Archaeology Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland and the Scottish Council on Archives call for contributions to Scotland’s Community Heritage Conference 2019.
Making Places, Connecting People’ – Call for Papers, Speakers, Displays and Contributions
Date: Saturday 9th November 2019
Venue: Birnam Arts and Conference Centre, Dunkeld and Birnam
Archaeology Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland and the Scottish Council on Archives are delighted to announce the call for contributions to Scotland’s Community Heritage Conference 2019. Returning for its eighth year, the Conference provides a vibrant stage for volunteers, community groups and professionals to network and share experiences, inspiring one another and unlocking the tools that lead to successful projects and fruitful working partnerships.
The conference theme this year is Making Places, Connecting People. Your very involvement in local heritage plays a vital role in defining and celebrating your community, your place. Moreover, by involving your friends and neighbours, you are building and strengthening connections that bring benefits far beyond the aims of individual projects. These are also priorities for government – to help communities discover, cherish and protect the richness that is our heritage, right across Scotland. So we invite you to join us to share your experiences, thoughts and plans in the annual celebration that is Scotland’s Community Heritage Conference!
This year we will be returning to the Birnam Arts and Conference Centre in Perthshire (https://www.birnamarts.com/). Conveniently sited close to the A9 and just a five-minute walk from the railway station, this marvellous building offers an exciting range of spaces for the conference and is fully accessible to those with disabilities. With your help, we will be creating a memorable day of talks, workshops and exhibitions, hearing from you about your involvement with community heritage. As usual, volunteers and members of community groups have priority in the main plenary sessions, but there are also plenty of opportunities for the professional sector to add their skills and energy to the event.
We want to hear from you!
If you would like to be involved, please use the form to tick the option that best suits your proposal, using the boxes to outline your ideas (or to suggest an alternative), and send it to chcscot@gmail.com. Please pass on this invitation to others who might be interested in sharing their experiences – we are sure there are many people, many groups, many communities we haven’t yet reached who could have a huge positive impact on the conference, so help us find them!
Any questions – don’t hesitate to get in touch with the organising team on chcscot@gmail.com.
Closing date for submissions: Sunday 18th August (if you miss it, contact us anyway: no promises, but we’ll see what we can do!).
BACK
BEFS Policy Lead provides a brief and concise overview of Stage 3 amendments to the Planning (Scotland) Bill.
It is now confirmed that Stage 3 debates on the Bill will take place in the Scottish Parliament on 18, 19 June with the final decision potentially being made on 20 June 2019. All documentation can be found on the Bill’s page.
Stage 3 has proven to be as complex and ‘guddle’ making as Stage 2. The below is the very briefest of overviews – highlighting only a few of the changes which had previously been discussed by the BEFS Planning Taskforce. A full document of Stage 3 Amendments is linked here, and details of past work can be found on BEFS Planning page.
Many changes have been made along the way – with new roles suggested for Planning Improvement Coordinator and a person to assess Planning Authority/Authorities performance, but no further detail provided on the Chief Planning Officer role.
A purpose for planning has been reduced somewhat, and perhaps points more at the pragmatic housing delivery need expressed than the wider aspiration for planning (such as the UN-SDGs of New Urban Agenda).
The National Planning Framework has been through two iterations at Stage 3 alone, with multiple amendments expanding the reach in terms of policies referred to, and consultees needed. The second iteration added the need to meet any targets relating the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases – which given the declared climate emergency feels like a step in an appropriate direction.
Strategic Development Plans have been removed (again) and replaced with Regional Spatial Strategies.
The Local Development Plan has also been through multiple changes. The formation of such plans no-longer includes children and young people, community engagement requirements appear to have been reduced in relations to responsibilities placed upon planning authorities, cultural zones have been removed and the agent of change principle remains in flux as Stage 3 amendments both remove, and return it in various forms.
What has been removed for LDPs, also seem to apply in part to the Local Place Plans – where there is no duty to provide assistance to communities in forming a LPP. There is also the addition of the community to ‘identify land and buildings that the community body considers to be of particular significance to the local area’. Perhaps giving the opportunity to form a sort ‘local list’.
Land Value Capture has morphed into the potential for Land Value Sharing. (Recent Scottish Land Commission recommendations can be found here.)
Rights of Appeal, on which BEFS did not take a stance, have several variations at Stage 3.
Training for Planning Authorities has been put back in at Stage 3.
New topics have also come to the fore:
- Mediation
- Annual Reporting for Planning Authorities (as well as the new roles mentioned previously)
- Forestry/Ramsar and Biodiversity Amendments – as well as renewable energy, cycling facilities and small scale renewables.
BEFS will be preparing a briefing for MSPs based on previous work, and new comments from the Planning Taskforce and looks forward to what may well be a lively few days of debate.
BACK
Submit your project as a best practice case study to illustrate the breadth of activity undertaken in the historic environment in Scotland.
We are looking for case studies of projects or initiatives undertaken between April 2018 and March 2019.
Your project would feature in our Historic Environment Case Studies database and be linked to the Our Place in Time (OPiT) performance report 2019. This is an opportunity for you to showcase your work within the national strategy for the historic environment, contributing to the case for continued government support for the sector.
We would be particularly interested in submissions that demonstrate evidence of the following OPIT Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):
- KPI 2 (CO2 emission reduction)
- KPI 3 (informed decision making – evidence that historic environment evidence informs priorities)
- KPI 4 (leadership and shared working – evidence of an increase in joined up working on strategic investment across public, private and voluntary sectors)
- KPI 8 (Effective and proportionate protection and regulation – evidence that the outcomes of management, including designation, reflects what people value)
- KPI 10 (Ensuring capacity – evidence of improved capacity by supporting communities through community empowerment and engagement)
Please submit your case study via the link below by Friday 26 July 2019.
|
|
BACK
A report is calling for regular building inspections, the establishment of compulsory owners’ associations and Building Reserve Funds to be written into legislation to protect the future of Scotland’s tenement buildings.
The report has been published by the Working Group on Maintenance of Tenement Scheme Property, of which BEFS and RICS are the secretariats. The Working Group was established in March 2018 and is comprised of sector experts and MSPs from all parliamentary parties. In January 2019, the group published its interim recommendations report and then formally discussed stakeholder and public responses to the report, which were received via consultation. The Working Group on Maintenance of Tenement Scheme Property Final Recommendations Report was published on Tuesday 4 June.
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart MSP, said:
“This report brings together views from across the Scottish Parliament and housing stakeholders, and its recommendations merit serious and careful consideration.
“We welcome that it acknowledges the important action we have already taken to improve the condition of Scottish tenements, and recognises the challenges that must be met to ensure that our housing stock can continue to provide safe and sustainable homes for the future.”
Recommendations cover three areas: building inspections, owners’ associations and Building Reserve Funds, and how these aspects could function and be implemented.
- The “scheme property” of all tenements should be inspected every five years with a report prepared that will be publicly available to existing or prospective owners and tenants, neighbours and policy makers.
- Establishing compulsory owners’ associations are an essential element of tenement maintenance by providing leadership, effective decision-making processes and the ability for groups to enter into contracts.
- Building Reserve Fund (BRF) should be set up, with funds used for maintenance – as defined in Schedule 1 of the 2004 Act – including repairs and replacement, the installation of insulation, cleaning, gardening, painting and other routine works, the day to day running of a tenement and the reinstatement of a part (but not most) of the tenement.
Shadow housing and planning minister, Graham Simpson MSP, said:
“The final report from the Working Group on Tenement Maintenance is the result of hard work and dedication to this matter. We set out, knowing there is a ticking timebomb on building maintenance across the country.
“We have produced a timely report with some challenging recommendations, but government can be assured that there is cross-party and cross-sector support for what we are suggesting.
“This report is not the end of the road though and we hope the Scottish Government will take up our final recommendations and put in place practices to help keep tenements safe, energy efficient and well maintained.
“I would like to thank all members for their contributions and I look forward to seeing our hard work become policy and practice, improving the lives of the people living in tenements across Scotland.”
The issue of tenement maintenance has grown in prominence in Holyrood, with cross-party support for action to make changes to existing legislation and practice. Numerous debates have taken place in the chamber over the last 18 months; the first of which led to the establishment of the Working Group.
Hew Edgar, RICS Interim Head of Policy, commented:
“Following the publication of the interim recommendations report in January, the group has consulted widely on the three recommendations – through cross-party working and extensive stakeholder engagement – and updated the final recommendations based on feedback received.
“The recommendations are interlinked, and while each recommendation has its own benefits, the required transformative change to improve the fabric of Scotland’s tenement property can only arise through the implementation of all three.”
“RICS welcomes all recommendations within the report and we will continue to work with the Working Group, Government and interested parties to help implement these robust solutions to help future proof Scotland’s historic residential property.”
BACK
BEFS Policy & Advocacy Lead, Ailsa Macfarlane, provides a summary of the new Historic Environment Policy for Scotland documents.
Almost two weeks ago HES launched its new strategic policy document, Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS) as well as a suite of new policy and guidance documents, which are designed to sit along-side HEPS, providing detail and application direction:
- Designation Policy and Selection Guidance
- Scheduled Monument Consents Policy
- Managing Change Guidance: Demolition of Listed Buildings
- Managing Change Guidance: The Use and Adaptation of Listed Buildings
Here, we take a first-look, a brief overview, of how far we’ve collectively come since the Policy Conference held by BEFS in early 2018. What was suggested by participants then (covers what has now become the suite of documents above) is perhaps a better reflection of where we are now than revisiting the extensive consultation process. The transformation, from HESPS to HEPS, has been extensive. The change is far more than just a shuffling of acronyms.
Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS)
The overarching suggestions in early 2018 included a slimmed down Policy document, with appendices presented as their own separate documents. This was definitely taken to heart – 70+ pages have been reduced to a far more focused 18 pages. A document that could be considered far more nimble, with a brevity which can be appreciated by many. A document which also received 232 consultation responses, a wide variety of opinions and voices to attempt to take into account. No respondent, or respondent group, should expect to see all their suggestions taken on board.
There were ‘asks’ for the vision to be broader, to include: resourcing, diversity, inclusivity, the intangible and sustainability. These all receive attention – whether directly as part of the Policies themselves – or as aspects of the challenges and opportunities section.
These inclusions demonstrate new ways of thinking and acting; new opportunities for policy to be increasingly relevant and accessible. However, there are aspects which did not get addressed: those of ‘placemaking’ and ‘stewardship’ failed to make the cut.
Could the wording around Climate Change have been stronger? The phrasing implies positive intentions but perhaps fails to express the immediacy of action now necessary. The challenges around climate change also enable a light to be shone on sustainable reuse, as well as highlighting the urgency of protective action needed in some instances.
Designation Policy and Selection Guidance
There is much to praise in this new document: the much needed link to the appropriate application form is now included; positive descriptions of how designation is carried out are present; diagrams provide a little more clarity in relation to inter-organisational involvement in the processes; the concept of reviewing designation is present early and applies across the designation landscape; Building Preservation Notices are an explicit part of the process (where appropriate); and each section follows a structure and rhythm, which promotes a far easier read than previously.
The removal of conservation areas from this document may be challenging to some, but helps to more clearly define which organisations should take responsibility for these designations. The lack of information around implications and penalties in relation to designations, as well as the necessity of appropriate maintenance, perhaps says more about the current availability of resource related to enforcement than about the document and directives themselves.
The revised descriptions for listing categories (A,B,C), sees the removal of the spatial/locality based elements, which could be seen as promoting further subjectivity. Widely understood and agreed definitions of, ‘outstanding’, ‘major’, and ‘representative’ may take some time to bed-in.
Scheduled Monument Consents Policy
This is probably one of the least altered of the policy documents – the legislation remains static, so there was little need to review and redraft. The beneficial aspects of intervention listed will be seen as a positive step by many, and the definitions of personnel as ‘competent’ rather than experienced, is noted as a further beneficial step towards more inclusionary language.
There could be concern noted that HEP 6 is not explicitly included within the document – as this type of Working Together in relation to Scheduled Monuments could be usefully highlighted to enable further connection between owners and legislative bodies.
Managing Change Guidance: Demolition of Listed Buildings
There could be much to say for each document, but as this is an overview, a few comments will have to suffice. There is clarity here on the protections and processes necessary. The positive additions in relation to asset transfer and community ownership give excellent pointers to those communities considering action.
Managing Change Guidance: The Use and Adaptation of Listed Buildings
It is a great positive to see that conservation statements have been added to the document. This is a useful addition.
BEFS expressed concerns around phrases such as, “The best use of a listed building is often going to be the one for which it was designed”, and, “The continued use of a listed building for its original function will normally be the best way to retain its historic character.” This reads as a rather tight description, and could imply an organisation still too hesitant in enabling useful change, which could benefit places, people and the planet with sustainable decisions. It is the flexibility of many of our historic buildings that has seen them survive for centuries. Ironically, most of the illustrative examples supplied by HES in this document are not demonstrating their original use – but in doing so they do demonstrate the excellent variety of opportunities for change and adaptation.
—
Whilst it is an academic exercise to parse the texts, we have to focus on the task at hand. It is not the picking apart of words or phrases that will protect, promote and encourage the use, reuse, enjoyment and understanding of our historic environment – it is how the documents are used. How these documents enable protection, enforcement, and pragmatism of reuse, will be their true assessment. Our parallel report analyses how existing historic environment policy is being used in one area of the planning process, it would be good to see HEPS more frequently utilised.
HES are putting in place additional training for those who need/want to use these documents. This training will be key to fully embedding new policies and ways of thinking across a wide number of organisations. Practical supporting literature which details: the alignment of skills and standards necessary for procedures; the suggested flow through process charts of actions around particular legislative ask;, and a clearly expressed hierarchy of policies and legislation; are all training materials which will aid the user – whether professional or personal – to understand how these policies truly apply to the historic environment.
Ultimately it’s not the words themselves that become important, it’s the opportunity they represent to refresh training, refresh thinking and to answer questions, enabling better results for people and place.
BACK
An analysis of how existing historic environment policies are utilised within the planning system.
In anticipation of last week’s publication of the revised Historic Environment Policy for Scotland, BEFS decided to undertake an analysis of how existing historic environment policies are utilised within the planning system. Analysing their use at a local authority level would be a mammoth task so we narrowed the parameters by looking at how they are used in the appeal process, arguably the sharp end of the planning process and often seen as the true test of policy. We have had the good fortune of having Susannah Gibbin, a third year undergraduate from the University of Edinburgh, with us this semester and we tasked Susannah with analysing all Listed Building Consent Appeals that were decided by the Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals in 2018.
Documentation for 70 cases decided is available and Susanna analysed them for references to national and local policies on the historic environment, and national guidance on the historic environment.
- 17% reference Scottish Planning Policy 2014 (SPP)
- 96% refer to the relevant Local Development Plan policy (LDP)
- 46% reference Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement 2016 (HESPS)
- 41% reference Managing Change Guidance series
- 46% reference correspondence from Historic Environment Scotland
- 46% reference the relevant Conservation Area Character Appraisal
- 53% of appeals were dismissed, 47% allowed but analysis reveals no significant statistical difference as to how policies were referenced between the two outcomes.
The references to Scottish Planning Policy are very brief, as are those to the Historic Environment Scotland Policy Statement albeit with occasional paragraph references (3.38-3.39 and 3.45-3.47). Intriguingly three cases refer to Scottish Historic Environment Policy, 2 years after it has been withdrawn.
Conservation Area Character Appraisals, while referenced, are not quoted. Various documents from the Managing Change guidance series are referred to, with that on Windows being the most frequent.
It is noteworthy that while nearly all cases refer to the relevant local development plan policies, less than 50% rely upon other historic environment policies.
It may be that decisions at a local authority level are more dependent upon national policy and guidance than the DPEA – a quick sample from one local authority’s recent LBC decisions suggests that the Managing Change guidance series is frequently referenced. Arguably local development plan policies align with both SPP and HESPS (or its predecessor SHEP) so reference to more detailed guidance is all that we should expect. It does highlight the importance of getting LDP policies right.
Given that the new Historic Environment Policy for Scotland has been in development for a number of years, with excellent public and sector wide engagement, we welcome the training that Historic Environment Scotland are already making available before it is due to be formally adopted on the 1st of May 2019.
BACK
BEFS Policy & Advocacy Officer, Ailsa Macfarlane reflects on the ‘Scotland at a Crossroads, Heritage Past and Futures’ Symposium
Symposium – Intercultural Research Centre, Heriot Watt – 13 March 2019
Scotland, the United Kingdom and Europe find themselves at a cross-roads. Perhaps it wouldn’t be presumptuous to say that a cross-roads is almost too straightforward for the juncture we are now at, politically and perhaps even emotionally. At the Heriot Watt event (detailed above) academics and researchers explored the personal and the political in relation to heritage. Many aspects were covered and I highly recommend that those interested explore the link above where presentations from the day will be posted in due course.
Dr Gina Netto explored what heritage is – how it is defined, how it is expressed and experienced. And how migration is represented, albeit selectively, within heritage expression. Scotland’s heritage is often, too often, represented by our built environment.
This raised questions of language – does our reliance on ‘heritage’ and the historic environment (as defined via our national policies) rather than ‘cultural heritage’, by necessity become exclusionary? Are we pushing the people out of our stories?
The scene set, we heard two more personal perspective on belonging, (longing to be, Dr Lina Fadel) and the choice, or imposition of belonging. Dr Katerina Strani brought us into the world of multicultural citizenship and the importance of interculturalism as helping to form cohesive civil societies through the notion of multiple identities. The salad bowl, rather than the melting pot.
Scotland was seen as a positive example – New Scots are being welcomed, multilingualism is championed (Gaelic, BSL), migrants are normalised into the dominant publics. And to an extent this is amplified by Brexit – Scotland is defining itself in relation to another, less inclusive seeming other. However, Dr Emma Hill highlighted the discourse of the ‘New Scot’ as often unrelated to length of settlement/time in a place – and how this manifested in relation to Glasgow’s decades old Somali community.
Our keynote came from Dr Tuuli Lähdesmäki – Europe at a Crossroads. Cultural Heritage in the Creation of a European Narrative.
Culture as a tool of European creation and inclusion, or exclusion. Propaganda of the past, but also for the future. A single European-ness being central to a comprehensible European ideal. A shared ‘European identify’ which helps to bring cohesion – but excludes ideas of both nationality and aspects of the past which don’t contribute positively to the ideals for the future. The new European Heritage Label highlighting shared, yet diverse, heritages; increasing the politicisation of heritage – providing (sometimes spurious) parallels between the past and a shared political future. Heritage is a tool with diverse purposes – this is politics of scale; the sub-national example becoming the supra-national ideal.
The second session expanded on challenges, and echoed some of the questions raised around the Prioritisation work on which BEFS has been leading. Dr Jennie Morgan spoke of the profusion predicament and needing breadth for our future heritages. If 90% of museums’ collections are in stores – what are we seeing and ‘saving’ as representative of our pasts? New ways of thinking, unsettling the taken-for-granted assumptions and embracing a social inclusion agenda can give us some inroads into our future cultural heritage.
Catherine McCullagh’s ongoing research highlighted the perils of heritage professionals who may find themselves as gate-keepers of sentimental ideas; ideas which may not chime with communities’ own ideas of heritage, living or otherwise.
New approaches to living heritage are not without challenges: intangible cultural heritage (ICH) unchallenged, unexamined – with the potential to offend, commercialised (by accident or design). This ‘dark’ side was explored by Prof Alison McCleery – asking us to question ownership, notions of authenticity and conformity. Our behaviours and culture can adapt and change, but we need the confidence to question what is presented. Prof McCleery was plain that we, and UNSECO, cannot shy away from these difficult conversations.
In our final session music as heritage was explored by David Francis from TRACS – not just music as part of cultural expression but with the attendant ‘heritigisation’ – coming from assimilation, commoditisation and co-option of local singers to be recorded and be heard more widely. By promoting the recordings, what the singers represented became more static; the process of passing on the songs, as a living expression of the craft, was frozen becoming part of the ‘heritigisation’ of the cultural expression. How the parity of esteem for the traditional forms of cultural expression is maintained and expressed in the Culture Strategy will be interesting to see.
Marc Romano brought the ‘Outlander effect’ to the fore – the huge increase which some sites have experienced through new visitors. (An effect the heritage sector is clear comes with challenges and responsibilities.) Outlander-esque representations view Scottish ‘heritage’ through a very specific lens. A lens which elevates aspects of the past, perhaps beyond the reach of current cultural heritage grasping at parity.
Our final speaker, Alastair Mackie, discussed the notion of identity itself, only becoming an issue when it’s in crisis/uncertainty. The uncertainty in question remains Brexit.
The notions of the current liminality of Brexit and the personal and national impacts were discussed by a panel to close the day. Practical and personal concerns merged: visas, skills, information, disruption, racist slights, Imperialist attitudes and the disconnect between people and place.
Stewardship of land, of place, of how we prevent further climate breakdown all came to the fore. Is climate the crossroads we find ourselves at – is Brexit a mere bump in the road comparatively?
I found myself reflecting that so much of cultural heritage is how we steward our knowledge, what we choose to take forward, to leave as legacy, and to promote. I continue to assume that culture in its widest sense can be of benefit to societies, crossing barriers of demography – but perhaps the choices we make around what to foreground need more careful stewardship for the future.
BACK
BEFS have been leading on Prioritisation work for the built and historic environment since Autumn 2018. This work will inform the Built Heritage Investment Plan. Now we are asking for your views.
BEFS have been leading on Prioritisation work for the built and historic environment since Autumn 2018, this will help to inform the work on the Built Heritage Investment Plan taking place within Historic Environment Scotland and the OPiT Built Heritage Investment Group.
Many involved organisations and individuals have given their time, views, methodologies and valued critique to develop a suggested set of Principles for Prioritisation. These Principles were discussed at a public event in Edinburgh last week (25th February 2019) – slides from that event can be accessed here.
After events and feedback from participants and interested parties we produced a short questionnaire designed to aid progress of this valuable work.
**UPDATE – The survey is now closed. Version 2 of Principles for Prioritisation were consulted upon: this is available in PDF here** .
In response to some of Monday’s (25th February) discussion we would offer the following comments:
- Principles in themselves cannot change the competition for funding – but they are designed to perhaps help level the playing field and make decision-making more transparent.
- Principles themselves cannot answer specific questions – such as the VAT concern, but they should enable greater clarity over how this generation wishes to frame the arguments to continue lobbying on such issues.
- Other questions arose, including mainstreaming heritage across Scottish Government departments. This is something BEFS will explore in relation to the data gathered for the Built Heritage Investment Group about investment in heritage already occurring across the vast majority of ministerial portfolios.
- Climate concerns should be at the top of any agenda and any resource directed towards the historic environment will contribute to the sustainability of the existing environment and is therefore implicitly addressing climate change be it through adaptation or mitigation.
We appreciate all those who took the time to complete the survey, a further iteration of the Principles for Prioritisation are being produced and further steps for this work are currently under consideration.
BACK
BEFS Policy & Advocacy Officer, Ailsa Macfarlane asks, is it time to rethink our definition of community and consider how it is applied?
Is the concept of community, like the concept of the ‘housewife’ – somewhat dated, incongruous and failing to communicate the diversity of experience and circumstance? A label applied rather than a label chosen.
The following tweet helped to tease out some of the concerns I find with the current use of ‘community’ as a descriptor:
“How to make communities walkable – and better places to live […]”
It isn’t communities that become more walkable. It is places, areas – a mappable surface of land. Communities are truly formed – by and of – people; the place could be seen as subservient to those located there.
Community is too often used as a short-hand description for an area, with the people implied – but not necessarily central to the issue being discussed. In relation to the text of the tweet above – people will have to do the walking; this may involve difference choices and opportunities – it may involve understanding of behavior, it may require behavior-change; and those things involve individuals.
From a heritage perspective are we torn between place-based issues and communities which may be formed, defined and exist, out-with a locale? Simultaneously attempting to answer the issues of place and the rights and concerns of those involved.
We hear about Community values, community importance, community significance – but what do we really mean by community? I’m suspicious that what was once organic and holistic, (perhaps previously also based on assumption) is now fractured and manufactured. Something which is not necessarily innate.
Whilst it could be argued the formation of communities was always circumstantial – our circumstances seem now to have many more variables: from less homogenous groupings of relations, to further travel for service provision and/or employment, to more single-person dwellings.
If we asked people who their community are –would those around their locale play a central role in the hierarchy? Family, friends, colleagues, (if there are) children- their friends and associated families, the consistent interactions with others where we shop and relax. These aspects of life may be geographically close to ‘home’ or some distance away. This can apply to rural and urban locations – if the local school is now closed, the local council offices moved away, the bus service limited – then the patterns of consistent interactions are reduced and the foundations that formed communities previously – are also eroded.The digital tools of the modern world can further reduce the necessity for human interaction in everyday life, additionally limiting the ability for communities to form organically.
Within a heritage environment it can feel that communities are currently co-created. Created by people and by conflict. There are the obvious examples – the shared (whether through choice or circumstance) groups – of interest, locality or experience.
But that sense of ‘community’ seems to be co-created by circumstance. Often coalesced by reaction/resistance to external (or even internal) factors. Is community now purely defined by ‘the other’? Is formation occurring in order to gain an identity and get a voice?
Who is represented will always be subjective and whilst I’m not sure there will ever be a clear answer to this – if we start with the principle that individuals having a voice and being able to articulate that voice in all circumstances (be they positive, benign, or challenging) is key to enabling informed outcomes – can we now start talk about social voices, rather than a community?
Social voices brought together by – circumstance, locality, experiences, interests. It’s a reflection and expression of society – micro or macro. Community too often implies cohesion and agreement – which when manufactured will be fragile and ultimately contentious.
A society – that’s already fractious and contentious, but also driven by a need to continue.
It almost exists without definition.
Expecting and reflecting the different social voices found within a place will not be easy, but it might be a more honest way forward. When we reduce any group to a simple descriptor we reduce the expression of a variety of experiences. The term ‘housewife’ did little to express the variety of lives lived within the descriptor – perhaps the same is now true for ‘community’.
BACK
BEFS Director Euan Leitch asks, should politicians be influencing the final outcome of planning decisions?
Two recent planning decisions by Scottish Ministers are of note.
Ministers accepted the advice of their Reporter and refused consent for a large scale leisure and tourism development which included over 1000 houses and the consolidation of Loudon Castle, East Ayrshire. Permission was refused on the following grounds:
- There is no certainty that the scale of proposed housing development is the minimum level required as enabling development.
- The scale of the proposed enabling housing development would have an adverse impact on the Loudoun Castle Historic Garden and Designed Landscape.
- The separation of the proposed tourism leisure proposals from the proposed housing for enabling funding purposes is not acceptable.
- Furthermore, the scale of the proposed enabling housing development, and lack of suitable masterplanning mean that, in their present form, the proposals would not result in a well-planned sustainable community.
There is not an infrequent assumption that economics and housing numbers trump other planning matters such as heritage and sustainability, but in this case it is the converse. The full report, while lengthy, is worthy of further examination.
The other decision is in relation to the proposed expansion of Hyndford Quarry into the buffer zone of the New Lanark World Heritage Site. This has been a long running case and the Scottish Government Reporter found the western and southern expansion of quarry to be in line with policy and recommended that the proposals would:
- Contribute to overcoming an identified shortfall in the minerals reserve (landbank);
- Protect and preserve the character, integrity and quality of the New Lanark World Heritage Site, its setting and Outstanding Universal Value;
- Avoid compromise to the integrity of the Falls of Clyde Designed Landscape, its character and the objectives of its designation;
- Safeguard listed buildings, their settings, and any features of special interest they possess;
- Preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the New Lanark and Falls of Clyde Conservation Area;
- Protect scheduled ancient monuments and their settings;
- Not adversely affect the overall quality of special landscape areas;
- Not harm nature conservation interests;
- Support sustainable economic development; and
- Provide an acceptable restoration scheme.
For the western extension of the quarry Ministers found the opposite to be the case, that it contravened a range of regional and local planning policy, and are therefore only minded to grant permission for the southern extension of the quarry. The full report is again worth reading but raises similar questions as before around why East Ayrshire Council , Historic Environment Scotland and the Scottish Government Reporter are interpreting planning policy and heritage values so differently from Scottish Ministers?
As the Planning (Scotland) Bill has been progressing through parliamentary scrutiny, one repeated refrain has been on the topic of Ministerial intervention in the planning process, and the refrain is usually that it should be resisted. But is that wholly desirable? The thousands of people who objected to the Hyndford Quarry extension will be grateful for Ministerial intervention, but when Ministerial decisions go the other way there is usually disquiet expressed about their role. Perhaps we have to accept, or embrace, that planning is fundamentally political.
BACK