What Iona’s Setting Means, and What is at Stake
Historic Environment Scotland (HES) has formally objected to MachairWind because it considers that the proposed development would have a “significant adverse impact” on the settings of St Mary’s Abbey, Iona, monastic settlement (SM12968), and Iona Abbey (LB12310)[1].
HES is the statutory body responsible for advising on Scotland’s historic environment. Its objection is specifically to the effects on these two designated heritage assets.
What is the significance of Iona?
HES describes the religious complex at Iona as containing the remains of a large early medieval monastic settlement founded by St Columba around AD 563, later developed into the Benedictine Abbey of St Mary.
The significance of the site is not confined to the buildings themselves. HES describes a complex of interrelated places and features: St Columba’s shrine, the high crosses, Tòrr an Aba, the Street of the Dead, Reilig Odhráin, St Oran’s Chapel, St Mary’s Chapel and the archaeological remains of the earlier monastery.
The relationships between these places matter. HES emphasises the monastery as an “interconnected whole”, rather than as a series of separate monuments. The Abbey itself incorporates and responds to the earlier monastic landscape: its entrance aligns with the shrine, Tòrr an Aba, the high crosses and the end of the pilgrimage route.
HES affirms the sea is fundamental to that setting. Most travellers to Iona arrive on the Fionnphort ferry, via a crossing that HES notes has been used since the early medieval period. The modern pilgrimage route broadly mirrors the historic approach. The Abbey becomes increasingly prominent during the crossing and approach to Baile Mòr, culminating in the arrival at the Abbey.
Within the monastic complex, views south across the Sound look towards where Columba would have arrived from Ireland. HES says that these views accentuate the spiritual connections between Iona, western Scotland and Ireland, as well as its cultural and maritime connections.
From the wider monastery, the sea frames the views and the surrounding landforms frame the sea, expressing Iona’s island setting and “sea-girt separation from the world beyond”. HES records that Iona was seen by its monks as being “at the edge of the ocean” and “at the limit beyond which no-one dwells”.
HES says: “The sense of history and spiritual associations, connections to the Gaelic world and Columba, together with the living religious community at Iona, adds considerably to its cultural significance. As the birthplace of Scottish Christianity, it holds an iconic place in the national story and consciousness.”
HES identifies among the key factors of the scheduled monument’s setting the views across the Sound, the monastery’s coastal and island location, the sense of perceived remoteness and separation, the wide open views towards the horizon, views towards Ireland hidden beyond the horizon, and the relationships between the different elements of the monastery: “Many of these views, including over the horizon towards Ireland, are laden with deep historical significance and religious meaning… This setting is fundamental to the cultural significance of both assets and is highly sensitive to change.”
What is the statutory test?
HES’s objection engages two distinct National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) tests:
- For St Mary’s Abbey, Iona, monastic settlement, which is a scheduled monument, Policy 7(h)(ii) provides that significant adverse impacts on the integrity of the setting of a scheduled monument are to be avoided. HES concludes that MachairWind would fail that test. HES explains the test in terms of the contribution made by setting to cultural significance: where changes mean that the understanding, appreciation and experience of the asset are not adequately retained, there is a significant adverse impact on the integrity of its setting.
- For Iona Abbey, which is a Category A-listed building, Policy 7(c) provides that development affecting its setting should preserve its character and special architectural or historic interest. HES concludes that this requirement would also not be met.
HES also concludes that the application does not demonstrate compliance with HEP1, HEP2 and HEP4 of the Historic Environment Policy for Scotland.
The relevant marine policy is GEN 6 of Scotland’s National Marine Plan, which requires development and use of the marine environment to protect, and where appropriate enhance, heritage assets in a manner proportionate to their significance. HES considers the proposal inconsistent with GEN 6.
What does HES say MachairWind would do?
For the scheduled monastic settlement, HES says the turbines would be “visible in their entirety for most of the ferry crossing from Fionnphort to Baile Mòr”. Almost all of the scheme, including the substation, would be visible as the journey across the Sound begins. The turbines would “fill the empty horizon” to the south.
Within the monastery, HES identifies turbines appearing in views from the front of the Abbey, the high crosses, boundaries, chapels and routeways, with more turbines and the substation coming into view as the visitor moves through the complex. It says the turbines would be a “constant presence” across the Sound of Iona.
From Cladh an Diseart, HES says the turbines would fill the open southern horizon, undermining the sense of separation and perceived remoteness of the monastery, the sense of the monastery being bounded by the sea, and the evocative absence of Ireland articulated by the empty horizon.
From Dùn Ì, the proposals would be visible in their entirety, dominating the view southwards across Iona on a horizon otherwise empty of development. HES says similar impacts would be experienced at St Columba’s Bay.
HES concludes that introducing large-scale modern development across these seaward views would “fundamentally alter the monastery’s sense of remoteness”. The views southwards over the sea and towards Ireland, whose absence is itself laden with meaning, would be interrupted and compromised.
HES then connects these changes directly to the statutory test. It says that the ability to understand, appreciate and experience Columba and his monks’ choice of a place at the edge of the ocean, and the edge of their known world, would not be retained. The sense of being bounded by the sea was a deliberate choice by St Columba and his followers and contributes to the monastery’s sense of remoteness and separation.
HES therefore concludes that the development would have a significant adverse impact on the factors of setting that contribute to the monument’s cultural significance: the relationships between the monastery and associated sites, the visual relationships between elements of the monastery, the relationship with absent Ireland to the south, and the sense of separation and remoteness defined by the surrounding sea. It concludes that the monument would not retain an appropriate setting and that the proposal would fail to avoid significant adverse impacts on the integrity of that setting under Policy 7(h)(ii).
For Iona Abbey, HES says the turbines would be a “near constant presence” in wider views during the journey to the Abbey and at key points along the route, affecting the wider setting through which the Abbey is approached.
They would also appear in important views between the Abbey and the wider monastic complex. HES explains that these relationships were deliberately incorporated into the Abbey’s layout, frontage and entrance. The presence of turbines in these views would therefore detract from appreciation and understanding of the relationship between the Abbey and the earlier monastic landscape.
HES also identifies effects on the Abbey’s relationship with the historic pilgrimage route, the open maritime setting and coastal island context, and the wider monastic complex. These all contribute to the understanding, appreciation and experience of the listed building.
HES concludes that the proposals would become an almost constant presence within the setting of both assets and would have a significant adverse impact on Iona Abbey and its setting.
What does HES say about the applicant’s assessment and mitigation?
HES raises concerns about the way the effects have been assessed.
It says the applicant’s assessment methodology differs from the EIA Handbook and that the methodology “may understate the magnitude of impacts” on the significance of heritage assets arising from changes to their setting.
HES also says that the applicant’s assessment does not consistently follow its Managing Change: Setting methodology and that some of the conclusions regarding impacts on setting are “unclear and insufficiently substantiated.” HES stresses that “an asset’s setting is often perceived in the round”, rather than as a static or isolated view. HES concludes that the “applicant’s assessment downplay(s) both the contribution of the wider setting to the monastery’s and the abbey’s cultural significance and the impacts of the proposals.”
On mitigation, HES says that avoidance through project design is the preferred approach within the standard mitigation hierarchy, followed by reduction. Yet the cultural heritage chapter proposes no mitigation measures relating to setting impacts. HES describes this as a significant omission. HES also recognises that “opportunities [for mitigation] may be limited for a proposal of this scale”, particularly where avoidance through design has not been achieved; and it makes clear that, if Ministers grant consent as submitted, subsequent agreement of the final layout would not mitigate the significant adverse effects it has identified.
Importantly, HES says that the EIA Report contains sufficient information for it to reach a view on the applications. Its objection is therefore a conclusion reached on the evidence submitted with the application, rather than simply a request for further information.
HES’s conclusion is that the proposed development, as applied for, would have a significant adverse impact on the settings of both St Mary’s Abbey, Iona, monastic settlement and Iona Abbey. It considers that the proposal fails the relevant tests in NPF4 and is inconsistent with GEN 6 of the National Marine Plan.
For Iona, HES’s objection is therefore about the effect of MachairWind on the relationships between the monastery, the pilgrimage route, the sea, the open horizon and the wider landscape — the factors that contribute to how this extraordinary place is understood, appreciated and experienced.
[1] This is a summary of HES’s 44-page response to the MachairWind application, which is necessarily selective; for the full detail of HES’s position, we recommend reading the complete response.