AHSS casework

National Technical Committee updated 09.08.2004

National Technical Committee provides specialist advice on difficult cases and comments on national consultation documents on behalf of the society. The Committee consists of some 60 professionals who volunteer their skills to the society on an ad hoc basis. All inquiries to the Director.

Review of a Year
SCOTLAND'S CANALS: an asset for the future
The Society took the opportunity to comment on an excellent and encouraging report on a strategy for Scotland's canals recently made available by the Scottish Executive. The Society noted in particular its satisfaction with the formal recognition given by Historic Scotland to the four remaining canals, with their engineering structures, as Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and to the listing of many canal-side buildings.

Commending British Waterways for the standard of their care of canal structures, in Scotland as in England, we also took the opportunity to welcome 'new heritage' in the form of the Falkirk Wheel. Acknowledgement also was made of the compromise that might sometimes be needed between historical authenticity and modern convenience, for example with lock mechanisms.

With the restoration of the Forth & Clyde and Union Canals we emphasised the importance of protecting and enhancing their corridors. Local authorities have an important rôle in encouraging good canal-side land management, and in planning control, and we offered our support in their endeavours.

The NTC did make some additional comments on recreational potential. The report recognised the importance of towpaths as safe, easy walking routes and mentions wheelchairs. However greater emphasis might have been be given to the fact that canal towpaths provide one of the few opportunities for people in wheelchairs, or pushing infants' buggies, to enjoy the more informal pleasures of the countryside away from motor traffic.

The Society also noted the value of identifying and, as necessary, improving linkages between canal towpaths and the rural and urban footpath network, especially segregated paths such as the Kelvin Way, Almondell Park, and the Water of Leith Walkway. While recognising a limited potential, any move of freight from road to canal would be welcomed . With the suggestion that potential bulky products already using canal-side sites might be identified, we considered it important to retain some commercial canal wharfage, and not to develop all such wharfs as bars and flats).

The opportunity for education through schools liaison and other suitable frameworks was also noted, also helping counteract the deterrence to water traffic caused by vandalism. References to training and skills were also welcomed, as they contribute to the wider deployment of these skills in heritage and engineering conservation.

Lanrick Castle
Following prosecution for the unlawful demolition of the category B-listed Lanrick Castle in Stirling in 2002, the culprit managed to escape with a derisory fine of £1,000. On the surface this appears unnecessarily light, but the justification for such a temperate response needs to be addressed. Allegedly confusing directions from the local authority as regards how the dereliction should be managed. While the council's constituent parts were carrying out their respective statutory duties, the lack of communication left the plaintiff in something of quandary, it was argued, and the manner of the demolition was the consequence of such mixed signals. At least the conservation world can take heart in the fact that the prosecution was successful, while the fine to the culprit will be dwarfed by the fees paid to the eminent QC who devised the comparatively successful defence. However, as such costs might be written off as expenses, there is little in the outcome that will deter more unscrupulous developers from acting outside the law when lucrative deals await.

Williamston House, Crieff
The national office was recently alerted to unlawful works taking place at this A-listed 17th century property. Described in the listing as 'early 17th century. 2-storey harled with margins', its domestic scale provides a striking example of Scotland's move away from truly fortified dwellings at that time. Information on the very destructive works, including pictures, was submitted by the national office to Historic Scotland for comment, as rumours had been in place that the work had been somehow informally authorised.

There has been also apparent confusion between what has been advertised. The Edinburgh Gazette and local papers carried notices only for the proposed removal of roughcast, but the report to committee identified more significant, and largely retrospective works, including demolition. Communication from Historic Scotland stated that the applicant was acting without consent or consultation on the unauthorised work and that the local authority was considering what action to take. As things stand many of the building's internal timbers have been burnt and other demolition has take place on the site, while as yet we see no sign of the local authority taking any action other than granting permission for the removal of roughcast and repointing!

Our local cases panel addressed the key problems in their letter to the council of 16 December 2002:
'The removal of the "roughcast and repointing" is only a small part of the works for which, what appears to be retrospective, consent is being sought. The Society was appalled to discover, on visiting the site, that irreparable damage has been done. This original pre-1650 house has been stripped of its (probably original) harl and (wrongly) slaister pointed, moreover the whole has been internally gutted and re-floored and roofed, and at the time of our visit, the first floor beams (original split timber with adzed finish) were in the process of being removed and burnt. New modern sash and case windows have been installed, and the lightweight studding for a plasterboard shell was being nailed round the walls The current submitted proposals, which are incomplete and inadequate - lacking a ground floor plan or elevations - seem to simply put forward an insensitive and unacceptable addition to the later part of the building on the east side.

'However it is clear that much more work than this has already been carried out - we were advised by workers on site that work had been ongoing for more than a year. In short a rare survivor has been all but obliterated and, so far as we can ascertain, no attempt whatsoever has been made to record the building prior to carrying out work. That work which has been done is grossly insensitive, it fails to follow all the usual approvable historic repair and upgrading techniques and moreover does not begin to meet the guidelines outlined in NPPG 18.

'In the hope that something can be salvaged from this wreck, we wish to object strongly to the proposed extension. The applicant must also be compelled to restore the harling with the benefit of advice obtained from The Scottish Lime Centre at Charleston'.

The council's response has been minimal, and communication between the national office and Historic Scotland has yet to provide any clear explanation for or outcome from this appalling scenario.

Fochabers-Mosstodloch Bypass
The Society was represented at the Public Local Inquiry (PLI) on the above proposals by the Director (as advisor) and three of its most respected members, Elizabeth Beaton, our local panel representative, James Macaulay and Kitty Cruft, following concern at the degree to which the case for the historic environment might be overlooked. The case centres on the proposed alignment of a new bypass to the town, promoted by the Scottish Executive, that will cut the historic link between the town and the Gordon estate.

This link, as those who know the area will appreciate, is most patently embodied in the Gordon Chapel which bridges between the estate and town. This is a category A-listed complex presented by Elizabeth, wife of 5th Duke of Gordon. The 2-tier plan form, with chapel above and school below, all in a most un-Puginian fashion, is noted as being 'unusual' in the list description. This also records that the building itself is by Archibald Simpson, of 1832-34, with additions and alterations by Alexander Ross of 1874. The highpoint is the interior of the chapel, which includes stained glass by Morris and Co, some designed by Sir Edward Burne-Jones. The town itself is no less important historically, and boasts at least 63 listed buildings. While we can appreciate the need to remove the traffic route from the main street, it is wholly inappropriate to re-locate it outside the chapel.

Elizabeth Beaton presented evidence to the Inquiry about the importance of the site and area from a local perspective. James Macaulay and Kitty Cruft (Kitty representing also the interests of the Garden History Society) discussed the national importance of the architecture and estate respectively. The Inquiry extended over nearly two months in the Autumn, with the objectors represented by the most able counsel, Ailsa Wilson, formerly the junior counsel for the promoters of the Princes Street Galleries. The outcome is expected in the coming year.

Coodham House
With the support of, and in consultation with, our Strathclyde panel representatives, we presented full comments on the proposals for Coodham House and Estate, South Ayrshire. The proposals suggested securing the shell of this A-listed building complex by building residential units inside it in a perfectly reasonable approach, but a destructive amount of enabling development was proposed to sustain this work and the future of the estate.

The new build proposal, adjacent to the house, was considered admirable, as its lower level and glass elements would not challenge the bulk of the main house, but we considered that the extended elevations would compromise the setting. We had concerns too that conversion to housing would require a far greater amount of service area than that projected, as well as a much higher parking provision. The proposed conversion/partial restoration of the 3 main built elements of the main house was accepted in principle, as was the fact that little of the interior could be feasibly restored though we suggested that the central atrium might be retained, top-lit as originally designed and built. Restoration details too were largely acceptable.

However, regardless of these and other matters, the Society considered that the funding of the securing of the fabric of one large house through some 40 new houses in a highly sensitive and designated site such as this could not be justified. It was concluded that stabilisation of the building would be preferable to the alternative of compromising the main building and its landscape surrounding to the extent proposed. Sadly, since the report was written, permission has been granted by the local authority, and work can progress.

Edinburgh: The Playfair Project
Following consultation with the local panel the Society was represented by the Director at the National Galleries of Scotland Bill Committee meeting in February. The statement to the Committee, led by Richard Griffith of the Edinburgh World Heritage Trust, was supported by The Scottish Civic Trust and ourselves.

It was noted that there was no objection in principal to the objective of the Bill, namely the removal of a small piece of land from Princes Street Gardens on the east side of the Mound to allow the completion of the Playfair project. However two issues did arise concerning maintaining the character of the gardens.

The first issue related to the principle of building in the gardens. We noted that several commercial interests might be eager to press for opportunities to build in the gardens. We were concerned that a public realm development such as the Playfair Project - carried out in the public interest, for and by a public body - might be cited as a precedent for the introduction of private commercial development within the gardens. We welcomed any action by the Committee to ensure that the public character of the gardens would not be eroded by private commercial interests, and that the demands of commercially driven schemes would not be allowed to determine the balance of public and private interests in this important public location.

Secondly, as the new structure would house a restaurant/cafeteria, there might be a strong commercial incentive to extend its activities through its glazed elevation onto the adjacent footpath and possibly further into the gardens. Such extension of its activities could, in itself, have an adverse impact on the character of the gardens. It might also offer a precedent for other commercial undertakings to extend their areas of activity in the gardens. Here again we welcomed any action by the Committee to respond to this concern.

The organisations collectively welcomed the re-affirmation at the committee by the project director that the proposals would not set a precedent. Furthermore it was indicated that facilities coming from the Playfair Project could be made available to enhance services at the garden's events. Since the inquiry, the work has progressed apace, while the first part of the project, the Royal Scottish Academy, has held the celebrated opening exhibition on Monet.

Edinburgh Cowgate
The dramatic effect, and ensuing and international interest, inspired by the fire in the Cowgate before Christmas re-confirmed the city's world-profile. The World Monuments Fund was just one of the organisations to voice concern over the pictures broadcast around the globe, and messages of concern reached various people from places as far away as Australia and New Zealand.

Jointly with the Scottish Civic Trust, the AHSS issued a statement on the Sunday following the Saturday night fire. While appreciating that every effort must be made to secure the safety of the site initially, we also urged as a priority the retention of as much as possible of the surviving fabric. Also we emphasised that it was essential that skills and advice from bodies and professionals familiar with historic building engineering inform the securing and clearance of the site. Sadly, at a seminar hosted by the council, the offer of free voluntary advice from professional engineers well known for their sensitivity in dealing with historic building structures was declined. The very speedily-penned outline of the historic significance of the urban site, prepared by our Vice President Prof. David Walker, helped create a very useful pause in the early days.

Sadly, such measured assessments have been overshadowed (but not overtaken) by more publicity-prone interests, most of which have stretched their imaginations as far as proposing one or more towers!

By the time of the first meeting, it may already have been too late to save more - the façade of the Gilded Balloon was coming down about that time. However events provided firm proof of the need for a more substantial risk management strategy to be in place in the World Heritage Site. Certainly too, there should be a much closer liaison between the Council and the World Heritage Trust over these matters. It is unfortunate to see at such a seminar the Trust lined up amongst busy-bodies like ourselves, when they should be part of the council's core strategy for managing the crisis.
While there have been concerns about the management of the disaster in the early weeks, more recently there has been a significant degree of pro-active linking of interests by the city council. At seminars on the site we were able to circulate Andrew Fraser's paper on the site.

The next stage has been the production of a development brief which will provide a suitable framework for future developments. The Society commented on a very robust draft document from the city council, which recognised in particular the historic urban significance of the South Bridge work. While this was slightly watered down in consultation, the Society is content with - but not complacent about - the fact that the emergency efforts of Professor Walker have secured an intelligent and informed framework for managing development of the site.

Public Bodies Bill
A number of issues came out of the Public Bodies Bill that was recently passed by Parliament, and we monitored developments here through our contact with (and on occasion on behalf of) BEFS. The three areas that, at the last stage of the Bill, transpired as being of most relevance covered: Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland (HEACS); RCAHMS and Historic Scotland. These may be covered individually.

HEACS
Following extensive lobbying and a highly critical joint statement coming out of Built Environment Forum Scotland (BEFS) signed by the AHSS, The Scottish Civic Trust, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS) and Royal Town Planning Institute for Scotland (RTPI) among others, the Executive decided to replace the outgoing Historic Buildings Council for Scotland (HBCS) and Ancient Monuments Board (AMB) with a new organisation, the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland (HEACS).

The overall response to the issues raised by the abolition of the outgoing bodies has been broadly welcomed by the AHSS and by BEFS's members in general. However following a BEFS forum discussion, a paper was passed to the Executive outlining cross-sector issues of concern and interest. BEFS and HEACS should develop close working relationships and, in light of the overlap of interest between the two bodies, BEFS would seem to be an ideal sounding board and facilitator for HEACS. However there is some concern that given the very limited resources currently envisaged, HEACS will have to remain focused only on the most strategic and cross-cutting issues.

BEFS members also were keen for an analysis to be carried out of the issues brought out in the consultations on the abolition of AMB and HBCS in order to ensure that significant areas of concern can be identified at an early stage by HEACS members, and taken into account in terms of its remit and operating principles.

While accepting that we are only at a very early stage, BEFS's members are already concerned at the limited time indicated for the involvement of members of the new body in its work. Even if restricted to high level strategic thinking, it is hard to see how Council members' input could be restricted to just 6-8 days a year. It was suggested that the time commitment of members of HEACS is kept under close review. If, as seems likely, the actual commitment demanded of HEACS' members is significantly greater, then we would hope that this time commitment, along with the issue of remuneration, should be reconsidered.

BEFS welcomed in particular the cross-cutting nature proposed for HEACS, including the fact that HEACS already had within its remit the ability to work with a number of different Ministers. BEFS considered it essential that HEACS has the capacity to advise Ministers from all parts of the Executive, both in terms of their effect on the historic environment, and in terms of how the historic environment can be used to further the wider aims of the administration.

HEACS' members, including the chair, were appointed over the Spring and Summer of 2003, while the management is by a Secretariat run by Historic Scotland.

RCAHMS
The Bill had proposed the establishment of a corporate body to be known as the National Survey of Archaeology and Buildings of Scotland (aka the National Survey) as a replacement to the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS). The National Survey was to be a Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) directly responsible to the Executive.

However a key problem was raised during the consultation process. In its new form the National Survey, being responsible to the Scottish Ministers, would lose its ability to draw down charitable revenue, as charities must be independent of government. If the work of the organisation was not to be significantly impaired, any charitable funding would have to be replaced through subvention from the public purse. At the last moment, just before the final, Stage 3, reading of the Bill, the Executive withdrew this part of the proposed legislation. Instead it was proposed to wait until a review of charity law was concluded, at which time the matter would be reviewed.

Historic Scotland Review
The third outcome of the Public Bodies Bill was the institution of a review of Historic Scotland following outspoken Parliamentary criticism over the proposal in the Bill to phase out the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland (HBC) and the Ancient Monuments Board (AMB) without proposals for a replacement body. Interestingly, while the MSPs presumed Historic Scotland's lead role in the process, it should be remembered that, as an Agency of the Executive, it only has the capacity to advise. It is also subject to decisions made at higher levels in the Executive, where there might not be such an awareness of the ramifications of the unilateral dissolution of key scrutinisers of the Executive's work. As a review of the Executive Agency should have taken place in 1999, but was delayed due to the devolution process, a new review has been proposed, though suggestions are that it may well take on a more substantial aspect than that intended in 1999.

Reviews are generally welcome, ensuring that standards are maintained and promoting change where appropriate. As Historic Scotland (like ourselves) has the unenviable task of protecting the historic environment in the face of powerful and conflicting interests, we should be confident that it is doing the best it can. Sadly there is also a small but significant body of interests looking to expropriate the review and turn it to their own personal advantage. Such attempts will have to be strongly resisted, both inside government and outside, but that should not deter us from ensuring that we are all doing the best we can.

Historic Environment Review & HEAT
Remembering that reviews can be essential tools in good management, the cross-sector initiative to promote an independent review of the historic environment in Scotland as a whole, and a system for reporting on it, is being progressed, again with Historic Scotland's support. The group, The Historic Environment Assessment Team (HEAT), on which the Society's Director sits, has joint authority of BEFS and Link, the natural environment linking organisation from which BEFS has successfully borrowed many ideas. HEAT has already met with the Deputy Minister, Dr Elaine Murray MSP, who has stressed the Executive's interest in the initiative.

Following very supportive advice in various meetings with Historic Scotland, we are looking forward to their comments on how to progress this initiative with other government-related interests. It may be that we will move more directly towards the ultimate object of a reporting system on the historic environment, without the full-blown review. We will await discussion of these matters amongst the myriad of interests that such a review would cover before we can be sure of the best way forward.

Seán O'Reilly
Director