nature of construction of this facility, and its position on land, it was not considered that there would

be likely cumulative effects upon marine ecology.

The combined magnitude of impact and significance is assessed for each IEF if construction events take place

simultaneously.

Assessment Criteria – Success of Mitigation

The word ‘mitigation’ has developed a wider meaning and common usage in environmental assessment than its

strict meaning related to reducing the severity of something. Mitigation can sometimes be used as a generic term

for a wide range of counter-acting measures, all of which, as the Directive and Regulations prescribe, are

intended to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effect on the environment.

Mitigation can be used to encompass measures intended to avoid, cancel or reduce adverse effects (this is the

‘mitigation hierarchy’).

Mitigation and compensation measures often carry a degree of uncertainty. The following objective scale is used

for the success of mitigation:

• Certain/near certain: probability estimated at 95% chance or higher.

• Probable: probability estimated above 50% but below 95%.

• Unlikely: probability estimated above 5% but less than 50%.

• Extremely unlikely: probability estimated at less than 5%.

5.5 Baseline

5.5.1 Designated Sites

Table 5-6 provides a list of scoped in designated sites for nature conservation within 5km of the site and states

their ecological and hydrological linkages to the site.

Table 5.6: Designated Sites

Site Name Designation Distance from the

site

Designated Feature Linkage to the site

North East Lewis Proposed MPA Less than 1km east Risso’s dolphin Connected ecologically and hydrologically

Inner Hebrides and The Minches

cSAC34 Approximately 1.4km north-east

Harbour porpoise Connected ecologically and hydrologically

34 A Candidate SAC (cSAC) has the same status as a SAC



102

5.5.2 Fish

The baseline conditions of fish populations of the Glen River (Abhainn á Ghlinn Mhōir) and River Creed (Abhainn

GhrÌoda) were assessed. For further details refer to Technical Appendix 5.6 however a summary is provided

within the following sections

5.5.2.1 Atlantic Salmon

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) return annually to the River Creed. Salmon was not recorded during surveys of the

Glen River undertaken by the OHFT. Of the eleven sites surveyed on the River Creed in 2010 (see Appendix C in

Technical Appendix 5.6 for location details), a total of eight showed densities of salmon fry, parr or both

categorised as either “High” or “Very High”. Of the remaining three sites, one exhibited a density of both fry and

parr categorized as “Moderate”, one held densities of both fry and parr noted as “Very Low” and results from

one final site showed a total absence of juvenile Salmon. Notes made during the surveys however indicated that

this site had poor in-stream habitat for juvenile salmonid development, being essentially a deep peat-lined ditch.

Atlantic salmon is listed as a priority species under the UKBAP.

5.5.2.2 Sea Trout

Sea trout (Salmo trutta) return annually to both the River Creed and the Glen River. Seven of the eleven sites

recording a rating of “High” or “Very High” densities for either 0+ (fry), 1++ (parr), or both along the River Creed.

All three sites along the Glen River had a rating of “High” or “Very High”.

Sea trout is listed as a priority species under the UKBAP.

5.5.2.3 European Eel

European Eel (Anguilla anguilla) were present on the Glen River and River Creed during the electro-fishing

surveys undertaken in 2010. Electro-fishing results from 2017 of the Glen River found 133 individual eels.

The European Eel is classified as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List and is listed as a UK BAP priority

species.

5.5.3 Marine Mammals

5.5.3.1 Harbour Porpoise

Harbour porpoise is the most commonly recorded species in the Stornoway area. Since August 2017 141 harbour

porpoise sightings have been submitted to the HWDT Whale Track database.

Harbour porpoise is a European Protected Species (EPS).

5.5.3.2 Risso’s Dolphin

Since August 2017, 26 sightings of Risso’s dolphin within The Minch have been submitted to the HWDC Whale

Track database, the closest of which being approximately 5km offshore to the east. The majority of these

sightings were during the summer months (predominantly August), however, three records show the animals to

be present through the winter months.

Risso’s dolphin is an EPS and is listed as a priority species under the UKBAP.



103

5.5.3.3 Short-beaked Common Dolphin

In August 2017, one sighting of 20 individual short-beaked common dolphins, approximately 6km east of the

proposed development, was submitted to the HWDT Whale Track database. In September 2017 a further sighting

of 18 animals within Glumaig Bay was also recorded.

Short-beaked common dolphin is an EPS and is listed as a priority species under the UKBAP.

5.5.3.4 Killer Whale

Killer whales are widely distributed in western Scottish waters. They usually first appear in coastal waters around

the Northern Isles and Outer Hebrides in May and June, singly or in groups numbering up to 14 individuals.

Repeat sightings have been recorded in and around The Little Minch.

Killer whale is an EPS and is listed as a priority species under the UKBAP.

5.5.3.5 Minke Whale

Minke whales are frequently seen in coastal and inshore waters around the Hebrides from April to October with

some studies suggesting that individuals return to the same localities year after year. Thirty-six minke whale

sightings have been submitted to the HWDC Whale Track database since August 2017 within an approximate

15km radius of the proposed development

Minke whale is an EPS and is listed as a priority species under the UKBAP.

5.5.3.6 Seals

Both harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) and grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) can be seen all around Scotland on many

of the offshore islands and along much of the west mainland coast. There are no statutory designated sites which

feature seals within 50km of the proposed development. The nearest notable site for seals in proximity to the

development is Broad Bay, approximately 14km to the north, which is a designated seal haul-out site.

Harbour seals routinely travel 40-50km from their haul-out sites to forage and prefer more sheltered waters,

meaning harbour seals are more likely to be encountered in Newton Marina than grey seals, which prefer

offshore feeding areas, however both species could be present.

Seals are listed as a species of conservation concern under the CnES LBAP.

5.5.4 Invasive Non-Native Marine Species

According to the Outer Hebrides Biological Recording (OHBR) site the Outer Hebrides have been affected by the

following invasive non-native marine species: Bonnemaisonia hamifera, Darwin’s barnacle (Austrominius

modestus), green sea-fingers (Codium fragile fragile), harpoon weed (Asparagopsis armata), oyster thief

(Colpomenia peregrina) and wireweed (Sargassum muticum).

5.5.5 Prediction of the Future Baseline

The need for the proposed development is set out in Chapter 2: Proposed Development. This EcIA has been

undertaken using the current baseline.

With the absence of development, it is predicted that the current use of the land would remain the same,

therefore there would be no change.



104

5.5.6 Climate Change35

Coastal habitats are complex, dynamic and interdependent. They are important in providing sea defences, areas

for recreation, biodiversity and a range of other ecosystem services.

Increased air and sea-surface temperatures have resulted in changes in the distribution of marine and coastal

species. Both warmer and colder-water species are shifting northwards.

Changes in the phenology of coastal species have been observed, with the rates of change in marine species

being considerably greater than those in terrestrial and freshwater systems. Recent advances in the phenology

of species have not all occurred at the same rate, in some cases resulting in mismatches of timing of annual cycles

of animals and their food organisms.

Rising sea levels have been associated with the loss of coastal habitats. Predicted future rises will have significant

impacts on coastal and intertidal habitats, including changing geomorphological processes, further habitat loss

and increasing the vulnerability of infrastructure. However, coastal systems are dynamic and have the potential

to adapt to rising sea levels, but only if there is an adequate supply of sediment to allow accretion and if there is

landward space for the coast to roll-back into. Sea defences and other coastal management interrupt the

movement of sediment between systems and prevent natural coastal realignment.

Future changes are hard to predict because it is difficult to separate the impacts of rising sea levels from those

of coastal management, including sea defences. Coastal zone management and adaptation, and the interactions

with other climate drivers, nutrient deposition and habitat management, will have significant influence on the

quantity, quality and location of future coastal habitats.

5.6 Evaluation

The evaluations have been applied only to those designated sites, habitats and species that have been scoped in

to the assessment and those where there is the potential for impacts that could result in significant adverse

ecological effects as a result of the proposed development. The IEFs and the evaluations are presented in Table

5-7 below.

Table 5-7: Evaluation of Important Ecological Features

35 Taken from the Biodiversity Report Card source paper on coastal and intertidal habitats available at:

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/ (Accessed March 2018).

IEF Present

on site?

Present in

wider area?

Importance Justification

North East

Lewis pMPA

No Yes National

(Scotland)

The boundary of the proposed MPA is

located less than 1km south/south-

east of the proposed development.

The Inner

Hebrides and

Minches cSAC

No Yes International The boundary of the cSAC is located approximately 1.4km south-east of the proposed development. A cSAC is an internationally designated site.

Atlantic salmon Yes Yes National Atlantic salmon is listed as a priority

species under the UKBAP.

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/



105



5.7.1.1 Predicted negative construction impacts

North East Lewis pMPA

Nature of Impact

During construction the qualifying feature of the proposed site, Risso’s dolphin, would potentially be impacted

by dredging, which would cause increased turbidity via a disturbance of sediments; and piling activities, which

would cause an increase in underwater noise and vibration. These impacts may cause disturbance to the

qualifying feature of the pMPA and alter their behaviour.

The proposed development may lead to contamination of coastal water and sediments from accidental pollution

incidents (Chapter 8: Water Environment, Soils and Coastal Processes). The main risk is posed by refuelling

activities. Oil spillages to the water environment would be detrimental to both water and sediment quality, and

could affect the qualifying feature of the pMPA.

Duration of Impact

These impacts would be temporary during the 14 month construction period. Dredging would occur between

months 4 and 7 by cutter suction dredger or backhoe dredger from Monday to Saturday morning. Cutter suction

dredging would occur 24 hours a day and backhoe dredging from a bund will occur between 07.00 to 20.00.

Sea trout Yes Yes National Sea trout is listed as a priority species

under the UKBAP.

European eel Yes Yes International European eel is listed as critically

endangered on the IUCN Red List.

Harbour

porpoise

No Yes International Harbour porpoise is an EPS.

Risso's dolphin No Yes International Risso’s dolphin is an EPS.

Short-beaked

common

dolphin

No Yes International Common dolphin is an EPS.

Killer whale No Yes International Killer whale is an EPS.

Minke whale No Yes International Minke whale is an EPS.

Harbour seal No Yes County /

Metropolitan

Harbour seal is listed as a species of

conservation concern under the CnES

LBAP.

Grey seal No Yes County /

Metropolitan

Grey seal is listed as a species of

conservation concern under the CnES

LBAP.



106

For the most part piles will be installed into pre-drilled holes by vibration. This drilling is done using ODEX

equipment. Where sediment proves too hard for this approach some impact piling will be carried out. The

proposed impact piling activities and the increased levels of underwater noise, would occur between months 9

and 11 from Monday to Friday between 07.00 and 19.00 and Saturday morning.

Importance of IEF

North East Lewis pMPA is of national (Scotland) importance

Magnitude of Impact

The North East Lewis pMPA encompasses the north-east of the Isle of Lewis, extending from the Butt of Lewis to

the south of the Eye Peninsula. The proposed boundary incorporates an area which consistently supports above

average densities of Risso’s dolphin. The way in which noise affects marine mammals is dependent on several

factors, including the type of noise generated, the noise level, the species of marine mammal and the distance

between the animal and the source of the noise. The effects can be described as either a Permanent Threshold

Shift (PTS), where an animal experiences irreversible damage to their hearing which can in turn affect their ability

to forage and reproduce and in extreme circumstances result in death; or a Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)

which an animal can recover from, but may experience ‘masking’ which reduces its ability to communicate with

other animals and locate prey, resulting in fatigue36.

Underwater noise modelling shows that the impacts to PTS and TTS from impact piling, ODEX piling and dredging

will be localised to the harbour (refer to Technical Appendix 5.4: Underwater Noise Report). Overall, the

magnitude of the impact of underwater noise is low

Increased sedimentation from dredging (Technical Appendix 8.2: Hydraulic Assessment) may not impact on

Risso’s dolphin as marine mammals often reside in turbid waters, so the magnitude of the impact from increased

turbidity is negligible.

During construction, chemical pollutants released into the water (as a result of dredging, spilled material from

vessels, spillage from onshore storage of fuel or chemicals) could have temporary impacts on Risso’s dolphin

either directly, or indirectly. Toxic pollutants could result in habitat avoidance, injury or death of individuals

and/or reduced prey availability leading to loss of condition. Overall with standard mitigation (see section 5.8.1),

the magnitude of the impact of water pollution on the qualifying feature of the pMPA is negligible.

Significance of Effect

Not significant. The proposed works are approximately 1.7km outside North East Lewis pMPA boundary. The

potential impacts discussed above are therefore not expected to impact on Risso’s dolphin nor the habitat

supporting them within the designated site.

Confidence in Assessment

A: high confidence.

The Inner Hebrides and The Minches cSAC

Nature of Impact

During construction the qualifying feature of the site, harbour porpoise, would potentially be impacted by

dredging and piling activities via a disturbance of sediments; and piling activities, which would cause an increase

36 JNCC UK Marine Noise Registry: Information Document available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/MNR__Draft_InfoDoc_V1_20160808.pdf last

accessed 06/06/2018

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/MNR__Draft_InfoDoc_V1_20160808.pdf



107

in underwater noise and vibration. These impacts may cause disturbance to the qualifying feature of the cSAC

and alter their behaviour.

The proposed development may lead to contamination of coastal water and sediments from accidental pollution

incidents (see Chapter 8: Water Environment, Soils and Coastal Processes). The main risk is posed by refuelling

activities. Oil spillages to the water environment would be detrimental to both water and sediment quality, and

could affect the qualifying feature of the cSAC.

Duration of Impact


months 4 and 7 by cutter suction dredger or backhoe dredging from Monday to Saturday morning. Cutter suction

dredging would occur 24 hours a day and backhoe will generally occur between 0700 to 2000.




and 11 from Monday to Friday and Saturday morning between 0700 to 1900.

Importance of IEF

The Inner Hebrides and The Minches cSAC is of international importance.

Magnitude of Impact

The Inner Hebrides and the Minches cSAC comprises an area of 13,500 km2. It is situated to the east of the Outer

Hebrides and encompasses the sea between the Outer Hebrides and the west coast of the Scottish mainland. It

spans from Jura in the south east to Tolsta Head, on the Isle of Lewis, in the north-west. The site supports

approximately 30% of the harbour porpoises within the West Scotland management unit. Harbour porpoise are

present within the site throughout the year, however no sightings have been seen within the Newton Marina

Basin itself.

The possible effects of underwater noise on harbour porpoise include temporary or permanent threshold shifts

in hearing, disturbance (masking and/or habitat avoidance) Harbour porpoise are considered extremely sensitive

to noise and in extreme cases intense noises can lead to injury or death of individuals. Piling causes imapcts of

larger acoustic magnitude than dredging. Harbour porpoise may be affected temporarily if they are present

within 700m of the odex piling activity (Volume 3: Technical Appendix 5.4: Underwater Noise). For impact piling

there is a relatively limited area in the Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) risk zone for harbour porpoise. If the

Marine Mammal Observation Protocol (MMOP) outlined in Section 5.7 of Technical Appendix 5.2 is followed, the

magnitude of the impact is low.

Increased sedimentation from dredging (Technical Appendix 8.2) may not impact on harbour porpoise as marine

mammals often reside in turbid waters, so the magnitude of the impact from increased turbidity is negligible 37.


vessels, spillage from onshore storage of fuel or chemicals) could have temporary impacts on harbour porpoise

either directly, or indirectly. Toxic pollutants could result in habitat avoidance, injury or death of individuals

and/or reduced prey availability leading to loss of condition. Overall with mitigation, the magnitude of the impact

of water pollution on the qualifying feature of the cSAC is negligible.

37 Todd, V. et al (2015). A review of impacts of marine dredging activities on marine mammals. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 72, Issue 2, 1

January 2015, Pages 328–340



108


Not significant. The proposed works are approximately 2km outside The Inner Hebrides and The Minches cSAC

boundary. The potential impacts discussed above are therefore not expected to impact on harbour porpoise nor

the habitat supporting them within the designated site.


A: high confidence.

Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout

Nature of Impact

Atlantic salmon and sea trout return annually to the River Creed; their migratory path lies in direct line through

the proposed development area. Sea trout also return annually to the Glen River.

The proposed development would include three main activities during the construction phase that could

potentially impact on Atlantic salmon and sea trout. These are: sediment dispersal from dredging of the Newton

Marina area, pollution to the water, and lighting and noise pollution from both the dredging and piling. The

habitat lost by dredging would not be used by migratory Atlantic salmon or sea trout and has not been considered

further.

Duration of Impact


months 4 and 7 by cutter suction dredger or backhoe from Monday to Saturday morning. Cutter suction dredging

would occur 24 hours a day and backhoe will occur between 0700 to 2000.




and 11 from Monday to Friday and Saturday morning between 0700 to 1900.

Importance of IEF

The Atlantic salmon and Sea trout populations in the River Creed and Glen River are of national importance.

Magnitude of Impact

Salmon and sea trout run into the River Creed between April and August, with the majority of the angling catch

occurring between June and August. Sea trout will also migrate into the Glen River during this period. Juvenile

Salmon from the River Creed that have undergone smoltification will migrate to sea between May and August.

Therefore if dredging occurs between May to August there may be an increase in suspended sedimentation. High

turbidity can cause barriers to migratory salmonids (Atlantic salmon and sea trout) moving up and downstream

in estuarine areas resulting in alterations to fish behaviour, which can make them vulnerable to predation.

According to the hydraulic assessment (Technical Appendix 8.2), the highest levels of sediment dispersion from

the Newton Marina dredging are localised to the Newton Basin area itself. Migrating salmonids, both incoming

and outgoing, tend to follow inshore coastal paths, which, in the case of the Creed, will keep them well away

from the area of impact from the Newton Marina dredging.

There is potentially a slight increased risk of Sea Trout migration paths being impacted upon for fish

entering/exiting the Glen River with elevated suspended sediment levels due to the proximity of dredging

activities to coastal migratory paths to the Glen River.. Research published in the North American Journal of



109

Fisheries Management38 found that by the time suspended sediment levels reach the equivalent of the 0.18-

0.26Kg/m3, an avoidance response from the fish is already being observed. Homing capabilities of adult

salmonids are not noted as impaired until prolonged exposure to sediment levels in excess of 0.5Kg/m3. The

predicted levels of sediment at Newton Marina reach 0.18Kg/m3 approximately 150m west of Goat Island (see

Technical Appendix 8.1- Hydraulic Assessment, page 68). The results of the simulations demonstrate that the

vast majority of the sand and silts lost to the water column during the dredging operation will be retained within

the dredged area. Overall, the magnitude of the impact from higher sediment levels on Atlantic salmon is

negligible and sea trout is negligible.

Underwater noise from dredging and piling may impact on migratory salmonids in the area (Technical Appendix

7.1). Multiple studies (Chapman & Hawkins 1973, Hawkins & Johnstone 1978) have shown Atlantic Salmon to be

particularly sound insensitive in comparison to other teleost fishes, to the point where their ability to distinguish

individual noise stimuli from background noise is recognised as poor. (Hawkins & Johnstone 1978, Popper & Kay

1993, Kenyon et al. 1998, Radford et al. 2012). Similar studies have shown this also to be the case for sea trout

(Nedwell et al. 2003). The modelling of underwater noise (Volume 3: Technical Appendix 5.4: Underwater Noise)

shows that the risk of PTS and TTS in hearing from impact piling, odex piling and dredging is confined to the

harbour. Overall with the proposed mitigation as described in section 5.8, the magnitude of the impact of

underwater noise on Atlantic salmon and sea trout is negligible.


vessels, spillage from onshore storage of fuel or chemicals) could have temporary impacts on Atlantic salmon

and sea trout either directly, or indirectly. It could cause endocrine disruption which would interfere with

smolting. Toxic pollutants could result in habitat avoidance, injury or death of individuals and/or reduced prey

availability leading to loss of condition. Overall with mitigation, the magnitude of the impact of water pollution

on Atlantic salmon and sea trout is negligible.


The effects of sedimentation on Atlantic salmon and sea trout are not significant.

The effects of underwater noise on Atlantic salmon and sea trout are not significant.

The effects of water pollution on Atlantic salmon and sea trout are not significant.


B: intermediate confidence. There is limited current data relating to the relative health of the juvenile salmon

and trout populations of the River Creed and the juvenile trout population of the Glen River, as well as a lack of

a continuing monitoring programme.

European Eel

Nature of Impact

European eel return annually to the River Creed and Glen River.

The proposed development would include three main activities during the construction phase that could

potentially impact on European eel. These are: sediment dispersal from dredging of the newton marina area,

pollution of water and noise pollution from both the dredging and piling. The habitat lost by dredging would not

be used by migratory European eel and has not been considered further.

38 Newcombe, C. and Jensen, J. (1996). Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:693-727



110

Duration of Impact




Piles would generally either be driven into place by vibrating hammer, or grouted into sockets produced using

ODEX equipment. Piling, and the increased levels of underwater noise, would occur between months 9 and 11

from Monday to Friday and Saturday morning between 0700 to 1900.

Importance of IEF

European eel are of international importance.

Magnitude of Impact

There is limited information on the ecology of European eel. It is known that elvers migrate between March and

May and predominantly follow coastal routes. Therefore the impact on this species migrating to the River Creed

and Glen River would be minimal as noise pollution and sedimentation is confined to the Newton Basin area.

Overall, the magnitude of the impact from sedimentation, underwater noise and pollution to water is negligible.


The effects on European eel from sedimentation, underwater noise and pollution to water are not significant as

noise pollution and sedimentation is confined to the Newton Marina Basin area.


B: intermediate confidence. There is limited current data relating to the relative health of European eel

populations of the River Creed and Glen River, and no current continuing monitoring programme.

Harbour porpoise

Nature of Impact

The proposed development would include the following activities during the construction phase that could

potentially impact on harbour porpoise: sediment dispersal from dredging of the basin area, pollution of water

and noise pollution from both the dredging and piling.

Duration of Impact







Importance of IEF

Harbour porpoise are of international importance.

Magnitude of Impact



111

During the construction phase of the proposed development, harbour porpoise may be impacted by underwater

noise as a result of impact piling, odex piling and dredging. The possible effects of underwater noise on harbour

porpoise include temporary or permanent threshold shifts in hearing, disturbance (masking and/or habitat

avoidance) and in extreme cases intense noises can lead to injury or death of individuals. Harbour porpoise is

one of the most sensitive hearing mammals (200 Hz – 180 kHz39). Piling causes impacts of higher acoustic

magnitude than dredging. Harbour porpoise may be affected temporarily if they are present within 700m of the

odex piling activity (Volume 3: Technical Appendix 5.4: Underwater Noise). For impact piling there is a relatively

limited area is in the Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) risk zone for harbour porpoise. If the MMOP outlined in

Section 5.7 of Technical Appendix 5.2 is followed, the magnitude of the impact is low.

Underwater noise from dredging activities is confined to the Newton Basin. The magnitude of this impact is low.


vessels, spillage from onshore storage of fuel or chemicals) could have temporary impacts on harbour porpoise

either directly, or indirectly, if prey items are affected. Toxic pollutants could result in habitat avoidance, injury

or death of individuals and/or reduced prey availability leading to loss of condition. The magnitude of this impact

is negligible with mitigation.

Increased sedimentation from dredging (Technical Appendix 8.2) may not impact on harbour porpoise as marine

mammals often reside in turbid waters, so significant impacts from turbidity are improbable40. The limited

available information indicates that increased turbidity, as a result of dredging, is unlikely to have a substantial

direct impact on marine mammals that often inhabit naturally turbid or dark environments. This is likely because

other senses are utilized, and vision is not relied upon solely. The magnitude of this impact is negligible.


The effects on harbour porpoise are not significant. Hydraulic modelling for the dredging area concluded that

sediment loading of water outside of the dredged area would be minimal and that neither would impact on

coastal processes within the area. It was also confirmed through modelling that underwater noise from dredging

activities is confined to the Newton Marina Basin. The proposed development is therefore predicted to have no

significant impacts on harbour porpoise.


A: high confidence.

Risso’s dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin and killer whale

Nature of Impact


potentially impact on Risso’s dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin and killer whale: sediment dispersal from

dredging of the basin area, pollution of water and noise pollution from both the dredging and piling.

Duration of Impact




39 Guidance for Scottish Inshore Waters: The Protection of Marine European Protected Species from injury and disturbance. Marine Scotland 2014. 40 Todd, V. et al (2015). A review of impacts of marine dredging activities on marine mammals. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 72, Issue 2, 1




112




Importance of IEF

Risso’s dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin and killer whale are of international importance.

Magnitude of Impact

During the construction phase of the proposed development, Risso’s dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin and

killer whale may be impacted by underwater noise as a result of impact and odex piling and dredging. Risso’s

dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin and killer whale are a middle frequency hearing group (150 Hz – 160

kHz).The possible effects of underwater noise on these species include temporary or permanent threshold shifts

in hearing, disturbance (masking and/or habitat avoidance) and in extreme cases intense noises can lead to injury

or death of individuals. These species are unlikely to be affected by construction as underwater noise from

dredging and piling activities are confined to the Newton Marina Basin and no Risso’s dolphin, short-beaked

common dolphin or killer whale have been recorded in this area. (Volume 3: Technical Appendix 5.4: Underwater

noise). The magnitude of this impact is negligible.

Similar to harbour porpoise, chemical pollutants released into the water could have temporary impacts on Risso’s

dolphin, common dolphin and killer whale either directly, or indirectly, if prey items are affected. The magnitude

of this impact is negligible.

Increased sedimentation from dredging may not impact on Risso’s dolphin, common dolphin or killer whale as

marine mammals often reside in turbid waters, so significant impacts from turbidity are improbable41. The limited

available information indicates that increased turbidity, as a result of dredging, is unlikely to have a substantial

direct impact on marine mammals that often inhabit naturally turbid or dark environments. This is likely because

other senses are utilized, and vision is not relied upon solely. The magnitude of this impact is negligible.


Sedimentation impacts on Risso’s dolphin, common dolphin and killer whales are not significant.

Underwater noise impacts on Risso’s dolphin, common dolphin and killer whales are not significant.

Water pollution impacts on Risso’s dolphin, common dolphin and killer whales are not significant.


A: high confidence.

Minke whale

Nature of Impact


potentially impact on minke whale: direct and indirect effects of sediment dispersal from dredging of the basin

area, pollution of water and noise pollution from both the dredging and piling.

Duration of Impact





113







Importance of IEF

Minke whale are of international importance.

Magnitude of Impact

During the construction phase of the development, Minke whale may be impacted by underwater noise as a

result of impact and odex piling, vessel movements and dredging. The possible effects of underwater noise on

Minke whale include temporary or permanent threshold shifts in hearing, disturbance (masking and/or habitat

avoidance) and in extreme cases intense noises can lead to injury or death of individuals. Minke whale is in a low

frequency hearing group (7 Hz – 22 kHz). Minke whale are unlikely to be affected by construction as underwater

noise from piling activities as they are confined to the Newton Basin and no Minke whale have been recorded in

this area. (Volume 3: Technical Appendix 5.4: Underwater noise). The magnitude of the underwater impact is

low.


vessels, spillage from onshore storage of fuel or chemicals) could have temporary impacts on Minke whale either

directly, or indirectly, if prey items are affected. Toxic pollutants could result in habitat avoidance, injury or death

of individuals and/or reduced prey availability leading to loss of condition. Marine mammals can likely

compensate for small scale changes in prey abundance by switching prey, moving to alternate foraging grounds

or increasing time spent foraging. The magnitude of this impact is negligible.

Increased sedimentation from dredging may not impact on Minke whale as marine mammals often reside in

turbid waters, so significant impacts from turbidity are improbable42. The limited available information indicates

that increased turbidity, as a result of dredging, is unlikely to have a substantial direct impact on marine mammals

that often inhabit naturally turbid or dark environments. This is likely because other senses are utilized, and

vision is not relied upon solely. The magnitude of this impact is negligible.


Not significant. Minke whale are unlikely to be effected by increased sedimentation and underwater noise

dredging as they have the ability to tolerate and adapt to changes in effects


A: high confidence.

Harbour and Grey Seal

Nature of Impact





114


potentially impact on harbour and grey seals: direct and indirect effects of sediment dispersal from dredging of

the basin area, pollution of water and noise pollution from both the dredging and piling.

Duration of Impact







Importance of IEF

Seals are of county/metropolitan importance.

Magnitude of Impact

During the construction phase of the development, seals may be impacted by underwater noise as a result of

impact and odex piling and dredging. The possible effects of underwater noise on seals include temporary or

permanent threshold shifts in hearing, disturbance (masking and/or habitat avoidance) and in extreme cases

intense noises can lead to injury or death of individuals. Seals are in a phocid pinniped hearing group. Seals are

unlikely to be affected by underwater noise from piling and dredging activities as the largest impacts of noise are

confined to the Newton Marina Basin and no seals have been recorded in this area. (Volume 3: Technical

Appendix 5.4: Underwater noise). The magnitude of the underwater noise impact is low.


vessels, spillage from onshore storage of fuel or chemicals) could have temporary impacts on seals either directly,

or indirectly, if prey items are affected. Toxic pollutants could result in habitat avoidance, injury or death of

individuals and/or reduced prey availability leading to loss of condition. Marine mammals can likely compensate

for small scale changes in prey abundance by switching prey, moving to alternate foraging grounds or increasing

time spent foraging. The magnitude of this impact is negligible.

Increased sedimentation from dredging may not impact on seals as marine mammals often reside in turbid

waters, so significant impacts from turbidity are improbable43. The limited available information indicates that

increased turbidity, as a result of dredging, is unlikely to have a substantial direct impact on marine mammals

that often inhabit naturally turbid or dark environments. This is likely because other senses are utilized, and

vision is not relied upon solely. The magnitude of this impact is negligible.


Sedimentation impacts on harbour and grey seals are not significant.

Underwater noise impacts on harbour and grey seals are not significant.

Water pollution impacts on harbour and grey seals are not significant.






115

A: high confidence.


5.7.2.1 Predicted negative operational impacts


Nature of Impact

During operation the qualifying feature of the proposed site, Risso’s dolphin, would be impacted by maintenance

dredging and that would cause increased turbidity from disturbance of sediments, underwater noise and

vibration. These impacts may cause disturbance to the qualifying feature of the pMPA and alter their behaviour.

The proposed development would lead to an increase in vessel movement in the area and could increase the risk

of collision, resulting in death or injury to individuals.

Duration of Impact

The duration of impact would occur for the life of the proposed development i.e. in perpetuity, although each

maintenance activity would be temporary. The increased number of vessel movements would be permanent.

Importance of IEF

Marine protected areas are a National (Scotland) designated conservation site.

Magnitude of Impact

The North-East Lewis pMPA (the Zone of Influence) encompasses the north-east of the Isle of Lewis, extending

from the Butt of Lewis to the south of the Eye Peninsula. The proposed boundary incorporates an area which

persistently supports above average densities of Risso’s dolphin. Sedimentation and underwater noise modelling

show that the impact from dredging will be localised to the harbour.

Overall, the magnitude of the impact is negligible.


Not significant.


A: high confidence.

Inner Hebrides and Minches cSAC

Nature of Impact

During operation the qualifying feature of the proposed site, harbour porpoise, would be impacted by

maintenance dredging that would cause increased turbidity from disturbance of sediments and underwater

noise. There is low sediment movement within harbour, therefore there is a low likelihood of maintenance

dredging being required. However if it is undertaken the impacts from dredging may cause disturbance to the

qualifying feature of the cSAC and alter their behaviour.

The proposed development could lead to an increase in vessel movement in the area and could increase the risk

of collision, resulting in death or injury to individuals.



116

Duration of Impact

The duration of impact would occur for the life of the proposed development, although each maintenance

activity would be temporary. The increased number of vessel movements would be permanent.

Importance of IEF

SACs are internationally designated conservation sites.

Magnitude of Impact

The possible effects of underwater noise on harbour porpoise include temporary or permanent threshold shifts

in hearing, disturbance (masking and/or habitat avoidance) and in extreme cases intense noises can lead to injury

or death of individuals. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is negligible.

Chemical pollutants released into the water (as a result of dredging, spilled material from vessels, spillage from

onshore storage of fuel, chemicals, and from transfer of oil and oil storage tanks once the port is operation) could

have temporary impacts on harbour porpoise either directly, or indirectly, if prey items are affected. The

magnitude of the impact is low.


Not significant.


A: high confidence.

Atlantic Salmon and Sea Trout

Nature of Impact

There is low sediment movement within harbour, therefore there is a low likelihood of maintenance dredging

being required. However if it is the undertaken Atlantic salmon and sea trout would be impacted by maintenance

dredging that would cause increased turbidity from disturbance of sediments and underwater noise.

Duration of Impact


activity would be temporary.

Importance of IEF

The Atlantic salmon and Sea trout populations in the River Creed and Glen River are listed as a priority species

under the UKBAP and are therefore of National Importance.

Magnitude of Impact

High turbidity from maintenance dredging can cause barriers to migratory salmonids (Atlantic salmon and sea

trout) moving up and downstream in estuarine areas resulting in alterations to fish behaviour, which can make

them vulnerable to predation. Migrating salmonids, both incoming and outgoing, tend to follow inshore coastal

paths, which, in the case of the Creed, will keep them well away from the area of impact from the Newton Marina

maintenance dredging. There is potentially a slight increased risk of sea trout migration paths being impacted

upon for fish entering/exiting the Glen River with elevated suspended sediment levels.



117

Underwater noise from maintenance dredging may impact on migratory salmonids in the area. Atlantic Salmon

are particularly sound insensitive, to the point where their ability to distinguish individual noise stimuli from

background noise is recognised as poor.

Overall, the magnitude of the impact is low.


Not significant.


B: intermediate confidence. There is limited current data relating to the relative health of the juvenile Salmon

and Trout populations of the River Creed and the juvenile Trout population of the Glen River, as well as a lack of

a continuing monitoring programme.

European eel

Nature of Impact

European eel return annually to the River Creed and Glen River.


being required. However if it is undertaken European eel will be impacted by maintenance dredging that would

cause increased turbidity from disturbance of sediments, underwater noise and vibration.

Duration of Impact


activity would be temporary.

Importance of IEF

European eel are of international importance.

Magnitude of Impact

There is limited information on the ecology of European eel. It is known that elvers migrate between March and

May and predominantly follow coastal routes. Therefore the impact on this species migrating to the River Creed

and Glen River would be minimal as noise pollution and sedimentation is confined to the Newton Marina Basin

area.

Overall, the magnitude of the impact is low.


Not significant.


B: intermediate confidence. There is limited current data relating to the relative health of European eel

populations of the River Creed and Glen River, and no current continuing monitoring programme.

Marine Mammals



118

Nature of Impact


being required. However if it is undertakenmarine mammals would be impacted by maintenance dredging that

would cause increased turbidity from disturbance of sediments and underwater noise.

Indirect effects of dredging on marine mammals includes a reduction in prey abundance and diversity. Marine

mammals can likely compensate for small scale changes in prey abundance by switching prey, moving to

alternative foraging grounds or increasing time spent foraging.

There may be an increase in the number of vessels which could also lead to an increase in low level, background

underwater noise throughout the operational life of the proposed development.

Duration of Impact

The duration of impact would occur for the life of the proposed development, although each dredging

maintenance activity would be temporary. The increased number of vessel movements would be permanent.

Importance of IEF

Cetaceans are of international importance. Seals are of county/metropolitan importance.

Magnitude of Impact

An increase in vessel movements is unlikely to result in physical trauma to marine mammals but could lead to

habitat displacement if individuals avoid areas with higher noise levels. An increase in continuous low level noise

could also affect harbour porpoise indirectly if their prey are affected. Overall, the magnitude of the impact is

low.


Not significant.


A: high confidence.


There is a planning application for a Seaweed Processing Facility at Arnish. However this site is for buildings on

the peninsula and is not predicted to have any impacts on marine ecology.

At the time of writing there are no firm details on the SSE interconnector project and how the HVDC cable

interacts with the marine environment. It is thought that there will be no cumulative impact on Newton Marina

from this development.

Stornoway Deep Water Port is planned for the opposite side of the harbour at Glumaig Bay and an EIA has been

prepared for this scheme. The cumulative assessment incorporates the findings from that assessment as it is

considered to be an additive cumulative effect to the proposed development. There are predicted to be no

significant cumulative operational effects as the primary significant effects occur during the construction phase,

and hence cumulative operational effects have not been addressed in the section below.

5.7.3.1 Potential Cumulative Construction Effects




119

Risso’s dolphin is the qualifying feature of North East Lewis pMPA. This species could potentially be impacted by

dredging and piling activities from the Deep Water Port that have the potential to add cumulatively to the

increased turbidity from disturbance of sediments and underwater noise. Modelling of the underwater noise

caused by impact piling at Deep Water Port on Risso’s dolphin show that prior to mitigation the impacts to Risso’s

dolphin PTS and TTS from piling and dredging will be localised to the Deep Water Port and the species will have

none or a very limited risk of hearing impact from the impact piling.

Therefore it is concluded that the proposed development at Stornoway Deep Water Port will not add

cumulatively to the effects of increased underwater noise on the qualifying feature of the pMPA.

Modelling of sedimentation at the proposed Deep Water Port show that there will be low levels of

sedimentation. Therefore it is concluded that the proposed development at Stornoway Deep Water Port will not

add cumulatively to the effects of increased sedimentation on the qualifying feature of the pMPA.

Inner Hebrides and Minches cSAC

Harbour porpoise is the qualifying feature of the Inner Hebrides and Minches cSAC. Modelling of the underwater

noise caused by impact piling at Deep Water Port on harbour porpoise show that this species is especially

sensitive to noise. At full power, the impact piling will risk acutely injuring harbour porpoises within approx. 2 km

of the piling site. Therefore if impact piling occurs at Newton Marina at the same time the cumulative risk of a

permanent threshold shift (PTS) is higher. Therefore it is concluded that the proposed development at Stornoway

Deep Water Port will add cumulatively to the effects of underwater noise on the qualifying feature of the cSAC

if construction events take place simultaneously. This cumulative effect is considered to be of medium

magnitude and significant if no mitigation measures are followed.

Modelling of sedimentation at Deep Water Port show that there will be low levels of sedimentation. Added

cumulatively to the proposed development it is still unlikely to have a substantial direct impact on the qualifying

feature of the cSAC. This potential effect is considered to be of low magnitude and not significant.

Fish

Modelling of dredging at the Deep Water Port development shows that there will be low levels of sedimentation.

Homing capabilities of adult salmonids are not noted as impaired until prolonged exposure to sediment levels in

excess of 0.5Kg/m3. The highest predicted levels of sediment at the Deep Water Port reach 0.07Kg/m3. This

potential effect is considered to be of low magnitude and not significant.

Modelling of underwater noise found that salmon and trout have comparably poor hearing and while they will

likely sense the activity, there is little or no risk of any impact from the noise on these species. This potential

effect is considered to be of negligible magnitude and not significant.

Therefore it is concluded that the proposed development at Stornoway Deep Water Port will not add

cumulatively to the effects on Atlantic salmon, sea trout or European eel.

Marine mammals

Modelling of odex piling at Deep Water Port shows that harbour porpoise (a high frequency hearing marine

mammal), has a high risk zone of temporary threshold shift (TTS) in hearing, beyond 500m of the development.

This overlaps with the risk of TTS from odex piling in Newton Marina Basin. If they remain in the area for 24

hours, they would suffer TTS. There is risk of permanent damage to the hearing of harbour porpoises only if an

individual stays within 200 metres of the activity for long durations. Given the shy nature of porpoises this is

thought to be very unlikely.

Modelling of impact piling at Deep Water Port on harbour porpoise show that this species is especially sensitive

to noise. At full power, the impact piling will risk acutely injuring harbour porpoises within approx. 2 km of the



120

piling site. Therefore if impact piling occurs at Newton Marina Basin at the same time the cumulative risk of a

permanent threshold shift (PTS) is higher.

Other hearing groups aside from the high frequency group, (dolphins, killer whales and seals) have no or a very

limited risk of hearing impact from cumulative impact piling at the Deep Water Port.

The dredging activity will have the lowest acoustic impact of the two activities with the TTS risk zone extending

out to approximately 200 metres from the vessel, and this only for the low frequency group (LF), (such as minke

whale). All remaining species groups will have to be within approximately 100 m of the vessel during operation,

to have a risk of developing TTS.

Therefore it is concluded that the proposed development at Stornoway Deep Water Port will add cumulatively

to the effects of underwater noise on harbour porpoise but not for the remaining marine mammals (Risso’s

dolphin, common dolphin, minke whale, killer whale, harbour seal and grey seal). This potential effect is

considered to be of low magnitude and significant if no mitigation measures are followed.

Modelling of sedimentation at Deep Water Port show that there will be low levels of sedimentation. Added

cumulatively to the proposed development it is still unlikely to have a substantial direct impact on marine

mammals that often inhabit naturally turbid or dark environments. This potential effect is considered to be of

low magnitude and not significant.

5.8 Mitigation and Monitoring

5.8.1 Standard Mitigation

The following standard mitigation practices will be followed during the construction and operational phase of

the proposed development:

• Despite no signs of otter during field visits and anecdotally in the local area, the possible presence of

otter on site and in the wider landscape should be included in tool box talks and site induction for

construction staff operating in this area;

• Works associated with land above the high water mark should be preceded by a pre-works check for

otter resting sites as described in Section 4;

• If an otter is observed within the proposed working areas, seek guidance from an Ecological Clerk of

Works (ECOW) and do not commence works until the otter has dispersed;

• Should an otter resting site be discovered, prior to or during works, said works should be assessed with

regards to the need for additional mitigation species disturbance licensing;

• Artificial lighting should be directed towards the working areas only in order to minimise the effects on

otter which can be more active between dusk and dawn;

• Pollution of the marine environment should be prevented in order to safeguard water quality and

marine life which otter rely on within these habitats.

• A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) detailing pollution prevention measures will

be agreed with the regulatory authority prior to works commencing;

• The following good practice guidelines shall be adhered to and incorporated into the CEMP:

o GGP 5: Works and maintenance in or near water;

o PPG 6: Working at construction and demolition sites;

o PPG 7: Safe Storage – The safe operation of refuelling facilities;

o GPP 21: Pollution and incident response planning; and

o PPG 22: Incident response – dealing with spills.



121

5.8.2 Construction Phase Mitigation

The Marine Mammal Observation Protocol (MMOP) will be implemented so that the impact piling works do not

cause injury or unnecessary disturbance to marine mammals (and basking shark). Although not an EPS, as good

practice and as they are known to be present in the general area, this will extend to pinnipeds including harbour

seal and grey seal. This section has been designed with reference to current JNCC guidance ‘Statutory nature

conservation agency protocol for minimising the risk of injury to marine mammals from piling noise’ (August

2010)44.

Impact piling protocol during the day and in sea conditions up to Sea State 4

The standard JNCC protocol is outlined below45 (please see Section 5.8.3 for deviations to this protocol to be

followed during times of sea states exceeding 4 or during periods of darkness and/or low visibility i.e. fog):

1. Visual monitoring will not commence during poor visibility (such as fog) or during periods when the sea state

is not conducive to visual mitigation (above sea state 4 is considered not conducive46) as there is a greater risk of

failing to detect the presence of marine mammals47. In the event that visual monitoring is not possible, the

protocol outlined in 5.8.3 should be followed. Harbour porpoise have small dorsal fins, therefore the MMO shall

take additional precautions if the sea state exceeds 2. As works are scheduled to commence during the winter

period it is likely that sea state 2 will be exceeded on a regular basis. An elevated platform for the MMO to

monitor from would be beneficial when the sea state is 2 or above, the impact piling works could also be

scheduled on a day where the sea is expected to be calm.

2. The mitigation zone will be monitored visually by the MMO for an agreed period prior to the commencement

of piling. This will be a minimum of 30 minutes.

3. The MMO will scan the waters using binoculars or a spotting scope and by making visual observations. Sightings

of marine mammals will be appropriately recorded in terms of date, time, position, weather conditions, sea state,

species, number, adult/juvenile, behavior, range etc. on the JNCC standard forms. Communication between the

MMO and the contractor and the start/end times of the activities will also be recorded on the forms.

4. Piling will not commence if marine mammals are detected within the mitigation zone or until 20 minutes after

the last visual detection. The MMO will track any marine mammals detected and ensure they are satisfied the

animals have left the mitigation zone before they advise the crew to commence piling activities.

5. A soft-start will be employed, with the gradual ramping up of piling power incrementally over a set time period

until full operational power is achieved. The soft-start duration will be a period of not less than 20 minutes. This

will allow for any marine mammals to move away from the noise source.

6. If a marine mammal enters the mitigation zone during the soft-start then, whenever possible, the piling

operation will cease, or at least the power will not be further increased until the marine mammal exits the

mitigation zone and there is no further detection for 20 minutes.

7. When piling at full power this will continue if a marine mammal is detected in the mitigation zone (as it is

deemed to have entered voluntarily48).

44 It should be noted that this protocol does not document measures to mitigate disturbance effects, but has been developed to reduce to negligible levels of risk of injury or death to marine mammals in close proximity to piling operations. 45 There is a ‘variation of standard piling protocol’ allowed in the guidance if required. 46 Detection of marine mammals, particularly porpoises, decreases as sea state increases. According to the JNCC guidance ideally sea states of 2 or less are required for optimal visual detection. 47 There is a ‘variation of standard piling protocol’ allowed in the guidance if required. 48 The guidance states that there is no scientific evidence for this voluntary hypothesis; instead it is based on a common sense approach. Factors such as food availability may result in marine mammals approaching piling operations; in particular, the availability of prey species stunned by loud

underwater noise may attract seals into the vicinity.



122

8. If there is a pause in the piling operations for a period of greater than 10 minutes, then the pre-piling search

and soft-start procedure will be repeated before piling recommences. If a watch has been kept during the piling

operation, the MMO should be able to confirm the presence or absence of marine mammals, and it may be

possible to commence the soft-start immediately. If there has been no watch, the complete pre-piling search

and soft-start procedure will be undertaken.

To prevent the need for the pre-piling search and therefore delays to the piling operations, a noise generator

could be deployed to create a continuous underwater noise which mimics the sound of the impact hammer;

which would in turn deter marine mammals from entering the mitigation zone. It is estimated that the maximum

pause between impact hammering on any one day, and therefore the maximum time the noise generator

running, would be around three hours. It is suggested that once contractors are appointed and the impact piling

schedule can be further determined, SPA liaise with SNH to determine a suitable time limit on the use of the

noise generator to prevent excessive noise entering the marine environment. It should be noted that the noise

model was ran to reflect a worst-case scenario of 6000 hammer strikes per day, therefore the noise generator

and the impact hammer strikes combined must not exceed this. If the noise generator is expected to be running

for long periods of time, the standard MMO protocol as above should be adhered to.

As per the JNCC guidance, reports detailing the piling activity and marine mammal mitigation (the MMO reports)

will be sent to Marine Scotland at the conclusion of piling activity. Reports will include:

• Completed MMRFs;

• Date and location of the piling activities;

• A record of all occasions when piling occurred, including details of the duration of the pre-piling search

and soft-start procedures, and any occasions when piling activity was delayed or stopped due to

presence of marine mammals;

• Details of watches made for marine mammals, including details of any sightings, and details of the piling

activity during the watches;

• Details of any problems encountered during the piling activities including instances of non-compliance

with the agreed piling protocols; and

• Any recommendations for amendment of the protocols.

5.8.3 Impact piling and dredging protocol in darkness and at high sea states

The following protocol has been designed for use when:

Impact piling operations are to commence during hours of low visibility/night-time; and/or

The sea state exceeds 4.

As works at Newton Marina are scheduled during the winter months, it is anticipated that piling works will be

programmed during periods of low visibility or darkness. To prevent significant delays to the project, SNH were

consulted49 to discuss potential alternative mitigation measures to enable works to commence during these

times. Impact piling at Newton Marina presents low risks to marine mammals due to the short duration of the

works, the breakwater structure providing a buffer for the noise and the low probability of large numbers of

marine mammals occupying the working area; SNH recommend that wherever possible the standard JNCC MMO

protocol will be adhered to. During periods when conditions are not conducive to visual monitoring, a soft-start

must be conducted, meaning a gradual ramp-up of power over a period of not less than 20 minutes.

An Acoustic Deterrent Device (ADD) protocol was presented as a potential alternative to the above method,

however it was concluded that the short duration of the works and the low risks of PTS/TTS presented by impact

49 Conference call on 17/07/2018. Attendees: EnviroCentre, SPA, Wallace Stone and (Operations office, Outer Hebrides SNH). [Redacted]



123

piling, did not warrant the use of an ADD which in this instance would contribute significantly more underwater

noise, for little benefit.

The requirement of an MMO for Odex Piling is not considered necessary due to the risk of TTS for harbour

porpoise only extending out to a maximum of 700m from the piling activity. A soft-start method will likely deter

harbour porpoise staying within, or moving into the area where piling is ongoing.

The requirement of an MMO for dredging is not considered necessary due to the small TTS zones associated with

the noise generated. Instead, contractors should be made aware that marine mammals may be present within

the working area.

Construction techniques and methodologies would be fully incorporated into a Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) (including a Pollution Prevention Plan) and be fully developed once a competent

construction contractor is appointed.

If any dead cetacean is observed during construction or operation, it should be reported to the Scottish Marine

Animal Stranding Scheme (SMASS) (www.strandings.org) and live marine mammal strandings will be reported to

British Divers Marine Live Rescue (www.bdmlr.org.uk).

5.8.4 Operational Phase Mitigation

As for construction dredging, the requirement of an MMO for maintenance dredging is not considered necessary

due to the small TTS zones associated with the noise generated. Instead, dredging contractors should be made

aware that marine mammals and basking sharks may be present within the working area; and broadly work to

the vessel movement mitigation suggestions (see Technical Appendix 5.2) to avoid disturbance to and/or collision

with marine mammals.

Stornoway Port Authority has set speed limits for different areas of the harbour, these are shown on a plan (See

Technical Appendix 5.2). The Port Authority will make leaflets on good practice to avoid disturbance to and / or

collision with marine mammals available to marina users.

5.8.5 Success of Mitigation

The above mitigation measures are assessed as having a certain/near certain level of success. The measures have

been devised with expert support from SMRU Consulting based on research they have carried out. SMRU

Consulting was set up in 2006 as the commercial arm of the academic Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) at the

University of St Andrews. Although separate entities, they work closely together, and jointly bridge the gap

between the academic and commercial worlds. The academic Sea Mammal Research Unit carries out

interdisciplinary marine mammal research and provides the UK’s main science capability in the field of marine

mammal biology.

Supporting evidence from other similar developments have been used as well as standard guidelines for

pollution prevention control.

5.9 Residual Effects

The residual effects of the proposed development are presented in Table 5-8 below.

http://www.strandings.org/

http://www.bdmlr.org.uk/



124

Table 5-8: Summary of Effects on Important Ecological Features

IEF Importance of IEF Nature of Impact

Duration of Impact Magnitude of Impact Significance of Effect Confidence in Assessment

Construction Phase

North East Lewis pMPA National (Scotland) Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Inner Hebrides cSAC National (Scotland) Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Atlantic salmon National Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant B: intermediate

Sea trout National Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Low Not significant B: intermediate

European eel International Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant B: intermediate

Harbour porpoise International Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Risso's dolphin International Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Common dolphin International Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Killer whale International Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Minke whale International Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Grey seal County/Metropolitan Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Harbour seal County/Metropolitan Dredging (increased turbidity and sedimentation) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

North East Lewis pMPA National (Scotland) Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Inner Hebrides cSAC National (Scotland) Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Atlantic salmon and Sea trout National Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Low Not significant B: intermediate

European eel International Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Negligible Not significant B: intermediate

Harbour porpoise International Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Risso's dolphin International Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Common dolphin International Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Killer whale International Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Minke whale International Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Grey seal County/Metropolitan Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Harbour seal County/Metropolitan Underwater noise (piling and dredging) Temporary Low Not significant A: high

North East Lewis pMPA National (Scotland) Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Inner Hebrides cSAC National (Scotland) Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Atlantic salmon and Sea trout National Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant B: intermediate

European eel International Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant B: intermediate

Harbour porpoise International Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Risso's dolphin International Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Common dolphin International Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Killer whale International Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Minke whale International Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Grey seal County/Metropolitan Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Harbour seal County/Metropolitan Pollution to water Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high



125

Operational Phase

North East Lewis pMPA National (Scotland) Maintenance dredging Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Inner Hebrides cSAC National (Scotland) Maintenance dredging Temporary Negligible Not significant A: high

Atlantic salmon and Sea trout National Maintenance dredging Temporary Low Not significant B: intermediate

European eel International Maintenance dredging Temporary Low Not significant B: intermediate

Harbour porpoise International Maintenance dredging Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Risso's dolphin International Maintenance dredging Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Common dolphin International Maintenance dredging Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Killer whale International Maintenance dredging Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Minke whale International Maintenance dredging Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Grey seal County/Metropolitan Maintenance dredging Temporary Low Not significant A: high

Harbour seal County/Metropolitan Maintenance dredging Temporary Low Not significant A: high

North East Lewis pMPA National (Scotland) Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant A: high

Inner Hebrides cSAC National (Scotland) Increased vessel movement Permanent Negligible Not significant A: high

Atlantic salmon and Sea trout National Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant B: intermediate

European eel International Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant B: intermediate

Harbour porpoise International Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant A: high

Risso's dolphin International Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant A: high

Common dolphin International Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant A: high

Killer whale International Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant A: high

Minke whale International Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant A: high

Grey seal County/Metropolitan Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant A: high

Harbour seal County/Metropolitan Increased vessel movement Permanent Low Not significant A: high



126


This chapter concludes that following the proposed mitigation, which has been designed upon review of engineering

design and construction techniques, adverse effects will not be significant.



127

6 CHAPTER 6: CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an assessment of the effects of the proposed development on the historic environment.

The assessment was undertaken by of Headland Archaeology (UK) Ltd. The objectives of this

assessment are to:

• Describe the location, nature and extent of any known heritage assets or areas of archaeological

potential which may be affected by the proposed development;

• Provide an assessment of the importance of these assets;

• Assess the likely scale of any impacts on the historic environment posed by the development;

• Outline suitable mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or offset significant adverse effects; and

• Provide an assessment of any residual effects remaining after mitigation.

A heritage asset (or historic asset) is any element of the historic environment which has cultural significance.

Both discrete features, and extensive landscapes defined by a specific historic event, process or theme, can be

defined as heritage assets; and assets may overlap or be nested within one another.

Designated assets include Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas,

Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Inventory Historic Battlefields and Historic Marine Protected Areas.

Other assets may also be locally designated through policies in the Local Plan.

The majority of heritage assets are not designated. Some undesignated assets are recorded in Historic

Environment Records or Sites and Monuments Records (HERs/SMRs) maintained by local authorities and other

agencies. However, many heritage assets are currently unrecorded, and the information contained in HERs and

SMRs is not definitive, since they may include features which, for instance, have been entirely removed, or are

of uncertain location, dubious identification, or negligible importance. The identification of undesignated

heritage assets is therefore to some extent a matter of professional judgement.

Some heritage assets may coincide with visual receptors or landscape character areas, which are assessed in

Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual, and in such cases, it is important to recognise the difference in approach

between these two topics. Cultural heritage assessment addresses effects on the cultural heritage significance

of heritage assets, which may result from, but are not equivalent to, visual impacts. Similarly, an effect on a

landscape character area does not equate to an effect on the cultural heritage significance of heritage assets

within it.

This chapter is also supported by the following outputs which form part of this EIAR:

Technical Appendix 6.1: Baseline and Gazetteer; and

Technical Appendix 6.2: Historical Maps.


Issues arising from scoping and other consultation carried out in the course of the cultural heritage assessment

are summarised in Table 6.1.

[Redacted]



128



Historic

Environment

Scotland (HES),

Scoping Opinion

9th March 2018

HES (on behalf of Scottish Ministers)

advised that providing no

archaeological materials are discovered

during benthic surveys, the marine

aspect of Cultural Heritage and

Archaeology can be scoped out of the

EIA. A protocol for archaeological

discoveries during construction works

should be included in the Schedule of

Mitigation (SoM).

Although a benthic survey has not been

undertaken, hydrographic (bathymetric)

surveys have been carried out50. Following

desktop study, the maritime (and onshore)

archaeological potential of the inner study

area (as defined in Section 6.4.2) is

considered to be negligible.

The SoM is to form part of the CEMP that

will be submitted at the post-consent phase.

The SoM will include a protocol for

archaeological discoveries during

construction

HES were also provided with information

regarding the proposed baseline against

which impacts would be assessed (email

from 8th March 2018)

HES (email from

9th March 2018) confirmed that there

are no other heritage assets that HES

would recommend for assessment

beyond those already proposed for

inclusion.

Potential impacts upon designated Heritage

Assets within HES’ remit are assessed in

Sections 6.6.2 and 6.6.3.

CnES Archaeology

Service (Scoping

Opinion, 3rd

November 2017)

The archaeological desk based

assessment should present all relevant

marine geophysical survey data

appropriate to the zone of

development, and a marine

archaeologist should interpret the data.

The EIA report should also consider the

potential for palaeo-environmental

remains to be present.

Hydrographic (bathymetric) surveys were

undertaken in April 2017. These were

principally used to inform hydraulic

modelling51. Following desktop study, the

maritime (and onshore) archaeological

potential of the inner study area (as defined

in Section 6.4.2) is considered to be

negligible, and therefore it was not

considered appropriate to carry out marine

geophysical survey or analysis.

The archaeological and palaeo-

environmental potential of the inner study

area (as defined in Section 6.4.2) is

considered in Section 6.5.2.

CnES were also provided with further

information regarding the proposed baseline

against which impacts would be assessed

(email from 8th March 2018)

50 Newton Basin Stornoway Marina Development Hydraulic Modelling Report (RPS Consulting Engineers, 2018 unpublished client report) 51 Ibid.

[Redacted][Redacted]

[Redacted]



129


CnES Archaeology Service (email from

26th March 2018)

confirmed that all the main aspects of

cultural heritage are being covered

appropriately.

Potential impacts upon non-designated

Heritage Assets within CnES’ remit are

assessed in Sections 6.6.2 and 6.6.3.

CnES Archaeology Service (email from

29th March 2018) wished

to confirm that the ‘underwater

aspects’ of the project are being

addressed.

It was confirmed (email from 29th

March 2018) that the wreck data and results

of hydrographic surveys are being

considered, and that mitigation proposals

will also include protocols for the treatment

of marine/maritime archaeology.


The assessment has been undertaken with reference to relevant legislation, policy and guidance relating to

Cultural Heritage and archaeology.

6.3.1 Legislation

Scheduled Monuments and Listed Buildings are protected by statute.

• Legislation regarding Scheduled Monuments is contained within The Ancient Monuments and

Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

• Legislation regarding Listed Buildings is contained in The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation

Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.

The 1979 Act makes no reference to the settings of Scheduled Monuments. The 1997 Act does, however, place

a duty on the planning authority with respect to Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, and their settings.

• The Historic Environment Scotland Act 2014 defines the role of the new public body, Historic

Environment Scotland (HES), and the processes for the designation of heritage assets, consents and

rights of appeal.

6.3.2 Planning Policy

The Scottish Government’s planning policies in relation to the historic environment are set out in paragraphs

135-151 of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)52. The historic environment is defined as “the physical evidence for

human activity that connects people with place, linked with the associations we can see, feel and understand”

and includes “individual assets, related settings and the wider cultural landscape”. The policy principles are stated

in paragraph 137.

The SPP also requires planning authorities to protect archaeological sites and monuments, preserving them in situ where possible, or otherwise ensure “appropriate excavation, recording, analysis, publication and archiving before and/or during development” (paragraph 150). “Non-designated historic assets and areas of historical interest, including historic landscapes, other gardens and designed landscapes, woodlands and routes such as drove roads” should also be preserved in situ wherever feasible (paragraph 151).

52 Scottish Planning Policy (Scottish Government, 2014)

[Redacted]

[Redacted]

[Redacted]



130

‘Our Place in Time: the Historic Environment Strategy for Scotland’53 presents the Scottish Government’s strategy for the protection and promotion of the historic environment. The Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement54 (HESPS) and the Historic Environment Circular 155 complement the SPP and provide further policy direction. In particular, HESPS provides more detailed policy on historic environment designations and consents.

The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (November 2012) covers cultural heritage under Policy 31: Listed

buildings and Policy 34: Archaeology.

Policy 31 states: “Proposals affecting listed buildings and/or their setting will be required to accord with national

policy and guidance…. They must also:

Be sympathetic to the listed building in terms of scale, proportion, design, materials and construction;

and

Not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the listed building(s) or its setting.”

Policy 34 states; “Development proposals adversely affecting nationally important remains and their setting will

not be permitted” and also that “there is a presumption in favour of the preservation in situ of important

monuments and their settings”

It goes on to state that “Where the Comhairle determines that preservation in situ is not justified, and the site

can be preserved by record, recording should be carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigation”

and that “in all cases the developer will be required to provide adequate provision for access and observation and

recording by a professional archaeologist of any find and other evidence which may be revealed during ground

works. Developers are required to allow adequate time for records to be made by the archaeologist.”

6.3.3 Guidance

Planning Advice Note 2/2011: Planning and Archaeology56 provides technical advice to planning authorities and

developers on dealing with archaeological remains. Among other issues it covers the balance in planning

decisions between the preservation of archaeological remains and the benefits of development; the

circumstances under which developers can be required to provide further information, in the form of a field

evaluation, to allow planning authorities to reach a decision; and measures that can be taken to mitigate adverse

impacts.

HES provides guidance on how to apply the policies set out in the SPP in a series of documents entitled ‘Managing

Change in the Historic Environment’, of which the guidance note on ‘Setting’57 is particularly relevant.

Standards and Guidance published by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) have been followed in

preparing this assessment, in particular the ‘Standard and guidance for commissioning work or providing

consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment’58 and the ‘Standard and guidance for historic

environment desk-based assessment’59.

53 Our Place In Time: The Historic Environment Strategy for Scotland (Scottish Government, 2014) 54 Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement (HES, 2016) 55 Historic Environment Circular 1 (HES, 2016) 56 Planning Advice Note (PAN) 2/2011: Planning and Archaeology (Scottish Government, 2011) 57 Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting (HES, 2016) 58 Standard and guidance for commissioning work or providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment (CIfA, 2014) 59 Standard and guidance for historic environment desk-based assessment (CIfA, 2014 updated 2016)



131

6.4 Methodology

6.4.1 The Assessment Process

The cultural heritage assessment has been carried out in the following stages:

• Desk-based study leading to the identification of heritage assets potentially affected by the

development;

• Definition of baseline conditions, based on results of the desk-based study and visits to assets;

• Assessment of the importance of heritage assets potentially affected by the development;

• Identification of potential impacts on heritage assets, informed by baseline information, site visits, Zone

of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) mapping, wireframes and photomontages;

• Proposal of mitigation measures, to eliminate, reduce or offset adverse effects;

• Assessment of the magnitude of residual effects;

• Assessment of the significance of residual effects, broadly a product of the asset’s importance and the

magnitude of the impact; and

• Assessment of cumulative effects.

6.4.2 Study areas

• The Inner Study Area (ISA) corresponds to the proposed development site boundary (illustrated on

Figure 6.1 within Volume 2 of this EIAR). Within this area, all heritage assets are assessed for

construction and operational effects.

• The Outer Study Area (OSA) extends to 1km from the proposed development site boundary (illustrated

on Figure 6.2 within Volume 2 of this ES), which is taken as the maximum extent of potentially significant

effects on the settings of heritage assets.

6.4.3 Data sources

The baseline for the ISA has been informed by a comprehensive desk-based study, based on all readily available

documentary sources, following the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ (CIfA) ‘Standard and Guidance for

historic environment desk-based assessment’. The following sources of information were referred to:

• Designation data downloaded from the Historic Environment Scotland website on 2nd February 2018;

• The National Record of the Historic Environment (NRHE), including the Canmore database and

associated photographs, prints/drawings and manuscripts held by HES;

• Historic Landscape Assessment data, viewed through the HLAMap website;

• The CnES Historic Environment Record (HER) – digital data extract received on 26th January 2018;

• The National Collection of Aerial Photography (NCAP);

• Geological data available online from the British Geological Survey;

• Hydrographic survey data supplied by the client60;

• Historic maps held by the National Library of Scotland;

• Ordnance Survey Name Books;

• Unpublished maps and plans held by the National Records of Scotland;

• Readily available published sources and unpublished archaeological reports.

60 Newton Basin Stornoway Marina Development Hydraulic Modelling Report (RPS Consulting Engineers, 2018 unpublished client report)



132

A site walkover and setting visits were undertaken on the 22nd and 23rd February 2018. A qualified archaeologist

Headland Archaeology) visited the ISA and known heritage assets in the OSA. Conditions were sunny

and bright, and visibility was very good.

6.4.4 Definition of baseline conditions

Designated assets within both the ISA and OSA which have been previously recorded on the NRHE are labelled

with the reference number assigned to them by HES (prefixed SM for Scheduled Monuments, and LB for Listed

Buildings); undesignated assets are labelled with the reference number in the HER (using the CnES prefix ‘MWE’),

or with the NRHE reference number (prefixed with NRHE). Historical wrecks within both the ISA and OSA have

been assigned a number and prefixed with ‘W’ for wreck.

6.4.4.1 Known heritage assets within the Inner Study Area

Previously unrecorded heritage assets within the ISA have been assigned an Asset number (prefixed HA for

Heritage Asset). A single asset number can refer to a group of related features, which may be recorded separately

in the HER and other data sources.

Assets within the ISA are listed in Table 6.6 and illustrated on Figure 6.1 within Volume 2 of this ES, with detailed descriptions in Technical Appendix 6.1: Cultural Heritage Baseline and Gazetteer within Volume 3 of this ES.

6.4.4.2 Potential for unknown heritage assets within the Inner Study Area

The likelihood that undiscovered heritage assets may be present within the ISA is referred to as archaeological

potential. Overall levels of potential can be assigned to different landscape zones, following the criteria in Table

6.2, while recognising that the archaeological potential of any zone will relate to particular historical periods and

types of evidence. The following factors are considered in assessing archaeological potential:

• The distribution and character of known archaeological remains in the vicinity, based principally on an

appraisal of data in the HER;

• The history of archaeological fieldwork and research in the surrounding area, which may give an

indication of the reliability and completeness of existing records;

• Environmental factors such as geology, topography and soil quality, which would have influenced land-

use in the past and can therefore be used to predict the distribution of archaeological remains;

• Land-use factors affecting the survival of archaeological remains, such as dredging, ploughing or

commercial forestry planting; and

• Factors affecting the visibility of archaeological remains, which may relate to both environment and

land-use, such as soils and geology (which may be more or less conducive to formation of cropmarks),

arable cultivation (which has potential to show cropmarks and create surface artefact scatters),

vegetation, which can conceal upstanding features, and superficial deposits such as peat and alluvium

which can mask archaeological features.

Table 6.2: Archaeological potential

Potential Definition

High Undiscovered heritage assets of high or medium importance are likely to be present.

Medium Undiscovered heritage assets of low importance are likely to be present; and it is

possible, though unlikely, that assets of high or medium importance may also be present.

Low The study area may contain undiscovered heritage assets, but these are unlikely to be

numerous and are highly unlikely to include assets of high or medium importance.

Negligible The study area is highly unlikely to contain undiscovered heritage assets of any level of

importance.

Nil There is no possibility of undiscovered heritage assets existing within the study area.

[Redacted]



133

6.4.4.3 Heritage assets in the outer study area

Assets that meet the initial criteria for assessment are described briefly in Section 6.5.3, listed in Tables 6.7 to

6.10, and illustrated on Figure 6.2 within Volume 2 of this ES.

6.4.5 Identification of potential impacts

Effects on the historic environment can arise through direct physical impacts, impacts on setting or indirect

impacts:

• Direct physical impacts describe those development activities that directly cause damage to the fabric

of a heritage asset. Typically, these activities are related to construction works and will only occur within

the application site.

• An impact on the setting of a heritage asset occurs when the presence of a development changes the

surroundings of a heritage asset in such a way that it affects (positively or negatively) the cultural

significance of that asset. Visual impacts are most commonly encountered but other environmental

factors such as noise, light or air quality can be relevant in some cases. Impacts may be encountered at

all stages in the life cycle of a development from construction to decommissioning but they are only

likely to lead to significant effects during the prolonged operational life of the development.

• Indirect impacts describe secondary processes, triggered by the development, that lead to the

degradation or preservation of heritage assets. For example, changes to hydrology may affect

archaeological preservation; or changes to the setting of a building may affect the viability of its current

use and thus lead to dereliction.

Potential impacts on unknown heritage assets are discussed in terms of the risk that a significant effect could

occur. The level of risk depends on the level of archaeological potential combined with the nature and scale of

disturbance associated with construction activities and may vary between high and negligible for different

elements or activities associated with a development, or for the development as a whole.

Potential impacts on the settings of heritage assets are identified from an initial desk-based appraisal of data

from HES, the NRHE and the CnES HER and consideration of current maps and aerial images available on the

internet. Where this initial appraisal has identified the potential for a significant effect, the asset has been visited

to define baseline conditions and identify key viewpoints. Visualisations have been prepared to illustrate changes

to key views, where potentially significant effects have been identified (Figures 4.12 to 4.33 in Volume 2 of this

EIAR).

6.4.6 Mitigation measures and identification of residual effects

Proposed mitigation measures are described in Section 6.7. The preferred mitigation option is always to avoid or

reduce impacts through design, or through precautionary measures such as fencing off heritage assets during

construction works. Impacts which cannot be eliminated in these ways will lead to residual effects.

Adverse effects may be mitigated by an appropriate level of survey, excavation, recording, analysis and

publication of the results, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation61. Archaeological investigation

can have a beneficial effect of increasing knowledge and understanding of the asset, thereby enhancing its

archaeological and historical interest and offsetting adverse effects.

61 SPP Para. 150 and PAN2/2011 Sections 25-27



134

6.4.7 Impact assessment criteria

6.4.7.1 Heritage importance, cultural significance and sensitivity

Cultural heritage impact assessment is concerned with effects on cultural significance, which is a quality that

applies to all heritage assets, and as defined in HESPS62 ‘Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement 2016’

(Annex 1, paragraph 3), may be artistic, archaeological, architectural, historic, traditional, aesthetic, scientific or

social, and may be ‘inherent in the monument itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records,

related monuments and related objects’. This use of the word ‘significance’, referring to the sum of the values

we attach to an asset because of its heritage interest, should not be confused with the unrelated usage in EIA

where the significance of an effect reflects the weight that should be attached to it in a planning decision.

The importance of a heritage asset is the overall value assigned to it based on its cultural significance, reflecting

its statutory designation or, in the case of undesignated assets, the professional judgement of the assessor (Table

6.3). Assets of national importance and international importance are assigned a high and very high level

respectively. Scheduled Monuments, Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes, Inventory Historic

Battlefields and Historic Marine Protected Areas are, by definition, of national importance. The criterion for

Listing is that a building is of ‘special architectural or historic interest’; following HESPS Note 2.17, Category A

refers to ‘buildings of national or international importance’, Category B to ‘buildings of regional or more than

local importance’, and Category C to ‘buildings of local importance’. Conservation Areas are not defined as being

of national importance and are therefore assigned to a medium level. Any feature which does not merit

consideration in planning decisions due to its cultural significance may be said to have negligible heritage

importance; in general, such features are not considered as heritage assets and are excluded from the

assessment.

Table 6.3: Criteria for Assessing the Importance of Heritage Assets

Importance of the

asset

Criteria

Very high World Heritage Sites and other assets of equal international importance

High Category A Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Inventory Gardens and

Designed Landscapes, Inventory Historic Battlefields, Historic Marine Protected

Areas and undesignated assets of national importance

Medium Category B Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, and undesignated assets of

regional importance

Low Category C Listed Buildings and undesignated assets of lesser importance

Cultural significance is assessed in relation to the criteria in HESPS Annexes 1-6, which are intended primarily to

inform decisions regarding heritage designations but may also be applied more generally in identifying the

‘special characteristics’ of a heritage asset, which contribute to its cultural significance and should be protected,

conserved and enhanced according to SPP paragraph 137. Annex 1 is widely applicable in assessing the cultural

significance of archaeological sites and monuments, for instance, while the criteria in Annex 2 can be used in

defining the architectural or historic interest of buildings, whether listed or not.

The special characteristics which contribute to an asset’s cultural significance may include elements of its setting.

Setting is defined in ‘Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting’ (HES 2016, Section 1) as ‘the way

the surroundings of a historic asset or place contribute to how it is understood, appreciated and experienced’.

The setting of an asset is defined and analysed according to Stage 2 of the three-stage approach promoted in

‘MCHE: Setting’, with reference to factors listed on pages 9-10. The relevance of these factors to the

understanding, appreciation and experience of the asset determines how, and to what extent, an asset’s cultural

significance derives from its setting. All heritage assets have settings; however, not all assets are equally sensitive

62 HESPS Annex 1, para. 3



135

to impacts on their settings. In some cases, setting may contribute very little to the asset’s cultural significance,

or only certain elements of the setting may be relevant.

6.4.7.2 Assessment of the magnitude of impacts on cultural significance

The magnitude of an impact is a measure of the degree to which the cultural significance of a heritage asset will

be changed by the development. This definition of magnitude applies to impacts on the setting, as well as impacts

on the physical fabric, of an asset. Impacts on the settings of heritage assets are assessed with reference to the

factors listed in ‘MCHE: Setting’ Stage 363. It is important to note that the magnitude of an effect resulting from

an impact on setting is not a direct measure of the visual prominence, scale, proximity or other attributes of the

development itself, or of the extent to which the setting itself is changed; therefore, Landscape and Visual Impact

Assessment criteria for scale/magnitude cannot be applied directly in determining the magnitude of effect on

the setting of a heritage asset. It is also necessary to consider whether, and to what extent, the characteristics of

the setting which would be affected contribute to the asset’s cultural significance.

Magnitude is assessed as high/medium/low, and adverse/beneficial, or negligible, using the criteria in Table 6.4

as a guide. In assessing the effects of a development, it is often necessary to take into account various impacts

which affect an asset’s significance in different ways, and balance adverse impacts against beneficial impacts.

For instance, there may be adverse impacts on an asset’s fabric and on its setting, offset by a beneficial impact

resulting from archaeological investigation. The residual effect, given in Section 6.8, is an overall measure of how

the asset’s significance is reduced or enhanced.

Table 6.4: Criteria for Assessing the Magnitude of Impacts on Heritage Assets

Magnitude of impact Guideline Criteria

High beneficial Elements of the asset’s physical fabric which would otherwise be lost, severely

compromising its cultural significance, are preserved in situ; or

Elements of the asset’s setting, which were previously lost or unintelligible, are

restored, greatly enhancing its cultural significance.

Medium beneficial Elements of the asset’s physical fabric which would otherwise be lost, leading to an

appreciable but partial loss of cultural significance, are preserved in situ; or

Elements of the asset’s setting are considerably improved, appreciably enhancing

its cultural significance; or

Research and recording leads to a considerable enhancement to the archaeological

or historical interest of the asset.

Low beneficial Elements of the asset’s physical fabric which would otherwise be lost, leading to a

slight loss of cultural significance, are preserved in situ; or

Elements of the asset’s setting are improved, slightly enhancing its cultural

significance; or

Research and recording leads to a slight enhancement to the archaeological or

historical interest of the asset.

Negligible The asset’s fabric and/or setting is changed in ways which do not beneficially or

adversely affect its cultural significance.

Low adverse Elements of the asset’s fabric and/or setting which are of very limited relevance to

its significance are lost or changed, resulting in a very slight loss of cultural

significance; or

Elements of the asset’s fabric and/or setting which contribute to its cultural

significance are minimally affected, resulting in a very slight loss of cultural

significance.

63 MCHE: Setting, pages 10-11



136

Magnitude of impact Guideline Criteria

Medium adverse Elements of the asset’s fabric and/or setting which contribute to its significance are

affected, but to a limited extent, resulting in an appreciable but partial loss of the

asset’s cultural significance.

High adverse Key elements of the asset’s fabric and/or setting are lost or fundamentally altered,

such that the asset’s cultural significance is lost or severely compromised.

6.4.7.3 Assessment of the significance of effects

The significance of an effect (EIA ‘significance’) on the cultural significance of a heritage asset, resulting from a

direct or indirect physical impact, or an impact on its setting, is assessed by combining the magnitude of the

effect and the importance of the heritage asset. The matrix in Table 6.5 provides a guide to decision-making but

is not a substitute for professional judgement and interpretation, particularly where the importance or effect

magnitude levels are not clear or are borderline between categories. EIA significance may be described on a

continuous scale from negligible to major; it is also common practice to identify effects as significant or not

significant, and in this sense major and moderate effects are regarded as significant in EIA terms, while minor

effects are ‘not significant’.

Table 6.5: Criteria for Assessing the Significance of Effects on Heritage Assets

Asset importance Magnitude of Impact

High Medium Low Negligible

Very high Major Major Major to moderate Negligible

High Major Major to moderate Moderate to minor Negligible

Medium Major to moderate Moderate to minor Minor Negligible

Low Moderate to minor Minor Negligible Negligible

6.4.7.4 Assessment of Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects can occur when other existing or proposed developments would also be visible in views that

are relevant to the setting of a heritage asset. Cumulative effects are considered in cases where an effect of more

than negligible significance would occur as a result of the proposed development. Other existing or proposed

developments are included in the cumulative assessment where they also lie within 1km of the asset. A

cumulative effect is considered to occur where the magnitude of the combined effect of two or more

developments is greater than that of the developments considered separately.

6.5 Baseline

An archaeological and historical overview of the Inner Study Area is included as Technical Appendix 6.1, and

extracts from historical maps and images are included as Technical Appendix 6.2 within Volume 3.

6.5.1 Known heritage assets within the Inner Study Area

The HER records two entries, and the Canmore Maritime database records six wrecks and/or documented losses

within the ISA. However, two of the Canmore Maritime entries refer to wrecked or stranded vessels that have

been removed or refloated. A third HER entry relates to the existing causeway/breakwater connecting to the

shore; as a modern structure this is not considered to be a heritage asset. Therefore, three of the eight HER and

Canmore Maritime entries are not considered as Heritage Assets for this assessment.



137

There are five known Heritage Assets within the ISA (illustrated on Figure 6.1 within Volume 2 of this ES). One of

them is recorded in the HER, and the remaining four are wrecks and/or documented losses offshore recorded in

the Canmore Maritime database. All five Heritage Assets are undesignated and were identified during the desk-

based research element of the assessment.

Table 6.6: Heritage assets within the Inner Study Area

Ref. Name/Location Type/Date Easting Northing Importance

MWE4313 Eilean Na Gothail, Lewis Site of fort, post-

medieval

142600 932100 Medium

W1 City of Waterford (ex. River

Lagan), Eilean Na Gothail,

North Minch

Steamship, 20th Century 142600 932100 Low

W2 Unknown Obstruction (possible),

unknown

142641 932169 Low

W3 Unknown, North Minch Craft, unknown 142560 932170 Low

W4 Unknown, North Minch Craft, unknown 142640 932170 Low

The onshore Heritage Asset comprises the supposed site of a Cromwellian fort (MWE4313) on a small outcrop

on the south-western side of Goat Island. A fort was depicted in eighteenth century plans of Stornoway, and

upstanding remains, possibly related to the fort, were observed on the outcrop in 1919, but by the time of an

Ordnance Survey visit in 1964, there were no visible surface remains. If any subsurface remains of the fort

survive, they should be considered to be of Medium importance.

The four wrecks recorded within the ISA comprise one steamship (W1) wrecked on Skerryvore Rock in 1927, and

three unnamed wrecks (W2 to W4) charted as obstructions. As undesignated, modern shipwrecks, all four are

considered to be of Low importance.

6.5.2 Potential for undiscovered heritage assets within the Inner Study Area

Excluding some small areas of exposed rock, most of the ISA has already been extensively developed with the construction of various sheds, jetties and other boatyard structures. Furthermore, there have been at least two surveys of the ISA (the OS in 1964 and a 1997 Historic Scotland coastal erosion survey) which are likely to have identified all the upstanding archaeological remains in the area. The maritime archaeological environment is also well-documented by ongoing harbour surveys (described in Technical Appendix 6.1 within Volume 3 of this ES).

It is therefore considered that, following the criteria in Table 6.2, the ISA is of negligible archaeological potential.

Due to the extensive development of the ISA, there is also considered to be negligible potential for the survival

of palaeo-environmental deposits.

6.5.3 Heritage assets in the outer study area

6.5.3.1 Scheduled Monuments

There is one Scheduled Monument within the OSA (illustrated on Figure 6.2 within Volume 2 of this ES). It

comprises the remains of a prehistoric cairn on the summit of Cnoc na Croich (SM6550). As a Scheduled

Monuments, it is considered to be of High importance.

Table 6.7: Scheduled Monuments included in the assessment

Ref. Name & Description Importance

SM6550 Cnoc na Croich, chambered cairn High



138

6.5.3.2 Listed Buildings

There are 74 Listed Buildings (LBs) within the OSA. However, all but five of them are either within the Stornoway

Conservation Area (CA) or the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape (IGDL).

LBs within the CA and IGDL will be discussed and assessed in relation to those assets.

The five LBs outside the CA and IGDL comprise a Category B-listed industrial building (a former tweed finishing

workshop) and the Category C-listed Old Co-Op Yard buildings on James Street, Stornoway, the Category B-listed

tower and C-listed buildings of the Nicolson Institute, and a Category C-listed manse at Knockgarry (illustrated

on Figure 6.2 within Volume 2 of this ES). The Category B LBs are considered to be of Medium importance, and

the Category C LBs are of Low importance.

Table 6.8: Listed Buildings outside the CA and IGDL included in the assessment

Ref. Name & Description Category Importance

LB41696 7 James Street B Medium

LB41742 Springfield Road, tower of Nicolson Institute B Medium

LB18676 Knockgarry, Manse C Low

LB41695 James Street and Bells Road, Old Co-Op Yard buildings C Low

LB41741 Springfield Road, school block and adjoining hall C Low

6.5.3.3 Inventory Gardens and Designed Landscapes

There is one IGDL within the OSA. Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park (GDL00263) comprises the mid-nineteenth

century landscaped grounds of Lews Castle, on the low hills west of Stornoway harbour. There are seven LBs

within the IGDL. They comprise the Category A-listed Lews Castle, and the lodges, walls and tower on Cuddy

Point, the Category B-listed nineteenth-century driveway bridge and Matheson memorial, and the Category C-

listed eighteenth-century driveway bridge, Creed Lodge and Marybank Lodge. Some of these LBs are also within

the Stornoway Conservation Area, but they will be assessed as part of the IGDL.

Although Creed Lodge and Marybank Lodge are within the IGDL, they are outside the OSA and so are excluded

from further assessment. Neither is depicted on Figure 6.2 within Volume 2 of this ES.

Table 6.9: Listed Buildings within Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park IGDL included in the assessment


LB18677 Lews Castle A High

LB19206 Lews Castle, Lodges, boundary walls, sea walls and tower near

Stornoway Harbour including Cuddy Point

A High

LB18826 Lews Castle driveway bridge at NGR NB 4210 3321 (nineteenth century) B Medium

LB19207 Lews Castle, Matheson memorial B Medium

LB18827 Lews Castle driveway bridge close to north end of mansion (eighteenth

century)

C Low

6.5.3.4 Conservation Area

There is one CA within the OSA. The Stornoway CA (CA137) encompasses the nineteenth-century planned town

that forms the heart of modern Stornoway, as well as the quayside constructed by Lord Lever and some of the

grounds of Lever’s 1840s Lews Castle estate. There are 64 LBs within the CA (excluding five LBs that are also

within the IGDL, discussed in Section 6.5.3.3), comprising one Category A, 45 Category B and 18 Category C

buildings.



139

Table 6.10 Listed Buildings within Stornoway Conservation Area


LB41735 North Beach Quay/North Beach old sail loft and house adjoining A High

LB41674 Amity House B Medium

LB41679 Cromwell’s Building corner Cromwell Street and Francis Street B Medium

LB41681 59-63 (Odd Nos) Cromwell Street and 1 Church Street, Loch Erisort B Medium

LB41682 16, 18 Cromwell Street, the Town House B Medium

LB41683 32-38 (Even Nos) Cromwell Street B Medium

LB41685 Francis Street St Peter's Episcopal Church including perimeter wall gates

and gate piers

B Medium

LB41686 16 Francis Street, Post Office building B Medium

LB41689 Francis Street, Museum (formerly Free Church seminary and school

building)

B Medium

LB41690 2 and 4 Garden Road including garden boundary wall, gates and railings B Medium

LB41691 2 Goathill Crescent, Wandene including boundary walls and gate piers B Medium

LB41692 2 Goathill Road and Matheson Road, including boundary walls gates and

gate piers

B Medium

LB41693 4, 6 Goathill Road including boundary wall, gates and railings B Medium

LB41694 4 Goathill Crescent including boundary walls and railings B Medium

LB41697 18, 20 James Street including boundary walls gates and gate piers B Medium

LB41698 22, 24 James Street Bellevue House including boundary walls gates and

railings

B Medium

LB41699 26 and 27 James Street including boundary walls, gates and railings B Medium

LB41700 28 and 30 James Street, Park Guest House, including boundary walls,

gates and gate piers

B Medium

LB41702 74 Keith Street, Former Industrial Female School (Lady Matheson

Seminary), Stornoway

B Medium

LB41703 Kenneth Street and Francis Street, Martins Memorial Church and Hall

including boundary walls, gates and railings

B Medium

LB41704 7 Kenneth Street Religious Book Shop B Medium

LB41710 Stornoway Sheriff Court and Former Jail, including boundary walls,

Archway and railings, Lewis Street, Stornoway

B Medium

LB41711 Lewis Street and Church Street, St Columba's Old Parish Church B Medium

LB41712 31 ,33 Lewis Street, including garden walls and railings B Medium

LB41715 Matheson Road and Springfield Road, School Block B Medium

LB41716 Matheson Road and Springfield Road, Springfield House B Medium

LB41717 3, 5 Matheson Road including boundary walls, gates and gate piers B Medium

LB41718 7 Matheson Road including boundary walls, gates and gate piers B Medium

LB41719 9, 11 Matheson Road including boundary walls, gates and railings B Medium

LB41720 13 Matheson Road Claremont including boundary walls gates and gate

piers

B Medium

LB41722 Matheson Road and Goathill Road, High Church including boundary

walls, gate piers and railings

B Medium

LB41723 2 (Fasgadh), 4 (Brentor), Matheson Road including boundary walls,

gates and railings

B Medium

LB41724 6 Matheson Road, Balone, including boundary walls Gate and railings B Medium

LB41725 8 Matheson Road, Park House, including boundary walls, gates and gate

piers

B Medium

LB41726 14 Matheson Road including boundary walls gates and railings B Medium



140


LB41727 16 Matheson Road, Free Presbyterian Manse, including boundary walls,

gates and railings

B Medium

LB41728 18 Matheson Road B Medium

LB41729 Matheson Road and 37 Church Street Barvas Lodge including boundary

walls gates and gate piers

B Medium

LB41730 Matheson Road and Scotland Street, Free Presbyterian Church including

boundary walls, gates and railings

B Medium

LB41731 23 Matheson Street and Robertson Road, including boundary walls,

gates and railings

B Medium

LB41732 North Beach Lewis Hotel B Medium

LB41733 6, 7 North Beach B Medium

LB41734 8 North Beach B Medium

LB41737 32 Scotland Street B Medium

LB41738 South Beach, Cromwell Street and Point Street, Municipal Buildings B Medium

LB41740 14, 15 South Beach B Medium

LB41675 20 Bayhead C Low

LB41676 Church Street and Matheson Road, BBC Rosebank including boundary

walls and railings

C Low

LB41678 1, 3 Cromwell Street and 20 South Beach Thorlee Guest House C Low

LB41680 31-35 Odd Nos Cromwell Street C Low

LB41684 23-29 (Odd Nos) Francis Street C Low

LB41687 38 ,40 Francis Street C Low

LB41688 36 Francis Street C Low

LB41701 32 James Street Tower Guest House including Perimeter Walls, gates

and railings

C Low

LB41705 25 Kenneth Street C Low

LB41706 29 Kenneth Street C Low

LB41707 Kenneth Street Free Church C Low

LB41708 Kenneth Street, Masonic Hall including boundary walls, gate piers,

railings and Arch

C Low

LB41709 67-71 (Odd Nos) Kenneth Street C Low

LB41713 24 ,26 Lewis Street C Low

LB41721 15 Matheson Road, The Sheiling, including boundary walls, gate and

railings

C Low

LB41736 28, 30 Scotland Street C Low

LB41739 13 South Beach, Star Inn C Low

LB50798 67 Keith Street including boundary wall and railings C Low

6.5.3.5 Other Designated Heritage Assets

There are no World Heritage Sites, Inventory Battlefields or Historic Marine Protected Areas within the OSA.

6.5.3.6 Undesignated heritage assets

There are 143 entries recorded on the HER within the OSA. Six of them record findspots of artefacts and are not

considered to be Heritage Assets for this assessment. Ninety-three HER entries record buildings and features

within Stornoway CA, and will be assessed as part of that. The remaining 44 HER entries within the OSA and

outside the CA comprise buildings, features and monuments where wider views from and towards them are of

limited relevance to understanding or appreciating their cultural significance, and so they are excluded from

further assessment.



141

6.5.4 ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario

Conditions affecting the survival of archaeological remains within the site boundary are likely to remain

unchanged in the absence of the proposed development, and no ongoing processes of change have been

identified.

6.5.5 Information gaps

Based on the results of the surveys and assessments, it is considered that enough information exists to judge the

archaeological potential of the ISA and to make a reliable assessment of the potential direct and operational

impacts of the proposed development.



Although the design of the proposed development has evolved during the EIA process (as discussed within

Chapter 2: Proposed Development), none of the iterations have been as a result of predicted impacts upon

heritage assets.

No design mitigation has been applied to any predicted construction or operational impacts upon heritage assets.


Likely construction effects would result from topsoil stripping, excavation and piling associated with foundations,

site compounds and other infrastructure, as well as dredging and reclamation operations within the construction

footprint. There is also a risk of accidental damage to heritage assets outside the construction footprint from

uncontrolled plant movement.

6.6.2.1 Predicted Construction Impacts

There will be no direct construction impact upon MWE4313 as it is outside the footprint of proposed construction

works. It is also unlikely that any remains of the fort survive, but if they do then they will be no closer than 80m

to any construction activity.

W1 comprises the recorded loss of the City of Waterford, a twentieth century steamer that stranded on Goat

Island in 1927. The Canmore Maritime database records W1 as a ‘Casualty’, which indicates that although the

loss is recorded, no remains of the ship exist at the location. It is probable that the vessel was refloated soon

after stranding. Consequently, no construction impacts are anticipated upon W1.

W2, W3 and W4 are three un-named wrecks recorded as being within the vicinity of Goat Island. The Canmore

Maritime database records all three as ‘Wrecks’, indicating the demonstrable and located remains of a vessel.

Despite this classification, no traces of any of the three wrecks were identified in a 1975 survey of the waters

around Goat Island, and no visible remains exist onshore. No construction impacts are anticipated upon W2, W3

or W4.

The ISA is of negligible archaeological potential. According to the criteria outlined in Table 6.2, a direct

construction impact on unknown heritage assets is highly unlikely.



142


Potential operational effects may occur because of changes to views towards and from heritage assets.

6.6.3.1 Heritage Assets in the ISA subject to no Operational Impacts

W1 records the sinking of the City of Waterford in 1927, and W2, W3 and W4 record the loss of three un-named

vessels in the waters around Goat Island. No traces of the four shipwrecks have been identified. It is reasonable

to assume that W1 was refloated or otherwise salvaged shortly after the shipwreck, and W2 to W4 may have

been dispersed or degraded by tides and currents. Wider views are of little relevance to any of these wrecks,

which derive their cultural significance from their historical and associative characteristics.

There will be no operational impacts upon W1 to W4.

6.6.3.2 Heritage Assets in the OSA subject to no Operational Impacts

Two Listed Buildings on James Street comprise the Grade B-listed former tweed works at number 7 (LB41696)

and the Grade C-listed Old Co-Op Yard buildings at the junction with Bells Road (LB41695). Although the ZTV

indicates that the proposed development will be partially visible from them, as former industrial buildings neither

was built with regard to wider views. Both buildings derive their cultural significance almost entirely from

historical and associative characteristics relating to the island’s tweed industry. The presence of the proposed

development in views to the south will not hinder any attempts to appreciate or understand the buildings’

cultural significance.

There will be no operational impacts upon LB41696 or LB41695.

6.6.3.3 Predicted Operational Effects upon Heritage Assets in the Inner Study Area

MWE4313 is within the ISA and comprises the supposed site of a Cromwellian fort. Built in 1653 to protect the

approaches to Stornoway Harbour, no surface traces are now visible, and it is unlikely that any part of the fort

survives as subsurface remains. However, a small stone plaque now marks the approximate location of the fort.

The site of the fort currently comprises waste ground behind a number of occupied boat sheds and light industrial

units on the south-western shore of Goat Island.

The plaque, and supposed fort site, is approached across the waste ground from an informal gravel car park

within the boatyard. Stored behind the sheds are pieces of discarded engineering and fishing equipment. From

the supposed fort site, wide views are available across and along Stornoway Bay; the mouth of the harbour is

clearly visible to the south-east, the coast of Arnish to the south and south-west, and the hills above Lews Castle

to the west. At a shorter distance, the main shipping lanes to and from the inner harbour can be clearly observed.

Once the site of a military fort, built to protect the harbour mouth, it is these views out across the bay and

harbour that are considered key to any understanding or appreciation of the cultural significance of the fort’s

setting. Views to the north, north-east and east are restricted by modern buildings, and mostly include the nearby

boatsheds and discarded equipment.

The proposed development will be on the north-eastern side of Goat Island and will be largely screened by

existing buildings. It will not appear in or otherwise obscure the key views out across the harbour and bay that

can currently be obtained from the supposed site of the fort. It will remain possible to understand and appreciate

the fort’s setting, and the functional and strategic reasons behind the builders’ choice of location.

MWE4313 will be subject to an operational impact of negligible magnitude. As it is an asset of medium

importance, this will result in an effect of negligible significance.



143

6.6.3.4 Predicted Operational Effects upon Heritage Assets in the Outer Study Area

Scheduled Monuments

SM6550 (Cnoc na Croich, chambered cairn) is a prehistoric cairn on the summit of Cnoc na Croich (‘Gallows Hill’).

Believed to be the remains of a neolithic chambered cairn, it survives in a partially ruinous state as a low, circular

mound of stones, largely overgrown with grass and turf. Approximately 30m in diameter, the stones have spread

and collapsed from the mound’s original diameter of 24m indicated by three surviving kerbstones. In 1902 a

cylindrical cairn, which once supported a flagpole, was built on one side of the prehistoric mound. This later cairn

(which is not included in the scheduling) supposedly marks the site of a medieval gallows, from which the hill

takes its name.

The cairn is at 66m AOD on a partially wooded hilltop above the western shore of Stornoway Bay. Between the

tree cover, there are wide views available to the east, south-east and south across the harbour and the bay to

the headlands and sea beyond. Goat Island, and the boat yard and sheds upon it, can be seen approximately

850m away. North-east and north, tree cover restricts views over Stornoway, but to the north-west, west and

south-west, the views open up across undulating hills and peat bog. The cairn is approached along a public

footpath which climbs the western slope of Gallows Hill and then encircles the summit, providing wide views

(between tree cover) in all directions.

Key characteristics from which the settings of prehistoric burial cairns generally derive their cultural significance

relate to their prominence in relation to their immediate surroundings, and their intervisibility with similar

contemporary features such as other funerary or ritual monuments, or settlement sites. As elements within the

landscape have changed so much since the prehistoric period, the detail of what is visible from such cairns is of

less importance. However, open views from the cairns – where such views exist – are also considered a key

characteristic, and the maintenance of these views is considered desirable, as the underlying topographic

features within the landscape may be relevant to an understanding and appreciation of cultural significance.

In its current condition, the prehistoric cairn is not a prominent feature on the hilltop and is not discernible in

any but short-range views. Even at a close distance, it remains difficult to determine the form and extent of the

monument. No other prehistoric monuments are visible from the cairn, and there are no obvious topographic or

artificial features upon which the monument could be aligned or otherwise related to. The wide, open views

from the hilltop certainly contribute to the cairn’s setting, and bestow a sense of place, but the detail and content

of those views (across a modern rural, urban and industrial landscape) is of limited relevance to any

understanding or appreciation of the prehistoric cairn’s cultural significance.

The proposed development will be visible in views east from the cairn, but at a distance of 850m and

approximately 60m lower, it will not constitute an obvious or intrusive presence in these views. It will remain

possible to understand and appreciate the cairn’s setting. SM6550 will be subject to an operational impact of

negligible magnitude. As it is an asset of high importance, this will result in an effect of negligible significance.

Listed Buildings

Two buildings at the Nicolson Institute on Springfield Road are listed. The tower (LB41742) is Category B, and the

school block and adjoining hall (LB41741) are Category C. Built in 1871 at the south-western corner of the school

grounds, the tower houses a clock, and school bell, as well as featuring memorials to the Institute’s founder,

Alexander Nicolson, and the Seaforth Highlanders’ dead of World War One. The school block and hall were built

in 1907 on the northern side of Springfield Road, representing the gradual expansion of the school which now

occupies a 9.5Ha site on the eastern edge of Stornoway.

When erected in 1871, the original school buildings were set apart in fields on the edge of the town, and the

tower would have served to announce the institute’s presence. Stornoway has since expanded, and recent

development has largely crowded the Institute’s buildings. The tower is still a prominent feature on the school

grounds but is less visible in middle and long-distance views.



144

The school block (LB41741) derives its cultural significance from its historic and associative characteristics,

relating to a key figure in Stornoway’s history and development, as well as having a degree of architectural

interest as an example of early twentieth century “Jacobethan” design. The building’s immediate setting also

contributes, as it remains a functioning part of the Nicolson Institute. Wider views from the building are of less

relevance.

The ZTV indicates that the proposed development will be visible from the tower and the school block, but in

reality, intervening buildings, trees and topography are likely to largely screen views towards Goat Island. It will

remain possible to appreciate and understand the cultural significance of the school buildings and their setting.

Both LB41741 and LB41742 will be subject to operational impacts of negligible magnitude, resulting in effects of

negligible significance.

LB18676 is the Category C-listed Manse at Knockgarry. Built in 1811 as a parish manse, it was originally set in

open countryside, to serve the nearby settlements of Sandwick and Plasterfield. At present it is surrounded by a

modern housing development which has been built on the former grounds and gardens of the manse. The manse

largely derives its cultural significance from its architectural interest, as well as its historic and associative

characteristics relating to its place in the local community. The ZTV indicates that the proposed development will

appear in views south-west from the manse, but in reality, it is likely that intervening topography and modern

development will largely screen these views. Views towards the nearby settlements and parishes are relevant,

but not considered key, to an understanding of the building’s cultural significance. The presence of the proposed

development in the backdrop of some of these views will not affect the Manse’s cultural significance, and

therefore LB18676 will be subject to operational impacts of negligible magnitude, resulting in an effect of

negligible significance.

Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape

Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park IGDL (GDL00263) comprises the mid-nineteenth century landscaped grounds of

Lews Castle. There are seven Listed Buildings within the IGDL. As their individual settings also relate to, and

contribute to, the IGDL’s setting they will be assessed as part of the IGDL.

The HES listing entry for the IGDL rates it as having ‘outstanding’ historical, horticultural, architectural and scenic

value, in addition to as a work of art. It also has high nature conservation and archaeological value. On the low

hills to the west of Stornoway harbour, the wooded hillside and occasional glimpses of architectural features and

monuments provide a scenic backdrop to approaches into the harbour, as well as from the eastern shore of the

bay and the inner harbour. On landward approaches along the A858 and A859, the forested hills of the IGDL offer

a scenic contrast to the largely treeless expanses of peat bog and moorland which makes up the landscape

around Stornoway.

The present policies of the IGDL were established in the mid-nineteenth century when James Matheson began

to build Lews Castle to replace the earlier Seaforth Lodge. The land north and west of the castle was enclosed

and planted with trees to create a woodland park. Ornamental planting created a small pleasure ground south-

west of the castle, and carriage drives were laid out throughout the estate. By the late nineteenth century the

woodland had been extended to the south of the castle, towards and around Gallows Hill and Cuddy Point. The

carriage drives and woodland paths were also extended, eventually resulting in over 10 miles of drives and 5

miles of walks winding throughout the wooded estate.

In the 1920s, the castle and estate were gifted to the town of Stornoway as a public park, and in the 1950s Lews

Castle became a college, with new school buildings constructed to the north-west of it. At present, the college is

entirely housed within the buildings north-west of the castle. Lews Castle houses a museum and café, as well as

being available for hire as a venue for functions. Stornoway golf course occupies the northern end of the IGDL,

and a large quarry has been established on the western edge. Approximately 135ha of the 280ha IGDL remains

largely intact as a woodland estate, and the drives and footpaths are in public use as bike trails and scenic walking



145

routes. The woodland elements of the estate, and the public paths, are largely confined to the south-eastern half

of the IGDL on the hills and slopes overlooking the bay and harbour.

The seven Listed Buildings within the IGDL comprise buildings and monuments associated with the estate and

the Matheson family. Lews Castle (LB18677) and the lodges, boundary walls, sea walls and tower near the

harbour (LB19206) are all Category A-listed buildings. A memorial to James Matheson (LB19207) and the north-

eastern driveway bridge (LB18826) are Category B-listed, and three Category C-listed buildings comprise Creed

Lodge (LB18816) and Marybank Lodge (LB18827) and the north-western driveway bridge (LB18827). Creed Lodge

and Marybank Lodge are excluded from assessment due to their distance from the proposed development.

As well as their architectural, historic and associative interest, these buildings derive varying degrees of cultural

significance from their setting within the estate. Together, they contribute to the architectural and scenic value

of the IGDL.

Views within the IGDL are often relatively restricted by topography and woodland, giving an enclosed feel to the

grounds, and providing a sense of seclusion and privacy. As the footpaths ascend the hills to the south of the

IGDL, or descend towards the shoreline, the views open up and wide vistas are available across Stornoway to the

east, and the inland landscape of Lewis to the west. This mixture of secluded woodland walks, glimpsed views

and sudden wide vistas is typical of a nineteenth century designed landscape.

At present Goat Island and the buildings on it are visible from most points along the shoreline on the eastern

edge of the IGDL, and from hilltops and glimpsed views on higher ground further into the estate. However, the

island is not a key focus of these views, but rather forms one element of the general views across Stornoway and

the landscape beyond. Specific views towards and of Goat Island are not considered to be a key characteristic

contributing the cultural significance of the IGDL.

The proposed development will be visible from certain points within the IGDL, but it will not obstruct or

otherwise obscure the wide views out across Stornoway and the landscape beyond. Views from within the IGDL

will be of a functioning harbour and its associated buildings, as they have been since the estate was established

in 1844.

It will remain possible to appreciate and understand the cultural significance of the IGDL and its setting, as well

as the significance of the buildings and monuments within it. Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park IGDL (GDL00263)

will be subject to operational impacts of negligible magnitude, resulting in effects of negligible significance.

Conservation Area

Stornoway CA (CA137) encompasses the nineteenth-century planned town, the quays and the immediate

grounds and gardens around Lews Castle. The CA includes 64 LBs within its boundaries (Table 6.10). As these

buildings contribute to and share the setting characteristics of the CA, operational impacts upon the CA as a

whole shall be assessed.

The Conservation Area Character Appraisal (CACA) (Bagshaw et al, 2005) defines three Character Areas within

the CA. These comprise Area A – the harbour, town centre, and commercial centre (in the south-western part of

the CA); Area B – the residential area and mixed uses (along the eastern half and northern edge of the CA), and

Area C – Lews Castle and Grounds (in the western half of the CA). Those areas of Lews Castle and grounds that

lie within the CA are also entirely within the Lews Castle and Lady Lever Park IGDL. Since this is discussed above,

the assessment of operational impacts upon the CA will concentrate on Character Areas A and B.

Excluding those parts of the CA within the IGDL, approximately 50% of the remainder is within the ZTV of the

proposed development and will be subject to potential operational impacts. This area extends south from

Scotland Street and north-east towards Goathill Crescent (Figure 6.2).



146

The CACA characterises the setting of the CA as being defined by the geology that forms the harbour and

Stornoway Bay. This topography has governed the historic development of the town as a fishing port and,

increasingly and more recently, a recreational harbour. The quaysides strongly define the seaward side of the

town, as they extend from Bayhead and the mouth of the River Creed south and south-east along the shoreline

to the ferry terminal on Shell Street. On the landward side, the gridded street plan of the nineteenth century

planned town is another strong characteristic of the CA. As the CACA notes, the layout of the town worked closely

and successfully with the topography of the site. Later, mid-twentieth century expansion to the east and north-

east of the town centre is beyond the boundary of the CA.

The CACA goes on to note a number of views and sightlines from within the CA that add to its character and

contribute to the interest and cultural significance of the CA. The gridded street plan, overlying the sloping

topography tends to restrict views to the short and middle distance. The longest views available from within the

CA are along Francis Street and Church Street, towards Lews Castle and the forested slopes of the IGDL beyond

the harbour. Views of the proposed development along Lewis Street and Keith Street are restricted by

intervening buildings, and the character of the CA alters towards the south-east; residential and commercial

properties giving way to light industrial uses. Closer to the town centre, the streets narrow, and views are

restricted even further as eighteenth century burgage plots survive in the street plan.

Character Area A (harbour and town centre) is characterised by the variation between narrow eighteenth-

century streets around the harbour and the more organised and wider streets of the nineteenth century grid

east of Cromwell Street. Area B is characterised by the gently rising topography which takes Keith Street, Lewis

Street and Matheson uphill and north away from the quayside. Towards the northern end of these streets, the

houses and buildings become larger and detached villas tend to predominate. Gardens and roadside trees give

the northern end of the CA a leafier feel.

The proposed development will only be glimpsed from within the CA. It will not be a dominant or obvious feature

in views from within Character Areas A or B. From the southern edge of the CA, the intervening buildings

consisting of the warehouses and offices around Shell Street, Ferry Road and Rigs Road will largely screen views

towards Goat Island.

It will remain possible to appreciate and understand the character and cultural significance of the Stornoway CA

as a planned town developed from an earlier fishing port. Stornoway CA (CA317) will be subject to operational

impacts of negligible magnitude, resulting in effects of negligible significance.


Cumulative operational impacts are considered in cases where an effect of more than negligible significance has

been predicted on the setting of a heritage asset because of the proposed development.

No heritage asset will be subject to operational effects of greater than negligible significance, and therefore no

cumulative effects will result.



No construction impacts are anticipated upon known heritage assets. The ISA is considered to be of negligible

archaeological potential and no unknown heritage assets are likely to exist with the ISA.

Therefore, no construction impacts upon known or unknown cultural heritage assets are anticipated.



147

Archaeological methodology and procedure (via a Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries) will be included within

a site-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which will be finalised prior to the

commencement of construction works as agreed by the appointed contractor. Implementation at post-consent

stage is acceptable and sufficient for this requirement.

Operational Phase Mitigation

Cultural heritage assets within the ISA and OSA will not be subject to operational impacts of greater than

negligible magnitude, and therefore no mitigation is proposed in respect of operational impacts upon them.


No construction impacts are predicted, and no heritage asset will be subject to operational impacts of greater

than negligible significance.

No mitigation is proposed with respect to operational impacts and therefore, residual effects will be of negligible

significance.


No construction impacts are predicted, and no heritage asset will be subject to operational effects of greater

than negligible significance.

Archaeological methodology and procedure (via a Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries) will be included within a site-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which will be finalised prior to the commencement of construction works as agreed by the appointed contractor. Implementation at post-consent stage is acceptable and sufficient for this requirement.



148

7 CHAPTER 7: NOISE

7.1 Introduction

This chapter has been prepared by EnviroCentre and contains a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) of construction

activities at the proposed development as described and discussed within Chapter 2: Proposed Development.

The purpose of the assessment is to identify and describe any likely significant effects arising from construction

activities at the proposed development. This chapter details the noise monitoring, modelling and the results of

the impact assessment, which has been carried out for the proposed development. It is supplemented by the

figures contained within Volume 2 and summarises the noise impact assessment technical report contained

within Technical Appendix 7.1 within Volume 3 of this EIAR.

Figure 7.1 within Volume 2 of this EIAR shows the site boundary, which is referred to as ‘the proposed

development’ throughout this chapter. The purpose of this chapter is to summarise the full technical noise

impact assessment report contained with Volume 3 of this EIAR and to provide a level of significance in line with

EIA assessment.

Please note that this chapter relates to airborne noise only, underwater noise arising from the proposed

development is assessed within Chapter 5: Marine Ecology, of this EIAR. Additionally, for the purposes of the

EIAR it should be noted that in the interests of demonstrating the full future extent of effects within this EIAR

chapter, potential development components which would be subject to planning application(s) in the future i.e.

the Boatyard Workshop and Watersports Clubhouse; are not seeking permission at this time but have been

accounted for within this EIA.


A summary of the relevant responses to the Scoping Report submitted by EnviroCentre for the Site, along with

further email consultation carried out with Comhairle nan Eilean Siar’s (CnES) Environmental Health Department

is shown in Table 7-1.



CnES EHO

Within the Scoping Opinion dated

03/11/2017, Environmental Health

Department has confirmed there are

nearby receptors which will be affected

during the construction phase. It is

agreed that construction noise impacts

should be addressed within the EIA. It

was agreed that impacts from

operational noise can be scoped out of

the EIA.

Construction noise is scoped in and

operational noise is scoped out of the EIA.



149


Within the Scoping Opinion dated

03/11/2017, details of the proposed

phasing of other port masterplan

projects should be included in the EIA.

This will inform the extent to which

cumulative assessment with other

projects is required to be addressed

within any particular EIA report.

The noise assessment considers cumulative

impact from the Deep Water Port (DWP)

development, and is addressed within

Section 7.6.4 of this EIAR.

CnES Environmental Health Department

issued a consultation response on 29th

January 2018 based on an initial request

by EnviroCentre on 25 January 2018 to

establish the methodology for noise

assessment. This included baseline

monitoring, construction noise

assessment methodology / noise

criteria. CnES Environmental Health

Department confirmed within their

email of 25th January 2018 that this

approach was acceptable and therefore

the methodology, as fully explained in

Section 6.4 was taken forward.

The methodology and noise criteria proposed

by EnviroCentre was accepted by CnES

Environmental Health Department and is

fully explained within Section 6.4 of this EIAR.

As part of the end use at Newton Marina there is a proposed large boatyard repair building/workshop. Planning

permission for this part of the development is not being applied for at this stage, however, the noise assessment

considers the construction noise impacts from the boatyard building to provide a worst case scenario for the

current indicative end use. The assessment contained within this chapter should not be taken as a substitute for

assessing the full development design at a later stage.

7.2.1 Potential Impacts: Construction Noise

Due to the proximity of the site to existing residential properties within Stornoway there is the potential for noise

from activities carried out during the construction phase of the proposed development to impact upon existing

residents.

7.2.2 Potential Impacts: Operational Noise

During the operational phase, yacht movements within the marina, mooring activities, and use of the marina

facilities are not anticipated to generate significant levels of noise at the location of the closest noise sensitive

receptors on Newton Street, located to the north of the Site.

Current noise generating activities in the proposed development site include boat servicing/repair activities and

fish processing works on Goat Island. Proposals to build new fish processing facilities, and upgrade boat

servicing/repair facilities could lead to a change in the noise environment at the closest sensitive receptors.

However, the nature of activities will not change and the proposed enhancements are not considered to be large

in scale. It is therefore anticipated there will be no significant increase in noise levels at the most exposed

sensitive receptors as a result of the enhancements.



150

In view of this, and as summarised within Table 7-1, operational noise has been scoped out of the noise assessment and shall not be considered further within this report.


7.3.1 The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (2012), CnES.

The development plan which is relevant to the proposed development is The Outer Hebrides Local Development

Plan (2012). The emerging Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2 is currently undergoing examination by

Scottish Ministers. The plan sets out a vision and spatial strategy for the development of land in the Outer

Hebrides over the next 10 to 20 years. Guidance relevant to noise impact in the context of the proposed

development is Policy 4: Siting and Design, which states the following;

g) The amenity of neighbouring properties is considered in the siting and design of new development to

ensure reasonable levels of amenity are retained in respect of noise, disturbance or lighting, overlooking and

overshadowing. Development will not be supported where it will result in a significant impact on the amenity of

neighbouring properties.

7.3.2 BS5228-1:2009+A1:2014; Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction

and Open Sites.

Methods for calculating noise produced by construction and open sites are provided in BS5228-1:2009+A1:2014.

Annexes C and D of Part 1 provide generic source data for different types of noise source, as well as methods for

calculating noise from stationary and mobile plant. Specific advice on noise from sources such as piling is

provided.

7.3.3 PAN 1/2011 Planning and Noise

Advice on the role of the planning system in helping to prevent and limit the adverse effects of noise is provided

in Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011 ‘Planning and Noise’ (The Scottish Government, 2011a). The associated

Technical Advice Note (TAN) 1/2011 ‘Assessment of Noise’ (The Scottish Government, 2011b) provides guidance

on noise impact assessment methods.

The methodology provided in Technical Advice Note (TAN) 1/2011 ‘Assessment of Noise’ (The Scottish

Government, 2011b) is used to assess the impact of noise on residential properties.

7.4 Methodology

The noise assessment was undertaken to establish the impact of construction activities on noise sensitive

receptors surrounding the Site. The assessment involved the following stages:

Consultation with CnES Environmental Health Department to agree assessment methodology and noise

criteria (refer to Section 7.2);

Measurement of existing baseline noise environment at a sample of 3 areas representative of the most

exposed noise sensitive receptors surrounding the DWP and Newton Marina site; the location of the

monitoring locations are shown in Figure. 7.1, within Volume 2 of this EIAR.

Review of construction activities, locations and noise data;



151

Calculation and assessment of construction noise at the most exposed sensitive receptors, following

guidance provided in BS5228-1:2009+A1:2-014; Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration on

Construction and Open Sites. 3D computer noise modelling using CadnaA software has been used in the

calculation of construction noise at sensitive receptors.

7.4.1 BS5228-1:2009 +A1:2014; Methodology

The assessment of construction noise is carried out in accordance with guidance provided in BS 5228-

1:2009+A1:2014 ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites – Part 1 Noise’.

The standard describes methods for evaluating the potential significant effects of construction noise, one of

which is the ‘ABC’ method which is based on exceedance of fixed noise limits. The ABC method, as detailed within

Annex E.3.2 has been used within this noise assessment.

The ABC method considers that a potential significant effect occurs when the total noise level at a dwelling,

including construction activity, exceeds the appropriate category values shown in Table 7.3.

The table is used as follows:

The ambient noise is determined and rounded to the nearest 5dB;

The rounded ambient noise level is then compared with the total noise level, including construction. A

significant effect at a noise sensitive receptor is considered to occur when the total noise, including

construction activity exceeds the appropriate category values, shown in Table 7-2.

The ABC method of BS5228-1:2009+A1:2014 does not provide specific guidance on determining the

magnitude and significance of noise impacts above the threshold values shown in Table 7-2. In order

to determine the level of significance, guidance provided in the Technical Advice Note (TAN) 1/2011

has been used. The significance criteria adopted within this noise assessment are shown in Table 7-3.

Table 7-2: Threshold of Significant Effect at Dwellings

Period Threshold Value, in decibels (dB)

Category A Category B Category C

Night-time (23:00 to 07:00) 45 50 55

Evenings weekday (19:00-23:00), Saturdays (13:00-23:00)

and Sundays (07:00-23:00) 55 60 65

Daytime weekday (07:00-19:00) and Saturdays (07:00-

13:00) 65 70 75

Note 1: A significant effect has been deemed to occur if the total LAeq noise level, including construction,

exceeds the threshold level for the Category appropriate to the ambient noise level.

Note 2: If the ambient noise level exceeds the Category C threshold values given in the table (i.e. the

ambient noise level is higher than the above values), then a potential significant effect is indicated if the

total LAeq, T noise level for the period increases by more than 3 dB due to site noise.

Note 3: Applied to residential receptors only.

Category A: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are less

than these values.

Category B: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are the

same as category A values.

Category C: threshold values to use when ambient noise levels (when rounded to the nearest 5 dB) are

higher than category A values.



152

Table 7-3: Significance Criteria for the Assessment of Construction Noise

Significance Level Above Threshold Value

dB(A)

Definition

Neutral < 0

No effect, not significant, noise

need not be considered as a

determining factor in the decision

making process.

Slight adverse ≤ 0 to < 3

These effects may be raised but

are unlikely to be of importance in

the decision making process.

Moderate adverse ≤ 3 to < 5

These effects, if adverse, while

important, are not likely to be key

decision making issues.

Large adverse ≤ 5.0 to < 10

The effects are likely to be

important considerations but

where mitigation may be

effectively employed such that

resultant adverse effects are likely

to have a moderate or slight

significance.

Very large adverse ≥ 10

These effects represent key factors

in the decision making process.

They are generally, but not

exclusively, associated with

impacts where mitigation is not

practical or would be ineffective.

In terms of this EIA, any effect of moderate adverse significance or above, is deemed as a significance effect. This

is based upon the BS5228-1:2009+A1:2014 and TAN 2011 guidance.

7.4.2 Baseline Methodology

A noise survey was carried out in the area surrounding the proposed development site during the day and night-

time periods on Tuesday 27th and Wednesday 28th February 2018. The purpose of the survey was to establish

day and night-time background noise levels at areas representative of the most exposed properties on Newton

Street, South Beach and Builnacraig Street. The noise monitoring locations and methodology were agreed with

CnES Environmental Health department through consultation.

7.4.2.1 Noise Monitoring Locations

Noise monitoring locations are described in Table 7-4 and shown in Figure 7.1 within Volume 2 of this EIAR.

Table 7-4: Noise Monitoring Locations

No. Grid Reference Location

01 E 142138 N 932703 On pavement adjacent to entrance of No. 1 Pier car park, off South Beach

02 E 142717 N 932460 On grassy area across the road from houses on Newton Street.

03 E 143300 N 932135 At southern end of Builnacraig Street, on pavement.



153

7.4.2.2 Noise Monitoring Details

A fully calibrated Type 1 sound level meter was used to undertake all the noise monitoring events as detailed in

Table 7-5. The sound level meter was calibrated both before and after measurements were taken and no

significant drift was noted.

Table 7-5: Investigative Equipment Utilised and Technical Details

Time Intervals: Daytime = 1 x 1hr intervals at each of the three noise monitoring locations,

repeated over two separate days.

Night time = 1 x 30 minute intervals at each of the three noise monitoring

locations, repeated over two separate days.

Monitoring Periods: 05:17hrs – 07:00hrs on 27/02/2018;

12:04hrs – 17:42hrs on 27/02/2018;

23:12hrs – 01:04hrs on 27/02/2018 to 28/02/2018; and

10:19hrs – 14:40hrs on 28/02/2018.

Instrument: Norsonic 140 sound analyser

Calibration: At the start and finish of each monitoring event calibration was completed using

a Norsonic NOR-1251 Sound Calibrator

Measurement Settings: Environmental logging mode: A-weighted sound pressure level with time

weighting F

Measurement Positions: Measurements were taken between 1.2m and 1.5m above the ground.

The weather conditions during the monitoring events were recorded and are summarised in Table 7-6.

Table 7-6: Monitoring Periods and Weather Conditions

7.4.3 Noise Modelling Methodology

7.4.3.1 Noise Sensitive Receptors

A sample of 6 noise sensitive receptors have been chosen as being representative of those most exposed to noise

from construction activities at the proposed Newton Marina. These are described in Table 7.7, and shown in

Figure 7.2 within Volume 2 of this EIAR, Appendix A.

Table 7-7: Noise Sensitive Receptor Locations

NSR ID Location Grid Reference

1 South Beach 142170 / 932730

2

Newton Street

142638 / 932548

3 142805 / 932437

4 142948 / 932393

Monitoring period/ event Date Weather Conditions

Weekday Early Morning 27/02/ 2018 Between 0-1°C, dry, light cloud, wind speeds < 3.5

m/s.

Weekday Day 27/02/2018 Between 4 and 70C, partly cloudy, wind speeds

between 3.5 and 8 m/s, gusting at 9 m/s.

Weekday Night 27/02/2018 &

28/02/2018

Between 1 and 2°C, mostly dry, intermittent snow

shower, moderate cloud. Wind speeds between 4

and 6 m/s.

Weekday Day 28/02/2018

Between -0.5 and 2.5°C, mostly dry, 5 mins of light

hail, moderate cloud. Wind speeds between 3 and

10 m/s.



154

NSR ID Location Grid Reference

5 Seaview Terrace 143096 / 932312

6 Builnacriag Street 143275 / 932138

7.4.3.2 Construction Schedule and Modelled Scenarios

Details of the proposed construction schedule at the site have been supplied by Wallace Stone. A summary of

the proposed construction schedule is shown in Table 7-8.

Table 7-8: Newton Marina, Proposed Construction Schedule

Ref Construction Stage Start Month Finish Month

1 Reinforced concrete retaining wall and foundations 1 3

2 Rock infill retention bunds 1 3

3 Dredging (Cutter Suction* and Backhoe Options) 4 7

4 Reclamation 4 9

5 Breakwater rock core 7 8

6 Rock armouring 8 10

7 Access ramp 8 9

8 Pontoon Piling 9 11

9 New slipway 9 11

10 Dock structure (boat lift support structure) 12 13

11 Drainage and sewage pump 10 11

12 Pontoons 12 13

13 Surfacing 12 13

14 Services to pontoons 14 14

15 Installation of replacement small boatsheds (2 No.) 13 14

16 Construction of new boat workshop 14 24

*The duration of the dredging stage is reduced to two months if carried out by cutter suction method

As can be seen in Table 7-9, in many cases more than one type of construction activity will occur during the same

months. Noise modelling scenarios have been set up to account for the cumulative impact of the concurrent

activities. The scenarios have been set up to model the worst-case potential combination of construction

activities for each set of months considered. It has been assumed that the construction activities will commence

at the start and finish at the end of each considered month. A summary of the months, associated combined

construction stages and relevant assessment periods for each of the modelled scenarios is shown in Table 7.9.

Table 7-9: Modelled Scenarios

Modelled

Scenario

Months Modelled Combination of Construction Stages

(Worst Case)

Relevant Assessment

Periods

1 1, 2 & 3 Reinforced concrete retaining wall and foundations Day, Evening, Night

Rock infill retention bunds

2A 4, 5, 6 & 7 Dredging (Cutter Suction option*) Day, Evening, Night

Reclamation

2B 4, 5, 6 & 7 Dredging (Backhoe option) Day, Evening

Reclamation

3 8 Reclamation Day

Breakwater rock core

Rock armouring

Access Ramp

4 9 Reclamation Day, Night

Rock armouring



155

Modelled

Scenario

Months Modelled Combination of Construction Stages

(Worst Case)

Relevant Assessment

Periods

Access Ramp

Piling

New Slipway

5 10 & 11 Rock armouring Day, Night

Piling

New Slipway

Drainage and sewage pumps

6 12 & 13 Dock structure Day, Evening

Pontoons

Surfacing

Services to Pontoon

7 14 & 15 Services to Pontoon Day, Evening

Installation of Replacement Small Boatsheds

Construction of New Boat Workshop

8 15 Construction of New Boat Workshop Day

*The duration of the dredging stage is reduced to two months if carried out by cutter suction method

7.4.3.3 Piling

Piling shall be carried out during daytime hours only at Newton Marina as part of the construction of the

pontoons (Ref 8, Table 7-10), the dock structure that will serve the boat uplift (Ref 10, Table 7-10) and potentially

to construct the foundations for the new boat workshop (Ref 16, Table 7-10).

To construct the pontoon support structure, it is intended to use Overburden Drilling Excentric (Odex) piling

equipment mounted on an excavator. This method is used to drill through, and flush out unwanted material such

as rock, before placing a steel casing into the drilled space. As a worst case scenario for any one day, Odex piling

equipment is estimated to operate for around 50% of the working hours, with additional time between piling to

move equipment and position piles. The noise modelling of piling carried out at the proposed development

contains this assumption.

To construct the dock support structure, it is intended to use a combination of vibratory and impact piling. The

majority of the pile driving will be carried out by vibratory hammer, with an impact hammer being used to drive

each pile into its’ final position. Impact piling typically generates higher noise levels than vibratory piling, the

maximum period that impact piling is predicted to be used in any one daytime period is 25% of the construction

site operating hours, with vibratory methods being used for 40%. The noise modelling of piling carried out at the

proposed development contains this assumption.

To construct the foundations for the new boat workshop, there is the potential that impact piling could be carried

out. It is understood that a total of 41 piles could be driven, taking approximately 10 to 15 minutes for each

during daytime working hours, carried out over a period of around 3 days. It is anticipated that as a worst case

scenario the impact piling may be carried out for 3.5 hours on any one day. This noise modelling of piling carried

out at the proposed development contains this assumption.

7.4.3.4 Dredging

Dredging shall be carried out to form the marina entrance channel and basin (Ref 3, Table 7-10), much of the

material dredged shall be used in the construction of the land reclamation area. It is expected that part of the

dredging shall be carried out using a long reach backhoe dredger, moving along a bund to be constructed from

imported rock fill, along the basin area. The backhoe dredging shall be carried out during daytime and evening

hours only.



156

In order to form the deeper entrance channel area, and most likely, the bulk of the dredge, it is expected that a

small cutter suction dredger will excavate in from the outside, pumping the dredged material directly through a

pipeline into the land reclamation area. Cutter suction dredging is likely to be carried out continuously over 24

hour periods.

Backhoe dredging typically generates higher noise levels than cutter suction dredging. In order to consider the

worst case scenario, both potential dredging methods have been modelled and assessed (Scenarios 2A & 2B,

Table 7-9).

7.4.3.5 Noise Model Data

3D computer noise modelling of the various stages of construction activity at Newton Marina has been carried

out using CadnaA software. Details on worst case construction activities, durations, operating times, and

associated items of noise generating plant for each stage of construction used within the noise models have been

supplied by Wallace Stone.

Calculations were carried out using noise data and guidance provided in BS5228:2009+A1:2014, to derive

predicted noise levels at noise sensitive receptors. Where data was not available within BS5228 it has been

sourced from the Environmental Protection Department of Hong Kong’s Technical Memorandum on Noise from

Construction Work other than Percussive Piling, 1989. Noise data for cutter suction dredging was taken from

Royal Haskoning DHV, Memo on Swansea Channel Noise Impact Assessment, dated 25th June 2014.

Full details of the items of modelled construction plant, noise data (including data source), operating times,

durations and source heights for each of the considered scenarios is shown within Appendix C of Technical

Appendix 7.1: Noise Assessment, within Volume 3 of this EIAR.

7.4.3.6 ABC Category Thresholds

The appropriate ABC category thresholds above which there is considered to be a noise impact from construction

noise have been calculated following guidance provided in BS5228-1:2009+A1:2014 (refer to Section 7.4.1).

Details of the calculations are shown within Appendix B of Technical Appendix 7.1, within Volume 3 of this EIAR.

7.4.4 Assumptions and Limitations

Consultation with Wallace Stone and Stornoway Port Authority has been carried out to determine and agree

assumed construction and operational activities, schedules and associated noise generating plant which are

considered likely. The assumptions are considered to provide a worst case scenario in terms of potential noise

generating activities, however, a number of assumptions regarding proposed activities may change following the

employment of a construction contractor.

7.4.4.1 Noise Model Assumptions

A number of assumptions have been established during the CadnaA modelling exercise, as summarised below.

Full details on noise modelling assumptions are provided in the Noise Model Input Parameters section of

Technical Appendix 7.1, within Volume 3 of this EIAR.

The ground model uses Lidar 1m resolution terrain height data for Stornoway and the majority of the

surrounding area, including the proposed Deep Water Port. The remaining areas use Ordnance Survey

5m resolution terrain data;

The heights of buildings have been estimated from photographs or scaled from the architect’s

drawings;

A façade correction of +3dB(A) has been applied to free-field noise levels externally at buildings;

Ground absorption has been set to 0.5 for mixed soft/hard ground, areas of water have been set to 1

for reflective surface;



157

Evening noise levels generated by construction activities have been assumed to be the same as those

generated during daytime hours;

The noise model assumes locations of plant based on descriptions of construction activities provided

by Wallace Stone;

Worst case scenario combinations of construction activities likely to occur in any one day during the

considered assessment periods have been assumed;

Daytime noise levels have been calculated at ground floor level (i.e lounges/kitchens), which have

been taken as being 1.5m above ground level; and

Night-time noise levels have been calculated at first floor level (i.e bedrooms), which have been taken

as being 4m above ground level.

7.4.5 Noise Definitions

The following definitions relating to noise are used in this report:-

LAeq, T: Equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level. This is the single number that represents the

average sound energy over that time period. It is the sound level of a notionally steady sound that has the same

energy as a sound that fluctuates over a specified measurement period.

LA90, T: The noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period.

LA10, T: The noise level exceeded for 10% of the measurement period.

LAF, max: The A-weighted maximum sound pressure level over the measurement period. The measurement is taken

using the fast time weighting of the sound level meter.

Free-field: As sound propagates from the source it may do so freely, or it may be obstructed in some way by a

wall, a fence, building, earth bund, etc. The former is known as free-field propagation.

Ambient Sound Level, La: As defined in BS4142:2014; equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level of

the totally encompassing sound in a given situation at a given time, usually from many sources near and far, at

the assessment location over a given time interval, T.

Façade Effect: When sound is reflected back towards its source, off a surface, such a wall, the reflected and

incident sound waves interfere constructively, causing what is known as façade effect, or pressure doubling. This

increases the noise, compared to that which exists in free-field, by approximately 2.5 dB(A).

Octave: A range of frequencies whose upper frequency limit is twice that of its lower frequency limit.

Octave Band: Sound pressure level is often measured in octave bands, the centre frequencies of the bands are

defined by ISO – 31.5Hz, 63Hz, 125Hz, 250Hz, 500Hz, 1kHz, 2kHz, 4kHz, 8kHz, 16kHz to divide the audio spectrum

into 10 equal parts. The sound pressure level of sound that has been passed through an octave band pass filter

is termed the octave band sound pressure level.

7.5 Baseline

A summary of the noise monitoring results can be found in Table 7-10. Full details on monitoring results, including

octave band levels and on-site observations, are detailed in Technical Appendix 7.1: Noise Assessment, within

Volume 3 of this EIAR.

Table 7-10: Noise Monitoring Results

Date Period Noise Monitoring

Location

Start time/ Duration

(hrs:mins)

LAeq

(dBA)

LAFmax

(dBA)

LA90

(dBA)

27/02/2018 01 05:17 / 00:30 48.1 64.6 36.3



158

Date Period Noise Monitoring

Location

Start time/ Duration

(hrs:mins)

LAeq

(dBA)

LAFmax

(dBA)

LA90

(dBA)

Early

Morning

02 05:55 / 00:30 52.0 73.2 41.6

03 06:30 / 00:30 39.2 65.3 32.5

27/02/2018 Daytime

01 12:04 / 01:00 57.7 72.1 51.3

02 15:33 / 01:00 60.3 84.0 48.0

03 16:42 / 01:00 50.3 67.5 47.2

27/02/2018 Night-

time

01 23:12 / 00:30 50.0 69.1 35.6

02 23:54 / 00:30 43.2 63.9 37.5

28/02/2018 03 00:34 / 00:30 36.2 61.6 30.9

28/02/2018 Daytime

01 10:19 / 01:00 55.4 78.8 49.5

02 12:30 / 01:00 60 84.4 49.3

03 13:40 / 01:00 49.9 73.9 44.8

7.5.1.1 Baseline Observations

Notes of noise sources characterising the background noise environment at each of the monitoring locations for

the monitoring periods were recorded and have been summarised in order of dominance (greatest first). This

information is contained within Technical Appendix 7.1: Noise Assessment, within Volume 3 of this EIAR.



159


The noise model results for each modelled scenario of construction activity, along with the BS5228 assessment at each of the considered noise sensitive receptors are

summarised in Table 7-11 to Table 7-16. The predicted level within the tables is defined as the total construction and ambient noise level at each receptor location.

Table 7-11: Noise Model Results and BS5228 Assessment; Noise Sensitive Receptor No. 1: South Beach

NSR 01: South Beach Daytime Evening Night-time

Scenario Combined Construction Stages Threshold

Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance Threshold

Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance

1

Reinforced concrete retaining wall and foundations 65 57.1 Neutral 60 55.1 Neutral 55 51.4 Neutral Rock infill retention bunds

2A

Dredging (Cutter Suction)

65 57.2 Neutral 60 55.2 Neutral 55 49.8 Neutral Reclamation


2B

Dredging (Backhoe)

65 58.0 Neutral 60 56.4 Neutral N/A N/A N/A Reclamation


3

Reclamation

65 57.5 Neutral N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Breakwater rock core

Rock armouring

Access ramp

4

Reclamation

65 58.4 Neutral N/A N/A N/A 55 49.4 Neutral

Rock armouring

Access ramp

Piling

New slipway

5

Rock armouring

65 57.1 Neutral N/A N/A N/A 55 49.4 Neutral Piling

New slipway

Drainage and sewage pump

6

Dock structure

65 57.2 Neutral 60 55.2 Neutral N/A N/A N/A Pontoons

Surfacing



160

NSR 01: South Beach Daytime Evening Night-time


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance

Services to pontoon

7

Services to pontoon

65 56.9 Neutral 60 54.7 Neutral N/A N/A N/A Installation of Replacement Small

Boatsheds

Construction of new boat workshop

8 Construction of new boat workshop 65 56.9 Neutral N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 7-12: Noise Model Results and BS5228 Assessment; Noise Sensitive Receptor No. 2: Newton Street

NSR 02: Newton Street Daytime Evening Night-time


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance

1 Reinforced concrete retaining wall and foundations 65 61.5 Neutral 65 59.7 Neutral 55 55.9 Slight


2A Dredging (Cutter Suction)

65 63.4 Neutral

65 62.3 Neutral 55 58.8 Moderate Reclamation


2B Dredging (Backhoe)

65 65.3 Slight 65 64.6 Neutral N/A N/A N/A Reclamation


3 Reclamation

65 65.1 Slight N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Breakwater rock core

Rock armouring

Access ramp

4 Reclamation

65 64.3 Negligible N/A N/A N/A 55 50.4 Neutral

Rock armouring

Access ramp

Piling62.3

New slipway



161



Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance

5 Rock armouring


New slipway


6 Dock structure


Surfacing

Services to pontoon

7 Services to pontoon


Boatsheds






Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance



2A


65 65.6 Slight 65 65.0 Neutral 55 59.8 Moderate Reclamation


2B

Dredging (Backhoe)

65 66.8 Slight 65 66.3 Slight N/A N/A N/A Reclamation


3 Reclamation




162



Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance

Rock armouring

Access ramp

4

Reclamation

65 65.4 Slight N/A N/A N/A 55 51.4 Neutral

Rock armouring

Access ramp

Piling

New slipway

5

Rock armouring


New slipway


6

Dock structure

65 65.4 Slight 65 64.8 Neutral N/A N/A N/A Pontoons

Surfacing

Services to pontoon

7

Services to pontoon


Boatsheds





163




Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance

1

Reinforced concrete retaining wall and foundations 65 62.2 Neutral 65 60.8 Neutral 55 56.5 Slight Rock infill retention bunds

2A


65 64.6 Neutral 65 63.8 Neutral 55 57.4 Slight Reclamation


2B

Dredging (Backhoe)

65 65.5 Slight 65 64.9 Neutral N/A N/A N/A Reclamation


3

Reclamation


Rock armouring

Access ramp

4

Reclamation


Rock armouring

Access ramp

Piling

New slipway

5

Rock armouring


New slipway


6

Dock structure


Surfacing

Services to pontoon

7

Services to pontoon


Boatsheds




164



Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance


Table 7-15: Noise Model Results and BS5228 Assessment; Noise Sensitive Receptor No. 5: Seaview Terrace

NSR 05: Seaview Terrace Daytime Evening Night-time


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance

1 Reinforced concrete retaining wall and foundations 65 61.0 Neutral 65 58.9 Neutral 55 54.5 Neutral Rock infill retention bunds

2A




2B

Dredging (Backhoe)



3

Reclamation


Rock armouring

Access ramp

4

Reclamation


Rock armouring

Access ramp

Piling

New slipway

5

Rock armouring


New slipway


6 Dock structure 65 62.1 Neutral 65 60.5 Neutral N/A N/A N/A



165

NSR 05: Seaview Terrace Daytime Evening Night-time


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance

Pontoons

Surfacing

Services to pontoon

7

Services to pontoon


Boatsheds



Table 7-16: Noise Model Results and BS5228 Assessment; Noise Sensitive Receptor No. 6: Builnacraig Street

NSR 06: Builnacraig Street Daytime Evening Night-time


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance



2A




2B

Dredging (Backhoe)



3

Reclamation


Rock armouring

Access ramp

4

Reclamation

65 51.3 Neutral N/A N/A N/A 45 38.8 Neutral Rock armouring

Access ramp



166

NSR 06: Builnacraig Street Daytime Evening Night-time


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)


Level

dB(A)

Predicted

Level

dB(A)

Significance

Piling

New slipway

5

Rock armouring


New slipway


6

Dock structure


Surfacing

Services to pontoon

7

Services to pontoon


Boatsheds





167

7.6.1 Discussion of Results

The worst case noise impacts for each of the modelled scenarios of concurrent construction stages and relevant

assessment periods are summarised below (refer to Table 7-9).

Scenario 1 (Months 1 to 3); The combined construction stages of construction of the reinforced concrete

retaining wall and the rock infill retention bunds, are predicted to result in noise impacts of Slight significance at

night at NSRs 02, 03, 04 (Newton Street) & 06 (Builnacraig Street). The significance of all other impacts is

predicted to be Neutral.

Scenario 2A (Months 4 to 7); The combined construction stages of cutter suction dredging, reclamation and

construction of the breakwater core, are predicted to result in noise impacts of Slight significance at NSR 03

(Newton Street) during the daytime. At night there is a Slight impact at NSR 04 (Newton Street) and Moderate

impacts at NSRs 02 and 03 (Newton Street). The significance of all other impacts is predicted to be Neutral. The

maximum duration that cutter suction dredging may be carried out at night is two months.

Scenario 2B (Months 4 to 7); The combined construction stages of backhoe dredging, reclamation and

construction of the breakwater core, are predicted to result in noise impacts of Slight significance during the

daytime at NSRs 02 to 03 (Newton Street). During the evening there is an impact of Slight significance at NSR 03.

The significance of all other impacts is predicted to be Neutral.

Scenario 3 (Month 8); The combined construction stages of reclamation, construction of the breakwater core,

rock armouring and construction of the access ramp, are predicted to result in noise impacts of Slight significance

at NSRs 02 to 04 (Newton Street) during the daytime. The significance of all other impacts is predicted to be

Neutral.

Scenario 4 (Month 9); The combined construction stages of reclamation, rock armouring, construction of the

access ramp, pontoon piling and construction of the new slipway are predicted to result in an impact of Slight

significance during the daytime at NSR 03 (Newton Street). The significance of all other impacts is predicted to

be Neutral.

Scenario 5 (Months 10 & 11); The combined construction stages of rock armouring, pontoon piling, new slipway

and drainage/sewage pump (Scenario 5) are predicted to result in impacts of Neutral significance at all receptors

during the day and night-time.

Scenario 6 (Months 12 and 13); The combined construction stages of the dock structure, pontoons, surfacing

and services to pontoons (Scenario 6) are predicted to result in Slight impacts at NSR 03 (Newton Street) during

the daytime. The significance of all other impacts is predicted to be Neutral.

Scenario 7 (Months 14 and 15); The combined construction stages of services to pontoons, installation of

replacement small boatsheds, and construction of the new boat workshop (Scenario 7) are predicted to result in

impacts of Neutral significance at all receptors during the day and evening.

Scenario 8 (Months 16 to 24); The construction of the new boat workshop results in impacts of Neutral

significance during the daytime.

7.6.2 Greatest Daytime and Evening Noise Impacts

The greatest noise generating activities during the daytime and evening are predicted to be from the combined

construction stages of backhoe dredging, reclamation and construction of the breakwater core (Scenario 2B;

Months 4 to 7). The worst case impacts from these construction activities at Newton Marina and are predicted

to be of Slight significance at NSRs 02 to 04 (Newton Street) during the daytime, and of Slight significance at NSR



168

03 (Newton Street) during the evening. There are no significant adverse effects in terms of the EIA regulations

during the daytime and evening periods.

7.6.3 Greatest Night-time Noise Impacts

The greatest noise generating activities during the night-time are predicted to be from cutter suction dredging

(Scenario 2A). The worst case night-time impacts from this construction activity at Newton Marina are therefore

predicted to be of Moderate significance at NSRs 02 & 03 (Newton Street), and Slight significance at NSR 04

(Newton Street). In terms of the EIA regulations, a Moderate adverse impact is considered to be a significant

effect (refer to Table 7-3). The maximum duration that cutter suction dredging may be carried out at night is two

months.


There is the potential for cumulative noise from concurrent construction activities at Newton Marina and the

proposed Deep Water Port to impact on existing residential receptors. At the time of writing, the proposed

construction commencement date for Newton Marina is December 2018, with construction at the Deep Water

Port anticipated to commence in November 2019. There is also the potential for cumulative noise from the

proposed construction of a fish processing factory on Goat Island, which is scheduled to occur between January

and December 2019 to impact on existing residential receptors

The cumulative impact assessment of noise generated by construction activities from Newton Marina and the

Deep Water Port takes into account the proposed 11 month gap between construction commencement dates.

Within the 13 month period that construction activities are proposed to occur at Newton Marina and the Deep

Water Port concurrently it is understood that exact construction timings may change from those proposed at the

moment. In order to assess the worst case scenario of cumulative impact during the concurrent period, the

greatest predicted noise generating activities at Newton Marina and the Deep Water Port during the period when

both sites are operating concurrently have therefore been assumed to occur at the same time.

Full details of the proposed noise generating construction activities at the proposed Deep Water Port are

provided in Technical Appendix 7.1, within Volume 3 of the Deep Water Port EIAR.

The greatest predicted noise generating construction stages that may occur concurrently for each of the

considered periods is shown in Table 7-17.

Table 7-17: Greatest Noise Generating Concurrent Construction Stages; Newton Marina and Deep Water Port

Assessment

Period

Greatest Noise Generating Concurrent Construction Stages

Newton Marina Deep Water Port

Scenario /

Duration

Combined Construction Stages Scenario /

Duration

Combined Construction Stages

Daytime 6;

2 Months

Dock structure, pontoons,

surfacing, services to pontoons

3B;

2 Months

Excavate rock and infill

reclamation, dredging

(backhoe) and infill

reclamation, linkspan support

dolphin.

Evening 6;

2 Months

Dock structure, pontoons,

surfacing, services to pontoons

3B;

2 Months

Dredging (backhoe) and infill

reclamation, linkspan support

dolphin.

Night-time N/A N/A 3B;

2 Months

Dredging (backhoe) and infill

reclamation.



169

The greatest noise generating combination of construction stages during the daytime and evening and are from

Scenario 6 at Newton Marina, and Scenario 3B at the Deep Water Port (refer to Technical Appendix 7.1, within

Volume 3 of the Deep Water Port EIAR for full details). There is no predicted cumulative impact at night, as there

are no concurrent night-time works scheduled.

The construction of the proposed fish processing factory at Goat Island, scheduled to occur during daytime hours

between January and December 2019 (but which may be subject to change) has the potential to contribute to

the overall cumulative noise impact at existing residential receptors. Noise generated by the proposed

construction activities at the factory has been modelled at the location of the existing sensitive receptors using

CadnaA software. The noise data and assumptions used within the model is shown as Ref 17, in Appendix C of

Technical Appendix 7.1, within Volume 3 of this EIAR. As the exact timings of the construction of the factory is

unknown at this stage, noise generated by construction activities associated with it have been included within

the cumulative noise impact assessment, along with worst case noise generating construction stages from

Newton Marina and the Deep Water Port.

An assessment of the worst-cast cumulative impacts, if the greatest noise generating construction stages at

Newton Marina, the Deep Water Port and the fish processing factory on Goat Island are to occur concurrently

are shown in Table 7-19 and Table 7-20.

Table 7-18: Worst Case Cumulative Impact; Daytime

Noise

Sensitive

Receptor

Predicted

Cumulative Facade

Level

dB(A)

Threshold Level

dB(A)

Excess

dB(A)

Significance

1 58.9 65 -6.1 Neutral

2 64.6 65 -0.4 Neutral

3 65.9 65 0.9 Slight

4 65.0 65 0.0 Neutral

5 62.9 65 -2.1 Neutral

6 57.0 65 -8.0 Neutral

Table 7-19: Worst Case Cumulative Impact; Evening

Noise

Sensitive

Receptor

Predicted

Cumulative Façade

Level

dB(A)

Threshold Level

dB(A)

Excess

dB(A)

Significance

1 57.5 60 -2.5 Neutral

2 63.6 65 -1.4 Neutral

3 65.1 65 0.1 Slight

4 64.0 65 -1.0 Neutral

5 61.5 65 -3.5 Neutral

6 56.3 55 1.3 Slight

The results show that during the daytime period, the significance of the worst case cumulative impact if the

greatest noise generating construction activities at Newton Marina, Deep Water Port and the proposed fish

processing factory on Goat Island occur concurrently is Slight at NSR 03 (Newton Street). At the remaining noise

sensitive receptor locations the impact is Neutral. During the evening, the significance is Slight at NSRs 03

(Newton Street) and 06 (Builnacraig Street). There are no significant adverse effects from cumulative impact in

terms of the EIA Regulations.



170

There are no scheduled night-time concurrent construction activities at Newton Marina, Deep Water Port and

the proposed fish processing factory on Goat Island.

7.7 Mitigation

The worst case daytime and evening significance of effect from construction activities at Newton Marina

(including cumulative impacts) is of Slight significance. At night, the worst case impacts (including cumulative

impacts) are of Moderate significance at two receptors. Impacts of Moderate significance are undesirable, but

of limited concern (refer to Table 7-3). No mitigation measures are proposed to reduce noise from construction

activities at Newton Marina.


Noise generated by construction activities is temporary in nature, therefore there are no predicted long-term

residual effects.


7.9.1 Daytime and Evening Construction Noise

The greatest noise generating activities during the daytime and evening are predicted to be from the combined

construction stages of backhoe dredging, reclamation and construction of the breakwater core (Scenario 2B;

Months 4 to 7). The worst case impacts from these construction activities at Newton Marina are predicted to be

of Slight significance at NSRs 02 to 04 (Newton Street) during the daytime, and Slight at NSR 03 (Newton Street)

during the evening. There are no significant adverse effects during the daytime and evening periods.

7.9.2 Night-time Construction Noise

Potential construction activities that may be carried out at night are construction of the reinforced concrete

retaining wall and foundations (tidally dependant; months 1 to 3), cutter suction dredging (months 4 to 5), and

construction of the new slipway (tidally dependant; months 9 to 11).

The greatest noise generating activities during the night-time are predicted to be from cutter suction dredging

(months 4 to 5). The worst case night-time impacts from construction activity at Newton Marina are predicted

to be of Moderate significance at NSRs 02 & 03 (Newton Street), and Slight significance at NSR 04 (Newton

Street). In EIA terms, a Moderate adverse impact is considered to be a significant effect (refer to Table 7-3). The

maximum duration that cutter suction dredging may be carried out at night is two months.

7.9.3 Cumulative Impact

A cumulative noise impact assessment has been carried to consider scheduled concurrent construction activities

at the proposed Newton Marina, Deep Water Port and fish processing factory on Goat Island. Timings of

proposed construction schedules have been provided by Wallace Stone and Stornoway Port Authority.

During the daytime period, the significance of the worst case cumulative impact from scheduled concurrent

construction activities at Newton Marina, Deep Water Port and the proposed fish processing factory on Goat

Island is Slight at NSR 03 (Newton Street). At the remaining noise sensitive receptor locations the impact is

Neutral. During the evening, the significance is Slight at NSRs 03 (Newton Street) and 06 (Builnacraig Street).



171

There are no scheduled night-time concurrent construction activities at Newton Marina, Deep Water Port and

the proposed fish processing factory.

There are no significant adverse effects from cumulative impacts in EIA terms.



172

8 CHAPTER 8: WATER ENVIRONMENT

8.1 Introduction

This chapter of the EIAR provides an assessment of the implications of the proposed development on the water

environment and coastal processes. The water environment is considered to encompass hydrology,

hydrogeology and water quality, whilst coastal processes are considered to encompass tides, waves and

sediment transport processes. The chapter will also consider geology.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Council Directive 2000/60/EC) aims to protect and enhance water bodies

within Europe and covers all estuarine and coastal waters out to 1 nautical mile. This requires that there is no

deterioration in the quality of surface or groundwater bodies and aims to achieve good ecological status or

potential. The implications of the WFD must be considered when assessing this project and the details of how

compliance will be achieved provided in the EIA.

Details of the site and the proposed development are provided in Chapter 2: Proposed Development. The

assessment will identify sensitive issues within the site by establishing the current baseline and examining the

proposed development within this context.

This chapter is supplemented by the following appendices within Volume 3 of this EIAR, along with the relevant

figures within Volume 2:

Technical Appendix 8.1: Hydrographic and Geophysical Survey;

Technical Appendix 8.2: Hydraulic Assessment; and

Technical Appendix 8.3: Simplified Index Approach (SIA) Calculation.


Scoping Opinions have been received from CnES and Marine Scotland, on the 3rd November 2017 and 9th March

2018 respectively. A summary of the relevant scoping responses is set out below in Table 8.1 with details of how

the scoping consultation has been taken into consideration when conducting this assessment.



Marine Scotland Proposed land reclamation has the

potential to alter wave direction and

local coastal geomorphological

characteristics. The impact is deemed to

be insignificant by the Scottish

Ministers, however a more robust

assessment will be undertaken when

further details are available.

Addressed throughout chapter. The

assessment draws on coastal modelling

presented within Technical Appendix 8.2

within Volume 3 of the EIAR.



173


Marine Scotland recommends that

flood risk is scoped in as per the

applicant’s Scoping Report, which

details wave overtopping and surface

water drainage with climate change

scenarios. SEPA suggest there is a

medium risk of flooding.

The baseline section of this EIA chapter

covers flood risk, including associated

extreme sea levels, in accordance with SEPA

advice provided. The SEPA scoping response

presents details of flood levels and

appropriate freeboard required, and advises

that as long as levels are adhered to, a site

specific flood risk assessment is not required.

The proposals adopt the site levels

recommended by SEPA. These are shown on

Figure 2.1, Volume 2 of the EIAR.

Marine Scotland note that the

vulnerability of the works to climate

change are to be covered within the

modelling and the impact assessment

within the water environment chapter.

Addressed within this chapter of the EIAR as

described above with respect to flood risk.

Scottish Water Scottish Water have advised that there

are multiple asset conflicts.

Scottish Water Assets Plan has been

obtained, and potential for conflicts assessed

within this chapter of EIAR. No conflicts have

been identified

SEPA SEPA have advised that the majority of

UK registered boats do not have holding

tanks for foul effluent and therefore

sewage is discharged directly into the

water environment. Pump out facilities

should therefore be included in the

design of shore based facilities, and

connected to the foul drainage network.

The proposed development will include

pump out facilities for yachts as outlined in

Section 8.7.3.2.

Surface water runoff must be treated by

sustainable drainage systems (SuDS)

therefore it is important to ensure that

adequate space to accommodate SuDS

is incorporated within the site layout.

The concept of SuDS has been further

discussed in subsequent regulator meetings

with CnES and SEPA on 26th January 2018.

Attenuation is not considered a requirement

across the development, given the coastal

setting and nature of works, but the EIAR

discusses proposed drainage and treatment

features. Discussed within Chapter 2:

Proposed Development and within this

chapter of the EIAR (see Section 8.7).

Proposals to include oil interceptors are

welcomed. The proposals should meet

the treatment requirements of CIRIA

C753. A site plan showing the proposed

SuDS treatment train must be

submitted. Different areas of the

development will require different

levels of treatment. For example run-off

from car parking or marshalling areas

will require greater treatment than roof

run-off.

Proposals for drainage are set out in section

8.7, and within Figure 2.3, Volume 2 of the

EIAR.

Boat hull washing Is no longer included in this

project, having been removed and included

in the future boatshed project, which will be

covered by a separate application; infiltration

drainage is proposed for car parking areas, in

accordance with Ciria C753 : Chapter 26.



174


The Simple Index Approach calculation

(Section 26.7.1 of the guidance) should

be used for the lower risk areas within

the site. For yard areas, refuelling areas

or areas where there is a higher

pollution risk, a detailed risk assessment

(Section 26.7.3 of CIRIA C753) must be

submitted. SEPA are likely to regulate

discharges from high risk areas under

The Water Environment (Controlled

Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011

(As Amended) (CAR).

Simplified Index Approach calculation

attached in Technical Appendix 8.3, Volume 3

of the EIAR.

Comments on the acceptability of post-

development runoff rates for flood

control should be sought from the local

authority flood prevention unit

Given the coastal setting, nature and size of

the proposed development, the risk of

flooding from surface water runoff is not

considered significant.

All new development, including

development on reclaimed land, should

be above the estimated 1 in 200 year

flood level for the area which is 3.4 m

AOD, unless that particular aspect of the

proposal needs to be lower for

operational reasons. This will enable the

developments to be more resilient

during times of flood or storm events.

SEPA recommend a minimum 0.6m

freeboard is added to allow for

modelling uncertainties and the use of

water resistant materials and forms of

construction as appropriate. In this case

the planning application need not be

supported by a detailed site specific

flood risk assessment but should

demonstrate through comprehensive

site levels as to how the above

requirements would be met.

Development levels are as per SEPA

recommendation and are presented within

Chapter 2: Proposed Development, Figure 2.3

(Volume 2 of the EIAR), as well as this chapter

of the EIAR, and associated appendices.

All existing outfalls should be identified

and details of how each one will be

accommodated included on site plans.

Of particular interest are Combined

Sewerage Overflow discharge into the

basin, which should be discussed with

Scottish Water, Discharges from the

boat yard, and any opportunities to

improve existing surface water and

trade water drainages to bring them in

line with current best practice.

The Scottish Water Assets Plan has been

obtained, and potential for conflicts assessed

within this chapter of EIAR. Key features from

the Scottish Water Assets Plan are presented

in Figure 8.3, Volume 2 of the EIAR. No

conflicts were identified.



175


A Construction Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP) is not

required with the application provided

that the detailed site plans, requested

elsewhere in this response,

demonstrate how impacts on the

environment have been minimised

through site design. All mitigation

should be detailed within a suitably

robust schedule of mitigation. The

schedule of mitigation should be

supported by these site specific maps

and plans. These must include reference

to best practice pollution prevention

and construction techniques (for

example, limiting the maximum area to

be stripped of soils at any one time) and

regulatory requirements. They should

set out the daily responsibilities of

ECOWs, how site inspections will be

recorded and acted upon and proposals

for a planning monitoring enforcement

officer. Please refer to SEPA’s Guidance

for Pollution Prevention (GPPs).

An outline Schedule of Mitigation is provided

as part of the EIA within Chapter 11. The site

plan (Figure 2.3, Volume 2 of the EIAR) shows

the proposed drainage arrangements


The assessment for the water environment and coastal processes has been undertaken with reference to the

following relevant planning policy, legislation and guidance.

8.3.1 Relevant Planning Policy

• Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (2014);

• UK Marine Policy Statement (2011);

• Scotland’s National Marine Plan (2015);

• The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (2012); and

• The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2 (at ‘Examination Stage’ at time of writing).

8.3.2 Relevant Legislation

• Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000;

• Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003;

• Marine (Scotland) Act 2010;

• Coast Protection Act 1949;

• Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009;

• Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR);

• Water Environment (Miscellaneous) (Scotland) Regulations 2017;

• Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Flora and Fauna (The

Habitats Directive);

• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2014/52/EU);



176

• The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017;

• The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Scotland) 2017; and

• The Environmental Impact Assessment (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Harbour, Highways and

Transport) Regulations 2017.

8.3.3 Relevant Guidance

• Guidelines for Water Pollution Prevention from Civil Engineering Contracts;

• Pollution Prevention Guidance 1 (PPG): General guide to the prevention of pollution;

• PPG3: Use and design of oil separators in surface water drainage systems (to be read in conjunction with

‘Oil Separator Manufacturers – Version 7 – November 19th 2007);

• PPG 6: Working at construction and demolition sites;

• PPG 7: Refuelling facilities;

• PPG 14: Marinas and Craft;

• PPG 18: Managing for water and major spillages;

• PPG 22: Incident response – dealing with spills;

• PPG26: Storage & handling of drums & intermediate bulk containers;

• Guidance for Pollution Prevention (GPP) 2: Above ground oil storage tanks;

• GPP 5: Works and maintenance in or near water;

• GPP 8: Safe storage and disposal of used oils;

• GPP 21: Pollution incident response planning;

• WAT-SG-26: Good Practice Guide – Sediment Management;

• WAT-SG-29: Good Practice Guide – Construction Methods;

• The Green Guide For Marinas;

• The Green Guide to Pump Out Systems;

• The Green Guide to Boat Washdown Systems; and

• CIRIA C753 – The SuDS Manual.

8.4 Methodology

8.4.1 General

The assessment follows standard EIA procedures which include:

• Desk based review of the design of the proposed development in relation to the local water environment

and coastal processes;

• Consultation with key stakeholders to obtain relevant information and to ensure their concerns are

addressed within the study;

• Establishing the existing baseline conditions:

o Review topography and ground conditions at the site and environs;

o Review of hydrology, catchment characteristics, and water quality conditions;

o Review of coastal processes including bathymetry, tidal levels, river and tidal flow currents, wave

action, bed sediment type and distribution, sediment transport and deposition, geology;

o Hydrodynamic, wave, and sediment dispersion modelling study to establish baseline and design

conditions (Technical Appendix 8.2 within Volume 3); and

o Reporting of baseline conditions to provide a basis for assessment of the potential impact.

• Impact Assessment:

o Identification of sensitive receptors and environmental constraints;

o Identification of potential impacts;

o Assessment of impact magnitude;



177

o Identification and assessment of mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any potential impacts of

the proposed development; and

o Statement of residual effects.

Potential impacts arising from the proposed development have been predicted and evaluated. The observed

baseline data was used along with professional opinion to qualitatively assess the potential impacts and the

significance to receptors.

8.4.2 Assessment Criteria

The assessment criteria set out in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2 has been used to develop a matrix to assess the

significance of effects from the proposed development on the local water environment (Table 8.3). The

assessment of residual effects also takes into consideration the probability of the effect occurring (certain, likely,

possible or unlikely) and the duration of the effect (short (less than 2 years), medium (2 – 5 years), long term

(more than 5 years) or permanent.

All direct and indirect impacts causing moderate or major effects as identified in Table 8.3 are considered to be

significant.

Table 8.1: Criteria for Assessing Receptor Sensitivity

Receptor Sensitivity Description

Low Receptors with a high capacity to accommodate change, low value or poor

condition and no significant uses, for example:

• Receptor is not an internationally, nationally or locally designated site.

• Not classified as a surface water body for the River Basin Management Plan

(RBMP).

• Surface water body not significant in terms of fish spawning and no other

sensitive aquatic ecological receptors e.g. freshwater pearl mussels.

• Surface water body not used for abstraction.

• Surface water body not used for recreation directly related to water quality

e.g. angling, swimming, watersports.

• Surface water body not used by commercial or recreational vessels.

• Low or very low productivity aquifer with no identified abstractions.

Medium Receptors with a moderate capacity to accommodate change, medium value or

condition and limited use, for example:

• Receptor is not an internationally or nationally designated site. May be a

locally designated site.

• Salmonid species may be present and surface water body may be locally

important for spawning. No other sensitive aquatic ecological receptors e.g.

freshwater pearl mussels.

• Surface water body used for private water supply or medium scale industrial/

agricultural abstractions.

• Surface water body used for occasional or local recreation e.g. local angling

clubs.

• Navigable surface water body used by commercial or recreational vessels.

• Moderate productivity aquifer.

• Groundwater body supports identified private water supplies or medium

scale industrial/ agricultural abstractions.



178

Receptor Sensitivity Description

High Receptors with a low capacity to accommodate change, high value or condition

and significant use, for example:

• Receptor is an internationally or nationally designated site.

• Surface water body supports sensitive aquatic ecological receptors e.g.

freshwater pearl mussels.

• Surface water body used for public water supply or large scale industrial/


• Surface water body important for recreation directly related to water quality

e.g. swimming, watersports, angling.

• High or very high productivity aquifer.

• Groundwater body supports public water supply or large scale industrial/


Table 8.2: Criteria for Assessing Impact Magnitude

Definition Impact Magnitude

Negligible Very light change from baseline conditions. Change barely distinguishable,

approximating to the ’no change’ situation.

Low Minor shift away from baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration

will be discernible but underlying character/composition/attributes of the baseline

condition will be similar to pre-development circumstances/patterns.

Medium Loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the baseline conditions

such that post-development character/ composition/ attributes of baseline will be

partially changed.

High Total loss or major alteration to key elements/features of the baseline (pre-

development) conditions such that post-development

character/composition/attributes will be fundamentally changed.

Table 8.3: Criteria for Assessing Effects

Sensitivity of Receptor Magnitude of Impact Predicted Effect

High High Major

High Medium

Medium High

High Low Moderate

Low High

Medium Medium

Medium Low Minor

Low Medium

Low Low

High, Medium or Low Negligible Negligible



179

8.5 Baseline

8.5.1 Site Description

The proposed development site is situated within Newton Basin, immediately to the south of Stornoway within

the Stornoway Harbour embayment. Newton Basin is a small tidal bay partially enclosed by Goat Island and the

associated causeway. A jetty extends to the north-west from the northern tip of Goat Island, with the car ferry

terminal and No.3 Pier present to the north across the mouth of Newton Basin. Present further along the

coastline to the north-west are South Beach Quay, No.2 Pier and beyond that No.1 Pier and Esplanade Quay. The

tidal embayment of Stornoway Harbour extends up to 3km in length, and around 1.5km in width at its widest

point, covering an area of 3km2.

Existing land uses on Goat Island include fish processing and marine engineering, whilst a boat slipway is present

on the northern side of the jetty. A review of historic mapping64 and historical accounts of the harbours

development65, reveals that the causeway was built in the late 1940s, prior to which Goat Island was not

connected to the Stornoway coastline.

8.5.2 Designated Areas

The following designated sites are located in proximity to the proposed development site:

The development site is within 2.1km of the Inner Hebrides and the Minches candidate Special Area of

Conservation (cSAC), which has been selected for its harbour porpoise interest.

The North East Lewis Proposed Marine Protected Area (pMPA) is located approximately 1.7km south-

east of the site, and has been selected for Risso’s Dolphin interest.

Tong Saltings SSSI is located just under 2.5km north-east of the site, and is designated for breeding birds,

mudflats, saltmarsh and sand dunes.

Lewis Peatlands SAC/SPA/Ramsar site is located over 4km to the west of the proposed development.

Further information on designated areas is presented within Chapter Error! Reference source not found.: Marine

Ecology and Figure 1.2, Volume 2 of the EIA.

8.5.3 Topography and Bathymetry

A topographic survey of Goat Island and the linking causeway to Battery Point has been undertaken. Existing

ground levels across the majority of Goat Island range between 6.5 – 10.5mCD (3.79 – 7.79mAOD), with the

exception the lower portions of slipway and shoreline. Ground levels across the causeway to Battery Point vary

between 6.4 – 6.6mCD (3.69 – 3.89mAOD).

A multi-beam bathymetric survey of Newton Basin was undertaken by Aspect Land & Hydrographic Surveys Ltd

on 7th April 2017. Surveyed depths within the inner (eastern) basin vary between +2.0mCD (-0.71mAOD) and

0mCD (-2.71mAOD). The greater depths within this section of the basin are associated with the tidal pond

towards the south-east. This is a relict feature associated with natural historic processes prior to the construction

of the causeway. Moving west from the tidal pond depths shallow across a relict shingle spit feature, also

associated with historical processes prior to causeway construction.

The bathymetry is shown in Figure 8.1, Volume 2 of the EIA, whilst further detail on the bathymetric survey

methodology and results is presented within Technical Appendix 8.1, Volume 3 of the EIA.

64 National Library of Scotland. Map Images. http://maps.nls.uk/ 65 Angus Macleod (1998). Development of Stornoway Harbour Facilities. http://www.angusmacleodarchive.org.uk/



180

8.5.4 Geology & Soils

The site is underlain by Conglomerate (Stornoway), with Protocataclasite (Outer Hebrides Thrust Complex)

immediately to the south, and Gneiss (Lewisian) present further south. There are no significant superficial

deposits mapped within the vicinity of the site66. The National Soil Map of Scotland indicates that soils are absent

within the site67.

EnviroCentre undertook a geo-environmental and geotechnical site investigation on Goat Island in May 2017.

Works incorporated drilling of three rotary boreholes, with made ground encountered at two locations,

comprising grey sandy gravel, and littoral drift deposits beneath comprising around 2m depth of sandy, cobbly

gravel, overlying the conglomerate bedrock. Further survey work was subsequently carried out within the

proposed dredge pocket as described in Section 8.5.11 below.

The bedrock geology is shown in Figure 8.2, Volume 2 of the EIA.

8.5.5 Hydrogeology

The development site is underlain by a low productivity aquifer. The conglomerate will yield only small amounts

of groundwater68. Given the absence of any significant superficial deposits on or up gradient of the site, there is

no significant superficial aquifer present.

8.5.6 Hydrology

The two main inflows of freshwater to the Stornoway Harbour embayment are the Glen River (also known as the

Bayhead River), which enters at the northern (inland) tip of the harbour, and the River Creed (Abhainn Ghrioda),

which enters the harbour on the western shore, opposite Goat Island. The Glen River is a minor watercourse with

a catchment area of under 8km2. The River Creed is a larger watercourse, with a catchment area of around 50km2,

however the inflow of freshwater remains insignificant relative to the much larger volume of seawater

exchanged within the harbour embayment.

There are no mapped freshwater inflows to Newton Bay although local discharges from piped drainage systems

are present. Review of Scottish Water plans for the local area highlights that there is a combined sewer overflow

(CSO) present in the north-western corner of Newton Bay, adjacent to the ferry terminal access road. There are

also two Scottish Water surface water drainage outfalls within Newton Bay, one adjacent to the CSO in the north-

western corner, and the other further east, opposite the junction of Newton Street and Island Road. Surface

water drainage from Newton Street is connected to the combined sewer system.

Several private outfalls are located along the southern shore of Goat Island, draining to the wider Stornoway

Harbour embayment. These serve the Port Authority slipway, the MacDuff Shellfish processing factory and a

vacant industrial building, which are not part of the Marina project. A Scottish Water CSO is present on the

southern side of the Goat Island causeway, with an additional three CSOs located further east along the coast.

The hydrological features in the vicinity of the proposed development are shown in Figure 8.3, Volume 2 of the

EIAR.

66 BGS. Geology of Britain Viewer: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html 67 James Hutton Institute. National Soil Map of Scotland: http://map.environment.gov.scot/Soil_maps/?layer=2 68 BGS. Geoindex Onshore: http://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html



181

8.5.7 Water Quality and Water Body Status

The coastal waters of Stornoway Harbour are classified under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) monitoring

programme as a coastal waterbody. The waterbody is classified as being of overall ‘Good’ status in 2016, with a

hydromorphological status of ‘High’ and an overall chemistry status of ‘Pass’.

Of the watercourses discharging to Stornoway Harbour only the River Creed (Abhainn Ghrioda) is large enough

to be classified, with an overall status of ‘High’ in 2016, including a hydromorphology status of ‘High’69.

8.5.8 Tidal Water Levels

Tidal levels at Stornoway Harbour as presented within the Admiralty Tide Tables70 are shown in Table 8.4. The

mean tidal range at Stornoway is 4.1m during spring tides and 1.7m during neap tides.

Table 8.4: Tidal Water Levels – Stornoway Harbour

Tide Condition Chart Datum (mCD)* Ordnance Datum (mOD)

Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 5.5 2.79

Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) 4.8 2.09

Mean High Water Neap (MHWN) 3.7 0.99

Mean Sea Level (MSL) 2.9 0.19

Mean Low Water Neap (MLWN) 2.0 -0.71

Mean Low Water Spring (MLWS) 0.7 -2.01

* Chart Datum correction for Ordnance Datum is -2.71m (relative to OD at Newlyn)

Extreme sea levels have been predicted around the whole UK coastline and published by the Environment

Agency/Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs report71. These extreme levels include the effects

of both tides and storm surge but not the effect of amplification within estuaries or sea lochs. In order to provide

better estimates around the Scottish coastline, SEPA have updated the original estimates72. As presented in Table

8.5, the SEPA derived extreme sea levels, predicted at a point within Stornoway Harbour, are 3.4m Above

Ordnance Datum (AOD) for the 1 in 200 year return period event and 3.51mAOD for the 1 in 1,000 year return

period event.

Table 8.5: Stornoway Harbour Extreme Sea Levels (SEPA Dataset)

Return Period (Years) Water Level (mCD) Water Level (mAOD)

2 5.69 2.98

5 5.78 3.07

10 5.85 3.14

50 5.99 3.28

100 6.05 3.34

200 6.11 3.40

1000 6.22 3.51

69 SEPA. Water Classification Hub: https://www.sepa.org.uk/data-visualisation/water-classification-hub/ 70 UKHO (2018). Admiralty Tide Tables Volume 1B: United Kingdom and Ireland (Excluding Isles of Scilly, English Channel to River Humber, Channel

Islands and European Channel Ports) 71 McMillan, A.; Batstone, C.; Worth, D.; Tawn, J.; Horsburgh, K. & Lawless, M. (2011). Coastal flood boundary conditions for UK mainland and islands; Project: SC060064/TR2: Design sea levels 72 SEPA (2014). Scottish Coastal Flood Boundary (CFB) Dataset



182

8.5.9 Tidal Currents

Tidal currents within the Stornoway Harbour embayment are insignificant73, generally no higher than 0.1m/s.

During flood tides the general tidal flow is from south-east to north-west, reversing on the ebb tide. Hydraulic

modelling undertaken for this EIA (Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA) indicates that the highest current

velocities within the harbour embayment are observed off the Reef Rock at Arnish Point during the flood tide

(above 0.14m/s), and off the Reef and Seid rocks (northern tip of Arnish Point) on the ebb tide (above 0.14m/s).

In the immediate vicinity of Goat Island the hydraulic modelling shows that the presence of the island and linking

causeway results in a slight increase in tidal velocities within the harbour channel to the west. The presence of

the shingle berm extending between Goat Island and the shore to the north also produces a slight increase in

tidal flow velocities locally during both the flood and ebb tide, with highest velocities (0.12m/s) on the ebb tide

(see Figures 5.3 and 5.4, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA).

8.5.10 Waves

The wave climate within the Stornoway Harbour embayment is dominated by locally generated wind waves, whilst standing wave oscillations (seiches) can occur within the harbour (up to 0.5m in amplitude) when atmospheric depressions pass northwards73. Wave modelling undertaken for this EIA (Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA) shows that waves approaching Newton Basin may consist of both waves originating from outside the harbour embayment, and those generated locally within the harbour. Waves entering the embayment from the Minch are generated during storms from the 90° to 195° directions (degrees from north in a clockwise direction), whilst the locally generated waves occur during storms from the 210° to 315° directions. The wave modelling indicates that Newton Basin is protected from those waves originating from outside the harbour embayment by the presence of the causeway linking Goat Island to the coast, and by the existing concrete breakwater extending north-west from the north-western end of the island (see Figure 6.2, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA). The modelling shows that the Newton Basin area is most exposed to locally generated waves from the west-north-west (285°). During a 1 in 50 year return period storm from this direction modelled significant wave heights within the majority of the basin range between 0.56 and 0.80m (See Figure 6.6, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA).

Further details of wave climate and modelling undertaken are presented within Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA.

8.5.11 Sediment Processes

A small quantity of silt and peat is deposited in Stornoway Harbour from the Glen River during high flow events.

Maintenance dredging of this material is infrequently required (once a decade) as a result73. The larger River

Creed also contributes little sediment to the embayment, with no evidence of active sediment processes. There

is therefore limited sediment input to Stornoway Harbour, with the majority of sediment present likely of glacial

origin. The European Nature Information System (EUNIS) seabed habitat map shows the dominant seabed

habitat within the harbour embayment to be rock or other hard strata, present within a low energy environment.

Sands are shown to be present within, and in the vicinity of, the proposed marina site74.

Analysis of the sediment samples collected during the geotechnical survey of the proposed dredge pocket

indicate that the local seabed sediment consists of two main types. Across the majority of the dredge area slightly

silty sandy gravel is present, whilst to the south-east of the proposed marina basin, sandy gravely silt is present

73 Ramsay, D. L. & Brampton, A. H. (2000). Coastal Cells in Scotland: Cells 8 & 9 - The Western Isles. SNH. 74 EMODnet (2017). European Nature Information System (EUNIS) seabed habitat map. http://www.emodnet-

seabedhabitats.eu/default.aspx?page=0



183

below -2.5 mCD (-5.21 mAOD), as summarised further in Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA. These

results highlight that negligible deposition of fine sediment has occurred within Newton Basin in the 70 plus years

since the construction of the linking causeway to Goat Island.

Given the weak tidal currents within the harbour embayment, and the lack of significant sediment input,

sediment transport within Stornoway Harbour is considered to be limited.

8.5.12 Flood Risk

Review of SEPA flood maps indicates that the proposed development site lies partly within the medium likelihood

(0.5% annual exceedance probability (AEP) or 1 in 200 year return period) coastal flood extent, and therefore be

at medium to high risk of coastal flooding. However, as outlined in the scoping response received from SEPA

(Error! Reference source not found.), the development is water compatible and therefore suitable for

development in this location. The SEPA response also states that land reclamation in undefended tidal areas is

unlikely to have any impact on water levels, and therefore consideration of compensatory storage is not required.

SEPA highlighted the requirement for all new development, unless operational reasons require otherwise, to be

situated above the 1 in 200 year extreme sea level of 3.4mAOD (6.11mCD) as presented in Table 8.5, and

including an additional 0.6m freeboard. The development has been designed in line with these stated levels, as

indicated on Figure 2.1, Volume 2 of the EIAR. Therefore flood risk is not considered further within this EIA.

8.5.13 Future Projections and Effects of Climate Change

The UK government has published a range of climate projection reports and data for use in the assessment of

climate change risks. At the time of writing the latest set of comprehensive reports produced by the UK Climate

Projections was published in 2009 (UKCP09)75, and provides relative sea level rise projections at a 25km grid

resolution.

Within the SEPA Flood Modelling Guidance for Responsible Authorities76, given subsequent developments in

scientific understanding following the publication of UKCP09, SEPA have adopted the UKCP09 2080 high

emissions scenario, 95%ile value of relative sea level rise for the production of their national coastal hazard maps.

The projected sea level rise to 2080 at Stornoway for this scenario is 0.53m relative to 1990 levels.

8.5.14 Sensitive Receptors

On the basis of the baseline assessment the sensitive receptors (SR) to potential impacts on the water

environment and coastal processes have been identified as the coastal waters and sediment of Newton Basin

and the wider Stornoway Harbour, including the associated designated areas in the vicinity of the proposed

development, the River Creed and the Glen River, and the existing outfalls in the vicinity of the site.

75 UKCP09 (n.d.). UK Climate Projections. http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/21678: Environment Agency & Met Office. 76 SEPA (n.d.). Flood Modelling Guidance for Responsible Authorities version 1.1.



184


8.6.1 Receptor Sensitivity

On the basis of the baseline assessment, Table 8.6 identifies the receptor sensitivity using the criteria outlined

in Table 8.1.

Table 8.6: Receptor Sensitivity

Receptor Sensitivity Comment

Coastal waters and sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Classified waterbody under WFD. Not an

internationally or nationally designated site.

Navigable waterbody used by commercial &

recreational vessels.

Inner Hebrides and the Minches

candidate Special Area of

Conservation (cSAC)

High Internationally or nationally designated site.

North East Lewis Proposed

Marine Protected Area (pMPA)

High Internationally or nationally designated site.

River Creed High Classified waterbody under WFD. Important for

angling.

Glen River Low Not classified as a surface water body under WFD.

Not an internationally or nationally designated

site.

Existing outfalls Medium Of local importance.

8.6.2 Potential Impacts

This section identifies the potential environmental impacts on the water environment and coastal processes, at

and around the site during the construction and operational phases of the proposed development.

The proposed works will involve the following key activities which have the potential to impact the water

environment within the site and environs:

Dredging of navigation channel and marina basin;

Construction activities (marina infrastructure including breakwater and pontoons);

Site surface water drainage; and

Marina operations.

The potential impacts on the water environment, soils and coastal processes include:

Water Environment:

o Contamination of coastal water and sediments through spillages, leakages and/or sediment

transfer (oils, fuels, boat wash, welfare facilities and suspended solids).

o Hydrology alterations including increased runoff, alteration of flow patterns and

hydromorphology.

Coastal Processes:

o Changes in local wave climate.

o Changes in local tidal regime.

o Changes in local sediment transport regime.



185

The potential interactions between water environment impacts and ecology are assessed within Chapter 5:

Marine Ecology.

The following sections consider the potential impacts and provide an assessment of likely level of significance.


The potential impacts identified are assessed under the following headings:

Hydrology;

Water and sediment quality;

Tidal regime;

Wave climate;

Sediment transport; and

Existing outfalls.

The degree of potential environmental impact is provided as appropriate.

8.6.3.1 Hydrology

During construction there is potential for increased runoff due to the introduction of impermeable and semi-

permeable surfaces arising from the disturbance of existing ground cover and construction of proposed

infrastructure. This could reduce the infiltration capacity and increase the rate and volume of direct surface

runoff. The potential environmental effect of this is to increase or alter flow rates and routes, potentially leading

to increases in erosion, sediment transport and associated hydro morphological impacts.

Given the coastal location of the proposed development, the nature of the existing surfaces, permeable nature

of the proposed surfaces, and the absence of draining watercourses, the potential impacts of surface water flow

alterations and increased runoff are considered to be of a negligible magnitude prior to mitigation.

8.6.3.2 Water and Sediment Quality

Sediment Discharge and Dispersion from Dredging Works

The proposed dredging works could potentially cause plumes of suspended solids and a reduction in water

quality with a resultant impact on aquatic life. As outlined in Section 8.5.11 and Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume

3 of the EIA, the sampling information available indicates that the bed sediments within the proposed dredge

pocket consist of gravels, sands and silts.

Dredge sediment dispersion modelling has been undertaken to facilitate assessment of impact (Technical

Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA). The dispersion modelling has been undertaken through use of coupled

hydrodynamic and sediment transport techniques using the MIKE by DHI software platform, accounting for the

potential transport of all dredge material up to the very coarse sand fraction (2mm). Initial investigations found

that due to the slack currents within Stornoway Harbour larger heavier fractions will settle out within the dredge

area, rather than be subject to dispersion, and therefore these fractions have not been included within the

modelling.

Two alternative dredging scenarios have been modelled. Under the initial scenario modelling has been

undertaken on the assumption that all dredging will be carried out by Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD), while under

the second scenario modelling has been undertaken assuming that a backhoe dredger will be utilised for dredging

of the silt fraction. Under both scenarios it is assumed that the dredger would be working on a 12hr/day basis

(8am – 8pm) over a 60 day dredge period, around 50 days for the sands and gravels, and 10 days for the silt

fraction. This is considered a conservative approach given that although elsewhere within this EIAR a 24-hour



186

period is used, under these circumstances the rate of potential dredging loss will be greater per hour should a

12 hour assumption be used over the same 60 day dredge period.

For the initial scenario losses from the CSD cutter head have been taken as 5% of the sand and silt fractions, and

overspill from the placement area for dredge arisings assumed to be 4.5% of the silt fraction. The assumptions

about losses from dredging used in the sediment dispersion model are considered to be conservative. Losses

under the second scenario are considerably lower, as the backhoe dredger could load into a barge with no

overspill.

The results of the dispersion modelling under the initial scenario indicate that the maximum increase in

suspended sediment concentration (SSC) outside the dredge area, and immediate surrounds, is less than 340mg/l

throughout the dredging campaign, with a peak value of less than 280mg/l in the north harbour. Further from

the dredge area this value is less than 100mg/l (see Figure 8.6, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA).

These maximum (peak) values in SSC may occur only for a limited time during the dredging campaign, therefore

consideration has also been given to the mean increase in total SSC. The modelling results indicate that outside

the dredge area and immediate vicinity, the mean value increase in SSC is generally less than 130mg/l, with a

mean value in the north harbour of 80mg/l. Further from the dredge area this mean value is less than 50mg/l.

Within the dredge area the mean value increase is up to 300mg/l (see Figure 8.7, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume

3 of the EIA).

Under the second scenario the results of the dispersion modelling indicate that the maximum increase in

suspended sediment concentrations (SSCs) outside the dredge area, and immediate surrounds, is less than

260mg/l throughout the dredging campaign, with a peak value of around 180 mg/l in the north harbour. Further

from the dredge area this value is less than 100mg/l (see Figure 8.10, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the

EIA). As for the initial scenario these maximum (peak) values in SSC may occur only for a limited time during the

dredging campaign, therefore consideration has also been given to the mean increase in total SSC. The modelling

results indicate that outside the dredge area and immediate vicinity, the mean value increase in SSC is generally

less than 110mg/l, with a mean value in the north harbour of less than 70mg/l. Further from the dredge area this

mean value is less than 30mg/l. Within the dredge area the mean value increase is generally less than 210mg/l

(see Figure 8.11, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA).

The modelling undertaken presents the likely pattern of deposition of sand and silt at the end of the dredging

campaign. The results under the initial scenario show that the majority of sand and silt lost to the water column

during dredging will remain within the dredge area. Outside the dredge area the modelling indicates that

deposition depths will be insignificant, generally less than 1mm (see Figure 8.8, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume

3 of the EIA).

It is considered that the operation of dredging on a 24hr/day basis would produce similar results to those

described above. For the 24hr/day operation dredging losses would be lower per hour over the 60 day dredge

period, resulting in initially lower SSC within the basin. However, over time the concentrations would increase to

match those observed during the modelled scenarios. Further from the dredge zone there would be no significant

difference between SSC under 12 and 24hr/day dredging operations.

Overall it is considered that prior to mitigation the magnitude of impact of sediment discharge and dispersion

from dredging works will be low within the dredge area, and negligible out with this area in the wider Stornoway

Harbour embayment.

Pollution Incidences

During construction there is a risk of accidental pollution incidences affecting the water environment (i.e. coastal

waters and sediment) from the following sources:

Spillage or leakage of oils and fuels stored on site;



187

Spillage or leakage of oils and fuels from construction machinery or site vehicles;

Spillage of oil or fuel from refuelling machinery on site;

Spillage or leakage from on-site toilet facilities;

Suspended solids from construction works; and

The use of concrete and cement in construction works.

The main risk is considered to be posed by refuelling activities. Oil or fuel spillages to the water environment

would be detrimental to water/sediment quality and could affect fauna and flora. Concrete (specifically the

cement component) is generally highly alkaline and any spillage to the water environment and/or soils could be

detrimental to water/sediment quality, fauna and flora.

The effect of the potential pollution incidences during construction on water quality would be dependent on the

scale and nature of the incident, therefore the magnitude of impact prior to mitigation may range from low to

high.

8.6.3.3 Tidal Regime

The proposed construction works, including the proposed capital dredge requirement, could result in alterations

to local tidal currents. Hydrodynamic modelling has been undertaken using the MIKE by DHI software platform,

to simulate over one month of tidal conditions with and without the proposed development, to inform the

assessment of the likely impact on tidal regime within the harbour embayment (Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume

3 of the EIA).

Details of tidal water levels within Stornoway Harbour embayment are presented in Section 8.5.8. Comparison

of the modelling results with and without the proposed development (Figure 5.7 & 5.8, Technical Appendix 8.2,

Volume 3 of the EIA) highlights that there will be no significant impact on tidal levels during a spring tidal cycle.

Hydrodynamic modelling results allow comparison of both flood and ebb tidal currents during a spring tidal cycle,

with and without the proposed development. Comparison of the model results for the mid flood spring tidal

currents (Figure 5.9, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA) indicates that there would be only very minor

and localised variations in tidal velocity (<0.05m/s) within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development.

Outside the immediate vicinity of the proposed development comparison of modelling results indicates there

would be no significant impact on tidal velocities during the flood tide. Similarly, on the ebb tide comparison of

modelling results (Figure 5.10, Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA) indicates a minor localised variations

in current velocity, the presence of the dredged channel produces a slight increase in tidal velocity (~0.03m/s),

however velocities remain very low. Again, outside the immediate vicinity of the proposed development

comparison of modelling results indicates there would be no significant impact on tidal velocities during the ebb

tide.

As outlined in Section 8.5.9, tidal currents within the Stornoway Harbour embayment are generally weak, whilst

the modelling results presented above indicate that the proposed development will produce only very minor

localised variations in current velocities. It is considered that these variations are insignificant in terms of the

wider hydrodynamic regime of Stornoway Harbour.

Overall, the impact of the proposed development on the tidal regime within Stornoway Harbour is considered to

be of negligible magnitude.

8.6.3.4 Wave Climate

The proposed development, including the proposed capital dredge requirement, could result in alterations to

local wave climate within Newton Basin, and the wider Stornoway Harbour embayment. Spectral and Boussinesq

wave modelling has been undertaken using the MIKE by DHI software platform, to inform the assessment of the

likely impact on the wave climate (Technical Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA).



188

As outlined in Section 8.5.10 the proposed development site is most exposed to locally generated waves from

the west-north-west (285°). Modelling results show that during a 1 in 50 year return period storm from 285° the

proposed development produces a decrease in significant wave height within Newton Basin (Figure 6.7, Technical

Appendix 8.2, Volume 3 of the EIA). Outside Newton Basin the modelling indicates that the proposed

development will have no significant impact on wave climate. During storms from the west-north-west the

proposed breakwater will cause some reflection of waves, however these waves would be of low magnitude (~

<0.3m height) and would be attenuated by interaction with incoming waves.

Wave disturbance modelling has been undertaken to assess and inform marina design, this provides information

on wave reflection within the marina basin. The modelling results indicate that wave heights in the outer berths

during storm events are higher than the ideal heights recommended for year round berthing. However, berths

have been arranged so that boats in this area will be moored head on to the wave direction, providing a degree

of mitigation.

Overall, the impact of the proposed development on the wave climate within Stornoway Harbour is considered

to be of negligible magnitude.

8.6.3.5 Sediment Transport

As outlined in Section 8.5.11, given the weak tidal currents and lack of significant sediment input to the harbour

embayment, sediment transport is considered to be limited. Sections 8.6.3.3 and 8.6.3.4 highlight that the

proposed development will have limited impact upon the tidal regime and wave climate within Newton Basin,

and no significant impact within the wider harbour embayment. Therefore, given the absence of significant

sediment transport, and the predicted lack of significant impact upon the key drivers of sediment transport as

the result of the proposed construction, it is considered that the impact of the proposed development on

sediment transport within Stornoway Harbour will be of negligible magnitude.

8.6.3.6 Existing Outfalls

The existing outfalls present within the vicinity of the development site are outside the footprint of the proposed

works and will therefore not be physically impacted. Additionally as outlined in sections 8.6.3.3 and 8.6.3.4, the

proposed development will have limited impact upon the tidal regime and wave climate within Newton Basin,

and no significant impact within the wider harbour embayment. Therefore it is considered that there will be no

significant impact on the existing outfalls within Newton Basin, or in the vicinity, as a result of the proposed

development.

Overall, the impact of the proposed development on the existing outfalls highlighted in Section 8.5.6 is

considered to be of negligible magnitude.


The potential impacts identified are assessed under the following headings:

Hydrology;

Water and sediment quality;

Tidal regime;

Wave climate;

Sediment transport; and

Existing outfalls.

The degree of potential environmental impact is provided as appropriate.



189

8.6.4.1 Hydrology

As during construction, there is potential for increased runoff due to the presence of impermeable and semi-

permeable surfaces. The impact of surface water flow alterations and increased runoff would be of a negligible

magnitude prior to mitigation measures due to the coastal location of the development.

8.6.4.2 Water and Sediment Quality

During the operational phase there is unlikely to be any regular requirement for maintenance dredging, given

the absence of significant sediment supply and transport within the harbour embayment. However, should

maintenance dredging be required the likely effects would be of a similar nature, albeit lower order, than that of

the capital dredge during construction.

There is unlikely to be any groundworks or bare exposed ground during the operational phase, and therefore the

risk of erosion and sedimentation will be much lower than during construction. The potential risk of pollution

from spillages will however remain during the operational phase. Additionally, there is the potential risk of

contamination of surface water runoff from the development platform, including boat wash and maintenance

facilities, as well as contamination of coastal waters as a result of discharges from visiting boats.

The impacts on water quality would therefore range from low to high magnitude prior to mitigation measures.

8.6.4.3 Tidal Regime

The impact of the proposed development during the operational phase on the tidal regime within Stornoway

Harbour is considered to be the same as during the construction phase. Therefore the magnitude of impact on

the tidal regime is considered to be negligible.

8.6.4.4 Wave Climate

The impact of the proposed development during the operational phase on the wave climate within Stornoway


the wave climate is considered to be negligible.

8.6.4.5 Sediment Transport

The impact of the proposed development during the operational phase on sediment transport within Stornoway


sediment transport is considered to be negligible.

8.6.4.6 Existing Outfalls

The impact of the proposed development during the operational phase on existing outfalls is considered to be

the same as during the construction phase. Therefore the magnitude of impact on existing outfalls is considered

to be negligible.


8.6.5.1 Fish Processing Factory

A new fish processing factory on Goat Island is proposed under a separate planning application. The factory

development will not involve any change to the existing topography of Goat Island, or the bathymetry of the

surrounding coastal waters. It is therefore considered that there will be no significant impact on the water

environment or coastal processes as a result of the factory proposals.



190

8.6.5.2 Deep Water Port

The proposed Deep Water Port is situated in Glumaig Bay, at Arnish Point, near the mouth of Stornoway Harbour

embayment. The port development is the subject of a separate EIA, for which hydrodynamic, wave and sediment

dispersion modelling have also been undertaken.

As outlined in Sections 8.6.3 and 8.6.4 of this chapter of the EIA, the potential impacts of the proposed Newton

Marina development are considered to be minimal and localised, with no significant impact predicted in the

wider Stornoway Harbour, or specifically in the vicinity of the proposed Deep Water Port. Equally, modelling and

assessment undertaken for the Deep Water Port EIA has found that the port development will only have localised

impacts, with no significant impact on the wider Stornoway Harbour embayment, or within the vicinity of Newton

Basin and the proposed marina development.

8.6.5.3 Western Isles HVDC Link

The proposed Western Isles HVDC Link is to make landfall on the southern coast of Arnish Point, with a substation

compound to be situated in the vicinity of the proposed Deep Water Port development site. The nature and

positioning of the proposed HVDC Link infrastructure outside the waters of Stornoway Harbour embayment is

such that it is considered there will no significant impact on Newton Basin, or the wider Stornoway Harbour.

Overall it is considered that the cumulative impacts of the proposed development and the above nearby

developments would not significantly impact the water environment or coastal processes of Stornoway Harbour.

The cumulative effects are therefore considered to be of negligible magnitude. It is however recommended that

the site monitoring plan takes into consideration the presence of the above sites.


Mitigation aims to avoid, manage, control and further minimise environmental impacts. Two forms of mitigation

are applicable to the potential impacts predicted:

Design led active mitigation; and

Procedural and best practice mitigation.


Design led mitigation that has been applied can be summarised as follows:

Site investigation has determined the nature of dredge sediments, and the vast majority of material is

considered suitable for reuse on site during construction. This is covered in the Best Practicable

Environmental Option report (separate to this EIA but forming part of the Dredge and Disposal Licence

to which this EIAR relates). Any material found to be unsuitable for reuse will be disposed of to sea

under licence to a designated offshore disposal site.

Hydrodynamic, wave and sediment dispersion modelling has been undertaken to validate the outline

design of the proposed development.


8.7.2.1 General Management

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be developed to ensure that the mitigation

measures outlined in the EIA are followed during the proposed construction works. The CEMP will include surface

water management and pollution prevention measures (e.g. Pollution Prevention Plan), and will be in place

during construction and operation. The CEMP will remain a live document and will be continually updated as the

work progresses. The CEMP will be developed as a practical tool to facilitate the management of environmental



191

mitigation measures and to provide a clear roadmap of the key roles and responsibilities during construction. All

mitigation measures will be incorporated into the CEMP, which will include detailed Construction Method

Statements (CMS). The CEMP will be submitted prior to commencement of the works for approval by CnES, in

consultation with SEPA and other agencies such as Marine Scotland and SNH.

A suitably qualified Environmental Clerk of Works (EnvCoW) will monitor the construction works to ensure that

the CEMP and associated mitigation measures are being implemented effectively.

Best practice will be adopted throughout all phases of development, following current guidance as listed in

Section 8.3. The programme of works, including timing, direction and method of capital dredge, will be planned,

monitored and managed to minimise the potential negative environmental impacts.

A pollution incident response plan will be set out in the EMP relating to the construction of the proposed

development, statutory requirements and identification of areas of highest sensitivity. This will provide site spill

response procedures, emergency contact details and equipment inventories and their location. All staff will be

made aware of this document and its content during site induction. A copy will be available in the site office at

all times.

It is anticipated that a monitoring plan will be implemented. The aim of this will be to characterise the baseline

conditions prior to construction works commencing and to continue throughout the construction phase to

confirm that the mitigation measures are performing as expected. The monitoring plan will be established and

implemented with the agreement of SEPA and Marine Scotland, and will be incorporated into the EMP.

It is considered that the following elements would be included within the agreed monitoring plan:

Regular visual inspection of:

o Harbour waters, more frequent during periods of dredging activity, in order to monitor levels

of sediment suspension and dispersion.

o Surface water management features such as silt traps to check for appropriate performance,

blockages and to establish whether there are increased levels of suspended sediment, erosion

of deposition

o Active areas, particularly where surface cover has been stripped and storage areas to establish

whether there are increased levels of erosion.

Water quality monitoring: A monitoring plan, covering baseline, construction and post-construction will

be agreed with SEPA and Marine Scotland.

Monitoring as required to satisfy the conditions of any future discharge licence(s) or other

environmental legislation.

Monitoring following any pollution incidents.

On-going liaison with SEPA and Marine Scotland as required during construction.

All activities with potential to affect the water environment require to be authorised under the Water

Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR). The level of authorisation required is

dependent on the anticipated environmental risk posed by the activity to be carried out. These activities could

include construction drainage.

8.7.2.2 Silt dispersion during reclamation

Dispersion of silt during reclamation operations will be avoided by lining the retention bunds with a geotextile

liner. The pipes to discharge water from the reclamation area will be fitted with silt traps to prevent silt return

to the basin. The silt traps will be inspected regularly to ensure that they are functioning.

8.7.2.3 Surface Water Management

Details of proposed surface water drainage, including silt attenuation proposals and methodology, will be

included within the CEMP and will be submitted to SEPA’s operations team for agreement prior to works



192

commencing. The surface water drainage will be designed to ensure that there are no untreated surface water

discharges directly to surrounding coastal waters. It is proposed to replicate natural drainage around

construction areas and to use source control to deal with rainwater in proximity to where it hits the ground in

line with current SuDS guidance. Suitable prevention measures will be in place at all times to prevent the release

of pollutants to the water environment, including adjacent coastal waters. These will be regularly inspected and

maintained to ensure optimal performance.

8.7.2.4 Site Compounds

Runoff from compounds will be captured and passed through construction drainage features prior to discharge.

Foul drainage will either be contained in a closed system and disposed of at a suitable off-site facility or directed

via a temporary connection to the Scottish Water foul drainage system (subject to the consent of Scottish Water).

8.7.2.5 Concrete

There is unlikely to be concrete batching undertaken on-site. However, in the case that batching was to be

undertaken on-site the following mitigation measures would be implemented to minimise the potential impact

of concrete batching on the water environment in line with PPG6:

Concrete batching will take place on an impermeable designated area and at least 10m from any

waterbody.

Equipment and vehicles will be washed out in a designated area that has been specifically designed to

contain wet concrete/ wash water.

A closed loop system will be used for wash waters. Wash waters will be stored in a contained lined pond

for settlement before being reused (e.g. for mixing and washing).

No discharge of wash waters will occur on-site. All excess wash water that cannot be reused will be

disposed of off-site.

The following mitigation is proposed for concrete handling and placement:

Pouring of concrete will take place within well shuttered pours to prevent egress of concrete from the

pour area.

Pouring of concrete during adverse weather conditions will be avoided.

The CEMP will include a Pollution Incident Response Plan, and drivers of vehicles carrying concrete will

be informed so as to raise awareness of potential effects of concrete and of the procedures for clean-

up of any accidental spills.

Concrete acidity (pH) will be as close to neutral (or site-specific pH) as practicable as a further precaution against

spills or leakage.

8.7.2.6 Oil, Fuel, Site Vehicle Use and Storage

The risk of oil contamination will be minimised by good site working practice (further described below) but should

a higher risk of oil contamination be identified then installation of an oil separator will be considered.

The storage of oil is considered a Controlled Activity which will be deemed to be authorised if it complies with

the Regulations. The mitigation measures to minimise any risk of contaminant release are in line with SEPA PPG

and GPP documents and include the following:

Storage:

o Storage for oil and fuels on site will be designed to be compliant with GPP 2 and 8.

o The storage and use of loose drums of fuel on site will be not permitted.

o The bund will provide storage of at least 110% of the tank’s maximum capacity.

Refuelling and maintenance:

o Fuelling and maintenance of vehicles and machinery, and cleaning of tools, will be carried out

in a designated area where possible in line with PPG 7.



193

o Multiple spill kits will be kept on site.

o Drip trays will be used while refuelling.

o Regular inspection and maintenance of vehicles, tanks and bunds will be undertaken.

Emergency procedure: The Pollution Incident Response Plan will include measures to deal with accidental

spillages.

8.7.3 Operational Phase Mitigation

8.7.3.1 General Management

An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will be in place throughout the operational phase. Best practice will

be followed throughout the operational phase, with reference to the SEPA Guidance for Pollution Prevention

(GPPs), and best practice outlined in The Green Blue: The Green Guide For Marinas, as outlined in Section 8.3.3.

The Port Authority has an Oil Spillage Contingency Plan. This will be updated for the marina development and

inclusion within the EMP, taking full consideration of best practice, statutory requirements and identification of

areas of highest sensitivity. This will provide site spill response procedures, emergency contact details and

equipment inventories and their location. All operation staff will be made aware of this document, and its

contents, and it will be available in the port office. Appropriate spill kits and absorbent materials will be stored

in a suitable location which is easy to access. Staff/contractors will be trained in the use of spill kits and other

pollution control equipment and the operation of pollution control devices.

8.7.3.4 Surface Water Management

Proposals for surface water management within the marina development are presented in Figure 2.3, Volume 2

of the EIA. It is proposed that drainage of surface water will be by means of infiltration through a permeable

gravel surface, and the underlying permeable reclamation fill, providing treatment as presented in the SIA

calculation, Technical Appendix 8.3, Volume 3 of the EIAR.

The rationale for this proposal is that the access roads and car parking areas have a low pollution hazard level.

This has been determined by reference to the land use classification set out in Table 26.2 of the CIRIA SUDS

Manual C753. The land use has been assessed as low traffic roads and non-residential parking with infrequent

change (less than 300 vehicle movements per day). Details of the anticipated operational traffic associated with

the project are set out in Chapter 9 of this EIAR. Details of the operational surface water management proposals

and methodology will be included within the CEMP and will be submitted to SEPA’s operations team for

agreement consent. Plans of the surface water management system will be located within the Port Authority

office, with foul water systems clearly marked.

Future proposed development on the site includes a boatshed and boat washdown facility (as located on Figure

2.1, Volume 2 of the EIA), this is to be subject to a separate planning application as outlined in Chapter 2 of this

EIAR. Detailed drainage proposals for this development will be included within the application, and where the

development proposal is such that it will require a Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) authorisation from

SEPA, then specific processes, techniques and technologies will be included within the surface water

management system in that location in order to meet the requirements of the PPC authorisation. Such measures

would be in line with best practice guidance (refer to section 8.3.3).

Pump out facilities will be provided to enable berth holders and visitors to empty holding tanks, whilst land-

based toilet facilities will be connected to the public foul sewer.

The Port Authority’s conditions for users of the pontoons and boat storage will include instructions on pollution

prevention. For example, boat owners will be required to put down trays and tarpaulins to collect paint scrapings,

and other debris, and to dispose of the collected detritus at the designated waste collection point at the marina,

as recommended in SEPA PPG 14.



194

8.7.3.2 Oil, Fuel, Site Vehicle Use and Storage

The boat hoist will be stored adjoining the boat lift structure. The Port Authority will inspect the boat hoist on a

weekly basis to check for signs of hydraulic oil and fuel leakage. Fuel collars and drip trays will be used to contain

any spillage from re-fuelling of the boat hoist. The development proposals do not include new re-fuelling facilities

for boats.

Fuel will be contained in a double bunded, sealed fuel tank. Chemicals will be stored in a bunded secure

compound with an impervious base. Moveable plant will be inspected daily to check for signs of fuel and oil

leakage. Fuel collars and drip trays will be used to contain any spillage from re-fuelling of moveable plant. All

wastes will be stored in designated areas that are bunded to contain any spillage.


The residual effects expected to arise following implementation of the mitigation measures detailed above are

summarised within Table 8.7. These residual effects reflect receptor sensitivity, the post-mitigation magnitude

and detail the resultant effect on each receptor. The residual effects are considered to be either minor or

negligible, and accordingly no significant effects have been identified.



195

Table 8.7: Residual Effects

Effect Receptor Receptor

Sensitivity

Source of Impact Type of

Effect

Duration Probability of

Occurrence

Magnitude of

Impact Pre-

mitigation

Magnitude of Impact

Post-mitigation

Residual Effect

(Post-mitigation)

Construction Phase

Hydrology

alterations

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Construction

surface water

drainage

Negative Short Possible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Sediment

discharge and

dispersion

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Construction

including

capital dredge

Negative Short Possible Low Low Minor

Marine

designations

High Construction

including

capital dredge

Negative Short Unlikely Negligible Negligible Negligible

River Creed High Construction

including

capital dredge


Glen River Low Construction

including

capital dredge


Pollution

incidences

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Construction

oils, fuels &

concrete

Negative Short Possible Low – High Low Minor

Changes to

tidal regime

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Construction

including

capital dredge

Negative Permanent Likely Negligible Negligible Negligible

Marine

designations

High Construction

including

capital dredge

Negative Permanent Unlikely Negligible Negligible Negligible



196


Sensitivity


Effect


Occurrence

Magnitude of

Impact Pre-

mitigation

Magnitude of Impact

Post-mitigation

Residual Effect

(Post-mitigation)


including

capital dredge



including

capital dredge


Existing outfalls Medium Construction

including

capital dredge


Changes to

wave climate

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Construction

including

capital dredge


Marine

designations

High Construction

including

capital dredge



including

capital dredge



including

capital dredge


Existing outfalls Medium Construction

including

capital dredge


Changes to

sediment

transport

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Construction

including

capital dredge


Marine

designations

High Construction

including

capital dredge




197


Sensitivity


Effect


Occurrence

Magnitude of

Impact Pre-

mitigation

Magnitude of Impact

Post-mitigation

Residual Effect

(Post-mitigation)


including

capital dredge



including

capital dredge


Operational Phase

Hydrology

alterations

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Development

surface water

drainage

Negative Permanent Possible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Sediment

discharge

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Development

surface water

drainage

Negative Short Possible Low Negligible Negligible

Pollution

incidences

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Operation oils

& fuels

Negative Short Possible Low – High Low Minor

Changes to

tidal regime

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Operational

marina

including any

maintenance

dredge


Marine

designations

High Operational

marina

including any

maintenance

dredge




198


Sensitivity


Effect


Occurrence

Magnitude of

Impact Pre-

mitigation

Magnitude of Impact

Post-mitigation

Residual Effect

(Post-mitigation)

River Creed High Operational

marina

including any

maintenance

dredge


Existing outfalls Medium Operational

marina

including any

maintenance

dredge


Changes to

wave climate

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Operational

marina

including any

maintenance

dredge


Marine

designations

High Operational

marina

including any

maintenance

dredge



marina

including any

maintenance

dredge


Existing outfalls Medium Operational

marina

including any

maintenance

dredge




199


Sensitivity


Effect


Occurrence

Magnitude of

Impact Pre-

mitigation

Magnitude of Impact

Post-mitigation

Residual Effect

(Post-mitigation)

Changes to

sediment

transport

Coastal waters &

sediment of

Stornoway Harbour

Medium Operational

marina

including any

maintenance

dredge


Marine

designations

High Operational

marina

including any

maintenance

dredge



marina

including any

maintenance

dredge




200


Overall the effects of the proposed development on the water environment, soils and coastal processes are not

considered to be significant.



201

9 CHAPTER 9: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT

9.1 Introduction

This chapter considers the potential effects on the surrounding road network and nearby sensitive receptors as

a result of the construction and operation of a new marina development on Goat Island in Stornoway, Isle of

Lewis and Harris, hereafter referred to as the ‘proposed development’. The key objectives of this chapter are to:

• Describe the assessment methodology and significance criteria used in completing the assessment;

• Describe the study area and existing local and strategic road networks;

• Identify and assess the likely impact of increased traffic levels and associated environmental effects;

• Identify and describe the mitigation measures proposed to address any significant effects; and

• Assess any residual effects post mitigation implementation.

This Traffic and Transport Chapter and the associated Transport Assessment (TA) (contained within Technical

Appendix 9.1 of Volume 3) related to the proposed development have been prepared by SYSTRA Ltd.


In undertaking the assessment, consideration has been given to the scoping responses from Comhairle nan Eilean

Siar (CnES) and Marine Scotland. The responses are detailed in Table 9.1.



CnES

(03/11/2017)

Agree that potentially significant effects

from construction related traffic be

scoped into the EIA.

Noted.

The applicant should note that

appropriate measures will need to be

maintained for personnel of the MCA

Coastguard Station and its emergency

response team.

Noted, a Construction Traffic Management

Plan is proposed as part of mitigation, to

manage the proposed development’s impact

on the MCA Coastguard Station and other

existing users of the causeway road. This

would be prepared at a post-consent stage.

If it is determined that there will be

overlap with the Stornoway Deep Water

Port application which is also coming

forward, the EIA should include an

assessment of the cumulative impact of

the Project with other planned

developments.

Noted, the potential for a cumulative traffic

impact associated with the construction or

operation of the Stornoway Deep Water Port

development coinciding with the proposed

development will be considered within this

chapter.



202


Marine Scotland

(09/03/2018)

During the construction phases of the

proposed works, safe operation of the

harbour will need to be considered to

reduce the navigation risk to other

vessels. Marine Scotland recommend

the implementation of a Safety

Management System to manage

incidents and risks, including severe

storms and transport accidents.

This is addressed within Chapter 10: Other

Issues. SPA has an existing Safety

Management System; this complies with the

Port Marine Safety Code. This contains

procedures for managing navigation risk

during and after works within the Harbour

area. SPA will issue a Notice to Mariners for

any temporary or permanent impacts of

works on navigation. SPA’s Pilotage

Committee will also consider whether

changes require re-training of pilots or

holders of a Pilot Exemption Certificate.

With respect to impacts to recreational

users, the Royal Yachting Associated

noted their concern over losing

anchorage and berth during

construction.

There are no existing authorised moorings or

berths affected by the project. This is

addressed within Chapter 10: Other Issues.

9.2.1 Scope of the Assessment

The assessment is made with reference to the proposed development, as described in Chapter 2: Proposed

Development. Within the study area (identified in Section 9.4.1), the traffic and transport effects on the road

network as a result of traffic generated by the construction phase and operation of the proposed development

have been considered, with particular attention paid to heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements.

The assessment is structured around the consideration of the potential environmental effects related to traffic

and transport as identified by the IEMA Guidelines:

• Severance;

• Driver Delay;

• Pedestrian Delay;

• Pedestrian Amenity;

• Accidents and Safety; and

• Dust and Dirt.

9.2.2 Effects Scoped Out

The IEMA Guidelines also refer to the following effects which can be attributed to traffic and transport:

• Visual effects;

• Noise; and

• Hazardous loads.

Visual effects and noise are covered in separate chapters respectively within this EIA Report77 and therefore,

have been ‘scoped out’ of this Traffic and Transport chapter. No hazardous loads are associated with the

proposed development, therefore this effect has not been assessed.

77 Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual; Chapter 7: Noise



203


This chapter has been prepared taking cognisance of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations). The following data sources and guidelines have been used to

inform this assessment.

• The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (2012);

• The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2 (at ‘Examination Stage’ at time of writing).

• Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) publication - “Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment”,

1998;

• Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) publication - “Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment

of Road Traffic”, 1993;

• Department for Transport (DfT) publication “Design Manual for Roads and Bridges” (DMRB); and

• DfT 2016 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) flows for four locations within the study area.

9.4 Methodology

The methodology used in this assessment adheres to that set out in the IEMA Guidelines. The guidelines suggest

that to determine the scale and extent of the assessment and the level of effect the development will have on

the surrounding road network, the following two ‘rules’ should be followed:

• Rule 1 - Include road links where flows are predicted to increase by more than 30% (10% if affecting a

sensitive area) or where the number of HGVs is predicted to increase by more than 30%; and

• Rule 2 - Include any other specifically sensitive areas where traffic flows are predicted to increase by

10% or more.

Rules 1 and 2 are used to determine whether or not a full assessment of effects on routes within the study area

is required as a result of intensification of road traffic.

Paragraph 2.5 of the IEMA Guidelines identifies groups, locations and special interests which may be sensitive to

changes in traffic conditions as follows:

• People at home;

• People in work places;

• Sensitive groups including children, elderly and disabled;

• Sensitive locations, e.g. hospitals, churches, schools, historic buildings;

• People walking or cycling;

• Open spaces, recreational sites, shopping areas; and

• Sites of ecological / nature conservation value tourist attractions.

The significance of each impact is considered against the criteria within the guidelines, where possible however,

the guidelines state that:

“For many effects there are no simple rules or formulae which define the thresholds of

significance and there is, therefore, a need for interpretation and judgement on the part of

the assessor, backed-up by data or quantified information wherever possible. Such

judgements will include the assessment of the numbers of people experiencing a change in

environmental impact as well as the assessment of the damage to various natural

resources.”

The significance falls into two categories; significant and not significant. The former corresponding to significant

effects in accordance with the EIA Regulations.



204

9.5 Study Area

The study area for the traffic and transport assessment has been predicated on the location of the access point

to the proposed development, the proposed routes to the access from the external road network and the

potential routes staff may take to reach the proposed development. To determine appropriate routes to the

proposed development, a detailed assessment of the surrounding road network has been undertaken. The study

area is indicated by Figure 9.1 in Volume 2 of this EIA Report and is as follows:

• The Goat Island Causeway;

• Newton Street;

• Island Road;

• Matheson Road;

• The A857 between the roundabout with Matheson Road and the junction with the B895 (Macauley

Road); and

• The A859 Willowglen Road.

9.5.1.1 Desk Based Research and Data Sources

The traffic and transport study area characteristics have been determined by a desk based assessment, a site

visit (January 2018), a commissioned Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) survey and peak period Junction Turning

Count Surveys (JTC) factored up to represent 18 hour annual average weekly traffic (AAWT) flows. Described

below is the source of the traffic count information at each of the road links identified in the study area. These

are also indicated by Figure 9.2.

1. Commissioned ATC survey Tuesday 24th April to Thursday 26th April – represents traffic flows for the

Causeway;

2. 18 hr AAWT flows from JTC survey of the Newton Street / Island Road junction– represents traffic flows

for Newton Street;

3. 18 hr AAWT flows from JTC survey of Newton Street / Island Road junction – represents traffic flows for

Island Road;

4. Commissioned ATC survey Tuesday 24th April to Thursday 26th April – represents traffic flows for the

Matheson Road;

5. 18 hr AAWT flows from JTC survey of Manor Roundabout – represents traffic flows for the A857

Macauley Road; and

6. 18 hr AAWT flows from JTC survey of Manor Roundabout – represents traffic flows for the A859

Willowglen Road.

9.5.1.2 Sensitive Receptors

Based on the descriptions in Section 9.3 from the IEMA guidelines and professional judgement, this assessment

considered Newton Street, Matheson Road and the A857 Macauley Road to be sensitive receptors considering

that these areas are predominantly residential and will have pedestrians present in these areas. Rule 1 (30%

change in traffic flows or HGV levels) applies all traffic counter locations within the study area. Rule 2 (10% change

in total traffic flows) will therefore be applied when assessing the change in total traffic levels at Traffic Counters

2, 4 and 5 as per the IEMA Guidelines.

9.5.2 Assessing Significance

The following paragraphs set out the methodology used to assess the significance of effects at locations along

the routes within the study area where total traffic levels or the level of HGV traffic exceeds the Screening

thresholds set out by IEMA Rules 1 or 2 (depending on the sensitivity of the receptor) described in Section 7.0

above.



205

9.5.3 Sensitivity

The sensitivity to change in traffic levels of any given road segment or junction is generally assessed by

considering the residual capacity of the network under existing conditions. Where there is a high degree of

residual capacity, the network may readily accept and absorb an increase in traffic and therefore the sensitivity

may be said to be low. Conversely, where the existing traffic levels are high compared to the road capacity, there

is little spare capacity and the sensitivity to any change in traffic levels would be considered high.

The criteria that has been used to make judgements on the importance / sensitivity of the receptor(s) is

presented in Table 9.2.

Table 9.2: Receptor Sensitivity

Receptor Sensitivity /

Importance

Description

High Receptors of greatest sensitivity to traffic flow: schools, colleges, playgrounds,

accident blackspots, retirement homes, urban/residential roads without footways

that are used by pedestrians. (Paragraph 2.5 IEMA Guidelines, 1993)

Medium Traffic flow sensitive receptors including: congested junctions, doctors’ surgeries,

hospitals, shopping areas with roadside frontage, roads with narrow footways, un-

segregated cycleways, community centres, parks, recreation facilities.

Low Receptors with some sensitivity to traffic flow: places of worship, public open space,

nature conservation areas, listed buildings, tourist attractions and residential areas

with adequate footway provision.

Negligible Receptors with low sensitivity to traffic flows and those sufficiently distant from

affected roads and junctions.

9.5.4 Magnitude

The magnitude of traffic impacts is a function of the existing traffic volumes, the percentage increase and change

due to a development, the changes in type of traffic, and the temporal distribution of traffic (day of the week,

time of day). The determination of magnitude has been undertaken by reviewing the Proposal, establishing

parameters of the road that may be affected and quantifying these effects utilising IEMA Guidelines and

professional judgement.

The criteria that has been used to make judgement on the magnitude of the effect on the receptor(s) is presented

in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3: Magnitude of Effect


Substantial The proposals could result in a significant change in terms of length and / or duration

to the present traffic routes or schedules or activities, which may result in hardship.

Generally regarded as a change in traffic flow over 90% (or over 70% in sensitive

areas).

Moderate The proposals could result in changes to the existing traffic routes or activities such

that some delays or rescheduling could be required, which cause inconvenience. Generally regarded as a change in traffic flow between 60% and 90% any given road

link (or between 40% and 70% in sensitive areas).



206


Slight The proposals could occasionally cause a minor modification to routes, or a slight

delay in present schedules, or on activities in the short term. Generally regarded as a change in traffic flow between 30% and 60% any given road

link (or between 10 – 40% in sensitive areas).

Negligible No effect on movement of road traffic above normal level. Generally regarded as a change in traffic flow below 30% any given road link (or

below 10% in sensitive areas).

9.5.5 Significance

As a guide to inform the assessment, but not as a substitute for professional judgement, criteria for determining

the significance of traffic related effects are set out in the matrix in Table 9.3. This is based on combining the

magnitude of the effect with the receptor sensitivity.

Table 9.4: Significance Criteria

Magnitude of Effect Sensitivity of Receptor

High Medium Low Negligible

Substantial Major Major to Moderate Moderate Minor

Moderate Major to Moderate Moderate Minor Minor

Slight Moderate Minor Minor Negligible

Negligible Minor Minor Negligible None

The significance falls into two categories; Significant and Not Significant. The latter corresponding to significant

effects in accordance with the EIA Regulations.

Significance is categorised as major, moderate, minor, negligible or none. Effects judged to be of major or

moderate significance are considered to be Significant in accordance with the EIA Regulations. Effects judged to

be of minor, slight or negligible significance are considered Not Significant.

9.6 Baseline

The baseline traffic and transport characteristics of the study area have been determined by a comprehensive

desk based assessment and a site visit undertaken by SYSTRA in January 2018. The following paragraphs detail

the baseline conditions.

9.6.1 Causeway

The causeway provides the sole vehicular and pedestrian access to Goat Island, linking to Newton Street via an

approximately 3.5m wide road which has one passing place located next to the Coastguard Station, just under

half way along the causeway. There is a footway of approximately 1.5m wide on the eastern side of the

carriageway and street lighting throughout.

The causeway permits two-way traffic and visibility is good between the junction with Newton Street and the

mid-point passing place, and between the passing place and Goat Island. The causeway is subject to a speed limit

of 15mph.



207

All traffic accessing the proposed development during the construction and operational phases will be required

to travel along the causeway.

9.6.2 Newton Street

Newton Street is a residential street running between the junction with the causeway (east of which the road is

Seaview Terrace) and the junction with Ferry Road (west of which the road is Shell Street). Newton Street is

generally approximately 6m wide with footways of around 1.5m -2m wide on either side of the road. Street

lighting is also provided throughout.

Newton Street is subject to a 30mph speed limit and there are traffic calming measures in place in the form of

speed tables and a point where the footway is built-out into the road to narrow the carriageway width. On-street

parking is prevalent along Newton Street which also acts as a traffic calming measure by narrowing the

carriageway width.

All traffic accessing the proposed development during the construction and operational phases will be required

to travel along a section of Newton Street to reach the causeway.

9.6.3 Island Road

Island Road is a single carriageway road which runs between Newton Street and the A866 through an industrial

area. There are footways of approximately 1.5m wide on both sides of the road and street lighting provided

throughout. Island Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit.

It is understood that all construction-related traffic travelling between the site and Marybank Quarry will route

along Island Road to reach Newton Street as Island Road is industrial in nature, therefore minimising the impact

on local residents and to avoid routeing through the town centre. A proportion of staff/visitors during the

construction and operational phases are also likely to travel down Island Road.

9.6.4 Matheson Road

Matheson Road is an “urban” road that routes between a roundabout with the A866 and a roundabout with the

A857 Macauley Road. Matheson Road is single carriageway, approximately 7.3m wide and has a varying speed

limit which is predominantly 30mph apart from a 20mph zone “when lights flash” during school peak periods at

the A866 end of the road adjacent to The Nicholson Institute secondary school.

Matheson Road has footways on both sides of the road and street lighting throughout. There are residential

properties set well back from the road and various intersections with residential roads along the length of

Matheson Road. Signalised crossroads junctions and signalised pedestrian crossing are located along various

points of the road.

Construction traffic transporting materials between Marybank Quarry and the site will route along Matheson

Road during the construction phase of the proposed development. In addition, a proportion of staff during the

construction and operational phases are likely to utilise Matheson Road. This route has been identified as the

preferred route for construction traffic routeing to/from Marybank Quarry as it allows the development-related

traffic to avoid routing along the seafront which is considered to be the main road through the town centre.

Therefore, this route allows proposed development traffic to avoid impacting upon the town centre as much as

possible.



208

9.6.5 A857

The A857 routes north from Stornoway Town Centre to Port Ness at the most northern tip of the Isle of Lewis.

Within Stornoway the A857 has street lighting and good standard footways on both sides of the carriageway.

Various pedestrian crossing opportunities are provided in the form of signalised crossings and paved speed tables

which also act as traffic calming measures.

The proposed development construction traffic routeing to and from Marybank Quarry will utilise the section of

A857 Macauley Road up to the junction with the A859. It anticipated that a proportion of the staff/visitor trips

during both the construction and operational phases will utilise the A857 Macauley Road to route to and from

the town centre / the neighbouring residential areas.

9.6.6 A859

The A859 is a good standard single carriageway road, generally subject to the National Speed Limit (60mph). In

the vicinity of Stornoway town, there is street lighting and footways along the northern side of the A859 where

the road is referred to as “Willowglen Road” and the speed limit reduced to 40mph and then to 30mph

approaching Manor Roundabout. However, beyond Willowglen Road the A859 generally experiences little

pedestrian activity.

The A859 is understood to be well-used by HGVs given that Marybank Quarry is situated approximately 2.5km

south-west of Manor Roundabout. During the construction phase of the proposed development the stone and

concrete requirement will be sourced from Marybank Quarry and will therefore route along the A859 to reach

Manor Roundabout and continue towards the site.

9.6.7 Baseline Traffic Flows

Table 9.5 indicates the two-way 18hr AAWT flows along the road links within in the study area and the percentage

of traffic which is classified as HGVs for the baseline year (2018).

Table 9.5: Study Area Baseline Traffic Flows

Count Point 18hr AAWT HGV % HGV

1. Goat Island Causeway 345 6 2%

2. Newton Street 1,075 38 4%

3. Island Road 1,469 50 3%

4. Matheson Road 9,424 127 1%

5. A857 Macauley Road 14,128 390 3%

6. A859 Willowglen Road 7,172 294 4%

9.6.8 Road Safety

The Crash Map78 website has been utilised to determine the number of accidents that have occurred in the

previous five years (2013-2017) within the study area. The results of this process are indicated by Table 9.6 with

additional commentary provided on serious accidents.

78 http://www.crashmap.co.uk (accessed March 2018)

http://www.crashmap.co.uk/



209

Table 9.6: Accident Statistics

Count Point Slight Serious Fatal Comment

1. Goat Island Causeway - - - -

2. Newton Street - - - -

3. Island Road 1 - - -

4. Matheson Road 1 1 - One serious accident occurred in

2013 at roundabout with the A866

5. A857 Macauley Road 2 - - -

6 A859 Willowglen Road 2 - - -

Table 9.6 indicates that between 2013 and 2017 there were six slight and one serious accident within the study

area. No fatal accidents occurred within the study area in the last five years. The accidents statistics also indicate

that there are no identifiable accident ‘hot-spots’ within the study area.

9.6.9 Prediction and Evaluation of Effects

9.6.9.1 Severance

The IEMA Guidelines advise that “severance is the perceived division that can occur within a community when it

becomes separated by a major traffic artery”.

The potential for traffic associated with the proposed development to cause severance is assessed on a case by

case basis using professional judgement where non negligible traffic increases are predicted on roads through

residential settlements.

Increased severance can result in the isolation of areas of a settlement or individual properties. Severance may

result from the difficulty of crossing a heavily trafficked road or a physical barrier created by the road itself.

Severance effects could equally be applied to residents, motorists or pedestrians.

9.6.9.2 Driver Delay

Driver delay may be experienced when construction traffic is accessing a site. The IEMA Guidelines advise “delays

are only likely to be significant when the traffic on the network surrounding the development is already at, or

close to, the capacity of the system”.

Traffic delay to non-development traffic may occur at several points on the network surrounding the

development site including:

• At the development entrances where there will be additional turning movements;

• At intersections along the local road network which might be affected by increased traffic; and

• At side roads where the ability to find gaps in traffic may be reduced, thereby lengthening delays.

9.6.9.3 Pedestrian Delay and Amenity

Traffic volumes, traffic composition, traffic speed, the existence of pedestrian footways and the existence of

pedestrian crossings all contribute to the level of general pleasantness, fear, intimidation and delay experienced

by pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

9.6.9.4 Accidents and Safety

The likelihood of an accident occurring is commonly expressed in accidents per million vehicle-km. Accidents that

are appraised in relation to transport are predominantly those in which personal injury is sustained by those

involved (personal injury accidents (PIAs)). An approximate calculation has been undertaken to quantify the level



210

of accident risk that could be expected due to an increase in traffic associated with the proposed development

during the construction and operational phases respectively.

9.6.9.5 Dust and Dirt

IEMA Guidelines acknowledge that it is not practical to quantify the level of dust and dirt that can be anticipated

from development traffic. Therefore a quantitative description of dust and dirt effects from construction traffic

is not provided here.

It is acknowledged that HGVs would have the potential to collect debris on their tyres when accessing the

proposed development during the construction phase. This could be transferred to the road surface when

vehicles travel away from the development and can be deposited on the road in the form of either dust or mud

depending on weather conditions.

9.6.10 Construction Stage Impact Assessment

9.6.10.1 Construction Traffic Generation

It is anticipated that the construction of the proposed development would take approximately 14 months. It is

understood that the boat workshop element on the development site would take 9 months to construct

following the 14 month construction phase of the proposed development. Notwithstanding this and the fact that

the boat workshop element is not included under the works covered by the planning application for the proposed

development, this construction stage impact assessment has included the HGV and staff vehicle movements

associated with the boat workshop in the 14 month construction period to represent a robust and worst-case

scenario of vehicle movements.

In general, working hours on-site are expected to be between 07:00 and 19:00 on weekdays and 07:00 to 13:00

on Saturdays during the construction phase. Deliveries during the working day are likely to be staggered and

depend on the timings of ferries importing the materials (aside from the stone and concrete requirement which

will be sourced from Marybank Quarry).

Wallace Stone (Marine Civil Engineers within the proposed development design team) has provided estimations

on the total number of deliveries during the 14 month period, the average number per day over the 14 months,

and the average and maximum number of deliveries per day during the busiest months of the construction phase.

This has been based on an assumed method of working which is deemed to be realistic.

The busiest (peak) months for construction traffic have been identified as months 1 to 3 associated with

constructing foundation, retaining wall, rock infill retention bunds and breakwater rock core. The expected

construction traffic generation is as follows:

• 2,150 deliveries over the 14 month period (4,300 two-way HGV movements);

• 8 deliveries per day on average over the 14 month period (16 two-way HGV movements);

• 14 deliveries per day on average during the busiest months (28 two-way HGV movements); and

• 70 deliveries as a maximum on the worst-case day during the peak months (140 two-way HGV

movements).

On the basis of assessing a robust and worst-case scenario of the impact of increased traffic levels within the

study area, this assessment is based on 140 two-way HGV movements per day.

In addition to HGV movements, there will be a number of staff vehicle trips associated with the construction

phase. It is assumed that approximately 45 staff will be required on-site during the worst-case day of the peak

month which, assuming all staff travel to the site be private car, would translate into 90 two-way vehicle

movements over the course of the day. It is highly likely that staff would arrive and depart outwith the typical

network peak hour periods (08:00 – 09:00 in the AM and 17:00 – 18:00 in the PM).



211

9.6.10.2 Construction Traffic Distribution and Assignment

In order to assess the impact of construction traffic on the receptors within the identified study area, it is

necessary to determine the distribution and assignment of generated trips across the local road network.

In relation to staff, the distribution and assignment of vehicle trips has been calculated using a gravity model and

based on 2011 Scottish Census data for the Isle of Lewis. Data on the number of working adults in each zone

within reasonable commuting distance from the site was gathered and a percentage applied to each zone

appropriately representing the proportion of potential staff residing in that area. The route(s) staff would take

to travel to and from the site was estimated considering the options available (distance of route and time of

journey) and the corresponding vehicle trips have then been applied to the relevant traffic counter which

represents the road link.

The census data suggests that 23% of staff would approach the site from the east along Seaview Terrace whilst

the remaining 77% would approach the site from the west along Newton Street. At the Island Road / Newton

Street junction, the census data suggests that 40% of staff would come from Island Road and turn left whilst 36%

will be travelling straight along Newton Street. It is estimated that 34% of staff would route along Matheson

Road, 31% along the A857 Macauley Road and 31% along the A859 Willowglen Road travelling to / from the site.

Wallace Stone has indicated that, considering the type of materials required for construction (that cannot be

sourced on-site), it is likely that approximately 67% of material can be sourced from Marybank Quarry whilst the

other 33% of materials will require to be imported to the island by sea. The imported materials would be shipped

into the main ferry terminal in Stornoway Town Centre and transported by road to the site via Newton Street.

The materials sourced from Marybank Quarry would be transported to the site in HGVs via the A859 Willowglen

Road, through Manor Roundabout, onto the A857 Macauley Road followed by Matheson Road, onto a short

section of the A866 and then a right turn at the roundabout to head south along Island Road to reach Newton

Street. At the Island Road / Newton Street junction, the HGVs would turn left and travel along a short section of

Newton Street to reach the Causeway.

The distribution for each element of construction traffic which has been assigned to the relevant road link is

summarised in Table 9.7.

Table 9.7: Construction Traffic Distribution and Assignment

Count Point Assignment (%) Number of Vehicle Trips (Two-Way Per Day)

Staff (Car Trips) HGV Trips Staff (Car Trips) HGV Trips

1. Goat Island

Causeway 100% 100% 90 140

2. Newton Street 76% 100% 68 140

3. Island Road 40% 67% 36 94

4. Matheson

Road 34% 67% 18 94

5. A857 Macauley

Road 31% 67% 28 94

6. A859

Willowglen Road 31% 67% 28 94

*Note: The percentage increase indicated in this table refers to the section of Newton Street between the

junctions with Island Road and Causeway. The percentage increase in total traffic and HGVs along Newton Street

to the west of the junction with Island Road will be less than this.



212

9.6.10.3 Construction Traffic Effects

Table 9.8 details the worst-case daily percentage increase in total traffic and HGV levels along the road links

within the study area during construction of the proposed development, based upon the assumed distribution

and assignment demonstrated in Table 9.7.

Table 9.8: Construction Traffic Impact on Routes within the Study Area on Worst-Case Day

1. Goat

Island

Causeway

2. Newton

Street*

3. Island

Road

4.

Matheson

Road

5. A857

Macauley

Road

6. A859

Willowglen

Road

Existing 18hr AAWT 345 1,075 1,469 9,424 14,128 7,172

Existing HGV count 6 38 50 127 390 294

Existing HGV % 2% 4% 3% 1% 3% 4%

Worst-cast daily

construction total traffic

flows (inc. HGVs)

230 208 130 112 112 112

Worst-case daily

construction HGV traffic

only

140 140 94 94 94 94

Existing 18hr AAWT +

worst-case daily

construction total traffic

575 1,283 1,599 9,539 14,250 7,294

Existing HGV count +

worst-case HGV traffic 146 178 144 221 484 388

Percentage increase in

total traffic due to the

proposed development

67% 19% 9% 1% 1% 2%


HGVs due to the


2,333% 368% 188% 74% 24% 32%

*Note: The percentage increase indicated in this table refers to the section of Newton Street between the

junctions with Island Road and Causeway. The percentage increase in total traffic and HGVs along Newton Street

to the west of the junction with Island Road will be 33% less than this.

Table 9.8 indicates that with the addition of construction traffic during the worst-case day associated with the

proposed development, there would be a negligible increase in total traffic levels along Island Road, Matheson

Road, the A857 and the A859 (<10% increase along sensitive areas of Matheson Road and the A857 Macauley

Road as detailed in Section 9.5.1.2, and <30% increase along Island Road and the A859). As the percentage

increase in total traffic levels exceeds 10% along Newton Street (IEMA Rule 2), a full assessment of effects has

been carried out for this road link. As the percentage increase in total traffic levels exceeds 30% along the Goat

Island Causeway (IEMA Rule 1), a full assessment of effects is also undertaken for this road link.

Table 9.8 indicates that baseline HGV levels would increase by 24% and 32% along the A857 and A859

respectively with the addition of construction traffic associated with the proposed development on the worst-

case day. As this remains within the 30% threshold for increases in HGV traffic stated within the IEMA Rule 1 for

the A857, a full assessment of effects is not required for this road links (Counter 5). However, as this exceeds

30% for the A859 (Counter 6), a full assessment of effects has been undertaken.

As the percentage of HGVs along the causeway, Newton Street, Island Road and Matheson Road (Counters 1, 2,

3 and 4) exceeds the 30% threshold, a full assessment of potential environmental effects has been carried out

for these road links.



213

It should be noted that Table 9.8 indicates the worst-case scenario on a given day during the peak traffic

generating months (Months 1 – 3 as indicated in Section 9.6.10.1) during the construction phase, that any effects

experienced will be temporary and during the other 10 months HGV levels are considerably lower than that

which is assessed. Furthermore, the percentage increase of HGVs and assessment of effects in relation to Newton

Street refers to the very small section between the junction with the causeway and the junction with Island Road.

The percentage increase in HGVs along Newton Street to the west of the junction with Island Road will be lower

than that indicated within Table 9.8 (which reflects the percentage increase in baseline HGVs for 100% of the

proposed development’s HGVs routeing along Newton Street) taking into account that 67% of HGVs are routing

along Island Road between Marybank Quarry and the site. Therefore, only the remaining 33% are routeing along

Newton Street to the west of the junction with Island Road.

9.6.11 Evaluation of Construction Effects

The environmental effects associated with increased HGV traffic as identified in the IEMA Guidelines are

addressed in the following paragraphs for the Goat Island Causeway (Counter 1), Newton Street (Counter 2),

Island Road (Counter 3), Matheson Road (Counter 4) and the A859 Willowglen Road (Counter 6). A description

of each environmental effect is provided in Section 9.8.

9.6.11.1 Severance

The magnitude of the change in HGV levels along the causeway is considered to be “substantial” in accordance

with Table 9.3 as the percentage increase exceeds 90%. Given the characteristics of the road in that the footway

is on the eastern side of the road and there is no development on the western side of the causeway, the

sensitivity of the road link to a severance effect is considered as “negligible”. Combining a substantial magnitude

with a negligible sensitivity equates to an effect which is classed as “minor” as per the significance matrix in

Table 9.4, and Not Significant in accordance with the EIA Regulations. Therefore, mitigation for a severance effect

is not required for the causeway during the construction phase of the proposed development.

Along Newton Street, the magnitude of the change in HGV levels is considered to be “substantial” in accordance

with Table 9.3 as the percentage increase exceeds the 70% threshold applied to a sensitive receptor. In reference

to the descriptions in Table 9.2, the sensitivity of Newton Street to a severance effect is considered to be “low”

as the area is residential in nature with adequate footway provision. Furthermore, the properties along Newton

Street are situated along the northern side of the road whilst the seafront lies on the southern side, therefore,

there is no necessity to cross the road to access amenities / services. Nevertheless, combining a substantial

magnitude with low sensitivity equates to an effect which is classed as “moderate” and Significant. Mitigation is

therefore required for this effect in accordance with the EIA Regulations; this is set out in Section 9.8.

The percentage increase in HGV levels along Island Road is predicted to be 188% during the worst-case day which

represents a “substantial” magnitude as per Table 9.3. The sensitivity of the receptor to a severance effect is

considered to be “negligible” given that the area is already an industrial area, therefore, there will be fewer

pedestrians present compared to a predominantly residential area. Pedestrians routing from Newton Street to

the town centre would follow the seafront and continue onto the A857 rather than travelling along Island Road.

Combining a substantial magnitude with negligible sensitivity equates to an effect which is classed as “minor”

and Not Significant.

Based on a 74% increase in HGV levels along Matheson Road which is identified as a sensitive receptor, the

magnitude of the change is considered as “substantial” (>70% threshold as per Table 9.3). The sensitivity of this

road link to an increased severance effect is deemed to be “medium”. This is due to the fact that, without the

school, the road is characteristic of “low” sensitivity given that it is an urban/residential area with adequate

footway provision and signalised crossing facilities. Taking the school into consideration, albeit that the main

access is not taken from Matheson Road, the sensitivity is increased to ensure a robust approach. Combining a

substantial magnitude with medium sensitivity as per the significance matrix in Table 9.4 equates to an effect of



214

“major-moderate” significance which is classed as Significant. In accordance with the EIA Regulation, a potential

significant effect requires mitigating. Details of proposed mitigation measures are outlined in Section 9.8.

At the A859 Willowglen Road (Counter 6), the magnitude of the change in HGV levels is considered as “slight”

given that it would be a change of between 30% and 60%. The sensitivity of this section of the road to an

increased severance effect is considered to be “low”. This is taking into consideration that there are residential

properties along this road, however, they are set back from road and a footway is provided on the appropriate

side of the road. Furthermore, prior to Manor Roundabout all of the residential properties are located on the

north side of the road, therefore not susceptible to a severance effect. Combining a moderate magnitude with a

low sensitivity would result in an effect which is “minor” and classed as Not Significant overall.



with Table 9.3 as the percentage increase exceeds 90%. Taking into account the width of the causeway which

allows single lane vehicle movements only, the sensitivity of the road link to driver delay is considered to be

“medium” as additional vehicles along the causeway could potentially cause slightly longer waiting times at Goat

Island, at the mid-point passing place and at the junction with Newton Street. Combining a substantial magnitude

with medium sensitivity equates to a driver delay effect which is classed as “major” and Significant. Mitigation is

therefore required for this effect in accordance with the EIA Regulations; this is set out in Section 9.8.


with Table 9.3 as the percentage increase exceeds the 70% threshold applied to a sensitive receptor. The DMRB

suggests that for an “urban – single 6.0m” wide road with a speed limit of 30mph, the capacity per hour per

direction is in the region of 800 vehicles. During an 18 hour period this equates to a general capacity of 28,800

two-way vehicles. Whilst the baseline traffic flows along Newton Street are considerable lower than this, it should

be taken into account that the road functions as a one-lane carriageway at points due to traffic calming measures

and on-street parking. Therefore, the sensitivity of the receptor to a driver delay effect is considered to be

“medium”. Combining a substantial magnitude with medium sensitivity equates to an effect which is classed as

“major” and Significant. Mitigation is therefore required for this effect in accordance with the EIA Regulations.

The percentage increase in HGV levels along Island Road is 188% which represents a “substantial” magnitude as

per Table 9.3. The DMRB suggests that for an “urban – single 6.0m” wide road with a speed limit of 30mph such

as Island Road, the capacity per hour per direction is in the region of 800 vehicles. During an 18 hour period this

equates to a general capacity of 28,800 two-way vehicles. Considering that the 18 hour baseline AAWT flows are

1,469, the sensitivity of the receptor to a driver delay effect is considered to be “negligible”. Combining a

substantial magnitude with negligible sensitivity equates to an effect which is classed as “minor” and

Not Significant.



215

The magnitude of change in HGV levels along Matheson Road is considered as “substantial” as per Table 11.3.

Matheson Road would fall under the DMRB category of “urban – single 7.3m wide” which is suggested to have a

capacity of 800 vehicles per hour per direction. During an 18 hour period this equates to a capacity of 28,800

two-way vehicles in general. As the projected baseline traffic flows are well within this threshold, it is considered

that the receptor has “low” sensitivity to driver delay. Combining a substantial magnitude with a low sensitivity

equates to an effect which is classed as “moderate” and Significant. In accordance with the EIA Regulation, a

potential significant effect requires mitigating. Details of proposed mitigation measures are outlined in

Section 9.8.

At the A859 Willowglen Road (Counter 6), the magnitude of the change in HGV levels is also considered as “slight”

given that it would be a change of between 30% and 60%. The projected baseline 18 hour AAWT flows for the

A859 Willowglen Road are low compared with the available capacity of the road link. Given that there are more

intersections at this point along the A859 compared to further south, the sensitivity to a driver delay effect is

considered as “low” (rather than negligible). Combining a moderate change in HGV levels with a low receptor

sensitivity concludes that the effect is deemed as “minor” and classed as Not Significant.



with Table 9.3 as the percentage increase exceeds 90%. The sensitivity of the receptor to a pedestrian delay and

reduced amenity effect is considered as “negligible”. This is taking into account that there is a continuous footway

provided, street lighting throughout, and that there is no requirement for pedestrians to cross the causeway at

any point as there is no development on the western side. When the magnitude of change and the sensitivity of

the receptor are combined in accordance with Table 9.4, the significance of the effect is classed as “minor” and

Not Significant. Therefore, mitigation for a pedestrian delay and amenity effect is not required for the causeway

during the construction phase of the proposed development.


with Table 9.3 as the percentage increase exceeds the 70% threshold applied to a sensitive receptor. In reference

to the descriptions in Table 9.2, the sensitivity of Newton Street to a pedestrian delay and reduced amenity effect

is considered to be “low” as the area is residential in nature with adequate footway provision. Furthermore,

given the presence of traffic calming measures along this road, traffic speeds will be low. Nevertheless,

combining a substantial magnitude with low sensitivity equates to an effect which is classed as “moderate” and

Significant, therefore requiring mitigation in accordance with the EIA Regulations; this is set out in Section 9.8.

The percentage increase in HGV levels along Island Road is 93% which represents a “substantial” magnitude as

per Table 9.3. The sensitivity of the receptor to a pedestrian delay and reduced amenity effect is considered to

be “negligible” given that the area is already an industrial area, therefore, there will be fewer pedestrians present

compared to a predominantly residential area. Pedestrians routing from Newton Street to the town centre would

follow the seafront and continue onto the A857 rather than travelling along Island Road. Combining a substantial

magnitude with negligible sensitivity equates to an effect which is classed as “minor” and Not Significant.

Along Matheson Road the magnitude of the change in HGV levels is considered as “substantial” in reference to

Table 11.3 as the percentage increase exceeds 70%. The sensitivity of the receptor to an increase pedestrian

delay and reduced amenity effect is considered as “medium”. This is due to the fact that, without the school, the

road is characteristic of “low” sensitivity given that it is an urban/residential area with adequate footway

provision and signalised crossing facilities. Furthermore, the ATC survey indicates that the average speed along

Matheson Road is 21mph. These factors all contribute to the overall pleasantness of the road for pedestrians.

Taking the school into consideration, albeit that the main access is not taken from Matheson Road, the sensitivity

is considered as “medium” to ensure a robust approach. Combining a substantial magnitude with medium

sensitivity as per the significance matrix in Table 9.4 equates to an effect of “major-moderate” significance which

is classed as Significant. In accordance with the EIA Regulation, a potential significant effect requires mitigating.

Details of proposed mitigation measures are outlined in Section 9.8.



216

Along the A859 Willowglen Road the magnitude of the change in HGV levels is considered as “slight”. The

sensitivity of this section of the road to an increased pedestrian delay and reduced amenity effect is considered

to be “low”. This is taking into consideration that there are residential properties along one side of this road,

however, they are set back from road and a good standard footway is provided on the appropriate side of the

road. Furthermore, the speed limit reduces from 60mph to 40mph where the area becomes more residential in

nature, therefore, reducing the potential for pedestrians to experience fear and intimidation effects. Combining

a moderate magnitude with a low sensitivity would result in an effect which is “minor” and classed as Not

Significant.


As the accident data indicated by Table 9.6 demonstrates, only six slight, one serious and no fatal accidents have

occurred within the study area during the last five years. An approximate calculation has been undertaken to

quantify the level of accident risk that could be expected due to an increase in traffic along Matheson Road

during the construction phase.

It is estimated that 29,500 two-way vehicle trips will be made to/from the proposed development during the 14

month construction phase (4,300 two-way HGVs and 25,200 two-way staff vehicle trips over the 14 months

assuming 20 working days per month). For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the total length of

road within the study area is 3.5km, therefore a total distance travelled of 103,250km per day is obtained.

In general, the road links within the study area can be classified under the DMRB as “urban – single 6.0m” wide

which has a corresponding accident rate of 0.297 PIA/MVkm. Based on this rate and the total number of

kilometres travelled, this equates to an estimated 0.03 accidents during the 14 month construction phase. The

magnitude of this change is therefore considered to be “negligible”, however, receptor sensitivity to accidents

and safety is always considered as “high”. When combined, the effect can be classified as “minor” and

Not Significant for all roads within the study area.


Although the magnitude of the increase in HGV levels is considered as “substantial” along three out of the four

routes requiring a full assessment of environmental effects, the sensitivity of the road links is considered to be

“negligible” given that standard good practice working methods will be put in place on-site to minimise dust and

dirt from vehicles (e.g. use of wheel washes and covering any loads likely to generate dust) being transferred

onto the public road network. Combining the magnitude of the change and the sensitivity of the receptors, the

overall significance of the environmental effect of dust and dirt along all road links within the study area is classed

as “minor” and therefore Not Significant in accordance with Table 9.4.

9.6.12 Summary of Construction Effects

It is important to note that this assessment reflects a worst-case scenario on one given day during the busiest

month of the construction phase traffic-wise. During the other days / months of the construction the number of

deliveries, and therefore the traffic impact, will be considerably lower (i.e. 16 two-way HGV trips as opposed to

140 two-way HGV trips). Wallace Stone has predicted that on a typical day during the busiest three months of

the construction phase, only 28 two-way HGV movements are expected on average as opposed to the 140 two-

way HGV movements included within this robust assessment which represent the worst-case traffic impact on a

given day during the peak months. Furthermore, any effects associated with increased traffic during the

construction phase are only temporary.

Table 9.9 below provides a summary of the findings of Section 9.6.11 Evaluation of Construction Effects,

indicating the significance of an effect for each road link and the duration for effects which have been classed as

Significant



217

Table 9.9: Construction Traffic Impact on Routes within the Study Area on Worst-Case Day

Counter

Location

Effect – Significance (Duration of Significant Effect)

Severance Driver Delay

Pedestrian

Delay and

Amenity

Accidents and

Safety Dust and Dirt

1. Causeway Not Significant Significant (14

Months) Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

2. Newton

Street

Significant

(Months 1 – 3)

Significant

(Months 1 – 3)

Significant

(Months 1 – 3) Not Significant Not Significant

3. Island

Road Not significant Not significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

4. Matheson

Road

Significant

(Months 1 – 3)

Significant

(Months 1 – 3)

Significant

(Months 1 – 3) Not Significant Not Significant

5. A857

Macauley

Road*

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

6. A859

Willowglen

Road*

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

*Full assessment not required for these road links in accordance with the IEMA Guidelines therefore all effects

are classed as Not Significant.

It should also be noted that the high percentage increase in HGVs along the causeway and Newton Street is

attributable to the low baseline HGV levels. The 140 two-way HGVs expected on the worst-case given day during

the three busiest construction months (as assessed within this chapter), would equate to only 12 HGVs per hour

assuming a typical 12 hour working day, and therefore one HGV every 5 minutes. Furthermore, the percentage

increase of HGVs and assessment of effects in relation to Newton Street refers to the very small section between

the junction with the causeway and the junction with Island Road. The percentage increase in HGVs along

Newton Street to the west of the junction with Island Road is a third lower, as a third of HGVs routing along Island

Road to/from Marybank Quarry.

9.6.13 Operational Stage Impact Assessment

9.6.13.1 2021 Projected Baseline Traffic Flows

It is understood that, in keeping with current timescales, the proposed development would be operational in the

year 2021. In order to calculate the impact of development traffic on the study area during the operational phase

it is necessary to factor up the current baseline 18 hour AAWT data to reflect 2021 projected traffic flows. This

has been calculated using the National Roads Traffic Forecasting tool and applying a “low growth” factor of 1.024.

The projected baseline traffic flows are indicated in Table 9.10 below.

Table 9.10: 2021 Projected Baseline Traffic Flows

Count Point 2021 18hr AAWT 2021 HGVs % HGV

1. Goat Island Causeway 353 6 2%

2. Newton Street 1,101 39 4%

3. Island Road 1,504 51 3%

4. Matheson Road 9,650 130 1%

5. A857 Macauley Road 14,467 399 3%

6. A859 Willowglen Road 7,344 301 4%



218

9.6.13.2 Operational Traffic Generation

As outlined in Chapter 2: Proposed Development, the boat workshop element of the development site is not

included under the planning application for the proposed development and will be subject to a separate

application and assessment at a later stage. Nevertheless, the operational traffic associated with boat workshop

element of the development site has been included within this assessment of the proposed development to

represent a robust and worst-case scenario indicative of the end-use of the site as a whole.

Operational traffic associated with the proposed development will comprise local residents, predominantly by

private car, visiting their yacht berthed at the marina and using the marina services / slipway as required. Also

travelling to and from the site will be staff and visitors to the boat workshop element of the site, also

predominantly by private car.

Regarding the boat workshop element of the development site, it is understood that there will be 11 new staff

members. This would equate to 22 two-way vehicle movements if each staff member were to travel by single

occupancy car. It has been estimated that the boat workshop would have 16 visitors per day (two per hour over

an 8 hour day) which equates to 32 two-way vehicle trips.

The vehicle trip generation associated with the marina berth element of the proposed development has been

calculated by utilising TRICS which is a database of trip rates for various developments across the UK and Ireland.

TRICS provides a vehicle trip rate for marina developments per berth. SPA anticipates that in the region of 25

berths will be utilised by visitors to Stornoway, therefore, these will not translate into a vehicle trip accessing /

egressing the marina. Given that the proposed development is within reasonable walking distance from the town

centre, it is reasonable to assume that visitors would be able to get around on-foot during their time berthed at

the proposed development. Therefore, to provide a more realistic assessment, the vehicle trip rate is associated

with 50 berths rather than 75, which indicates that 98 two-way vehicle trips could be expected per day. To ensure

a robust assessment, it has been assumed that all of these trips will occur during the 18 hour period assessed.

9.6.13.3 Operational Traffic Distribution and Assignment

In order to assess the impact of operational traffic on the receptors within the identified study area, it is

necessary to determine the distribution of generated trips across the local road network.

The distribution of staff and visitors relating to the boat workshop element of the site, and the local visitors to

the berths at the proposed development has been based on the 2011 Scottish Census data for the Isle of Lewis

with the same assignment to each road link as the staff vehicles during the construction phase. The distribution

of operational traffic is summarised in Table 9.11.

Table 9.11: Operational Traffic Distribution and Assignment

Count Point Staff + Visitor Assignment (%) Number of Vehicle Trips (Two-Way Per Day)

1. Goat Island Causeway 100% 151

2. Newton Street 76% 115

3. Island Road 40% 61

4. Matheson Road 34% 52

5. A857 Macauley Road 31% 47

6. A859 Willowglen Road 31% 46

9.6.13.4 Operational Traffic Effects

Table 9.12 details the maximum daily percentage increase in total traffic and HGV levels along the road links

within the study area during the operational phase of the proposed development, based upon the assumptions

of distribution and assignment demonstrated in Table 9.10.



219

Table 9.12: Operational Traffic Impact on Routes within the Study Area (Robust Scenario)

1. Goat

Island

Causeway

2. Newton

Street

3. Island

Road

4.

Matheson

Road

5. A857

Macauley

Road

6. A859

Willowgle

n Road

2021 projected AAWT 353 1,101 1,504 9,650 14,467 7,344

2021 projected HGV

count 6 39 51 130 399 301

2021 projected HGV % 2% 4% 3% 1% 3% 4%

Daily operational total

traffic flow (inc. HGVs) 151 115 61 52 47 46

Daily operational HGV

traffic only 0 0 0 0 0 0

2021 AAWT + daily

operational traffic 504 1,216 1,565 9,702 14,514 7,390

2021 HGV count + daily

operational traffic 6 39 51 130 399 301


total traffic due to the


43% 10% 4% 1% 0% 1%


HGVs due to the


0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

It is noted that there will be a number of HGVs movements required associated with deliveries and servicing

arrangements at the proposed development. However, it is not anticipated that there would be an uplift from

the current number of HGVs required for delivery and servicing arrangements at the site which are captured

within the baseline traffic flows. As there will be no additional HGVs accessing the proposed development during

the operational phase of the proposed development, the percentage increase is 0% and no assessment is

required.

Table 9.12 indicates that operation traffic associated with the proposed development would increase total traffic

levels by a negligible amount along Island Road, the A859 Willowglen Road (<30% as per IEMA Rule 1), Newton

Street, Matheson Road and the A857 Macauley Road (<10% as per IEMA Rule 2 for sensitive areas). As the

percentage increase in total traffic levels along the causeway would increase by more than 30%, a full assessment

of environmental effects has been undertaken for this road link.

9.6.13.5 Severance

The magnitude of the change in traffic levels along the causeway (Counter 1) is considered to be “slight” based

on a 43% increase as per Table 9.3. Given the characteristics of the road in that the footway is on the eastern

side of the road and there is no development on the western side of the causeway, the sensitivity of the road

link to a severance effect is considered as “negligible”. Combining a slight magnitude with a negligible sensitivity

equates to an effect which is classed as “negligible” as per the significance matrix in Table 9.4, and Not Significant

in accordance with the EIA Regulations. Therefore, mitigation for a severance effect is not required for the

causeway during the operational phase of the proposed development.


The magnitude of the change in traffic levels along the causeway is considered to be “slight” based on a 43%

increase as per Table 9.3. Taking into account the width of the causeway which allows single lane vehicle

movements only, the sensitivity of the road link to diver delay is considered to be “medium” as additional vehicles

along the causeway could potentially cause slightly longer waiting times at Goat Island, at the mid-point passing



220

place and at the junction with Newton Street. Combining a slight magnitude with medium sensitivity in

accordance with Table 9.4 equates to a driver delay effect which is classed as “minor” and Not Significant.


In accordance with Table 9.3, the magnitude of the change in traffic levels along the causeway is considered to

be “slight”. The sensitivity of the receptor to a pedestrian delay and reduced amenity effect is considered as

“negligible”. This is taking into account that there is a continuous footway provided, street lighting throughout,

and that there is no requirement for pedestrians to cross the causeway at any point as there is no development

on the western side. When the magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the receptor are combined in

accordance with Table 9.4, the significance of the effect is classed as “negligible” and Not Significant.


The accident data indicated by Table 9.6 demonstrates that no accidents have occurred along the causeway

during the last five years. An approximate calculation has been undertaken to quantify the level of accident risk

that could be expected due to an increase in traffic along the causeway as a result of operational traffic associated

with the proposed development.

It is estimated that 151 two-way vehicle trips will be made to/from the proposed development on a given

operational day. Assuming that this operational traffic level occurs 25 days per month for 12 months, a total

number of 45,300 two-way trips is obtained. For the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that the total

length of road is 0.5km. Assuming a two-way trip along the 0.5km route for each vehicle during a 12 month

period a total distance travelled of 22,350km per day is obtained.

The causeway can be classified under the DMRB as “rural - -single lane 4.0m” wide which has a corresponding

accident rate of 0.297 PIA/MVkm. Based on this rate and the total number of kilometres travelled, this equated

to 0.007 accidents occurring during 12 months of the proposed development being in operation. The magnitude

of this change is therefore considered to be “negligible”, however, receptor sensitivity to accidents and safety is

always considered as “high”. When combined, the effect can be classified as “minor” and Not Significant for all

road links within the study area.


Dust and dirt effects relate primarily to the construction phase. Given the nature of the development, it is not

anticipated that any dust and dirt effects will be experienced during operation of the proposed development.

The effect is therefore concluded as Not Significant for all receptors within the study area.

9.7 Cumulative Assessment

It is understood that the proposed development is coming forward at similar timescales to the proposed

Stornoway Deep Water Port development which is situated adjacent to Arnish Point, accessed via a road coming

off the A859. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the impact on the local road network if the construction and

operational phases of each development were to coincide.

9.7.1 Construction Phase Cumulative Assessment

The worst-case daily construction traffic flows associated with the proposed development have been added to

the equivalent traffic flows for the Stornoway Deep Water Port development and applied to the 2018 baseline

18 hour AAWT flows to calculate the percentage increase in total traffic and HGV levels. Table 9.12 indicates the

predicted results if the peak traffic generating day/month for each development were to occur simultaneously.



221

Table 9.13: Cumulative Construction Traffic Impact during Worst-Case Day of the Proposed Development and

Stornoway Deep Water Port Development

1. Goat

Island

Causeway

2. Newton

Street

3. Island

Road

4.

Matheson

Road

5. A857

Macauley

Road

6. A859

Willowgle

n Road

Existing 18hr AAWT 345 1,075 1,469 9,424 14,128 7,172

Existing HGV count 6 38 50 127 390 294

Existing HGV % 2% 4% 3% 1% 3% 4%

Proposed development

worst-cast daily

construction total

traffic

230 208 82 64 74 74

Proposed development

worst-case daily

construction HGVs

140 140 94 94 94 94

Deep Water Port worst-

case daily construction

total traffic

0 0 0 66 62 117

Deep Water Port worst-

case daily construction

HGVs

0 0 0 50 50 50

Existing 18hr AAWT +

worst-case daily

cumulative total traffic

575 1,283 1,551 9,554 14,264 7,363

Existing HGV count +

worst-case cumulative

HGV traffic

146 178 144 271 534 438


total traffic due to

cumulative impact

67% 19% 6% 1% 1% 3%


HGVs due to

cumulative impact

2333% 368% 188% 113% 37% 49%

Table 9.13 indicates that there would be no cumulative traffic impact along the Goat Island Causeway, Newton

Street or Island Road if the worst-case construction day of the proposed development and the Deep Water Port

development were to occur simultaneously.

Although there is now a higher impact along Matheson Road (113% increase in HGVs cumulatively compared to

74%) and the HGV impact on the A857 Macauley Road now exceeds 30% threshold, mitigation is already required

for Matheson Road, the causeway and Newton Street during the construction phase. Therefore, it will be ensured

that the mitigation proposed can also be applied to all road links within the study area. Details of the mitigation

proposed is included within Section 9.8.

9.7.1.1 Operational Phase Cumulative Assessment

The average daily construction traffic flows associated with the proposed development have been added to the

equivalent traffic flows for the Stornoway Deep Water Port development and applied to the projected 2021

baseline 18 hour AAWT flows to calculate the percentage increase in total traffic and HGV levels. Table 9.14

indicates the predicted cumulative operational traffic flows.



222

Table 9.14: Cumulative Operational Traffic Impact of the Proposed Development and Stornoway Deep Water

Port Development

1. Goat

Island

Causeway

2. Newton

Street

3. Island

Road

4.

Matheson

Road

5. A857

Macauley

Road

6. A859

Willowglen

Road

2021 projected 18hr

AAWT 353 1101 1504 9650 14467 7344

2021 projected HGV

count 6 39 51 130 399 301

2021 projected HGV

% 2% 4% 3% 1% 3% 4%

PD daily operational

total traffic flow (inc.

HGVs)

151 115 61 52 47 46

PD daily operational

HGV traffic only 0 0 0 0 0 0

Deep Water Port

worst-case daily

operational total

traffic

0 0 0 158 169 328

Deep Water Port

worst-case daily

operational HGVs

0 0 0 130 130 191

2021 18hr AAWT +

daily operational

traffic

504 1,216 1,565 9,860 14,683 7,718

2021 HGV count +

daily operational

HGV traffic

6 39 51 260 529 492

Percentage increase

in total traffic due to

the Proposed

development

43% 10% 4% 2% 1% 5%

Percentage increase

in HGVs due to the

Proposed

development

0% 0% 0% 100% 33% 63%

Table 9.14 indicates that there would be no cumulative operational traffic impact along the causeway, Newton

Street or Island Road as the proposed Deep Water Port development would not utilise these road links. The

cumulative total traffic impact along Matheson Road, the A957 Macauley Road and the A859 Willowglen Road

would be negligible (<10% for sensitive receptors of Matheson Road and A857 and <30% for the A859). Therefore

no further assessment of cumulative effects is required.

Table 9.14 demonstrates that there would be an increase of HGVs along Matheson Road of 100%, along the A857

Macauley Road of 33% and along the A859 Willowglen Road of 63%. However, these HGVs are associated with

the Deep Water Port development only, therefore, there is no cumulative operational impact of HGVs associated

with the proposed development and no further assessment is required with regard to the operational phase.



223



Nevertheless, as the assessment of construction effects predicts that, prior to mitigation, there is the potential

for a significant effect in relation to driver delay along the causeway. In relation to severance, driver delay, and

pedestrian delay and amenity along a section of Newton Street (between Island Road and the causeway), and

along Matheson Road, mitigation is required in accordance with the EIA Regulations.

Mitigation is proposed in the form of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). The CTMP will identify

measures to reduce the number of construction vehicles required as well as considering the mitigation of vehicle

impacts through construction programming, routing and identification of an individual with responsibilities for

managing traffic and transport impacts and effects. The CTMP will also identify measures to reduce and manage

construction staff travel by private car, particularly single occupancy trips. The CTMP can include (but is not

limited to) the following measures:

• The main contractor will develop a logistics plan highlighting the access point for the site, loading bay,

pedestrian / vehicular segregation, welfare, storage, security and material handling that will be enforced

following full site establishment;

• All contractors will be provided with a site induction pack containing information on delivery routes and

any restrictions on routes;

• Temporary construction site signage will be erected along the identified construction traffic routes to

warn people of construction activities and associated construction vehicles;

• Construction HGV traffic will be managed to avoid an adverse impact on the school, with the movement

of construction traffic restricted during periods of peak travel movements of school pupils;

• The contractor will manage the delivery schedule to avoid congestion on the delivery routes;

• Communication and co-ordination with the Stornoway Deep Water Port development site will be

undertaken should the construction phases over-lap to minimise the combined impact on the road

network;

• Under no circumstances will HGVs be allowed to lay-up in surrounding roads;

• Measures will be taken to maintain roads in a clean and safe condition, for example, implementing a

road sweeper (or similar device) as required; and

• Construction staff that live nearby one another will be encouraged to car share when travelling to and

from the site to reduce the number of single-occupancy car trips.


As demonstrated by the assessment detailed within Section 9.8.4 Evaluation of Operational Effects, it is

concluded that no significant effects are predicted during the operational phase, therefore no mitigation is

required during this period.


Post implementation of the CTMP, the magnitude of change in HGV levels during the network peak periods for

residents and other road users would be none or considerably reduced subject to scheduling of activities and

HGV movements. Therefore, the potential for a significant severance, driver delay, and pedestrian delay and

amenity effect along Newton Street, Matheson Road and the causeway (driver delay effect only for the latter)

during these “crucial” periods could be classed as “negligible”.

Whilst the daily percentage increase in HGV traffic during the worst-case day would remain the same post

mitigation as that which has been assessed in this chapter, the perceived magnitude of the impact by residents



224

and other road users will be considerably reduced by the measures implemented as part of the CTMP.

Considering that 140 two-way HGVs equates to approximately 12 two-way HGVs per hour (on average, one HGV

per 5 minutes), in reference to the descriptions in Table 9.3 rather than the percentage thresholds, the

magnitude post mitigation can be perceived as “slight” rather than “substantial” with the CTMP in place. That is,

“the proposal could occasionally cause minor modification to routes, or a slight delay in present schedules, or on

activities in the short term” (as stated under “slight” description in Table 9.3).

Overall, it is expected that the CTMP will achieve a reduction in the significance of a severance, driver delay,

pedestrian delay and amenity effects identified along Newton Street, Matheson Road and the causeway (driver

delay effect only along the causeway) from “moderate” to “minor” and therefore Not Significant.


A worst-case assessment of the proposed development’s traffic impact on the traffic and transport related

effects of: severance; driver delay; pedestrian delay and amenity; accidents and safety; and dust and dirt; has

been undertaken. The assessment concludes that during the construction stage, there is the potential for a

“moderate” and Significant severance, driver delay, and pedestrian delay and amenity effect along Newton

Street and Matheson Road. There is the potential for a “major” and Significant driver delay effect along the Goat

Island Causeway. Therefore, mitigation is required in accordance with the EIA Regulations. It is important to note

that during an average day of the 14 month construction phase, the proposed development’s traffic impact will

be considerably less than that which is assessed.

Mitigation during the construction phase is proposed in the form of a CTMP which will identify measures to

reduce the number of construction vehicles, considering the mitigation of vehicle impacts through construction

programming, routing and identification of an individual with responsibilities for managing traffic and transport

impacts and effects. Residual effects following the implementation of the CTMP are expected to be “minor” and

Not Significant.

An assessment of the potential cumulative impact during the construction phase concludes that, if the proposed

development’s construction phase was to coincide with the construction of the nearby Stornoway Deep Water

Port development, there would be no cumulative impact along the Goat Island Causeway or Newton Street. Any

cumulative impacts experienced along the other road links within the study area will be mitigated through the

implementation of the CTMP, therefore are considered to be “minor” and Not Significant.

The worst-case assessment of the increased traffic levels during the operational phase of the proposed

development concludes that all effects associated with an increase in total traffic levels along the Causeway are

deemed as “minor” and classed as Not Significant. Effects along the other road links within the study area are

“negligible” and did not require a full assessment. There is no increase in baseline HGV levels associated with the

operational phase of the proposed development. An assessment of the potential cumulative impact during the

operational phase concludes that, if the proposed development was to be operational in conjunction with the

Stornoway Deep Water Port development, all effects would be “minor” and classed as Not Significant.



225

10 CHAPTER 10: OTHER ISSUES

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Introduction

This chapter provides a summary and assessment where applicable of additional potential environmental effects

or features which are relevant to the proposed development but have not been scoped into the full EIA given

significant effects were not deemed to be likely. These include effects or information associated with socio-

economics, air quality, navigation, population and human health, natural disasters and utilities. It is not the

purpose of this chapter to draw conclusions on the level of significance based upon detailed methodology (as

per the other chapters outlined throughout this EIAR), but instead offer a synopsis of relevant information, an

approach which has been agreed with CnES and Marine Scotland as per Technical Appendix 3.1 within Volume 3

of this EIAR, alongside a relevant level of assessment specific to each feature of this chapter.

For the purposes of the EIAR it should be noted that in the interests of demonstrating the full future extent of

effects within this EIAR chapter, potential development components which would be subject to planning

application(s) in the future i.e. the boatyard workshop and watersports clubhouse; are not seeking permission

at this time but have been accounted for within this EIA.

10.2.1 Scoping and Consultation

This chapter has been prepared based upon advice and consultation with the relevant consultees as illustrated

within Table 10.1. Accordingly this chapter has been prepared under the requirements of the EIA Regulations in

that it corresponds with, and is based upon, the Scoping Opinion.

Table 10.1: Summary of Consultation Responses Relevant to Other Issues

Consultee Key Comments/Recommendations relation to EIA

Scope

How/Where Addressed/Further

Comments

CnES The EIA should address the following issues:

Socio-economic: direct and indirect impacts upon

employment generation in addition to economic

impacts in the local community

Socio-economic impacts are

discussed within Section 10.2,

including jobs generated and

approximate revenue generated.

Population and Human Health: While there are

unlikely to be significant environmental effects arising

consideration should be given to the related issues

within supporting information. There is no prescribed

definition of population and human health within EIA,

but it is generally understood to encompass a range of

personal, social, economic, physiological and

environmental factors which determine the health

status of individuals or populations.

Section 10.2 considers socio-

economic factors whilst section

10.4 of this chapter discusses

interactions between the

proposed development, health

and wellbeing of local residents.

This is supplemented by the

findings of Chapter 4: Landscape

and Visual and Chapter 7: Noise.



226


Scope


Comments

Property: vacancy rates and vacant sites at Arnish;

recent developments and rental values.

Property and vacancy rates are

discussed within section 10.3 of

this chapter.

Accessibility: pedestrian footfall, accessibility, active

travel and ease of movement; parking; signage and

ease of navigation.

This is detailed within Chapter 9:

Traffic and Transport and not

within this chapter.

Community: attitudes, perceptions and aspirations. Community attitudes have been

acknowledged within this

chapter where applicable

however the main vehicle for

determining and reporting the

thoughts of the community of

the Pre-Application Consultation

(PAC) Report which has been

prepared separately to this EIAR.

Construction and operational noise: Environmental

Health has confirmed that there are nearby receptors

that will be affected during the construction and

operational phase. It is agreed that construction and

operational noise impacts should be addressed within

the EIA.

Noise Assessment detailed

within Chapter 7: Noise of this

EIAR and commentary on

potential noise impacts upon

tourism in Section 10.5.

Marine Scotland Air Quality: Marine Scotland suggest that Dust

Management Plan becomes planning condition as part

of CEMP.

Marine Scotland agrees that Air

Quality can be scoped out of this

EIAR. Air Quality commentary is

included within section 10.6

including discussion of future

Dust Management Plans.

Climate Change: Scottish Ministers agree that impacts

from increased greenhouse gas emissions can be

scoped out provided pollution and emissions control

would be mitigated through a CEMP.

Commentary included within

Other Issues Section 10.7 and

detailed further where applicable

within Chapter 5: Marine Ecology

and Chapter 8: Water, Soils and

Coastal Processes.

Scottish Water Utilities: Scottish Water Assets at the site include

distribution and trunk mains, sampling points,

washout valves and pressure relief valves across the

site of Goat Island.

Acknowledged within Chapter 8:

Water, Soils and Coastal

Processes and within section 10.9

of this chapter. All Scottish Water

Assets have been considered

within the development of the

Newton Marina.

Maritime

Coastguard

Agency

Navigational Safety: During construction, safe

operation of the harbour will need to be considered to

reduce the navigation risk to other vessels. The MCA

The Applicant operates a Port

Safety Management System

which includes measures to



227


Scope


Comments

(MCA)/Northern

Lighthouse

Board (NLB)

recommended the implementation of a robust Safety

Management System to manage incidents and risks,

including severe storms and transport accidents. The

NLB would require lighting and markings which would

be required in further detail.

reduce navigation risks. This

complies with the Port Marine

Safety Code (Department for

Transport and Marine

Coastguard Agency). Further

details can be found in section

10.8.

10.3 Socio-Economic

10.3.1 Introduction

This section assesses the potential socio-economic effects of the proposed development and the changes that

may occur during the construction and operation of the development in terms of socio-economic factors. These

include direct employment generation, indirect employment generation, economic impacts on the local

community and social impacts upon leisure services (i.e. access to marine leisure activities). Stornoway is the

primary port of the Outer Hebrides and as such it is one of the busiest ports on the west coast, north of the Clyde,

and is identified in Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework 79as one of the six “key ports” in Scotland.

Stornoway Port is central to the economy of the island, facilitating the lifeline ferry service and supporting almost

all economic activities from fishing and aquaculture, to construction, retail and marine leisure.

There is no industry-standard defined guidance for socio-economics within EIA, and accordingly this section

provides a primarily qualitative outline of socio-economic indicators and potential effects. It is noted within Table

10.1 and Technical Appendix 3.1 within Volume 3 of this EIAR that, neither the Scoping Report nor Scoping

Opinions from either CnES or Marine Scotland required socio-economic assessment, and accordingly this section

is intended as an indicative outline of potential socio-economic considerations.

All values of spend, gross value added (GVA) and estimates of construction and operational jobs have been

provided where possible by the Applicant.

10.3.2 Baseline

10.3.2.1 Population economics

Inhabited Scottish Island Census data (2011) compiles statistics from all Scottish island groups. In this instance

the data functions as an island comparator for the whole of the Isle of Lewis and other Hebridean Islands and is

supplementary to Stornoway socio-economic data.

The economic activity of people aged 16 to 74 in Stornoway, as detailed by Census data (2011)80, indicates that

in general the Stornoway population has higher economic activity than that of the Scotland average; more people

are considered to be economically active in Stornoway (72.3 percent) than Scotland (69.0 per cent) and in

surrounding inhabited islands (67%) ; more people in Stornoway are in part time employment (15.6 percent)

than Scotland (13.3 percent) and surrounding inhabited islands (16%) ; self-employment rates are equal for both

79 Scotland Third National Planning Framework, (2014), http://www.beta.gov.scot.publications 80 Scotland Census, (2011), http://www. Scotlandcensus.gov.uk

http://www.beta.gov.scot.publications/



228

Stornoway and Scotland at 7.5 percent and high for surrounding islands (13%); and fewer people in Stornoway

are unemployed (4.5 per cent) than Scotland (4.8 percent).

Of those persons aged 16 to 74 who are employed, the main two industries are Human Health and Social Work

activities (19.2 percent) reflecting the ageing population; and Wholesale and Retail Trade, and Repair of Motor

Vehicles (13.9 percent).

10.3.2.2 Population Decline

The Scottish Government’s National Records of Scotland (2016)81 predict that the Outer Hebrides will be subject

to a sharp decline in projected population from 2026-2041 (4 %). Children (-7%), working age (-5%) and age 75

and over (plus 27%) are included within these calculations. This suggests future concerns of an ageing,

economically-unbalanced population in the Outer Hebrides based on current trends and means. The Outer

Hebrides Community Planning Partnership (OHCPP) Local Outcome Improvement Plan (LOIP) 2017-2027 sets out

that maintaining and retaining a sustainable population is the subsequent focus of all socio-economic proposals

for the future development of the Western Isles. Several Western Isles marketing strategies in Aquaculture,

Marine Tourism, Renewables, Oil & Gas exploration are underpinned by an over-arching demographics initiative

in a bid to stabilise and balance the population in order to progress socio-economic development.

10.2.2.3 Boatyard

The Boat Yard at Goat Island is an established boat engineering and maintenance industry which supports the

local fishing, commercial and leisure industries. The yard handles fish-farming boats, inshore and offshore fishing

vessels, workboats, small ferries and leisure vessels and is the only significant facility of its kind in the Outer

Hebrides, the largest on the West coast of Scotland.

In this way, the Goat Island yard supports a strong, sustainable fishing industry with an annual catch landed in

the Outer Hebrides of approximately 3,500 tonnes with a value of some £10 million (SPA, 2017)82. The sector is

focussed mainly around creel fishing, with landings of nephrops (langoustine) accounting for 60% of landings by

value, and the other key products being lobster, crabs and scallops. Most langoustine landed in Stornoway goes

to the shellfish processing factory on Goat Island, and is then trucked via the ferry to the mainland. Salmon and

sea trout fishing is available at over 20 fisheries. Currently, one-fifth of all Scottish fish farming production is

located in the Outer Hebrides, with new sites being developed on the West Coast. Fishing (approx. 53 FTE jobs)

and fish processing (approx. 32 FTE jobs) are the largest employment sectors of existing employment in

Stornoway Harbour. These figures do not take into account indirect employment FTE’s in aquaculture and in the

logistical distribution of fish produced from local waters and processed/packaged at Goat Island.

At present, the boatyard can accommodate vessels up to 50m LOA and 850 tonnes, but there exists a number of

constraints on the efficiency and economic viability of the Boat Yard. Lack of a large covered facility has resulted

in economic losses through the following means,

(i) painting is delayed during inclement weather, resulting in increasing lost revenue

(ii) lack of covered spaces restricts sizeable major overhauls under the current infrastructure so must

be contracted to larger, mainland yards

(iii) construction of new boats is not possible due to the lack of covered space

(iv) engineering work is often conducted across three separate workshops

(v) lack of boat lift and slipway to bring smaller vessels out of the water for repairs or to launch new

smaller vessels

81 National Records of Scotland https, http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research 82 Stornoway Port Authority Masterplan, (2017), http://www.stornowayportauthority.com/

http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research

http://www.stornowayportauthority.com/



229

10.2.2.3 Marina

The marine tourism sector on the Isle of Lewis is strong and provides a solid foundation for future growth.

Through the marine tourism sector, Stornoway generates £53 million per year in the Outer Hebrides (Outer

Hebrides Visitor Survey 2012 – 201383. As part of tourism strategy development in the Outer Hebrides, key

stakeholders have developed a Marine Tourism Strategy which recognises this sector as a priority area for

development given the natural assets and environment of the area. The expansion of marina facilities in

Stornoway forms an important component of developing infrastructure throughout the Outer Hebrides. The

Crown Estate, Highlands & Islands Enterprise and Scottish Canals commissioned the review of the marine tourism

industry in Scotland. The report of the review, ‘Awakening the Giant’ Marine Tourism Strategy for the Outer

Hebrides84, identified the potential for major growth in the sector. The Outer Hebrides is becoming a leading

tourist destination in the UK, and as such the working harbour is integral to this success. In 2012/13, visitor

numbers reached 218,000 – the equivalent to 8 per resident (SPA, 2017). 48% of leisure visitors interviewed were

returning having previously enjoyed holidays in the Outer Hebrides.

Activities already established in the Outer Hebrides and Stornoway include cruising, sailing, kayaking, coasteering

and island-hopping currently provided by some businesses including Stornoway Seafari Ltd, Hebridean

Hopscotch and Surf Lewis, these are not however based at the site of the proposed development. The current

layout and function of the site at Goat Island is primarily industrial with basic boat repair provision. There is no

public slipway for access to the water. There are rudimental maintenance services for working fishing boats but

a lack of facilities and attractions for leisure craft/marine activities and as such it is unsuitable for recreation or

leisure purposes. At present, Goat Island, does not have the capacity for marine or recreational activities and is

primarily industrial. There are no direct full time equivalent (FTE) jobs dedicated to Marine Tourism at the current

site.

Presently, shortage of berths at peak season is a constraint on potential growth and in accessing the yachting

and recreational sailing market. The current slipway at Cuddy Point is not useable at low tide and lack of facilities

(i.e. toilets, showers) limits the times of year when it can be used. It should also be noted that presently, the 80-

berth harbour area off Cromwell Street is full to capacity and as such temporary ‘over-capacity’ berthing is

emerging.

10.3.3 Potential Effects

10.3.3.1 Direct effects on employment

Construction

Approximately 25 direct full time equivalent (FTE) jobs will be ongoing during the construction phase of the

proposed development, with a further 20 being required for the construction of the boatyard building. The

employment of 45 FTEs during construction will be a positive effect for the population of Stornoway, as a

proportion of these staff will be local.

Operation

The proposed development will allow the Boatyard activity to increase by providing engineering services to the

marine sector. Under the proposed development, the boatyard building will be equipped with the facilities

required to accommodate and perform major overhauls. The boatshed will also allow the construction of new

vessels. There is substantial demand from the aquaculture industry for new boats up to 16m long. These could

be built in the new boat shed. There has been a recent increase in operators offering sea trips; the new building

will allow boats to be converted for tourist use as well as ongoing maintenance of such vessels.

83 Outer Hebrides Visitor Survey (2013), http://www.visitscotland.org 84 Outer Hebrides Strategic Action Framework (2020), http://www.visitouterhebrides.co.uk

http://www.visitscotland.org/

http://www.visitouterhebrides.co.uk/



230

With proposed facilities in place, the Boatyard has the potential to substantially increase its turnover, which is

estimated to double in the immediate short/medium term (SPA, 2017)85. Indirectly-generated employment

opportunities are likewise expected to follow a similar mark-up and increase exponentially as aforementioned

markets are accessed.

Approximately 11 direct full time equivalent (FTE) jobs will be created during the operational phase of the

Boatyard development. Approximately 2 direct FTE jobs will be created as a result of the marina development,

and these staff will be based in the office at Stornoway Port Authority. The employment of 13 new staff during

the operational phase is a positive effect for the population of Lewis.

10.3.3.2 Indirect effects on the local Economy and Employment

Construction

There will be indirect economic benefits for accommodation and catering providers associated with construction

personnel staying on the island. This will be especially beneficial as the demand will not be seasonal, but year-

round.

There will also be indirect economic benefits for local companies who provide services to the contractor, such as

repairs to plant, purchase of supplies and haulage.

Population Decline

Policies and initiatives can positively impact upon population. Achieving strategic policy alignment has been

central to the SPA Masterplan. This combined with the ‘Awakening the Giant Marine Tourism Strategy’ have the

potential to positively impact upon the demographics of the Outer Hebrides in terms of offering incentive for

migration and helping retain the existing working population. Strategies to support and expand on existing

industry i.e. Aquaculture, Marine Tourism, Renewables and recreation within these proposals have the potential

to generate increased economic activity and employment opportunities in the Outer Hebrides. This is considered

to be a positive impact of the proposed development.

Marina

Under the proposed development, it is expected that there will be a significant increase the range of 8,500

additional leisure craft boat nights by 2025 (SPA, 2017) 86. Provision of full marina services including showers,

toilets, dry boat storage, security systems and boatlift will continue to attract leisure craft and yacht visitors,

enhancing the reputation of Stornoway as a key yachting port in the West of Scotland. Under the proposed

development, the marina will be able to accommodate 75 more berths, which should satisfy short/medium term

peak season numbers. This will lead to an increase in demand for a range of supplies and services, such as yacht

maintenance and repair and local service provision such as restaurants, shops and visitor attractions shops. In

addition to the extra berth capacity, the Newton Slipway will also be useable for longer seasonal periods. This is

considered to be a positive effect of the proposed development.

The completion of the proposed development will secure Stornoway’s position as an important port of call within

the Royal Yachting Association’s UK Coastal Atlas of Recreational Boating 87 - appealing to brand new markets in

the form of touring leisure craft from Scotland, UK and further afield. Economic activity associated with existing

marine tourism businesses (i.e. surfing, kayaking, coasteering and island-hopping trips) is expected to be

bolstered by the proposed development in complement to the yachting provision. This is considered to be a

positive effect on the local community.

85 The Applicant, Stornoway Port Authority, (2017), Masterplan http://www.stornowayportauthority.com 86 The Applicant, Stornoway Port Authority (2017) Masterplan, http://www.stornowayportauthority.com 87 Royal Yachting Association UK Coastal Atlas of Recreational Boating, (2017), https://www.rya.org.uk/knowledge-advice/planning-

environment/Pages/uk-coastal-atlas-of-recreational-boating.aspx



https://www.rya.org.uk/knowledge-advice/planning-environment/Pages/uk-coastal-atlas-of-recreational-boating.aspx

https://www.rya.org.uk/knowledge-advice/planning-environment/Pages/uk-coastal-atlas-of-recreational-boating.aspx



231

10.4 Property Matters

10.3.1 Introduction

CnES has requested that this EIA consider vacancy rates and vacant sites at Arnish, as well as recent

developments and rental values. Arnish Industrial Park is a major manufacturing yard which has Enterprise Area

status. It was developed by Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), who lease the land from The Stornoway Trust.

With increased numbers of visiting yachts, there will also be a positive impact on other marinas in the Outer

Hebrides, as visiting yachts will typically visit a number of destinations during their journey. The new marinas

planned at Tarbert (Harris) and Lochs (Lewis) will increase this impact.

10.3.2 Baseline

Arnish Point Industrial Park comprises a range of developed and vacant plots. In addition, it has a 100m long pier

and a load-out barge berth. The plots are designated for Use Classes 4 (Business), 5 (General Industrial) and 6

(Storage or distribution).

The major occupier is BiFab, who make components for the offshore energy sector. The BiFab facilities are

currently mothballed due to a lack of orders. DF Barnes, a Canadian marine fabrication company, recently bought

BiFab with a view to expanding its range of activities.

The Hebridean Seaweed Company occupies one other plot and is in the process of expanding its operations onto

the two adjoining plots (1.2 and 1.4). Plots 3.1 and 3.2 are the proposed site for land-based infrastructure for

Scottish & Southern Energy Network’s proposed Western Isles Interconnector. This use of these plots has

Planning Permission in Principle. Half of Plot 2.1 is leased to a haulage company. Plots 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7 are

operational working areas associated with the quay so suitable for short-term use only.

The Applicant is seeking to develop a Deep Water Port at Glumaig Bay, adjoining Arnish, for use as a berth for

large vessels, including cruise ships, and associated land-based uses. A 25m wide link between the Deep Water

Port and Arnish Point Industrial Estates forms part of the Deep Water Port proposals. This link will allow large

marine engineering components to be transported to and from the BiFab facility.

Arnish Point Industrial Estate is not a suitable location for a new marina due to its use as a major manufacturing

site, its distance from the town centre and the lack of a suitable sheltered area which does not impinge on

navigation within Glumaig Bay. It is not a suitable location for boat construction and maintenance as there is a

lack of suitable space within the confines of the Arnish site where a slipway and the associated infrastructure

could be developed without impacting on other site operations.

10.3.3 Potential effects

There are no anticipated impacts from the Newton Marina project on Arnish Point Industrial Estate.

10.5 Population and Human Health

10.5.1 Introduction

In accordance with the EIA Regulations, population and human health factors are now required to be considered

within EIAs. Within the UK, the standard definition of health is defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO)

which defines health as, “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing” 88. Many factors affect health

and wellbeing. The physical and social conditions in which people live can positively or negatively impact health.

88 World Health Organisation (WHO), (2014), Mental Health: A State of Wellbeing, http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_health/en

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_health/en



232

Socio-economic factors include, but are not limited to, local cultural environment, education opportunities,

accessibility of transport, availability of housing, employment opportunities, levels of crime, income and leisure.

In order to improve the overall health and wellbeing of the population of the Outer Hebrides, it is important to

recognise opportunities for improvement of health and well-being.

Whilst a history of Health Impact Assessment exists in Scotland extolled by organisations such as the Scottish

Health and Inequalities Impact Assessment Network (SHIIAN)89, its crossover into EIA has not yet been tested.

When employing the test of likely significant effects as per the requirements of the EIA Regulations in relation to

impacts upon population and human health, it is found that as per Table 10.1, the consultees agreed that

population and human health should be examined as a non-EIA topic given significant effects are unlikely. The

key impacts upon human health from the proposed development derive from a combination of visual, noise and

air quality impacts, with the former two being fully assessed within Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual and Chapter

7: Noise of this EIAR.

Despite this, in accordance with the comments provided by CnES as referred to within Table 10.1, this chapter

gives an outline of other topics considered within the suggested scope of ‘population and human health’ by CnES.

Community attitudes and perceptions (from questionnaire feedback) were used to supplement this section in

terms of local views on facilities, services, recreation and tourism aspirations for the future of Stornoway.

10.5.2 Baseline

10.5.2.1 Health

Highlands and Islands Enterprise Census data from the Stornoway Profile Report (2011) comprises average health

statistics from all Scottish island groups including the area comprising Innse Gall; the entire island chain off the

West coast of Scotland. The Inhabited Islands 90 socio-economic analytical report is ancillary to Innse Gall island

data and functions as another island comparator for the whole of the Isle of Lewis and other Hebridean Islands

and is consequently presented alongside Stornoway, Highland and mainland Scotland health data.

According to the Stornoway Profile report (2011)91, some 80.8 percent of the population of Stornoway stated

that their health was ‘very good’ or ‘good’. This was lower than the Innse Gall (81.7 percent), the Highlands and

Islands (83.8 percent) and Scotland (82.2 percent). Approximately 21.0 percent of the Stornoway population

reported a limited long-term illness or health problem that affected their day-to-day activities which was

marginally above the rates for Innse Gall (20.5 percent), the Highlands and Islands (18.9 percent) and Scotland

(19.6 percent). Some 8.9 percent of the Stornoway population provided unpaid care on a weekly basis which was

marginally below the rates for Innse Gall (9.6 percent), the Highlands and Islands (9.5 percent) and Scotland (9.3

percent).

10.5.2.2 Marina

Public perceptions of the proposed development at Newton Marina are strongly positive as discussed in full

within the Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report which is separate to this EIAR. The ‘transformative’, visual

enhancement of Goat Island was welcomed on all levels. The community are in anticipation of plans to cater for

a wide range of potential users (recreational) and the additional berthing space provided by the proposed

development.

Goat Island is an established location for boat construction/repair and provides essential services to Stornoway’s

fishing and aquaculture industry. The fish processing facility on the site currently processes and packages

89 Scottish Health and Inequalities Impact Assessment Network (SHIIAN), (2018), https://www.scotphn.net/networks/scottish-health-and-inequalities-

impact-assessment-network-shiian/introduction 90 Inhabited Islands Analytical Report (2011), www. scotlandcensus.gov.uk/…//Inhabited islands report. Pdf 91 Stornoway Profile Report (2011) Highlands and Islands Enterprise, http://www.hie.co.uk/regional-information/area-information/outer-

hebrides/economic-profile.html

https://www.scotphn.net/networks/scottish-health-and-inequalities-impact-assessment-network-shiian/introduction

https://www.scotphn.net/networks/scottish-health-and-inequalities-impact-assessment-network-shiian/introduction



233

langoustine, lobster and crab for exported via ferry around the mainland. The community are aware that facilities

are lacking and this is resulting in long-term economic losses for the community.

Due to the working nature of the site, boats and mechanical infrastructure comprise the primary visual features

of the site. The site is industrial in character with minimum visual amenity. There are no existing

recreational/leisure aspects at Goat Island. The existing marina at Cromwell Street Quay is full, restricting marine

leisure opportunities for local residents. The existing slipway at Cuddy Point does not extend below low tide level,

so its use is restricted. This is a problem for local water sports clubs whose hours of operation are therefore

limited. Due to its location, the boat storage building at Cuddy Point has no water or drainage services and

therefore no toilets or showers. This restricts the water sports clubs use of the slipway to spring/summer when

the weather is warmer.

10.5.2.3 Access to Marine Leisure

The population of Stornoway and surrounding areas currently have some access to established marine leisure

activities in the Outer Hebrides and Stornoway, within a reasonable travelling distance. Marine leisure

opportunities presently include cruising, sailing, kayaking, coasteering and island-hopping and are provided by

marine tourism businesses including Stornoway Seafari Ltd, Hebridean Hopscotch and Surf Lewis around the Isle

of Lewis. The Third Priority of the Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership (OHCPP, 2018)92 outlines that

attractive opportunities improve quality of life, well-being and health of the population whilst CnES Culture and

Leisure also endorse that outdoor sports have a positive effect on both physical and mental health and well-

being.


10.5.3.1 Health

The proposed development will increase the number of berths for yachts and small boats in Stornoway. The new

slipway will make it easier to launch boats at low tide. The project will protect utility infrastructure for a future

water sports facilities. This will increase access to marine sports for local residents, with consequent positive

impacts on physical and mental wellbeing.

Under the proposed development at Newton Marina, existing businesses will now have the required facilities to

construct, modify, repair, paint and maintain and boats on-site without having to contract out to better-equipped

ports. Provisions are available for fish-farming boats, inshore/offshore fishing vessels, workboats, small ferries

and leisure vessels. Yacht maintenance facilities are provided in addition to these measures. This provision is

considered a positive effect of the proposed development and goes some way in assuring future economic

prosperity.

Some potential visual impacts and cumulative effects of the proposed development upon the local population

for the construction phase of the proposed development (as detailed within Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual

Assessment of this EIAR) are significant although it is accepted that these are very localised in their extent.

Potential effects of the proposed development in the operational phase are considered positive in light of the

increased aesthetic amenity and multi-functionality provided by the new Newton Marina. Further commentary

on the impact of visual effects upon tourism can be found within section 10.5.

Potential noise impacts upon the local residential population (and tourism) for the construction phase of the

proposed development (as detailed within Chapter 7: Noise of this EIAR) are accepted as transitionary, with

moderate effects restricted to a 2-month period within the 14-months of construction works. This short-term

92 Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership (2018), http://www.ohcpp.org.uk/

http://www.ohcpp.org.uk/



234

moderate effect is attributed to cutter-suction and back-hoe dredging, further commentary on which can be

found within Chapter 7: Noise of this EIAR.

10.5.3.2 Population Decline

The introduction of ‘Awakening the Giant Strategy’ amongst other national strategic proposals, although aimed

at promoting Marine Tourism in the Outer Hebrides, has the potential to generate substantial economic activity,

which in turn could support the existing population, possibly attracting more of Scotland’s working age

population (and their families) to the islands. Large initiatives do have the potential to alter demographics and

reverse predicted trends. In consideration of this, the Outer Hebrides could potentially become more

economically robust and equipped in meeting predicted economic obligations for elderly healthcare as a result

of the proposed development. This is considered a positive effect of the proposed development.

10.5.3.3 Access to Marine Leisure

Newton Marina proposals include berthing for 75 visiting yachts with facilities for yachting visitors. With the

proposed facilities in place, the marina can be effectively utilised for sail training, by specialist vessels, Diving

Clubs and Kayaking. The proposed development therefore provides improved and equitable access to

recreational facilities not only for the health and well-being of the local and surrounding population, but for

visiting users also. This is considered a positive effect of the proposed development.

10.6 General Recreation

10.5.1 Introduction

The physical and cultural character of Lewis and the Western Isles offers a typical Hebridean experience. The

distinct physical landscape provides experiences of wildlife, opportunities for adventure and marine activities.

Cultural assets including the Gaelic language, history, music, arts and ancestry completes the ‘Hebridean

experience’ as per the Outer Hebrides Strategic Action Framework 2020. Stornoway is an established cruising

port of call with substantial and steadily increasing visitor numbers. It is accepted that visitor numbers will

increase exponentially under the ‘Awakening the Giant’ Marine Tourism Initiative and on completion of the

recreational marina. It is therefore important to understand how potential noise and visual effects will impact

upon existing tourism-business and recreation in the vicinity of the proposed development. This section applies

the outcome of the noise assessment results in the context of local tourism-business impacts.

10.6.1.1 Noise

Baseline

Some construction methods featuring piling and dredging works are expected to produce noise throughout the

construction phase of the proposed development. In light of this, there are a number of B&Bs and tourist

accommodations (i.e. Arnish View B&B, Twenty Seven, 22A Newton Street and Hal of the Wynd) near to the

proposed development which require due consideration in terms of indirect implications on tourism-businesses.



235

This section consequently offers supplementary consideration of the potential noise impacts in respect of

affected tourism businesses in Stornoway Town Centre.

The nature of the proposed development requires individual assessment of both construction and operational

noise and further cumulative assessment of all effects. Newton Street, the closest residential area to the

proposed development, is 160m from Goat Island. Baseline noise from Goat Island is principally generated from

boat servicing, Battery Point power station, fish processing, fishing boats and traffic as surveyed from Newton

Street.

The need for a full noise assessment was agreed with CnES Environmental Health and is detailed within Chapter

7: Noise of this EIAR.

Potential Effects

Construction noise is expected over a period of 14 months. Noise assessment was derived from receptor data on

Newton Street, James Street, Builnacraig Street and Millar Road against acceptable background thresholds. Of

particular consideration was noise receptor 4 on Newton Street (see Figure 7.2 within Volume 2), because of its

proximity to three B&B businesses. Cumulative impacts combining Deep Water Port construction noise modelled

on a worst case scenario for the Newton Street receptor indicated a moderate potential impact for a short period

of two months. This unavoidable moderate impact is for a very brief period of time and as such is not expected

to have any lasting, adverse impacts upon local B&B and tourism businesses.

10.6.1.2 Recreational Views

This section offers supplementary consideration of the potential visual impacts of the proposed development

upon local tourism businesses and residents in key areas identified within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility.

In 2017, CnES implemented a Stornoway Vision Consultation93 for the town centre. This includes a proposal for

a waterfront walk and cycle route from Arnish to Goat Island. The current appearance of the island is industrial

and thus not a suitable destination for walkers or cyclists. At present, the local area provides important leisure

utility for tourists and local residents for walking, cycling and fishing. Lews Castle; a mid-19th Century designated

landscape and park garden is some distance from the proposed development but highly-valued as a prominent

recreational site. Routes closer to the proposed development i.e. along Newton Street and Battery Point are

popular dog-walking and coastal routes within the town.

Viewpoints from core footpaths, residential walkways, key cultural heritage sites, ferry routes and offshore

locations found to be located within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility were identified and assessed for

significance of effects and are detailed assessment can be found within Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual of this

EIAR.

With increased numbers of yachting visitors and subsequent pedestrian footfall expected in and around

Stornoway and Newton Marina on its completion; it is essential to consider any significant visual effects of the

proposed development on primary recreational/leisure zones (including marine approach to the harbour) and

potential social implications.

Potential Effects

South Beach has a high concentration of tourist facilities, including An Lanntair Gallery and VisitScotland Centre

in close proximity. Residential and recreational views of the proposed development from South Beach are mostly

obscured by South Beach Pier and associated ferry terminal infrastructure. Despite tourist numbers being high,

baseline views from South Beach Pier are essentially industrial and consequently the proposed development is

likely to enhance views from South Beach with no adverse long-term effects expected.

93 Consultation: Stornoway Vision (2017), https://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/have-your-say/consultations/2017/stornoway-vision

https://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/have-your-say/consultations/2017/stornoway-vision



236

At least four B&B accommodations located along Newton Street including Arnish View B&B, Twenty Seven, 22A

Newton Street and Hal of the Wynd – have uncompromising views of Goat Island. Newton Street is also a primary

coastal thoroughfare for residents and tourists pursuing bay views. Residents, B&B visitors and recreational users

of Newton Street will be subject to direct construction views for a period of 14 months and long-term operational

views of the proposed development. Local B&B business could subsequently be susceptible to short-term

impacts of the proposed development in the construction phase whilst long-term benefits would be anticipated

due to the enhanced aesthetic amenity provided by the recreational function of the marina.

Lews Castle Grounds and adjoining Lady Lever Park is a designated Inventory Garden and Designed Landscape

(IGDL). The site café, shop, museum are popular with tourists and local residents who utilise the grounds -which

have commanding views over Stornoway Town. Coastal views of the proposed development are partially

screened by buildings along Stornoway Harbour whilst cumulative Deep Water views are partially screened by

vegetation (trees). Likewise, views from Iolaire Monument, a wartime heritage asset, are primarily mitigated

across the distance of Stornoway Harbour, and the potential impact of the dimensions of the larger buildings i.e.

the boat workshop, are consequently lessened. It should be noted within this section that the boat workshop

and other larger buildings are subject to separate, future planning application(s). Despite being a cultural

heritage asset, the remote setting of Iolaire Monument coupled with a low population density means potential

visual impacts upon leisure and tourism businesses will be marginal.

Despite there being good tourist provision in the town of Newmarket 3.18km north of Goat Island and along the

A857, views of the proposed development from Newmarket primarily comprise of residential land use and

existing industry. All Newton Marina infrastructure including the un-related Fish Processing Facility is screened

by intervening townscape. In this instance, the distance and land relief mitigates any potential visual impacts

upon leisure. There is also a small provision for tourism in Sandwick, ie. The Sandwick Bay and Hebridean Luxury

Holidays which are 1.39km and 1.5 km east of the proposed development respectively. In this instance, the

distance mitigates any potential visual impacts upon leisure from the proposed development.

Although significant development will be evident from various leisure and residential networks under the

proposed development - changes will ultimately improve the aesthetic amenity of Goat Island on a permanent

basis. This is considered a positive effect of the proposed development for the residential population and visitors

utilising local routes.

10.5.1.2 Coastal Access

Cruise passengers and local residents will be able to continue to utilise the local area for recreational activities

i.e. walking, cycling and leisure travel. Newton Street accessibility is unaffected for residents and visitors as the

proposed development is contained on Goat Island. It has been acknowledged that cars are parked on either side

of Newton Street, which may have a negligible impact upon flow of traffic, but there are no effects upon

pedestrian access. Further details can be found in Chapter 9: Traffic and Transport. Countryside access and the

wider path network across Mol Shanndabhaig to Battery Point will also remain unaffected until the end of route

at Battery Point.

10.7 Air Quality

10.7.1 Introduction

The primary long-term concern in relation to air quality is the emissions generated by both road and marine

traffic and the subsequent impact on the local ambient air quality at residential and public areas located within

the vicinity of the main road network. The main pollutants of concern associated with road traffic emissions are

nitrogen oxide (NO2), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5).



237

10.7.2 Baseline

The relevant 1km background air quality concentration maps were obtained from the Scottish Air Quality94 and

DEFRA 95 websites. The 2016 measured annual average concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are 4.19

micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m3), 7.38μg/m3 and 4.62μg/m3 respectively for background square (142500,

930500). This indicates the good air quality within the area of the site with the concentrations well below the

relevant National Air Quality Objectives 96 of 40μg/m3, 18μg/m3 and 10μg/m3 respectively.

The 2016 Air Quality Progress Report97 for CnES (the most up-to-date report available) does not identify any Air

Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) within the council area.

CnES does not currently operate any automatic air quality monitoring stations within their boundary and

monitoring via diffusion tubes is limited to within Stornoway and therefore not representative of conditions at

the proposed development.


As per the Scoping Report and subsequent Scoping Opinions, it was agreed with CnES and Marine Scotland that

air quality would be scoped out of full assessment, primarily given the distance between the proposed

development and sensitive receptors to dust and emissions.

Construction of the proposed development is considered to be a temporary impact and can be controlled

through developing a site-specific Dust Management Plan as part of a Construction Environmental Management

Plan (CEMP). The dust impact assessment requires specific information on site operations during construction,

including preparatory earthworks, general construction and the potential for trackout during construction of the

proposed development, which will be available at a subsequent detailed stage. It is therefore proposed to defer

the construction dust assessment and formulation of a construction dust management plan until such time as

full details on construction have been finalised.

During operation, given that the development will not lead to a significant increase in road traffic on the

surrounding roads, with data indicating that air quality is good in the vicinity of the site it is anticipated that any

increase in exhaust emissions will have a negligible effect on air quality at sensitive receptors.

10.8 Climate Change

There is a requirement within the EIA Regulations (see Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and Scoping of this EIAR) to

incorporate factors relating to climate change. As introduced within this chapter, this was scoped out of

assessment however climate change considerations are contained within Chapter 5: Marine Ecology and Chapter

7: Water, Soils and Coastal Processes of this EIAR.

10.9 Navigational Considerations

10.9.1 Introduction

This section assesses the potential impacts on the navigation from the construction and operation of the

proposed development. In addition, it also proposed mitigation measures which can be applied to further reduce

94 Scottish Air Quality, (2016), http://www.scottishairquality.co.uk 95 DEFRA, http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs 96 National Air Quality Objectives, (2016), http://www.uk-air.defra.gov.uk 97 CnES Air Quality Progress Report (2016), http://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/media/8712/air-quality-progress-reports-2016

http://www.scottishairquality.co.uk/

http://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs

http://www.cne-siar.gov.uk/media/8712/air-quality-progress-reports-2016



238

the significance or likelihood of significant effects. Ensuring the safe operation of the harbour with particular

respect to existing marine traffic.

10.9.2 Baseline

Stornoway remains the principal port of the Outer Hebrides from which the lifeline ferry service to Ullapool

operates three times daily. The existing port and bulk cargo handling capability is typically utilised by large

commercial cargo vessels for deliveries to Stornoway and the Outer Hebrides. Cruise ships approximating 50 per

annum are also welcomed at the port. Aquaculture vessels, RNLI lifeboat and a number of visiting recreational

craft operate in the harbour vicinity and in the region of the existing 80-berth marina. Total vessel numbers have

steadily increased from 768 in 2015, 833 in 2016 to 908 in 2017.

The Applicant operates a Port Safety Management System which complies with the Port Marine Safety Code 98

(Department for Transport and Marine and Coastguard Agency.). All vessels using the harbour must contact the

Port Authority Watch Keeper via VHF radio prior to arrival and departure. The Watch Keeper advises whether it

is safe for the vessel to move and of any large vessel movements or other hazards. All vessels over 500 gross

tonnes and all fishing boats over 15m in length must be fitted with Automatic Identification System (AIS); this

allows the Port Authority staff to monitor vessel movements online, The Port Authority publishes Notices to

Mariners with updates for any safety or other port operational matters.

All vessels carrying bulk dangerous goods and passenger ships in excess of 5,000 gross tonnes must take a Port

Authority pilot on board when entering or leaving the port, unless the Port Authority has granted a Pilot

Exemption Licence.

For recreational users, i.e. small leisure craft, published almanacs identify cruising routes, harbour details and

safety measures to be observed. All users should be familiar with data available within Admiralty Charts (issued

by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office) including traffic separation schemes, chart datum of depths,

coastline, weather - to inform their approaches and avoid collision within the vicinity of the proposed

development.

All users affiliated with the Royal Yachting Association are thus obliged to be duly informed and comply with

these measures. The Scottish Canoe Association, local inshore fishermen and RNLI Stornoway are also regularly

informed via hazard workshops etc.

Currently, the Port Authority as the local Lighthouse Authority provides a network of navigation marks to assist

vessels in navigating within the confines of the Harbour. Several shoal patches are marked with unlit framework

towers, or unlit beacons. The entrance to Stornoway Harbour is dominated by Arnish Point Lighthouse.


10.9.3.1 Fishing and Boat Repair

The construction phase is not likely to result in negative impacts on the movements of fishing vessels, and those

using the existing commercial slipway for repairs will not be affected by construction activity.

The Goat Island Fish Processing Facility, (acquired by Macduff’s Seafood in 2014) does not have an association

to the proposed development but has potential for expansion due to the increasing demand for fish processing/

distribution from new aquaculture projects in the Outer Hebrides. An adjoining vacant site has been identified

for this expansion; this is outside the site for the new marina and boatshed.

98 Port Marine Safety Code, Stornoway Port Authority (2015), http://www.stornowayportauthority.com




239

10.9.3.2 Recreation

With promotion of Marine Tourism and the yachting market at the forefront of the Outer Hebrides Tourism

Strategy (2020)99, numbers are expected to increase in the operational phase of the proposed development. As

Newton Marina becomes more established, visits are expected to increase. .

During construction, including the dredging of material for the reclamation, the Port Authority will issue Notices

to Mariners to inform other users of the marine works and any impact on navigation.

Following completion of the proposed development, the Port Authority will forward hydrographic information

to the Hydrographic Office to allow Admiralty Charts to be updated.

10.9.3.3 Commercial

Ferry and frequent commercial vessels who typically operate under pilotage exemption licences will be updated

on new infrastructure. Prior to construction and dredging of material for the reclamation, the port authority will

issue notices to all mariners detailing the specifics of the planned marine works, consequent impacts upon

navigation and any navigational provisions entailed.

10.10 Utilities

10.10.1 LPG Pipeline

The Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Pipeline runs from Pier 2 through the main artery of Stornoway, to the

Stornoway Liquid Petroleum Gas Plant (Scotia Gas Networks). The route of the pipeline passes the Smokehouse

and South Beach Car Park, onto Shell Street, Newton Street and Island Road. Constraints on certain development

types within the inner/middle and outer protected zones for planning consultation purposes have been duly

assessed. With construction works being restricted to the Goat Island site, there are no significant effects

expected for the proposed development in this respect.

10.10.2 Scottish Water

There are no Scottish Water drinking water abstraction sources or Drinking Water Protected Areas under the

Water Framework Directive. There are, however, multiple other assets in or close to the site as listed below:

Existing waste water pumping station and associated combined sewer overflow;

125mm rising drainage main from the pumping station to the main Scottish Water pumping station to

the north of the Coastguard building;

Combined sewers serving existing buildings;

63mm and 90mm water mains;

900mm glass re-enforced concrete combined sewer at the north-west boundary; and

525mm sewer situated in north-west corner of the site.

Scottish Water Assets at the site include distribution and trunk mains, sampling points, washout valves and

pressure relief valves across the site of Goat Island. In light of this data, the location of all Scottish Water Assets

has been considered in terms of the proposed location of new underground services. . The Port Authority will

make applications for new foul drainage and water connections to Scottish Water at the appropriate time and

avoid disturbance to existing assets.

99 Outer Hebrides Strategic Action Framework, (2020), http://www.visitouterhebrides.co.uk

http://www/



240

10.10.3 Scottish & Southern Energy Network (SSEN)

An existing high voltage cable runs below the causeway to an existing transformer located at the Port Authority

commercial slipway. Individual supplies run from this transformer to the individual buildings on the site. The

project will require diversion of the electrical supply to the Scottish Water pumping station, removal of the

supply to the existing small boatsheds and introduction of a new electrical supply for the marina and new

boatsheds. The Port Authority is in discussion with SSEN with regards to these diversions.

10.10.4 Telecoms

There are existing below ground telecoms cables running below the causeway and existing road on Goat Island.

Care will be taken not to disturb this infrastructure. The Port Authority has made an application to Openreach

for new telecoms infrastructure for the new facilities.



241

11 CHAPTER 11: SCHEDULE OF MITIGATION

11.1 Introduction

This chapter presents a summary of the mitigation and enhancement measures identified by the specialist

environmental studies through the EIA process. It indicates how these mitigation measure have or would be

implemented.

The mitigation and enhancement measures included in this EIAR would be implemented during one or more of

the following three broad phases of the proposed development:

Measures incorporated during the design process;

Measures required through the construction phase; and

Measures likely to be required during post-construction.

Table 11.1 below provides a summary of the mitigation measures proposed for each issue identified by the EIA

process. The measures are divided into the categories outlined above. It should be noted that the tables present

a summary only; further details on the mitigation and enhancement measures are included within each chapter

and the associated reports are included within Volume 3: Technical Appendices of this EIAR.

The Schedule is designed to provide a comprehensive summary of all construction or physical mitigation

measures that would require to be carried through into the construction and operation of the proposed

development, to ensure that the environmental assessment outcomes discussed throughout this EIAR are

reached, e.g. to ensure that significant adverse effects are avoided where applicable and possible.

It should be noted that enhancement measures have been suggested where appropriate throughout this EIAR,

however these are not items which have been included within the Schedule, given that whilst they are actions

or features which are encouraged, they are not mitigation which is required to alleviate potentially significant

effects.

11.2 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation detailed in each technical chapter has been summarised below.



242

Table 11.1: Schedule of Mitigation

Feature / Topic Mitigation Timing

Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual

Design Mitigation To help ensure that the proposed development integrates positively with its sensitive landscape and

coastal setting, the following landscape design and mitigation measures have been embedded in the

outline project proposals;

Slipway design has been amended to suit local use;

Passing place to address concerns about congestion;

No cumulative dredging with Deep Water Port project for purposes of reducing noise impacts.

Design

Construction

Environmental

Management Plan (CEMP)

In addition to above measures, it is also envisaged that further mitigation measures regarding the exact

layout and location of development, and building materials and dimensions would be further developed

as part of further consent applications. If consented, other landscape mitigation measures would also

be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

Construction

Chapter 5: Marine Ecology

Otters

Despite no signs of otter during field visits and anecdotally in the local area, the possible presence of

otter on site and in the wider landscape should be included in tool box talks and site induction for

construction staff operating in this area.

Construction

Works associated with land above the high water mark should be preceded by a pre-works check for

otter resting sites. If an otter is observed within the proposed working areas, seek guidance from an

Ecological Clerk of Works (ECOW) and do not commence works until the otter has dispersed.

Construction

Should an otter resting site be discovered, prior to or during works, said works should be assessed with

regards to the need for additional mitigation species disturbance licensing.

Construction

Artificial lighting should be directed towards the working areas only in order to minimise the effects on

otter which can be more active between dusk and dawn.

Construction



243


Pollution of the marine environment should be prevented in order to safeguard water quality and

marine life which otter rely on within these habitats.

Construction/Operation

Construction Method

Statement (CMS)

A Construction Method Statement (CMS) detailing pollution prevention measures will be agreed with

the regulatory authority prior to works commencing, as part of the wider CEMP.

Construction

The following good practice guidelines shall be adhered to and incorporated into the CMS:

o GGP 5: Works and maintenance in or near water;

o PPG 6: Working at construction and demolition sites;

o PPG 7: Safe Storage – The safe operation of refuelling facilities;

o GPP 21: Pollution and incident response planning; and

o PPG 22: Incident response – dealing with spills

Marine Mammal

Protection Protocol

(MMPP) – general

measures

The Marine Mammal Observation Protocol (MMOP) (Technical Appendix 5.2) would be implemented

so that the impact piling works do not cause injury or unnecessary disturbance to marine mammals.

Construction

A suitably qualified Marine Mammal Observer (MMO), competent in the identification of marine

mammals, will be present during the impact piling. The MMO will undertake observation for marine

mammals within the mitigation zone before and during impact piling. The MMO will advise the

contractors and crews on the implementation of the procedures set out in the agreed protocol, to

ensure compliance with those procedures.

Construction

The MMO will be equipped with binoculars (10X42 or similar) and/or a spotting scope (20-60 zoom or

equivalent), a copy of the agreed protocol and the Marine Mammal Recording Form (MMRF).

Construction

The JNCC guidance defines the mitigation zone as a pre-agreed radius around the piling site prior to any

piling. This is the area where a MMO keeps watch for marine mammals (and delays the start of activity

should any marine mammals be detected). The extent of this zone represents the area in which a

marine mammal could be exposed to sound that could cause injury and will be determined by factors

such as the pile diameter, the water depth, the nature of the activities (for example whether drilling

will also take place) and the effect of the substrate on noise transmission. The radius of the mitigation

zone should be no less than 500 metres, and this is measured from the pile location. The MMO should

Construction



244


be located on the most appropriate viewing platform to ensure effective coverage of the mitigation

zone.

Visual monitoring will not commence during poor visibility (such as fog) or during periods when the sea state is not conducive to visual mitigation (above sea state 4 is considered not conducive[1]) as there is a greater risk of failing to detect the presence of marine mammals. In the event that visual monitoring is not possible, the protocol outlined in Section 5.8.3 should be followed. Harbour porpoise have small dorsal fins, therefore the MMO shall take additional precautions if the sea state exceeds 2. As works are scheduled to commence during the winter period it is likely that sea state 2 will be exceeded on a regular basis. An elevated platform for the MMO to monitor from would be beneficial when the sea state is 2 or above, the impact piling works could also be scheduled on a day where the sea is expected to be calm. The MMO can be based at the east end of Goat Island, where the ground is elevated, in order to have

a good view over the sea.

Construction

The mitigation zone will be monitored visually by the MMO for an agreed period prior to the

commencement of piling. This will be a minimum of 30 minutes. Piling will not commence if marine

mammals are detected within the mitigation zone or until 20 minutes after the last visual or acoustic

detection. The MMO will track any marine mammals detected and ensure they are satisfied the animals

have left the mitigation zone before they advise the crew to commence piling activities.

Construction

A soft-start will be employed, with the gradual ramping up of piling power incrementally over a set time

period until full operation power is achieved. The soft-start duration will be a period of not less than 20

minutes. This will allow for any marine mammals to move away from the noise source.

Construction

[1] Detection of marine mammals, particularly porpoises, decreases as sea state increases. According to the JNCC guidance ideally sea states of 2 or less are required for optimal visual detection.



245


If a marine mammal enters the mitigation zone during the soft-start then, whenever possible, the piling

operation will cease, or at least the power will not be further increased until the marine mammal exits

the mitigation zone and there is no further detection for 20 minutes.

Construction

When piling at full power this will continue if a marine mammal is detected in the mitigation zone (as it

is deemed to have entered voluntarily).

Construction

If there is a pause in the piling operations for a period of greater than 10 minutes, then the pre-piling

search and soft-start procedure will be repeated before piling recommences. If a watch has been kept

during the piling operation, the MMO should be able to confirm the presence or absence of marine

mammals, and it may be possible to commence the soft-start immediately. If there has been no watch,

the complete pre-piling search and soft-start procedure will be undertaken.

To prevent the need for the pre-piling search and therefore delays to the piling operations, a noise

generator could be deployed to create a continuous underwater noise which mimics the sound of the

impact hammer; which would in turn deter marine mammals from entering the mitigation zone. This

should be used for no longer than 1 hour, or in exceptional circumstances 2 hours (i.e. a breakdown of

machinery), after which the standard soft-start procedure will commence. All uses of the noise

generator should be logged and handed to the MMO to include in the deck forms.

Construction

As per the JNCC guidance, reports detailing the piling activity and marine mammal mitigation (the MMO

reports) will be sent to Marine Scotland at the conclusion of piling activity. Reports will include:

• Completed Marine Mammal Recording Forms;

• Date and location of the piling activities;

• A record of all occasions when piling occurred, including details of the duration of the pre-

piling search and soft-start procedures, and any occasions when piling activity was delayed or

stopped due to presence of marine mammals;

Construction



246


• Details of watches made for marine mammals, including details of any sightings, and details of

the piling activity during the watches;

• Details of any problems encountered during the piling activities including instances of non-

compliance with the agreed piling protocols; and

• Any recommendations for amendment of the protocols.

The requirement of an MMO for dredging is not considered necessary due to the small TTS zones

associated with the noise generated. Instead, dredging contractors should be made aware that marine

mammals and basking sharks may be present within the working area; and broadly work to the vessel

movement mitigation suggestions (See Technical Appendix 5.2) to avoid disturbance to and/or collision

with marine mammals.

Construction

Construction techniques and methodologies would be fully incorporated into a Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (including a Pollution Prevention Plan) and be fully developed

once a contractor is appointed.

Construction

If any dead cetacean is observed during construction or operation, it should be reported to the Scottish

Marine Animal Stranding Scheme (SMASS) (www.strandings.org) and live marine mammal strandings

will be reported to British Divers Marine Live Rescue (www.bdmlr.org.uk).

Construction

MMPP - in darkness and at

high sea states

During periods when conditions are not conducive to visual monitoring, a soft-start must be conducted,

meaning a gradual ramp-up of power over a period of not less than 20 minutes.

Construction

Operation Phase As for construction dredging, the requirement of an MMO for maintenance dredging is not considered

necessary due to the small TTS zones associated with the noise generated. Instead, dredging

contractors should be made aware that marine mammals and basking sharks may be present within

the working area; and broadly work to the vessel movement mitigation suggestions (See Technical

Appendix 5.2) to avoid disturbance to and/or collision with marine mammals.

Operation

http://www.strandings.org/

http://www.bdmlr.org.uk/



247


Stornoway Port Authority has set speed limits for different areas of the harbour, these are shown on a

plan (See Technical Appendix 5.2). The Port Authority will make leaflets on good practice to avoid

disturbance to and / or collision with marine mammals available to marina users.

Leaflets will be created to provide additional advice to marina users to avoid disturbance to and/or

collision with marine mammals or basking sharks which should include, but is not limited to the

following:

Keep a safe distance. Never get closer than 100m (200m if another boat is present) if within

100m, switch the engine to neutral;

Never drive head on to, or move between, scatter or separate marine mammals or sharks. If

unsure of their movements, simply stop and put the engine into neutral;

Spend no longer than 15 minutes near the animals;

Special care must be taken with mothers and young;

Maintain a steady direction and a slow ‘no wake’ speed; and

Avoid sudden changes in speed.

Chapter 6: Cultural

Heritage and Archaeology

Construction Phase Archaeological methodology and procedure (via a Protocol for Archaeological Discoveries) will be included within a site-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which will be finalised prior to the commencement of construction works as agreed by the appointed contractor. Implementation at post-consent stage is acceptable and sufficient for this requirement.

Chapter 7: Noise

No mitigation is required during either construction or operation stages.

Chapter 8: Water, Soils and Coastal Processes

Design Design led mitigation that has been applied can be summarised as follows: Design



248


Site investigation has determined the nature of dredge sediments, and the vast majority of

material is considered suitable for reuse on site during construction. Any material found to be

unsuitable for reuse will be disposed of to sea under licence to a designated offshore disposal

site.

Hydrodynamic, wave and sediment dispersion modelling has been undertaken to inform the

outline design of the proposed development.

CEMP

A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be developed to ensure that the

mitigation measures outlined in the EIA are followed during the proposed construction works. The

CEMP will include surface water management and pollution prevention measures (e.g. Pollution

Prevention Plan), and will be in place during construction and operation. The CEMP will remain a live

document and will be continually updated as the work progresses. The CEMP will be developed as a

practical tool to facilitate the management of environmental mitigation measures and to provide a clear

roadmap of the key roles and responsibilities during construction. All mitigation measures will be

incorporated into the EMP, which will include detailed Construction Method Statements (CMS). The

EMP will be submitted prior to commencement of the proposed development for approval by

regulators.

Construction

EnvCOW A suitably qualified Environmental Clerk of Works (EnvCoW) will monitor the construction works to

ensure that the CEMP and associated mitigation measures are being implemented effectively.

Best Practice Best practice will be adopted throughout all phases of development, following current guidance as

listed in Chapter 8: Water, Soils and Coastal Processes. The programme of works, including timing,

direction and method of capital dredge, will be planned, monitored and managed to minimise the

potential negative environmental impacts.

Construction

Pollution Incident

Response Plan

A pollution incident response plan will be set out in the CEMP relating to the construction of the

proposed development, statutory requirements and identification of areas of highest sensitivity. This

will provide site spill response procedures, emergency contact details and equipment inventories and

their location. All staff will be made aware of this document and its content during site induction. A

copy will be available in the site office at all times.

Construction



249


Construction Monitoring

Plan

It is anticipated that a monitoring plan will be implemented. The aim of this will be to characterise the

baseline conditions prior to construction works commencing and to continue throughout the

construction phase to confirm that the mitigation measures are performing as expected. The

monitoring plan will be established and implemented with the agreement of SEPA and Marine Scotland

and will be incorporated into the CEMP.

It is considered that the following elements would be included within the agreed monitoring plan:

Regular visual inspection of:

o Coastal waters, more frequent during periods of dredging activity, in order to monitor

levels of sediment suspension and dispersion.

o Surface water management features such as silt traps, oil interceptors etc. to check

for appropriate performance, blockages and to establish whether there are increased

levels of suspended sediment, erosion or deposition.

o Active areas, particularly where surface cover has been stripped and storage areas to

establish whether there are increased levels of erosion.

Water quality monitoring: A monitoring plan, covering baseline, construction and post-

construction will be agreed with SEPA and Marine Scotland.

Monitoring as required to satisfy the conditions of any future discharge licence(s) or other

environmental legislation.

Monitoring following any pollution incidents.

On-going liaison with SEPA and Marine Scotland as required during construction.

All activities with potential to affect the water environment require to be authorised under the Water

Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR). The level of authorisation

required is dependent on the anticipated environmental risk posed by the activity to be carried out.

These activities could include construction drainage.

Construction

Surface Water

Management

Detailed surface water drainage and silt attenuation proposals and methodology will be included within

the CEMP and will be submitted to SEPA’s operations team for agreement post planning consent and

at least two months prior to works commencing. The surface water drainage will be designed to ensure

that there are no untreated surface water discharges directly to surrounding coastal waters. It is

proposed to replicate natural drainage around construction areas and to use source control to deal with

Construction



250


rainwater in proximity to where it hits the ground in line with current SuDS guidance. Suitable

prevention measures will be in place at all times to prevent the release of pollutants including sediment

to the water environment, including adjacent coastal waters. Where there is a risk of oil spillage then

oil interceptors will be utilised within the drainage arrangements. These will be regularly inspected and

maintained to ensure optimal performance. Sediment control measures will be incorporated into all

site drainage systems.

Silt Dispersion during

Reclamation

Dispersion of silt during reclamation operations will be avoided by lining the retention bunds with a

geotextile liner. The pipes to discharge water from the reclamation area will be fitted with silt traps to

prevent silt return to the basin. The silt traps will be inspected regularly to ensure that they are

functioning.

Construction

Site Compounds Runoff from compounds and storage areas will be managed to avoid pollution and sediment entering

the basin. Foul drainage will either be contained in a closed system and disposed of at a suitable off-

site facility or directed via a temporary connection to the Scottish Water foul drainage system (subject

to the consent of Scottish Water).

Construction

Concrete There is unlikely to be concrete batching undertaken on-site. However, in the case that batching was to

be undertaken on-site the following mitigation measures would be implemented to minimise the

potential impact of concrete batching on the water environment in line with PPG6:

Concrete batching will take place on an impermeable designated area and at least 10m from

any watercourse.

Equipment and vehicles will be washed out in a designated area that has been specifically

designed to contain wet concrete/ wash water.

A closed loop system will be used for wash waters. Wash waters will be stored in a contained

lined pond for settlement before being reused (e.g. for mixing and washing).

No discharge of wash waters will occur on-site. All excess wash water that cannot be reused

will be disposed of off-site.

The following mitigation is proposed for concrete handling and placement:

Construction



251


Pouring of concrete will take place within well shuttered pours to prevent egress of concrete

from the pour area.

Pouring of concrete during adverse weather conditions will be avoided.

The CEMP will include a Pollution Incident Response Plan, and drivers of vehicles carrying

concrete will be informed so as to raise awareness of potential effects of concrete and of the

procedures for clean-up of any accidental spills.

Concrete acidity (pH) will be as close to neutral (or site-specific pH) as practicable as a further

precaution against spills or leakage.

Oil, Fuel, Site Vehicle Use

and Storage

The risk of oil contamination will be minimised by good site working practice (further described below)

but should a higher risk of oil contamination be identified then installation of an oil separator will be

considered.

The storage of oil is considered a Controlled Activity which will be deemed to be authorised if it complies

with the Regulations. The mitigation measures to minimise any risk of contaminant release are in line

with SEPA PPG and GPP documents and include the following:

Storage:

o Storage for oil and fuels on site will be designed to be compliant with GPP 2 and 8.

o The storage and use of loose drums of fuel on site will be not permitted.

o The bund will provide storage of at least 110% of the tank’s maximum capacity.

Refuelling and maintenance:

o Fuelling and maintenance of vehicles and machinery, and cleaning of tools, will be

carried out in a designated area where possible in line with PPG 7.

o Multiple spill kits will be kept on site.

o Drip trays will be used while refuelling.

o Regular inspection and maintenance of vehicles, tanks and bunds will be undertaken.

Emergency procedure: The Pollution Incident Response Plan will include measures to deal with

accidental spillages.

Construction



252


Pollution Incident

Response Plan

A specific Pollution Incident Response Plan will be prepared for the operational phase, and included

within the EMP, taking full consideration of best practice, statutory requirements and identification of

areas of highest sensitivity. This will provide site spill response procedures, emergency contact details

and equipment inventories and their location. All operation staff will be made aware of this document,

and its contents, and it will be available in the marina office. Appropriate spill kits and absorbent

materials will be stored on site in a location easy to access. Staff/contractors will be trained in the use

of spill kits and other pollution control equipment and the operation of pollution control devices.

Operation

Surface Water

Management

It is proposed that drainage of the surface water will be by means of infiltration through a permeable

gravel surface, and the underlying permeable reclamation fill, providing treatment as presented in the

SIA calculation (Technical Appendix 8.3, Volume 3 of this EIAR).

The rationale for this proposal is that the access roads and car parking areas have a low pollution hazard

level. This has been determined by reference to the land use classification set out in Table 26.2 of the

CIRIA SUDS Manual C753. The land use has been assessed as low traffic roads and non-residential

parking with infrequent change (less than 300 vehicle movements per day). Details of the anticipated

operational traffic associated with the project are set out in Chapter 9 of this EIAR.

Operation

Details of the operational surface water management proposals and methodology will be included

within the EMP and will be submitted to SEPA’s operations team for agreement consent. Plans of the

surface water management system will be located within the Port Authority Office, with foul water

systems clearly marked.

Operation

Future proposed development on the site includes a boatshed and washdown facility (as located on

Figure 2.1, Volume 2 of this EIAR), this is to be subject to a separate planning application as outlined in

Chapter 2 of this EIAR. Detailed drainage proposals for this development will be included within the

application, and where the development proposal is such that it requires a Pollution Prevention Control

(PPC) authorisation from SEPA, then specific processes. Techniques and technologies will be included

within the surface water management system in that location in order to meet the requirements of the

PPC authorisation. Such measures would be in line with best practice (refer to section 8.3.3)

Operation



253


Pump out facilities will be provided which will enable berth holders and visitors to empty holding tanks,

whilst land-based toilet facilities will be connected to the public foul sewer.

Operation

The Port Authority’s conditions for users of the pontoons and boat storage will include instructions on

pollution prevention. For example, boat owners will be required to put down trays and tarpaulins to

collect paint scrapings, and other debris, and to dispose of the collected detritus at the designated

waste collection point at the marina, as recommended in SEPA PPG 14.

Operation

Chapter 9: Traffic and Transport

Construction Traffic

Management Plan (CTMP)

The CTMP will identify measures to reduce the number of construction vehicles required as well as

considering the mitigation of vehicle impacts through construction programming, routing and

identification of an individual with responsibilities for managing traffic and transport impacts and

effects. The CTMP will also identify measures to reduce and manage construction staff travel by private

car, particularly single occupancy trips. The CTMP can include (but is not limited to) the following

measures

Construction

The main contractor should develop a logistics plan highlighting the access point for the site, loading

bay, pedestrian / vehicular segregation, welfare, storage, security and material handling that will be

enforced following full site establishment

All contractors will be provided with a site induction pack containing information on delivery routes and

any restrictions on routes

Temporary construction site signage would be erected along the identified construction traffic routes

to warn people of construction activities and associated construction vehicles

Construction HGV traffic will be managed to avoid an adverse impact on the secondary school, with the

movement of construction traffic restricted during periods of peak travel movements of school pupils

The contractor will manage the delivery schedule to avoid congestion on the delivery routes



254


Communication and co-ordination with the Stornoway Deep Water Port development site will be

undertaken should the construction phases over-lap to minimise the combined impact on the road

network

Under no circumstances will HGVs be allowed to lay-up in surrounding roads

Measures will be taken to maintain roads in a clean and safe condition, for example, implementing a

road sweeper (or similar device) as required

Construction staff that live nearby one another will be encouraged to car share when travelling to and

from the site to reduce the number of single-occupancy car trips.

Operational Phase It is concluded that no significant effects are predicted during the operation phase, therefore no

mitigation is required during this period

Operation

Chapter 10: Other Issues

No formal mitigation is proposed within the Other Issues chapter. A Dust Management Plan would be prepared as part of the CEMP.



255

12 CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSIONS

12.1 Introduction

The predicted environmental effects related to the construction and operation of the proposed development at

Goat Island have been considered throughout the design and subsequent assessment of the development layout.

The views of statutory consultees have been taken into account as presented in Chapter 3: EIA Methodology and

Scoping. The final design of the proposed development has been subject to a detailed EIA which has sought to

minimise the effects resulting from the proposed development. Mitigation measures are detailed within their

respective specific chapters of this EIAR and summaries within Chapter 11: Schedule of Mitigation of this EIAR.

12.2 Landscape and Visual

As detailed within Chapter 4: Landscape and Visual, an impact assessment was completed for primary viewpoints

within the Zone of Theoretical Visibility, mainly affecting visitor, resident and recreational-user views. Although

some significant adverse visual and cumulative effects are predicted during the construction and operation

phases, these are very localised in extent. However, considering the existing composition of light industrial units

located on Goat Island, the proposed development could in some instances, improve the overall visual

appearance of built development. Ultimately these are positive changes complementing the coastal character of

the locality. Any long-term effects upon views will be mitigated to some extent by screening from the local built

environment and natural vegetation.

12.3 Marine Ecology

As detailed within Chapter 5: Marine Ecology no significant effects were predicted upon species identified,

subject to the mitigation measures identified throughout the chapter being applied, primarily through the

Marine Mammal Mitigation Protocol outlined within Technical Appendix 5.2. The proposed mitigation measures

are assessed as having a certain/near certain level of success and have been devised with reference to academic

literature, best practice and further supporting evidence from similar developments. Following this mitigation,

adverse effects will therefore not be significant.

12.4 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

As detailed within Chapter 6: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology assessment was undertaken for the proposed

development. For both construction and operation phases, effects upon archaeology and cultural heritage assets

were deemed to be of negligible significance and therefore not significant. No mitigation is therefore proposed

in respect of cultural heritage assets.

12.5 Noise

As detailed within Chapter 7: Noise, an extensive noise impact assessment was completed as part of the EIA.

Noise generated by construction activities is temporary in nature, and as such there are no predicted long-term

residual effects. In terms of daytime and evening construction noise; worst case impacts for those construction

activities at Newton Marina are predicted to be of Slight significance at Newton Street and thus no significant

adverse effects are expected. Cutter-suction dredging at night comprises the primary noise-generating activity.

Under a worst case scenario, effects are expected to be moderate and slight, with Moderate in EIA terms

considered to be a significant effect. Cumulatively, impacts were assessed for scheduled concurrent construction



256

activities at the proposed Newton Marina, Deep Water Port and Fish Processing Factory on Goat Island. Effects

upon the most sensitive receptor are deemed to be slight and neutral therefore posing no significant adverse

effects from cumulative impacts.

12.6 Water, Soils and Coastal Processes

Assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on the water environment and coastal processes in the

study area was undertaken and detailed within Chapter 8. Overall, the effects of the proposed development on

the water environment, soils and coastal processes are not significant. The post-mitigation magnitude of any

residual effects are detailed within Chapter 8 and are considered either minor or negligible in this respect.

Accordingly, no significant adverse effects have been identified.

12.7 Traffic and Transport

A Traffic and Transport Assessment as detailed within Chapter 9: Traffic and Transport was completed as part of

this EIAR. The potential for significant adverse effects upon severance, driver/pedestrian delay and amenity

along Newton Street and Battery Point will be alleviated by a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) as

part of the proposed mitigation. Residual effects following the implementation of the proposed CTMP mitigation

are subsequently expected to be minor and not significant. Total increased traffic levels (including HGVs) along

the Causeway in the operation phase are also deemed to be minor and not significant given the mitigation

provisions. Cumulative impacts of the proposed Newton Marina and Deep Water Port during the operation phase

are likewise expected to be minor and not significant.

12.8 Other Issues

A range of other issues were explored, such as socio-economics, population and human health, recreation,

navigation, natural disasters and climate change. No significant effects are predicted under any of these topics.



257

Newton Marina Volume 1: Environmental Impact Assessment...

Documents

Transcript of Newton Marina Volume 1: Environmental Impact Assessment...