Cultural Heritage

Introduction

This chapter considers the predicted impact on cultural heritage in relation to the proposed scheme. The assessment has been informed by surveys carried out by CFA Archaeology Ltd which have been used to determine the baseline as well as record existing cultural heritage assets. The CFA assessment focussed on the existing road bridge and the old stone arch bridge, both of which will be demolished as a result of the works. A list of policy documents and published guidelines taken into account in the preparation of this chapter is included in Section 5.3.

The Council of Europe, in the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro 2005), has defined cultural heritage as:

…a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time.

Cultural heritage resources consist of archaeological remains, historic buildings and historic landscapes. They include world heritage sites, scheduled monuments or other archaeological features, listed buildings or other buildings of historic/architectural importance, conservation areas and other significant townscapes or historic gardens and designated landscapes or other significant historic landscapes. The fact that a site is not designated does not mean it is not valuable. Indeed such sites can have a value comparable with some designated sites. Impacts which could be significant can occur on undesignated cultural heritage assets as well as assets that are designated. It is therefore important to include identification of undesignated cultural heritage assets (of which the old bridge is one) within an assessment of impacts of a project or scheme.

Cultural heritage assets can be important features within the landscape of a local area. Refer to Chapter 7: Landscape Effects for further information on the existing landscape and the potential impacts of the scheme on landscape aspects.

A simple assessment of the cultural heritage interests relevant to the proposed scheme was undertaken in accordance with HA208/07. This chapter discusses the results of the simple assessment. The study area in this instance covers the area within the proposed area of land-take and within a 300 m radius around it (Figure 5.1). A larger scale plan showing the cultural heritage receptors, protection zones, areas of archaeological potential and where a watching brief is required is included in Figure B1, Appendix B.

The predicted impact of the construction and operation of the proposed scheme upon cultural heritage resources was considered and measures identified to reduce and/or mitigate the impact. The assessment is based on guidance provided in relation to cultural heritage in DMRB Volume 11, Section 3, Part 2 – HA208/07.

Criteria for Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Resources

Cultural heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource that can be affected by a development at a number of levels ranging from total loss of the asset at the most extreme to gradual degradation throughout the operation of a scheme. Table 5.1 summarises the process of evaluation of cultural heritage assets.

Following evaluation of the value or sensitivity of cultural heritage assets, it is then necessary to consider the magnitude of impact, both beneficial and adverse. Impacts on the cultural heritage resource, are as defined by the DMRB, namely as changes to the cultural heritage resource caused by the mitigated proposed scheme.

The process of assessing the significance of the effects of the proposed scheme both pre- and post-mitigation, brings together the value of the resource and the magnitude of the impact for each cultural heritage asset. The adverse or beneficial significance of effect is then derived using the matrix in Table 5.2.

Table 5.1 Evaluation of the value of cultural heritage resources

International

Very High value and rarity, international scale.

Examples

• World Heritage Sites
• Assets of acknowledged international importance
• Buildings of recognised international importance

National

High value and rarity, national scale, or regional scale.

Examples

• Scheduled monuments with standing remains
• Site suitable for scheduling
• Category A listed buildings (Scotland)
• Conservation Areas containing very important buildings
• Undesignated structures of clear national importance
• Historic battlefields

Regional

Medium value and rarity, local or regional.

Examples

• Designated or undesignated assets that contribute to regional research objectives
• Historic (unlisted buildings that can be shown to have exceptional qualities in their fabric
• Category B listed buildings
• Conservation Areas containing buildings that contribute significantly to its historic character
• Historic Townscape or built-up areas with important historic integrity in their buildings, or built settings (e.g. including street furniture and other structures)

Local

Low value and rarity, local scale.

Examples

• Archaeological sites of local importance
• Assets compromised by poor preservation and/or poor survival of contextual associations
• Locally Listed (Category C) buildings
• Unlisted buildings and townscapes of some historic or architectural interest

Lesser

Negligible value and rarity, local scale.

Examples

• Other archaeological sites
• Assets with very little or no surviving archaeological interest
• Find spots where artefacts have been already removed
• Buildings of no architectural or historical note; buildings of an intrusive character

Unknown

Scale of risk needs to be estimated and strategy for management proposed.

Examples

• Archaeological sites whose morphology, character and date are currently not established
• Buildings with some hidden (i.e. inaccessible) potential for historic significance

Assessing the Magnitude of Impact on Cultural Heritage Resources

Major

• Loss of resource and/or quality and integrity of resource; severe damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).
• Large scale or major improvement of resource quality; extensive restoration or enhancement; major improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial).

Moderate

• Loss of resource; partial loss of/damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).
• Benefit to, or addition of, key characteristics, features of elements; improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial).

Minor

• Some measurable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability; minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).
• Minor benefit to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; some beneficial impact on attribute or a reduced risk of negative impact occurring (Beneficial).

Negligible

• Very minor loss or detrimental alteration to one or more characteristics, features or elements (Adverse).
• Very minor benefit to or positive addition of one or more characteristics, features or elements (Beneficial).

No change

• No loss or alteration of characteristics, features or elements; no observable impact in either direction.

Table 5.2 Arriving at the Significance of Effects Categories

Cultural Heritage Value (Sensitivity)	No Change	Negligible	Minor	Moderate	Major
Very High	Neutral	Slight	Moderate or Large	Large or Very Large	Very Large
High	Neutral	Slight	Slight or Moderate	Moderate or Large	Large or Very Large
Medium	Neutral	Neutral or Slight	Slight	Moderate	Moderate or Large
Low	Neutral	Neutral or Slight	Neutral or Slight	Slight	Slight or Moderate
Negligible	Neutral	Neutral	Neutral or Slight	Neutral or Slight	Slight

Descriptors of the cultural heritage Significance of Effect Categories

Very large

Only adverse effects are normally assigned this level of significance. They represent key factors in the decision-making process. These effects are generally but not exclusively, associated with sites or features of very high, high or medium value that are likely to suffer a most damaging impact and loss of resource integrity. However, a major change in a site or feature of local importance may also enter this category.

Large

These beneficial or adverse effects are considered to be very important considerations and are likely to be material in the decision-making process.

Moderate

These beneficial or adverse effects may be important, but are not likely to be key decision-making factors. The cumulative effects of such factors may influence decision-making if they lead to an increase in the overall adverse effect on a particular resource or receptor.

Slight

These beneficial or adverse effects may be raised as local factors. They are unlikely to be critical in the decision-making process, but are important in enhancing the subsequent design of the project.

Neutral

No effects or those that are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.

Policy and Regulatory Framework

Legislation

• Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act (1997): this legislation aims to protect all listed buildings and conservation areas. Once a building is listed and a conservation area is designated, any alterations that would affect the historic and architectural character of a building or its setting would require listed building or conservation area consent. The Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act was amended with the Historic Environment (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2011.

Policies and Plans

• Highland-wide Local Development Plan (HwLDP) is the Highland Council’s vision for the whole area (Highland Council, 2012). It sets out how land can be used by developers for the next 20 years, but excludes the area covered by the Cairngorms National Park, which has its own plan.
• Highland Historic Environment Strategy Guidance (adopted Jan. 2013). This strategy has been prepared as Supplementary Guidance to the HwLDP, relating specifically to Policy 57: Natural, Built and Cultural Heritage. It ensures that future developments take account of the historic environment and that they are of a design and quality to enhance the historic environment bringing both economic and social benefits. It also sets out a proactive, consistent approach to the protection of the historic environment. The purpose of this strategy is to define Highland Council’s approach to the protection of the historic environment through the planning process.
• Managing Change in the Historic Environment – Historic Environment Scotland’s guidance note series.
• Planning Advice Note 2-2011 Planning and Archaeology (2011): This Planning Advice Note (PAN) works alongside SPP and SHEP and advises heritage professionals in the assessment of impact on sites of archaeological / cultural heritage interest.
• Policy 57: Natural, Built and Cultural Heritage sets out the tests against which all development that affects natural, built and cultural heritage features must be assessed.
• Scottish Planning Policy (Updated 2014): SPP (Scottish Government, 2014) is a document which sets out Government policy on development in Scotland. Policies 135 to 151 provide guidance on heritage assets and planning issues to local authorities and others on the operation of the planning system. These policies provide guidance with particular reference to the identification, protection, conservation and enhancement of archaeological remains, upstanding remains, sites and landscapes as well as designated sites such as listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, wrecks, gardens and designed landscapes and world heritage sites.
• Scottish Historic Environment Policy (Revised 2016): The Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP) sets out the Ministers’ policies for the historic environment in Scotland. It complements and has the same authority as Scottish Planning Policy and sets out the Scottish Ministers’ Policies for planning matters relating to the historic environment as well as providing direction to Historic Environment Scotland and other bodies on heritage issues.
• Sustainable Design Guide – Supplementary Guidance (adopted January 2013) has been developed to accompany and support the approach to Sustainability and Design contained within the HwLDP. The guidance relates specifically to HwLDP Policy 28 Sustainable Design.

Study Area

For existing cultural heritage assets, the initial study area formed a 300 m buffer around the footprint of the works as shown in Figure 5.1. An initial desk study and walkover survey was undertaken by the Scotland TranServ/BEAR Scotland environment team and following consultation with the Highland Council archaeologist, a Level 3 Standing Building Survey was undertaken by CFA Archaeology Ltd (Appendix C1.1).

Character of the Existing Baseline

A search of the Historic Environment Scotland (HES) database, PastMap, found 3 recorded sites of cultural heritage interest within 300 m of the proposed area of land-take. Torgyle Chapel, located 360 m south of the bridge, Torgyle House or Inn, 430 m south of the bridge and the Glenmoriston Footprints, located 300 m to the north (Figure 5.1). There are no scheduled monuments recorded or inventory battlefields within or near the bridge location.

During the scoping process and consultation with the Highland Council Historic Environment Team, concerns were raised in relation to the historic masonry arch bridge. Despite being unrecorded on the HES database (PastMap) or in the Highland Historic Environment Record (HER), subsequent survey and research by specialist archaeological contractors, CFA archaeology, determined that the masonry arch bridge was of significant cultural heritage interest, being originally built by Thomas Telford.

The cultural heritage of the existing trunk road bridge, also unrecorded, was also considered. The existing A887 trunk road bridge and the adjacent historic bridge are both now recorded on the HER. A search of the HES PastMap website in November 2016 indicated that Torgyle Chapel, Torgyle House or Inn, the Glenmoriston Footprints, the old masonry bridge and the A887 trunk road bridge were recorded within 300 m of the proposed area of land-take.

There are no listed buildings, scheduled monuments, inventory battlefields, gardens and designed landscape inventory sites or conservation areas within the study area. A description of the recorded and un-recorded cultural heritage assets follows.

Torgyle Chapel

An old chapel is set back from the road and is currently derelict with windows boarded (Figure 5.2). It is described on the Canmore website as “a small unroofed building is depicted on the 1st edition of the OS 6-inch map (Inverness-shire 1874, sheet LXVII), but it is not shown on the current edition of the OS 1:10000 map (1971)”. Further analysis of the 1871 Ordnance Survey (OS) six-inch to the mile, Inverness-shire (Mainland), Sheet LXVII map (Figure 5.3), shows a building recorded as a Roman Catholic Chapel.

Torgyle Chapel is recorded on the National Monuments Record of Scotland (NMRS). It seems likely that more than one place of worship was located in the vicinity. Groome mentions:

Near Torgyle Bridge and Inn, 9 miles higher up, are an Established mission church, a Free church, and a Roman Catholic church (1841; 100 sittings), all three designated of Glenmoriston. (Groome, 1882-1885)

Therefore, the Torgyle Chapel site could refer to one of the other churches present in the vicinity in the early 18^th century.

Torgyle House

Torgyle House is believed to be the site of the former Torgyle Inn (Figure 5.4). It is recorded on the NMRS. The road has been realigned at some point, so the site now lies on the east side of the road rather than the west as shown on the 1871 map (Figure 5.4). There is no further information on the inn on either HES PastMap or Highland HER. There is mention of a marriage of Isabella McDonell at the inn during May 1852 (Inverness Advertiser, 1852a). Her family are believed to have kept the inn between 1841 and 1861. There is further record of the tenantry of Glenmoriston being entertained by Sir Henry Meux in February 1852 (Inverness Advertiser, 1852b) showing its importance as a social hub. The 1893-96 County Directory of Scotland shows Thomas Dott living at Torgyle Inn. The Inverness Courier of 25^th April 1890 makes reference to the architect firm of Ross and MacBeth having carried out work there.

A drove road ran between Tomich and Torgyle and on to Fort Augustus (Heritage Paths website) which undoubtedly explains the existence of the Inn at this otherwise seemingly remote location. The Heritage Paths website states:

This is part of the long distance drove route between Wester Ross and on to the Corrieyairack and further south. The section between Glenmoriston and Strathglass was used for driving stock during the First World War and can be seen on a mid-nineteenth century estate map. There was an Inn at Torgyle until the mid-1880s. The section between Glenmoriston and Fort Augustus was commonly used in the late nineteenth century by cattle from Skye and the west coast going to Dalwhinnie Station. It is believed that Bonnie Prince Charlie travelled southwards on this route between Strathglass and Glen Moriston in August 1746 following his defeat at Culloden.

Glenmoriston Footprints

The Glenmoriston "footprints" are two bare patches of earth about the size and shape of footprints. Detail is available on the Highland HER.

According to the Wikipedia entry, it is commonly held that the footprints are those of Tain evangelist Finlay Munro. Following his ministry on Lewis, he toured the southern Highlands, preaching in Glenmoriston in 1827. Although supposedly well received, some Catholics from Glengarry heckled him and legend has it that Munro closed his bible declaring that the ground on which he stood would bear witness to the truth of what he said until the Day of Judgment comes.

The Highland HER entry is based on a 1999 letter from former MSP John Farquhar Munro which states:

The folklore of the glen records the event. When a visiting preacher of the Gospel - on being questioned as to the credibility of his sermon - stated as proof of his truthfulness and divine support that the spot on which he stood would forever show the imprint of his feet. The 'Footprints' have remained and are often visited but the site is not easily found although they are within 50 metres of the main road.

A887 Trunk Road Bridge and Trunk Road

The existing trunk road bridge (Figure 5.5) is previously unrecorded and is not of great antiquity. It was recorded by CFA archaeology in the Standing Building Recording Survey (Report no 2140 – see Appendix C1.1). The report did not date the bridge specifically although it did refer to the presence of an OS benchmark dating to 1956-68 and it suggests the bridge is late 19^th or early 20^th century. Transport Scotland SERIS database suggests a completion date of 1949 for the bridge, however, this has not been verified.

The CFA reports states: “Cartographic sources suggest a construction date for the A887 between the late 18^th century and the beginning of the 19^th century. It seems likely that while a built route was in place from 1784 it was developed into a more vital conduit towards the end of the first decade of the 1800s.” The report suggests that it started as a minor local track, developing into a main road in the early 1800’s.

The Fifth Report of the Commissioners for Roads and Bridges in the Highlands of Scotland indicated that the building of the main road commenced in March 1809 and was complete by the time of the report in April 1811, being overseen by Thomas Telford.

Old Masonry Arch Bridge

The old masonry bridge (Figure 5.6) is currently in a poor state of repair and is located in very close proximity (<1 m) to the existing trunk road bridge. It is of single arch construction comprising two spandrels on either side of the segmented arch. The CFA Archaeology survey (Appendix C1.1) provides a date of c.1810 for the old Allt Lagain Bhain Bridge. The survey of the bridge also indicates that the old bridge spandrels are in poor condition but the structure of the segmental arch is good. It is considered that the bridge was built as part of the construction of the road under the auspices of Thomas Telford. It is also considered that there are relatively few bridges surviving from this era along this route. Refer to Chapter 7: Landscape Effects, Section 7.6 for information on existing views of the bridge from the road.

Un-recorded Ruins

The 1871 OS map (Figure 5.3) clearly shows a smithy and settlement called Lagganbane directly to the north of the bridge. These are unrecorded on the HES PastMap website and Highland HER, however, the ruins of both are clearly present on site (Figure 5.7, Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9). There is mention of the MacDonald family moving to the Invermoriston Smithy in the first decade of the 20th century (Moriston Matters, 1980). This would coincide with the final decline in the use of the drove roads which would have made such a rural blacksmiths unviable. The 1871 census shows the family of Duncan MacDonald, blacksmith as well as Ewen MacDonald, tailor and family living at Lagganbane indicating there were at least 2 houses on the site. The family are listed at Lagganbane in both the 1881 and 1891 census, but not in 1901 indicating that habitation ended between 1891 and 1901. In the 1861 census, Ann Cameron, a grocer and crofter, is living at “Lagganban” and in 1881 she is described as a pauper and is also living in the household of Ewen MacDonald, Ann being described as his aunt. Duncan Macdonald is listed in 1841 census as a “smith” living at “Torgoil” (Torgoyle). It is clear, therefore, that there is a history of settlement in the area for a period of at least 40 years.

Impact Assessment

The impact of the proposed works, without and with mitigation in place is summarised in Table 5.5 and Table 5.6 respectively and described in the following sections. Impacts are adverse unless stated otherwise.

Torgyle Chapel, Torgyle House, Glenmoriston Footprints

These assets are considered to be of local importance, none having been scheduled or listed. Their environmental value is considered to be at highest, Medium.

Potential impacts during construction

During construction, there is potential for permanent damage or loss to these assets through inappropriate storage of materials or site compound or damage from construction vehicles. This could potentially result in a Moderate magnitude of impact and a Moderate significance of effect. The mitigation measures that will be implemented will avoid loss or alteration to any of these assets and the magnitude of impact is predicted to be No Change resulting in a Neutral significance of effect.

Potential impacts during operation

There will be no impact on the setting of these assets during the operation phase as they are sufficiently distant from the proposed scheme and hidden by trees and local topography.

Unrecorded Remains at Lagganbane

Through being previously unrecorded, the value of these resources is currently unknown. Given the duration of settlement and the importance of the settlement in relation to the drove road, they could fairly be described as of regional importance with a Medium value.

Potential impacts during construction

During construction, in the absence of mitigation, there is significant potential for permanent damage or loss to this asset. This could potentially result in a Moderate magnitude of impact and a Moderate significance of effect. By establishing an exclusion zone where practicable and if necessary, undertaking appropriate recording and a watching brief, this will help to mitigate the impact, resulting in a Minor to Moderate magnitude of impact and Slight to Moderate significance of effect.

There will be a Moderate impact magnitude on the setting of these remains as they are in close proximity to the proposed scheme resulting in a Moderate significance of effect during and immediately following the construction period.

Potential impacts during operation

In time with the proposed re-vegetation and tree planting following construction works, the impact on setting during the operation phase would be reduced to Minor magnitude and Slight significance.

Trunk Road Bridge

The existing trunk road bridge is of Low value.

Potential impacts during construction

During construction, the bridge will completely demolished resulting in a Major magnitude of impact but the significance of effect is only considered to be Slight. No mitigation is proposed in relation to this asset and there is no change to the residual impact.

Potential impacts during operation

During the operational phase, there will be no significant impact caused by demolition of the trunk road bridge.

Old Masonry Arch Bridge (Telford Bridge)

Although this bridge has not been formally recorded or listed, it is considered to be of considerable historic importance on a regional basis, giving it a Medium value.

Potential impacts during construction

The bridge is to be completely demolished during the construction phase, resulting in total loss of the resource and the integrity of the site. The magnitude of impact is predicted to be Major with the resulting significance of effect being Moderate or Large. However, with the proposed mitigation to record the bridge, the significance of effect would be reduced to Moderate.

Potential impacts during operation

During the operation phase without mitigation measures, there would be no opportunity for future generations to study the bridge and the significance of effect would be Large. With mitigation in place that would result in the structure being fully recorded, it would be reduced to Moderate significance.

Table 5.3 Summary of cultural heritage impacts pre-mitigation (impacts are adverse unless stated otherwise)

Potential Impact	Value/sensitivity of receptor	Duration of impact	Magnitude	Significance
Demolition of trunk road bridge	Low	Permanent	Major	Slight
Demolition of historic bridge	Medium	Permanent	Major	Large
Disturbance or damage to Chapel, Torgyle house and Glenmoriston footprints during works	Medium	Temporary	Moderate	Moderate
Disturbance or damage to unrecorded remains at Lagganbane	Medium	Permanent	Moderate	Moderate

 

Table 5.4 Summary of cultural heritage residual impacts post-mitigation (impacts are adverse unless stated otherwise)

Potential Impact	Value/sensitivity of receptor	Duration of impact	Magnitude	Significance
Demolition of trunk road bridge	Low	Permanent	Major	Slight
Demolition of historic bridge	Medium	Permanent	Major	Moderate
Disturbance or damage to Chapel, Torgyle house and Glenmoriston footprints during works	Medium	Temporary	No change	Neutral
Disturbance or damage to unrecorded remains at Lagganbane	Medium	Permanent	Minor to Moderate	Slight to Moderate

The above table indicates that there will be significant residual impact on the historic masonry bridge.

Design, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

The design of the proposed scheme is such that Torgyle Chapel, Torgyle House (Inn) and Glenmoriston Footprints all lie outside the works area. The location for the site compound is yet to be chosen and there is the possibility of inadvertently damaging these assets from a poorly-chosen site. Protection zones around these assets have been identified in order to prevent this scenario. These are a 50 m radius for the chapel and the footprint sites and 100 m for Torgyle House. The protection zone for the latter will also help to protect the residential property from noise disturbance from an inappropriately located compound. Figure 5.10 shows the extents (see Figure B1 in Appendix B for a larger scale plan). These protection zones will not be delineated on site. They are for consideration only when establishing the location for the site compound, material storage, lay down area, parking for plant and machinery or any such other area that could cause an impact.

The new bridge is of little cultural heritage interest and it is considered that the Standard Building Recording Survey carried out already by CFA Archaeology provides a sufficient level of recording for the structure.

The old masonry arch Telford bridge was described by CFA as being of “significant historic importance”. In light of this, the design was reconsidered to see if it would be possible to come up with a viable alternative or to be able to work around the bridge. It was considered that since the Telford bridge was in such a poor state and almost in contact with the trunk road bridge, from a health and safety perspective it would not be possible to leave the bridge in situ. It was further considered that there were no viable alternative routes for the proposed scheme. The mitigation suggested in the CFA report will be followed, specifically:

• metric survey, analytical recording and further photographic survey commensurate with a Level 3 (English Heritage) Standing Building survey with a view to creating an accurate and comprehensive record of the bridge; and
• a watching brief to be undertaken during demolition of the Telford bridge in order to record additional relevant information.

Highland Council has asked if the stone may be given to them for repair of their own historic bridges. The majority of stone will be reused on site in the building/facing of the new bridge, but any surplus can be passed to the Highland Council with the appropriate waste exemption in place.

The unrecorded structures (i.e. the smithy and remains at Lagganbane) are very close to the works and an exclusion area will be erected as far away as practicable from the structures in order to prevent inadvertent damage. Where this cannot be avoided the watching brief will also extend to the works in proximity of these structures.

By incorporating mitigation measures, the project seeks to comply with policies laid out in Section 5.3.2.

Measures aimed at the protection and recording of cultural assets are listed in Table 11.1 in the Schedule of Environmental Commitments (Chapter 11). They are cross-referenced with the Summary of Effects (Chapter 10). The contractor will also be required to produce a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which will need to be approved by the operating company before work starts on site. The CEMP will fully incorporate all mitigation measures, indicating timing for implementation. It will also include specific details of measures to be employed, clear method statements for the works, an environmental risk assessment, a site waste management plan and contingency plans for environmental incidents.

Taking consideration of the design requirements and with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, it is anticipated that the proposed scheme will comply with relevant policies and plans including Scottish Planning Policy, 2014. Although the proposed scheme will result in the loss of the old masonry bridge, there was considered to be no practicable alternative. Consequently, the proposed scheme is considered to comply with Policy 57 of the HwLDP.

Summary

There will be a residual effect of Moderate significance as a result of the permanent and irreversible loss of the old masonry arch Telford bridge. This residual impact is considered significant under the EIA Regulations. However, the impact is unavoidable and has been reduced from a large impact through mitigation which includes a metric survey, analytical recording and further photographic survey to ensure proper recording of the structure. Furthermore, a watching brief will be undertaken by an appropriately-qualified and competent archaeologist during demolition works. The watching brief will be arranged by the relevant Trunk Roads Operating Company at the time of construction.

The works could result in disturbance and/or damage to the unrecorded remains at Lagganbane. Consequently, the residual effect on these remains will be of potentially Moderate significance and would be mitigated by appropriate recording and watching brief if they are disturbed.

It is considered that, following mitigation, significance of effect on the other cultural heritage receptors will be neutral to slight and not considered to be significant. These measures include establishment of protection zones around assets when establishing locations for site compounds etc. and the establishment of an exclusion zone around remains close to the works.