During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries the value of heritage has shifted in two main ways. Firstly, what is considered to have heritage value has changed and secondly, who can ascribe value has been extended. If we take the what and the who as markers of diversity then we can see a gradual, if complex and contested, shift within the heritage sector. Firstly, the notion of what is of value has shifted both temporally and also in the type of historic assets that are afforded official value, most notably with the protection of the Tinker’s Heart in 2015. This recognition of the quartz stones in Argyll and Bute was the latest example of a sector that, after much contestation, has diversified the kinds of things that can have heritage value. If we go further back the idea of providing legislative protection to a nineteenth-century industrial building, or as they were famously known, the ‘satanic mills’, was not really considered until the late 1960s at the earliest. The Granton gasholder, designated Category B in 1998, is one such example of this shift in thinking. The what category is thus largely accepted within the heritage profession as a necessary element for the evolution of the sector, particularly as more recent structures assume significance such as the replica Georgian building at 114-116 George Street, Edinburgh built in 1992 and listed in 1996.

As a recent edition of Context showed the who question however is much more complex and represents the greatest current challenge to the heritage sector. This is not simply a question of diversifying who can get involved with heritage but rather necessitates a desire to re-conceptualise what is of value. Take the Tinker’s Heart example again. Here an impassioned group of people fought for their heritage to be recognised. Or take the Southbank Undercroft in London. This area, self-styled as the “world’s oldest surviving skateboard spot”, is not listed despite the fact the historic value of the site became the tagline – ‘You Can’t Move History. You Can Secure the Future’ – behind the successful campaign to prevent its loss as a result of the planned expansion of the Southbank Centre. These powerful connections to the history of the site as expressed by generations of skaters were remarked upon by Historic England as they realised that “communal heritage values can emerge and become as powerful as more formal architectural or historic ones”.

These were connections that did not rest solely within the historic building but more in the relationship between the skaters and the historic space: the practice was as important as the physical structure. This is tricky for the heritage sector as this relationship could not be surveyed or unlocked through traditional desk-based research but rather was expressed through social media and unlocked through a dedicated research project. These were powerful expressions of why generations of skaters both held, and felt compelled to express their heritage values. If we are to truly understand why the historic environment is valuable then these kinds of voices have to be heard, not just in the designation of historic assets, but in understanding how the everyday routines of different groups of people are inextricably connected to the historic aspects of places within which we work, live and play.

Perhaps, in the context of diversity within the heritage sector, the question is not what is of value, nor who can ascribe value but where else is expertise located? Re-framing it in this way enables us to consider that other forms of knowledge exist both within and outwith the sector. The Tinker’s Heart and the Southbank Undercroft provided a challenge to the sector because they relied heavily on people outwith the sector and without any formal heritage training to identify and explain the heritage value of these sites. If, as the Historic Environment Strategy document suggests, “Scotland’s historic environment is the physical evidence for human activity that connects people with place, linked with the associations we can see, feel and understand” then the logical progression is to develop mechanisms that can recognise that these associations sometimes can only be identified and explained by the very people who ‘see’, ‘feel’ and ‘understand’ them. This is not to say that existing expertise within the sector should be replaced, far from it, but that it should remain an integral aspect within an evolving heritage sector. The progressive re-definition of the historic environment to focus on ‘connections’ and ‘associations’ within the Strategy and the designation of Tinker’s Heart signal a shift in both rhetoric and reality. The challenge now is to harness this energy so the sector can continue to evolve its understanding of the plurality of values that different people hold for different historic places.

Scotland’s Travelling People have been around longer than history portrays. I am a Traveller, and although not in the sense of ‘travelling the old roads as my family did in the past’, I still feel that sense of identity, of belonging to the seeds of my ancestors.

As a child I dreamt of one day becoming a writer.  Sadly, when a child is raised within the system of keeping certain threads of the community down, it seemed destined to belong in the realm of dreams.  Yet there’s an old saying, “if you wish hard enough…dreams can come true.”

Not actually as magical as it sounds because I did not just go to bed one night and get up an author. Aged 50, still clinging to my dream, I joined a writers group, took computer lessons and dribbled my memories onto paper; gingerly whispering my little tales as a wanderer’s child, living with a large family in a bus, to the other members of our writers’ group. They enjoyed, encouraged and insisted I send my work off to another reader, or in my case, ‘listener.’  He was an ex-editor of Scot’s Magazine and he liked my work. My story was about a child’s journey, my life as a Scottish Traveller. The publisher read my passion and accepted my manuscript. My journey had begun again. Dreams do come true.

A waterfall of words, memories and a girl to woman tale allowed for three autobiographical books.

Stories hidden in the throats of old Travellers filled the next book, a collection that would live on rather than face the grave. Scotland cannot afford to lose her threads of myths and legends no matter who holds them sacred.

Wars leave women folk in desperate situations, Travellers also fought and died for their country, therefore, I needed to write for them. A novel followed on from these sentiments. I wrote book six for historical reasons, to find as much of the truth as I possibly could unearth, a factual collection to educate the prevailing ignorance about the culture.

As an author, I talk to various organizations. I met a lady at one of the talks who told me about the state of the Tinker’s Heart.

I was stunned and ashamed. Stunned by the neglect and ashamed that for years I had never visited the site; after all it was our only monument, our sacred site of white quartz stones positioned on the road, the old junction.  Traveller’s married there, parents carried newborn to be christened and brokenhearted people took their dead to be blessed.  It had survived centuries, never moving or being dislodged. This is what happens when a place remains on the landscape. We take it for granted; never miss the water until the well runs dry, so to speak.It was at one of these talks (Sandbank near Dunoon) when an elderly lady informed me that our little monument was under threat; The Tinker’s Heart of Argyll, at the old junction with Hell’s Glen and the A815 road, was covered with dung and trampled by cattle.  There’s a new road that runs alongside, sending the old junction into a field.

As I stood on the spot overlooking loch Fyne a chill wind blew through my bones. I was left with one determined thought, “we need to get this old heart beating again!” So, I enquired as to who owned the land on which the now defunct crossroads lies and contacted them. I wrote letters but received no replies. I also went to the local group Here We Are, who refused to help but did, however, erect a cage around the stones and cleaned them up.

Locals had known of the heart for generations, so I began a search for the origins of the site. I heard various stories; one was repeated – that some of the fallen from Culloden were remembered by grieving families, who put in place the white quartz stones. In the far off past, Travellers were known as Cairds; they were connected to clans so maybe this could well be the case.

I approached Historic Scotland, who refused to help, stating the stones had been moved. We had to prove this was not so. They then said, “Stones didn’t meet their criteria”. In the 1920s Lady George Campbell would not allow tar to be laid on the stones due to its sacristy.

MSP Mike Russell then came on board. Nothing was working in our favour, so we went with a Parliament Petition; over 1000 signatures and a successful meeting with the petitions committee gave a new vigor to the campaign. Historic Scotland proceeded to change their criteria regarding Travellers, and on 18^th June 2015 they scheduled the Tinker’s Heart as a ‘National Monument’.

I set out to protect a sacred site; little did I realize that Scotland needed educating in the ways of a tiny minority of her people.

No matter who we are, where we come from, we all matter…we all count.

Jess Smith

I want to take this opportunity to talk about Euan’s Guide from a user perspective. By doing this I hope it will help to unfold the link between a modern 21st century website and the history, archeology and buildings of the past.

Let’s go on a journey…

If asked I would describe Euan’s Guide as a powerful and empowering tool for many disabled people, their families and friends.

You see for me it’s simple:

For me to do what I want to do, in the way I choose to do it I rely on the support of other people. A PA facilitates and enables me on my adventures. So people are very important in my independence.

I don’t just exist in a box and so it’s important for me to be able to get out and about. To visit the places I want to go but also the places I need to go. So in my world places are very important.

Thirdly, possibilities are an important part of my life. I like to think that anything is possible. You see it’s like this – I may not actually do something but it’s a great feeling to know that I could if I wanted to. That’s what I meant by possibilities.

For me to take part in community life and to enjoy many of the things others take for granted I need people, I need to know about the places I can go, and I like to be aware of the possibilities open to me.

The obvious question is where does Euan’s Guide fit? Let me continue my journey with you.

I started using Euan’s Guide to find out about the places I wanted to, or sometimes imagined I might like to, go. It was great to be able to get more details than just a wheelchair symbol or the curious statement of “disabled facilities” or “wheelchair accessible with assistance” – not that helpful to me.

It’s not just for me, as I could find out about places that were going to be welcoming for my friends. Friends like Ian and Kev who are visually impaired or Phil who is deaf.

Often Euan’s Guide reviewers talk about the experience on a people level – what were the staff like, what happened when you rolled up. Tips on what to look out for, ways to go, what to ask for. To many people they sound like small things but for me they make the difference whether I can make and enjoy a visit.

To be able to read what another powerchair user has written about visiting the Riverside Museum in Glasgow, going on a History walk here on the Royal Mile, or staying for a break in an old croft are a very empowering experience for me.

You see these are all places I had a fear of visiting as I didn’t know what might happen; Euan calls this the “fear of the unknown”. I am happy to report that as a direct result of reading what others had written on Euan’s Guide I’ve done all of these things! and some I’ll do again; perhaps not in the cold and wet of February though!!!

So you see, Euan’s Guide; for me has opened doors. But there’s more…

The places people visit get great feedback. Often they don’t know how good the experience they offer is. The museum that had a wheelchair height display book that I loved, the old tower house that offered me a video link to browse the inaccessible rooms and the curator who brought exhibits out from beyond the barriers for my visually impaired pal to touch and explore.

For me as a disabled person it was striking to watch the progress as the website was growing from grass roots of disabled people and venues working together and felt good. It’s driven by disabled people helping disabled people.

Here was the gift of spontaneity, in that I could take out my smartphone, open Euan’s Guide and press the ‘near by me’ button. I could see where to grab a coffee, find places I wanted to visit, and decide a visit would work for me. I could visit towns I didn’t know so well, if at all! I could find new places and I could feel part of my community.

That’s what I mean by empowering. It’s a great time in that we are seeing the coming together of so many technologies in a way that is enabling people. For Euan’s Guide it’s the availability of mobile data and wifi, the ability of GPS services to pin point where I am, and of course the many places that list and share their access information. Sometimes a permanent building, often a pop up place like an event or exhibition.

At last there’s a disabled access information web site that works fantastically well with my speech controlled computer or Ian’s laptop that reads to him or Euan’s eye controlled Tobbii. There’s a companion app that goes on the road with me and works to help me find places, tell me what I need to know, and is very much a working tool.

I want to end by sharing an ambition … I want Scotland to redraw the map, to call out communities, to people and get them involved in reviewing what’s in their local area and to share the access information they find. It doesn’t have to be complicated and could be as simple as telling people their local store has an accessible loo, the bank has level access or the archeological dig has an accessible viewing platform.

I want to extend this to imagine that the rich history of Scotland’s buildings, stories and places can be shared with everyone by opening up doors to disabled people.

Can you help Euan, me and my friends achieve that?

In the first draft of this talk I aimed to be provocative but conciliatory. However, in the end this version is just provocative; in fact I would go as far to say it is combative and it’s a good job I have to run off and catch the train to Stirling as soon as I finished otherwise I’d probably need bullet-proof armour to get out the room. What I am going to suggest is that the main trouble with heritage protection is that it is an example of middle class self-interest. People do not protect heritage for some transcendent, higher reason, but because it is in their own class interest.

In my research with Professor Hastings at the University of Glasgow we demonstrated that the because they take advantage of four different mechanisms. Firstly, they join groups that policy-makers listen to, often because they have statutory duties; the classic example being the Community Council. Secondly, they are just much more likely to engage in policy-making on an individual and group basis. What is more, when they do engage they are more likely to get what they want which is a further incentive to engage. Thirdly, they have greater access to people with the necessary expertise, and also the ability to understand complex technical language, to have influence in policy-making. Finally, policy-makers just make policy to suit the middle classes; because they vote more, but also because they know the middle classes are likely to complain if policy is not made to suit them and their demands.

You are now probably bristling and thinking “I’m not middle class!” or the more sociological question of “what does he mean by middle class?” There is a lot of evidence behind this talk that is available to access; but also the greatest revelation of this research for me is quite how middle class I am, and then using these mechanisms to get what I want.

Let’s apply this model of middle class influence to heritage. On the first mechanism, heritage groups are archetypal of this type of activity. Many started off as small groups of the great-and-the-good who used their influence to protect heritage – such as civic amenity associations – and then have gradually become a formal part of development processes and people who expect to be listened to.

We just need to look at the most controversial development decisions recently to see evidence of the second mechanism. I could reel off a list of controversial planning applications in well-to-do neighbourhoods in Edinburgh, but this would be unfair to my fellow citizens of this city. But it’s rather telling that the controversy over the proposed demolition of the Red Road flats in 2014 was largely one of the lack of taste in demolishing people’s homes during the Commonwealth Games ceremony, not uproar that we have housed people so poorly that the only sensible thing to do is to demolish their homes after 40 years.

In terms of the third mechanism – I lived in a listed building. It is listed because it is a unique collection of early nineteenth century industrial buildings, with a restrained classical façade, with dressed stone and proportional fenestration to the road elevation. Do I need to say any more? Most people don’t even know what fenestration means – it sounds more like something you’d see your doctor about rather than windows. Further, far fewer people who know someone to contact to tell them what fenestration is so they can get listed building consent and planning permission to do something about their windows. As the story of the Tinker’s Heart movingly showed, you are in a system that actively excludes people who can’t “talk heritage”.

Now the fourth mechanism. “Ah” you’re probably thinking, “look at the Royal High School! The St James Centre! Caltongate! There is no way he can say development policies are suited the interests of middle-class people!” Yes I am. Because the evidence is fairly obvious. As Dr Madgin suggested, we value places based on judgements of taste that come from a specific cultural background. When we afford an untouched neighbourhood of working class council housing the same level of protection because of its social value as we afford Edinburgh’s New Town, then I’ll accept that policy is not made in the interests of the middle classes. But it seems we struggle to even have a reasoned discussion on this. The only suggestion is that we merely continue to expand existing protection systems, slowly allowing different kinds of heritage – industrial, working class, associated with a specific minority group – because we expand the definitional envelope of what should be protected very marginally. We need a discussion about whether we have the right envelope at all.

Why is this all class interested? At its most basic, itprotects house prices which are the largest asset for most people. But all this social capital – the links to people of influence; and cultural capital – the valorisation of certain aesthetics and the language used to describe them, puts middle class people in positions of power and influence. And they, you, we, are not going to give up that lightly.

So now I’ve revealed myself as the, self-described “envy-driven author trying to pass off as an intellectual” I’ll don my flak jacket and tin helmet and beat a hasty retreat.

In 2014, a BEFS team, led by Professor Cliff Hague, then BEFS Chairman, visited six of Scotland’s Small Towns. Their populations ranged from nearly 23,000 down to 5,000. The outcome of these visits was BEFS’ “Small Towns In A Small Country” Report, which can be found at here.

Subsequently, the BEFS team visited Helensburgh to prepare a report on that town, on the day the main Report was launched there. Then in July 2014 the team visited Cupar, Fife, a town of around 10,000 people, and prepared an additional Report. This Report was well received in Cupar, both as an accurate summary of the issues facing the town and as a welcome indication of potential ways ahead.

Cupar Development Trust (CDT) has since been formed, with guidance from Development Trusts Association Scotland (DTAS). A Charrette for Cupar’s town centre – “CuparCould” – will happen in the middle of March 2016, funding being in place thanks to the Scottish Government’s Mainstreaming Fund, the Big Lottery Fund’s “Awards For All”, and Fife Council. The preliminary steps have already happened, and have produced enthusiastic responses from pupils of the town’s schools, among others. Cupar Could is being delivered by PAS, with Julia Frost in the lead.

The arrival on the scene of CDT complements Cupar’s CARS and THI schemes, running from April 2014 to March 2019, with funding of £1.5M. Major works under these schemes include work on the County Buildings, which occupy much of the south side of St Catherine Street, part of the main route through the town. (These buildings include the recently closed Sheriff Court, but the Court is not part of the scheme.);  re-use of the old Burgh Chambers, a prominent domed building at Cupar Cross; and renovation of some of Cupar’s historic Closes which follow the town’s medieval layout. Building work on a scheme for Affordable Housing in part of the County Buildings is already nearly complete, and will provide a measurable increase in the number of Town Centre residents; the Burgh Chambers may be used for Tourism; the renovated Closes will improve pedestrian access in the Town Centre.

Cupar has in recent years suffered from its “missing tooth”, a prominent gap site on Bonnygate, at the heart of the shopping area and on the other part of the main route through the town. The gap was caused by the demolition of a former landmark building which had become unsafe. The site is believed to be uneconomic for development on its own.

CDT have been working closely with Fife Council and the CARS scheme to identify possibilities for linking the gap site to other opportunities, in order to achieve something closer to economic viability, though it is likely that public funds will be required to make ends meet. It is common knowledge in the town that there is a proposal for developing the backlands behind the gap, which lead – through additional historic Closes not at present available for public use – to the third of Cupar’s principal streets, Crossgate. Such a proposal will require the agreement of existing proprietors, and probably contributions by some of them. As well as innovative commercial and retail provision, any development will be likely to include Affordable Housing, so CDT and Kingdom Housing Association (KHA) jointly commissioned a thorough Report by Architects, Engineers and Quantity Surveyors. The Report, which is confidential for the time being but is expected to be available on the CDT website in due course, has rightly pointed out the financial realities of proposals of this kind in an area where the value of the completed development will not be of the highest. Fife Council is fully aware of the likely request for support, and has been involved in the discussions.

The creation of CDT, its link to Cupar’s CARS and THI, and its foray into a possible partnership with KHA, Fife Council and relevant proprietors, are truly positive outcomes of the BEFS visit in July 2014. It is no breach of confidence to say that the BEFS Report, in full, is an Appendix to the Report. CDT complements and co-operates with longer established Cupar groups, which are already bringing a buzz to the town. There is continuing good press coverage, and an exhibition in the town’s Corn Exchange will take place on 2 March.

Arc prepare Cupar ‘backlands’ regeneration plan

80 members of the planning, architecture and building professions gathered at the Scottish Parliament on 23^rd February to celebrate the launch of good practice guidance for new hut developments. ‘New hutting developments: Good practice guidance on the planning, development and management of huts and hut sites’ was developed by Reforesting Scotland’s Thousand Huts campaign to support the rolling out of Scottish Planning Policy on huts.

Welcoming the report, Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead said:

“Huts and hutting are a great way for people to enjoy Scotland’s outstanding natural environment, with all the benefits to health and wellbeing this can bring. I very much welcome the publication of this guidance, which I hope will provide an important opportunity for many more people in Scotland to enjoy the recreational benefits associated with huts and hutting.”

Reforesting Scotland’s Thousand Huts campaign team and Planning Advisory Group spent 2 years working with planning and building professionals to produce the guide to help planners, architects and hut builders alike achieve good practice in new hut developments. This work was supported by The Planning Exchange Foundation, and has been reviewed by planning, legal and tenancy professionals in the public and private sectors and at a local and national level.

Hutting in Scotland

70 years ago Scotland had a thriving hutting culture: hundreds of small wooden huts dotted around the country. They gave an opportunity for industrial workers on low wages to get out to the fresh air and peace of the natural environment with their families. However, until recently, the lack of any formal recognition of hutting in policy or legislation has been an impediment to the building of new hu

A new era for huts

A new era was ushered in when revised Scottish Planning Policy 2014 included supportive policy on huts, indicating that the demand for huts for recreational use is one of the matters that should be addressed in the preparation of development plans.

Now the Scottish Government Building Standards Division is analysing consultation responses to the proposal that huts be exempt from building regulations (with some exceptions). The result of this consultation will be announced in Summer 2016.

As a result of the more favourable policy and planning framework for huts, Reforesting Scotland is beginning to see new proposals for hut developments coming forward. We recently surveyed over 800 people who would like to have access to a hut for recreational use. The demand is large, and growing.

The guidance is based on the SPP definition of a hut:ts.

A simple building used intermittently as recreational accommodation (i.e. not a principal residence); having an internal floor area of no more than 30m²; constructed from low impact materials; generally not connected to mains water, electricity or sewerage; and built in such a way that it is removable with little or no trace at the end of its life. Huts may be built singly or in groups.

The document covers a wide range of planning considerations including: What is a hut; use patterns of huts; where might huts be built; services; and provision for management of the land around huts.

To download a copy of New hutting developments: Good practice guidance on the planning, development and management of huts and hut sites go to www.thousandhuts.org.

Karen Grant, Reforesting Scotland and the Campaigner for the Thousand Huts campaign.

I will start this blog post with a disclaimer – I am an archaeologist, I am not a planner. I have, however, worked within a large planning department and I have spent half of my career working in the commercial archaeology sector – conducting impact assessments and supporting the excavation of archaeology in advance of development. Heritage and archaeology is often perceived as a constraint to developers and rarely is it linked to contemporary wellbeing (although that is changing). I have worked on many developments where we have had to balance the ‘value’ of the heritage against the ‘value’ of the development. Often the heritage AND the people get lost in those discussions and ultimate decisions.

Yet heritage and archaeology is a powerful mechanism for putting a ‘place’ into context. One key aim of our Adopt-a-Monument scheme is to make heritage and archaeology accessible and relevant to all, by offering opportunities to get actively involved in local heritage. Projects like Women at War, which worked in partnership with Ross-shires Women’s Aid to record a World War Two airbase and research the role of women who served at the site. Participants said that Women at War changed the way they looked at the landscape and heritage in general. This heritage project challenged their perception of what heritage and archaeology can be, and helped them develop knowledge and interest in their local landscape and their local heritage. Participants not only developed a new understanding and appreciation of their local historic environment and the landscape it was situated within, but also developed new skills and self-confidence, which they have begun to apply to other aspects of their lives.

So if engaging with their local heritage can transform and develop an individual’s sense of place, and with that, a sense of their own identity, how can we incorporate this into long term place making which will help towards engaging with disenfranchised audiences?

People know their spaces and places, often much better than ‘we’ ever will. One of my favourite elements of each Adopt-a-Monument project is conducting that initial site visit – meeting the community group and the heritage asset they wish to ‘adopt’. While I have professional training and have accrued specialist knowledge, which can support their project, it is their stories and personal connections which make that place relevant to contemporary lives. My skills enable a project to take place, within policy and legislative frameworks, but it is the community group who decides which tasks to take forward, which stories to tell. Nick Wright quite rightly touched on how better consultation with communities can sometimes resolve tensions arising from planning decisions.

Alex Neil mentioned that we no longer plan, we zone. In my career I have been involved with masterplan developments – these large scale, forward thinking visions, allows for heritage ‘constraints’ to be identified and either mitigated against (i.e. micro-siting around the archaeology) or identified as ‘something that will need to be dealt with’. Yes these plans go out for community consultation, but are the views of key stakeholders really taken into account? Should the community not be involved at a much earlier stage?

A large part of my job is to listen to community groups – what heritage is important to them and how can we help facilitate a project around their passion and enthusiasm. At times we need to reframe tasks, utilise the evident enthusiasm and passion for heritage but redirect it to achievable outcomes. The most important element about our work is that it is community-led, co-designed and ‘co-delivered’. We believe that this approach leads to a more sustainable network of community heritage groups – they feel empowered, entitled and qualified to monitor their sites and speak up for their heritage. They feel a sense of ownership and belonging. Could this approach not be applied to planning frameworks?

Sir Harry Burns was correct in that the public aren’t always able to make informed decisions about planning needs and urban requirements. His example of the new Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Campus was a powerful one – the public wanted smaller hospitals dispersed around the city, but that concept was no longer compatible with delivering a modern health service. Our planning system still needs to be a practical one.  However, I was struck by the comment by the representative from Planning Democracy – that there is much inequality in the planning system. Through our work, we certainly see that. The ability to mount an eloquent and ultimately successful protest of the destruction of a heritage site in advance of development takes skill, specialist knowledge and is often time consuming. These skills are in short supply within some Scottish communities. A more open and accessible planning process may help address this.

I was troubled to hear about the streamlining of the planning process – yes, we should make it far easier for communities to engage with the planning process, but not at the expense of a full impact assessment of a proposed development, however large or small. As we see large scale cuts hit local governments and with that, budget reductions for planning authorities, we feel those cuts keenly in the heritage sector. After all, who cares about heritage when there is no money for more essential services? I feel this is a dangerous line to tread. Streamlining planning assessments could lead to further damage or desecration of the local heritage which matters to that community. In response to David Cameron’s pledge to blitz ‘sink estates’, Sir Harry Burns passionately pointed out that Scotland had tried that in the post-war era and it didn’t work. I thoroughly agree – these examples of built heritage are still just that – representative of a community’s heritage, and if we start to bulldoze heritage, we do not improve wellbeing, we destroy identities.

Years ago, one volunteer remarked to me that their community archaeology project brought together participants from ‘all walks of life’, yet as the project progressed, they became ‘a shared community of interest’. Those words have always struck me as vitally important and again words which can be applied to planning and wellbeing. Alex Neil said we must build communities, not just developments; I agree with this and believe heritage can play an important role in that process. Communities are brought together by commonality and heritage can be one way of finding that commonality – either through a shared past or a shared interest. At a literal level we can look to the past to see how communities and identities are created – both through the theoretical ‘ties that bind’ people together and the physical environment that they inhabit. As we have seen with our Adopt-a-Monument projects – understanding the heritage of a ‘place’ can lead to appreciation, value and in turn improved self-worth, self-belief – attributes Sir Harry Burns mentioned as causes of ‘wellbeing’.

Cara Jones, Archaeology Scotland.

What image does your mind conjure up when you think of Copenhagen, Vancouver, Melbourne, Amsterdam, Vienna or Monte Carlo? Modern city living, sustainable communities, engaging cultures. Yes, all of the above…and they are all also the same names that often feature in the top 10 healthiest cities to live in the world. These endless surveys measure intangibles such as Creativity, Liveability and Quality alongside tangibles such as Amenities, Cost and Pollution. But what do they tell us about the realities of living in Barrhead or Kirkcaldy? Aside from a luxury break or a once in a lifetime holiday, just how many of us will ever get the chance to live in these cities, and would it make a difference to our life chances or indeed life expectancy.

A recent report by the World Health Organisation stated that the average life expectancy for a male born in Calton, Glasgow was 54. In India the figure is 63 and in Lenzie, the figure is 82, which just happens to be the current UK average. Work by Sir Harry Burns over the last few years has shone an important light and drawn strong correlations between health and place; however these issues are complex and are still to be fully explored and understood.

However, that said, the evidence is sufficient and robust enough to suggest that nicer places tend to have healthier people and that the built and natural environment is a very important factor in the health of the surrounding resident population.

Define nicer.

Nice house, nice town centre, nice people, nice life. As opposed to damp and cramped tenement, a dirty and neglected town centre, sick unemployed neighbours and no hope.

The most powerful word in all of the preceding words and imagery….hope.

Sir Harry and others can talk much more eloquently than I about all of the above, but hopefully I can provide a few ideas around solutions.

At Scotland’s Towns Partnership we have spent the past year building new collaborations and trying to knit the whole towns agenda together. Scotland is a nation of towns, but the town narrative is less well articulated that cities. Towns have suffered and their transformation has stalled. The promise of a networked urban system, with choices, to support an increasingly diverse society has not yet been met. Yet our towns are a living legacy of our history and culture, even the most cynical amongst us will have an emotional attachment to their home town or village, a childhood memory, a sense of pride and identity, we acknowledge their famous sons and daughters, it’s who we are, part of our fabric and DNA.

Our towns are not homogenous and whilst some are doing well, many are at a crossroads. The continued drift of talent and youth to city economies, structural changes in retail where we use tablets, online, click and collect, out of town and destination shops, the ongoing impact of the economic recession, dysfunctional property and housing markets, welfare reform, less disposable local income and a fast shrinking public sector.

So if no one is coming Towns need to do most of this for themselves, whether through a BID, Development Trust or a loose collaborative of the willing. Get together and agree on what a nicer place could be, start believing in your combined strength. This is your problem and only you have the solutions. Base your investment decisions on evidence, make a plan that is achievable and realistic, be resilient but also ambitious, understand what your key assets are, your unique tale, embrace the town centre first principle and best practice and look at building the widest possible partnerships. Start talking to other towns to see how they are coping. Explore how tourism, digital, public services, retail, commercial, health and greenspace, housing, leisure, transport, museums and attractions, events and marketing can all help build better places. Success will come from better public-private-third sector working and more joined up community planning partnership decision making. It will also improve community and with that, our health.

Phil Prentice, Chief Officer of Scotland’s Towns Partnership.