Unconventional oil and gas policy: SEA

10 Cultural and archaeological heritage

What are the environmental effects of the reasonable alternative on cultural and archaeological heritage?

10.1 The potential environmental effects of unconventional oil and gas development on historic environment features are identified^[221] as:

• Construction of the well pad, access roads and any ancillary development leading to:
  • Loss and or damage of known and unknown surface and subsurface archaeology and other designated and undesignated historic assets;
  • Indirect impacts arising from changes to surface drainage patterns or removal of peat, increased erosion or changes in the water table.
• Presence of access roads, perimeter fencing and ancillary development and drilling rigs^[222] resulting in:
  • Impacts on the setting of cultural heritage assets.

How do these effects relate to the current pressures and trends?

10.2 As outlined in the Environmental Baseline chapter there are a number of important historic assets located in the Midland Valley. This includes the Antonine Wall and the Forth Bridge, Conservation Areas and battlefields, such as Stirling Old Bridge. Historic structures also include features such as Blackness and Stirling Castles, and Clackmannan Tower and Alloa Tower. Designed landscapes include Dunimarle Castle, Culross Abbey House and High Valleyfield. As illustrated on Figure 9a and 9b, Appendix 1, the importance and distribution of these heritage assets across the Central Belt means that unconventional oil and gas development could result in potential impacts on historic environment assets.

10.3 Key threats to the historic environment include development and land use change, and climate change poses a further threat to the structure of historic environment assets.

10.4 Figure 8a, Appendix 1, illustrates the distribution of high carbon soils in Scotland and Figure 8b, Appendix 1, illustrates the distribution within the Central Belt. This shows that unconventional oil and gas development within this area could potentially affect high carbon soils.

What current regulatory processes control these effects?

10.5 Nationally significant historic environment assets are protected through legislation. In addition, the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 relate to the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment – including the historic environment – through the planning system. This would require consideration of impacts on known historic environment assets and unknown archaeological potential where unconventional oil and gas developments are of a size and scale to require EIA.

10.6 Designated historic environment assets are also protected through the statutory consents i.e. Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area Consent and Scheduled Monument Consent:

• Listed Building Consent –is the mechanism by which planning authorities ensure that any changes to listed buildings are appropriate and sympathetic to their character. It is a criminal offence to demolish, alter or extend a Listed Building without Listed Building consent.^[223]
• Conservation Area Consent – controls the demolition of unlisted buildings in Conservation Areas. The consent process is similar to the Listed Building consent process.^[224]
• Scheduled Monument Consent – is the mechanism by which HES ensures that any changes to monuments of national importance are appropriate and sympathetic to their character^[225]. Under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979^[226], it is a criminal offence to carry out unauthorised works, or to allow unauthorised work to be carried out, on a Scheduled Monument.

10.7 The Hydrocarbon Licensing Directive 1994 allows for licences to impose terms and conditions that concern protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The content of the Scottish Planning Policy, which is a material consideration, sets out that the planning system should ‘promote the care and protection of the designated and non-designated historic environment’.^[227]

What stages of unconventional oil and gas result in these effects, what is the nature and significance of these effects?

Loss and or damage of known and unknown archaeology and other designated and undesignated historic assets including indirect effects

Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction

10.8 Direct and indirect impacts resulting in loss or damage of known and unknown archaeology and other designated and undesignated historic assets could occur during the stages of exploration, appraisal, production and decommissioning, at stages throughout the 30 year lifespan of the pad. The effect could occur both at the site of the pad, and along the route of any pipeline construction, or vehicle access routes. These effects are most likely during the initial development of the pad during the exploration and appraisal stage, however further effects could occur as new infrastructure is constructed to support the development of the pad. The effects could be permanent.

10.9 There is uncertainty over the scale of effect of loss or damage to known and unknown archaeology and other designated and undesignated historic assets, which would depend on the sensitivity of the cultural heritage asset affected and the extent of the impact.

10.10 Under the KPMG high scenario a larger number of pads and wells are developed and there is greater potential risk of impacts to known and unknown archaeology and other designated and undesignated historic assets. The existing regulatory processes are assumed to limit effects on significant assets. Therefore the potential impact of pads could result in minor negative but uncertain effects if pads are located in or close to an area with important cultural heritage assets. These effects are likely to be lower for the central and low KPMG scenarios.

Business as usual – CBM

10.11 The nature of the effects described above is similar for both shale oil and gas extraction under the three KPMG scenarios, and CBM. The scale of effect remains the same for CBM for each scenario. Although CBM is only anticipated to involve the development of two pads, the existing regulatory processes would limit effects and the potential impact of an individual pad could result in minor negative effects, if the pad is located in or close to an area with important cultural heritage assets, although this effect is uncertain.

Pilot project

10.12 The development of a pilot project has the potential for loss or damage to known or unknown archaeology and other designated and undesignated historic assets. Compared to the ‘business as usual’ alternative, the development of a single pilot location reduces the area over which these effects may occur, and the overall risk to the historic environment. The regulatory processes are assumed to limit effects; however, the location of a pilot project is unknown and therefore the potential direct impacts on known or unknown archaeology may be greater. This is a minor negative but uncertain effect depending on the location of the pilot, and cannot be distinguished for each theoretical pilot location.

Preferred policy position

10.13 The preferred policy position means that adverse impacts resulting from the loss or damage to culture heritage assets resulting from shale oil and gas development (greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, and less for the central and low scenarios), CBM production and, to a lesser extent, a pilot development, would be avoided.

10.14 This is considered to be a minor positive effect.

Impacts on setting of cultural heritage

Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction

10.15 Impacts on setting of historic environment features could occur during exploration, appraisal and production, with the greatest scale of effect during exploration, appraisal and the first two years of production (giving a total of approximately eight years^[228]) when the presence of a drilling rig would increase the visual extent of impacts on setting. Impacts on setting may also occur from floodlighting at the rig to support safe working at night. These impacts would be temporary and related to the timescale when drilling is required. During the production phase, the generators, container units for chemicals, waste materials and fluids, portable offices and work amenities could also impact on the setting of cultural heritage features. These effects would occur during exploration, appraisal and production stages which take place over a period of approximately 20 years for an individual development, and would be temporary.

10.16 There is uncertainty over the impacts on setting of historic environment features which would depend on the proximity of the development to a historic environment feature and the sensitivity of the historic environment asset affected and the number of pads and wells.

10.17 For each of the KPMG scenarios the scale of effect from each scenario is likely to be greatest under the high production scenario, where the highest number of pads and wells would be developed. In particular cumulative effects from pads which are developed in proximity to each other could increase the scale of effect on the setting of an historic environment asset, although these effects are recognised as temporary. However, there is uncertainty over the likely location of pads under all three scenarios.

10.18 The effect of the high KPMG scenario on the historic environment is judged to be significant negative. Effects from the central and low KPMG scenarios are also judged to be significant negative, although this is uncertain, reflecting the potential for their distribution to result in cumulative effects.

Business as usual - CBM

10.19 The development of CBM is anticipated to involve the development of two pads, and therefore the potential extent of impacts on the historic environment is lower than for the scenarios for shale oil and gas extraction. However the location of individual pads is unknown and proximity to historic environment assets could result in minor negative effects.

Pilot project

10.20 The development of a pilot project has the potential for impacts on the setting of historic environment features. Compared to the ‘business as usual’ alternative, the development of a single pilot location relates to a limited the area over which these effects may occur, and results in a lower overall risk to the historic environment. The location of a pilot project is unknown and therefore negative effects could occur on the setting of a nationally or internationally significant historic environment feature. These effects would be temporary and relate to the development of a single pad and therefore minor negative effects are identified. The potential impacts on the setting of historic environment features are not distinguished for each theoretical pilot location.

Preferred policy position

10.21 The preferred policy position means that adverse impacts on the setting of cultural heritage assets resulting from shale oil and gas development (greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, and less for the central and low scenarios), CBM production and, to a lesser extent, a pilot development, would be avoided.

10.22 This is considered to be a significant positive effect.

Cumulative, secondary and synergistic effects

10.23 The cumulative effects on the historic environment could arise from impacts on loss or damage to known or unknown archaeology and from direct impacts on the setting of cultural heritage resources leading to overall loss or damage to these resources. This could occur under the low, central or high KPMG scenarios.

10.24 The development of CBM alone or a single pilot project would not result in significant cumulative effects.

10.25 The preferred policy position means that existing pressures on cultural heritage assets resulting from unconventional oil and gas development, in addition to the existing pressures on cultural heritage assets arising from development and land use change and climate change would be avoided.

10.26 The timeframe for the avoidance of these additional effects is approximately the next 30 years^[229]. The avoidance of these effects is judged to be permanent within the context of the SEA. The scale of avoidance of effects reflects the geographic area identified as prospective for shale oil and gas, across the Central Belt of Scotland.

10.27 No secondary or synergistic effects are identified.

Therefore, although the cultural heritage resource of Central Scotland will continue to face existing pressures, the preferred policy position means that additional pressures which would result from unconventional oil and gas development are avoided.

10.28 The preferred policy position means that cumulative adverse impacts resulting from shale oil and gas development (greatest for the KPMG high production scenario, and less for the central and low scenarios), CBM production and, to a lesser extent, a pilot development, would be avoided. This is considered to be a minor positive effect.

Scope for further mitigation

10.29 The assessment results are based on the application of existing regulatory controls. The evidence base includes information on a number of processes which could be implemented to reduce the scale of impact on cultural heritage. These could reduce the overall potential scale of effect from unconventional oil and gas development, and therefore the associated scale of effect avoided as a consequence of the preferred policy position.

10.30 The applicability and practicality of many of these additional measures will be determined at a site specific level so it is not possible to draw firm conclusions as to the extent to which they would mitigate predicted effects successfully. Potential measures include:

10.31 Loss and/or damage of known and unknown archaeology, and other designated and undesignated heritage assets – potential impacts could be reduced or avoided if the siting of development avoids sites of cultural heritage significance. Site survey to identify previously unknown cultural heritage assets and monitoring during site construction and decommissioning phases will also help minimise impacts.

10.32 Direct and indirect impacts on the setting of cultural and archaeological heritage –screening (e.g. planting hedges) and landscape treatment could minimise potential impacts on the setting of cultural heritage sites.

Table 10.1: Summary of effects on cultural heritage

Environmental impact	Alternative	Potential scale of development	Timescale when effect may occur	Duration of effect	Predicted effect taking account of existing regulation	Key areas of uncertainty
Loss and or damage of known and unknown archaeology, and other designated and undesignated historic assets	Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the potential to impact on designated and undesignated heritage assets. These effects are likely to be lower for the central and low KPMG scenarios.	Scale of effect of loss or damage to known and unknown archaeology and other designated and undesignated historic assets, which would depend on the sensitivity of the historic environment asset affected and the extent of the impact on the resource.
	Business as usual – coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor negative effect is identified, if the pad is located in or close to an area with important heritage assets.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor negative effect is identified, if the pad is located in or close to an area with important heritage assets.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of minor negative effects.
Impacts on setting of cultural heritage	Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Temporary	A significant negative effect is identified, reflecting potential cumulative effects from pads developed in close proximity to each other. Effects from the central and low KPMG scenarios are likely to be lower but are still identified as significant negative.	The likely location of pads under all three scenarios and proximity to historic environment features.
	Business as usual – coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the development of two pads, and therefore the potential extent of impacts on the historic environment is lower than for the scenarios for shale oil and gas extraction.	Proximity to historic environment assets is unknown.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Temporary	A minor negative effect is identified reflecting the potential for impacts on the setting of historic environment features.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A significant positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of significant negative effects on cultural heritage.
Cumulative effects	Business as usual – shale oil and gas extraction	Major	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor negative cumulative effect is identified from impacts on loss or damage to known or unknown archaeology and from direct impacts on the setting of cultural heritage resources leading to overall loss or damage to these resources. This could occur under the low, central or high KPMG scenarios.
	Business as usual – coal bed methane extraction	Minor	Short to long term	Permanent	A negligible effect is identified.
	Pilot project	Minor	Short to long term	Permanent	A negligible effect is identified.
	Preferred policy position	None	Short to long term	Permanent	A minor positive effect is identified reflecting the avoidance of cumulative minor negative effects.