Official Report 554KB pdf
Good morning. I open the 22nd meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in 2010. I remind all those present, including visitors to the committee, that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be switched off for the duration of the committee’s deliberations today.
We have no objection to grants being recovered if the conditions attached to them have not been fulfilled. My personal view is that grants are not now appropriate for private owners. It would be wonderful to have grants, but some of the conditions that are imposed on private owners are so burdensome that very few owners whose properties are not already open to the public will take them up. We would prefer there to be a time limit for the recovery of the grants but, if the conditions cannot be fulfilled, it is perfectly reasonable for them to be recovered.
The purpose of the grants is not to improve the value of the properties but to secure the property for the future because it has some historic merit.
That is the idea.
Given that it is public money, the consideration should not be the value of the property but whether losing the property will have a detrimental effect on our understanding of a particular period in history and why the property was built.
It is difficult to give examples. I am not aware of many private owners who have taken grants from Historic Scotland in recent times, for exactly the reasons that I have mentioned. We fully accept that less money is available and that, if an owner takes public money, there must be a public benefit. We do not expect to get anything for nothing. However, I am not aware of houses in private hands that have accepted money. A number of our members are charitable trusts, which find it easier than private owners do to get grants.
The Built Environment Forum Scotland believes that grants are an important resource and that the provisions in the bill are entirely proportionate—we are happy with them as they stand. However, we are not legal experts, so we defer to others on the exact wording of how grants will be reclaimed after the sale of a house or other events. We are happy to support the provisions in principle.
Have there been discussions with the Scottish Government about how you can make that possible? We do not want a situation to arise in which, in circumstances in which it is deemed to be in the public interest to protect a building, we do not have a system of grant making that is open, transparent and easily understood by everyone. Discussions must have taken place to ensure that that process is of equal value and worth both to the Scottish Government or the agencies that give out money and to those who own the properties.
The bill highlights the issues and provides us with an opportunity to have discussions with the Scottish Government. The door is open both ways. Some of the issues were bubbling under the surface and had not really been brought to the fore or into the forum’s domain, but now they have. From now on, the way is open to have such discussions. The bill is bringing issues to the fore, so it has been useful in itself.
Both Mr Hay and Mr Gilmour mentioned that Historic Scotland imposes conditions that deter owners from applying for grants. Can Mr Hay give examples of such conditions and indicate what he and Mr Gilmour would like to see changed?
I was not saying that I want the conditions to be changed, because I fully understand that Historic Scotland is acting in the public interest and that there must be public benefit; I was just explaining why owners have not applied for grants. I have not been involved in grant applications for some time, for reasons that I will outline.
I would like to draw your attention to the reliability of the information that we have and to the accessibility of that—quite a few of your submissions suggested that we have some issues with that. First, how accurate is the information that we have about our scheduled monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas? That seems to be quite a controversial issue.
The information that we have about archaeological monuments and historic buildings has been gathered over more than a hundred years. That information is collected through desk-based research, gathering together collections, excavation and field survey, and our knowledge is, therefore, changing all the time.
Having information available online is fine for people who have access to the internet. What is your organisation doing with local authorities to promote the dissemination of that knowledge?
The information is primarily available online. There are other ways of making information available, of course, and information is published in various forms, but the easiest way in which to make knowledge available—especially with regard to e-planning and so on—is to publish it online, where it can be accessed through local libraries and so on. We have been working with local authorities for a number of years to try to collate that information. We exchange information between national and local records to make it much more easily available. We have done a study in conjunction with local authority archaeologists and Historic Scotland to see whether we can develop a better and much more efficient arrangement for the future.
The knowledge of heritage assets is very much at the fore with the National Trust for Scotland. It is less about the completeness of the knowledge base, because the knowledge base is there, than it is about the ability to interpret and analyse that information, which requires you to have the relevant knowledge, skill and competence. The fact that the trust has been a member of the Built Environment Forum Scotland task force means that the issue has been thought about consistently. It is about having access to suitable professionals to help all parties—the development industry, the public and the Scottish ministers or local planning authority as the ultimate decision taker—to understand that information. The presentation of just the core data does not get you to a good place; you need the knowledge behind the data to help you to deal with them.
I want to point out the role of local societies and groups in gathering knowledge and information. A number of groups are recording sites and artefacts across the country, such as the Biggar Archaeology Group, which has been surveying the upper Clydesdale area and has discovered about 500 new sites. About 20 per cent of the sites that Historic Scotland is now scheduling were found as a result of the group’s work. It is not alone: groups the length and breadth of Scotland are now engaged in activities to record and disseminate such information. At our community archaeology conference last year, we had more than 20 groups sharing information with the wider public, which can be found in “Community Archaeology in Scotland 2009”, which is available from us and from East Lothian Council. The group has strong links with the local authority archaeologists, local museums, the RCAHMS Scotland’s rural past project, and the shorewatch project. The volunteers and professionals in the historic environment work together closely to try to boost their level of knowledge.
Before I ask my question, I associate myself completely with the previous comments. As somebody who represents Cramond, I know that the volunteers who have been involved with the discovery of the Roman baths and everything that has gone on since then in Cramond have done fantastic work over the past decades—indeed, this year is the 50th anniversary of the Cramond Association.
Wearing another hat, as a chairman of a planning committee—in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority—I can say that the enhanced toolkit that is available in the bill is extremely welcome. However, it has to be noted that many of the tools that are used for enforcement lie outside the bill—you might go to local government or building control legislation, depending on what you are doing. It is a question of understanding how all that operates.
The Law Society of Scotland is concerned about works that might be executed in the vicinity of a scheduled monument. You have just talked about a planning toolkit. Do you think that the planning system that is in operation, in its interpretation and the enforcement work that is undertaken, is adequate to protect scheduled monuments?
The National Trust for Scotland has a number of monuments across the piece. The issue that you are addressing concerns the knowledge that we have already discussed—people’s understanding of when something may or may not have a direct impact on a monument. Having a direct impact on a monument is when there is an impact on its setting or context. That is where you need to have a dialogue with somebody who can help you to understand that.
In general, is the planning system assisting people with that? I am thinking of people who do not own the monument but who are close neighbours or whose property is part of the context of the monument. Are the information and assistance available to people to ensure that they get it right?
Provision is extremely patchy across all the planning authorities. It should be noted that any works affecting a scheduled monument are not a planning matter but a matter directly for Scottish ministers, although many planning authorities have developed policies that seek to protect the context of monuments. It comes back to the knowledge and information base, and it is extremely helpful to have access to the online resources that the royal commission has been talking about. It could also be helpful to have people who could interpret what the policies mean on the ground and guide people through the management of those processes.
Let us turn to the proposed inventories of gardens, designed landscapes and battlefields, on which we heard evidence last week. The Historic Houses Association has concerns about the inclusion of inventories. What are those concerns?
We are very happy with the inventory of gardens. In fact, I have already received a letter from Historic Scotland, saying that it has conducted its survey and will let us know what the results are. Our concern is about the conditions and responsibilities that will be placed on the owners. Gardens are different from houses in that they are organic and evolve; they change. We do not want to get to the stage that we have to apply to change the azalea bulbs. I do not think that that will happen; our concern is just about the purpose of the inventory. If it is just to record what is there, that is fine—we have no qualms about that at all.
You have touched on this in your answer, but is your mind put at ease by the evidence that we heard from the witnesses from Historic Scotland? When I asked them about the inventory, they said that they envisage no burdens at all for a garden’s owners other than in the fact that the place will be registered. Are you reassured by that?
I think that we are reassured. The situation is the same for battlefields. What are the planning restrictions in that regard? Battlefields do not really come under the HHA’s remit, but—
They are ours.
Yes, they are yours.
SRPBA members are concerned about what is done with the inventories. It becomes a development management issue—what size of area will be included in an inventory and what is the effect of inclusion in an inventory when our members want to do other things there? What protection is afforded as a result of inclusion? Furthermore, people are not exactly sure where certain battles took place, so very large areas can be involved. The question is what will be inventoried and what that will mean for the people who own and use the land.
The role of the royal commission is to create inventories. I did not put this in my evidence, but the usage of the term “inventory” in this context can get a bit muddled. My understanding of the term “inventory” is that it is a list of known sites. In terms of the inventories of historic gardens and battlefields that are of national importance, I think that there should be an inventory of all sites held by RCAHMS. That is where the knowledge and information should be. What is then chosen to be of national interest is an issue for Historic Scotland, which should draw its selection from the inventory. Part of the confusion is to do with whether statutory restrictions apply to anything on the list. It would be helpful if RCAHMS and Historic Scotland clarified the terminology between us, so that we can make it clear to the public what we are talking about.
Alison Polson just raised the question of how to define battlefields, including their area. There is also the issue of disputes over whether a battle ever took place in an area. What are the panel’s views?
The SRPBA’s concern is that normal land management practices should be allowed to continue and should not be affected.
Obviously, the National Trust for Scotland owns an awful lot of battlefields and designed landscapes. As the policy memorandum makes clear, there is existing provision for designed landscapes under regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008, which requires a consultation process involving Scottish ministers for any significant proposals that affect such landscapes. My understanding of the bill is that it imposes a duty that does not exist at present to maintain an inventory of designed landscapes and battlefields. Fundamentally, this is about a responsibility to understand the resource and publicise the inventory. Again, the policy memorandum makes it clear that there is no change over and above regulation 15. Perhaps it can be viewed as a means of creating an opportunity to have a dialogue if necessary.
When the concept of making an inventory of battlefields was raised, which must be at least two or three years ago, the Built Environment Forum Scotland held a one-day workshop with Historic Scotland so that all the parties who might be affected by the proposals could discuss the issues. One express aim of the day was to decide how a battlefield might be defined. We see the workshop as the beginning of the process and feel that we are now at the intermediate stage where we get an idea of the definition. How to physically define a battlefield is an academic discussion. It needs to be held transparently and openly with wide discussion among all the parties who may be involved and with expert advice on hand. There are experts out there who know a lot about battlefields; they know how to decide on definitions and so forth. We need to draw on their expert advice.
I turn your attention to section 14, on “Meaning of ‘monument’”. What are your views on the expanded definition of “monument”?
I will start on a positive note. We whole-heartedly welcome the expanded definition, in that it will allow the Scottish ministers and Historic Scotland to protect monuments that were previously not eligible for protection because they were quite ephemeral. The sites that are envisaged include some of the potentially most important in Scotland, such as the site of the first human settlement or intrusion into Scotland, perhaps 10,000 years ago. Such remains are very fragile and are currently difficult to protect.
The SRPBA’s view is that expanding the definition is akin to using a shovel when a spoon would do. The definition is very broad indeed. It could almost be argued that the whole of Scotland could be considered to be a
I suppose that this is not the place to have a debate about the issue, but I point out that although overarching legislation allows almost anything to be scheduled, the Scottish ministers do not schedule everything willy-nilly. A set of criteria is laid out in “Scottish Historic Environment Policy”, against which ministers must measure an asset before it is scheduled. Not everything will be scheduled.
Have the witnesses’ organisations been consulted by Government officials on what should be included in that guidance?
We have had brief discussions with them about it and they have said that full guidance will be produced. We would like further discussions, especially on exactly what sort of sites we are talking about and would envisage being protected under the bill.
That is a nice lead-in to my next question. Should consideration be given to covering historic road and footpath surfaces? That issue has come through in evidence, so I would not mind hearing your opinions on it.
It should simply be noted that, in England, the listing of historic surfaces and footpaths is considered and done. It is a policy issue.
I simply draw the committee’s attention to the fact that, were such sites to be scheduled, they would still have to be judged against the stringent criteria—significance, national importance and so forth—before any consideration was given to protecting them.
Historic Scotland said in its evidence that such sites are already covered. Is that your understanding?
In bits, yes. The Corrieyairack pass, for example, is a scheduled monument and a number of other parts of military roads are scheduled, so the practice is undertaken, but that is done against firm criteria. The issue is not to do with the legislative side of the matter but the accuracy and transparency of the policy guidance that sits behind it.
So it comes back to guidance again.
Indeed it does.
I will ask about section 18, which introduces a new power to issue certificates of immunity from listing. It is intended to provide developers with some assurances if they wish to take on an historic property.
I hesitate to say this but, in a past life, I advised many community groups to use that tactic. The potential exists for it to be used, but it should be noted that, with many sites, evidence of value comes forth only once somebody starts to take an active interest in the site and people actively begin to examine it. We learn more as we begin to think about something and it is obvious that, if we are not thinking about it, we will learn less.
Is it necessary to introduce the certificate of immunity? Communities can already exercise some power and influence because, as has been explained, they can apply for a building to be listed. That is open to everyone, so does section 18 change the situation much?
The certificate’s introduction provides a useful opportunity. The Scottish ministers, through Historic Scotland, operate a policy that they will not list or consider listing if there is a live planning application for a site. There are sound reasons for that and it is not an unreasonable policy position, but there are times when we may wish to list.
Does Alison Polson have any comments? The Scottish Rural Property Business Association sought clarity about what would happen if there was a group of buildings and whether there would have to be a certificate for each individual building. Have you had any clarity on those issues?
We have concerns about various aspects of the proposal. If the application can be made by “any person”, it is very broad. It is akin to the planning system, in that anybody can put in a planning application. However, in the planning system the views of owners and people with an interest are taken into account as the application goes through. It is a permissive system; it looks to enable people to do something. The proposed system is the other way round. The application process may be enabling if you get a certificate of immunity, but if any person can apply for a certificate, the role of someone with an interest in the property is not clear from the legislation. That is why we are interested in what would happen with a group of buildings, and what rights of appeal would exist or what integration there would be. The owners and people with an interest could have obligations at the end of the day, yet they would not be included in the proposed system.
Let us turn to section 25, on liability for expenses for urgent work. Section 25 permits notice of liability for expenses for urgent work to be registered in the property register for five years. However, in its written submission, Glasgow City Council expresses disappointment that the notice will expire after five years, stating that it believes that it would be beneficial if the burden were preserved until such expenses had been recovered. That request is echoed in the written submission from Heads of Planning Scotland, which believes that, otherwise, owners will be encouraged to procrastinate in order to avoid repaying any costs. What are the panel’s views on the issue?
The Historic Houses Association is here to persuade our members not to let their properties get into a neglected state—I hope that very few are in that position. I am not aware that any of our members has had urgent works carried out, the cost of which needs to be recovered. As I said in my first answer, our main worry is that, if a property has to be sold to recover the cost of work that has been carried out, the owner might be left out of pocket. It is a long way down the line before properties get into that state. Obviously, such situations exist, but I have not personally come across them.
The National Trust for Scotland does not have a position on the issue. However, to help the committee, I will give an example of the kind of situation that I think that Glasgow City Council and Heads of Planning Scotland have in mind.
Mr Gilmour, the Built Environment Forum Scotland has suggested that the bill could go further than it currently does. You propose that a duty be placed on all public bodies to
That is laid out in our written submission, and I shall summarise the two elements.
The SRPBA has not canvassed its members on the issue. I suspect that some would support the introduction of a duty and some would not. The only other helpful comment that we can make is that our members recognise, as they have done in connection with other legislation, that with the responsibility of power comes duties. If public authorities are to have extensive powers, duties should go with them.
I am not fundamentally convinced that it is helpful to put such a duty into the bill, although I thoroughly support what Simon Gilmour said.
The National Trust supports the BEFS position on the matter, being a member of the forum. The committee should be aware that about 20 per cent of all planning applications that are made in Scotland involve a listed building. You can see in the volume that is involved the need for knowledge and specialism.
The HHA is quite neutral on the issue. Our members are encouraged to have a care for their properties anyway, and I presume that they would wish to care for them. The houses were built to be lived in and we wish that to continue. Although the National Trust and Historic Scotland do a good job in looking after their properties, we feel that the best way of maintaining properties is through their being lived in and used. Our members would say that the fewer people who were looking over their shoulder, the better, although that is the way of the world—we think that we have got enough people telling us what we can and cannot do.
The vast majority of sites in Scotland are unscheduled. Does the bill go far enough in offering protection to those sites, which are still of historic value and importance to Scotland?
That comes back to the original premise that we need to build an inventory of knowledge and information. There are 290,000 unique records in our record and some 265,000 in local authority records. Many of those are records of the same sites but with different information. About 5 per cent of archaeological sites are protected and a much higher percentage of buildings are protected.
The simple answer to your question whether the bill protects the 81 per cent of the historic environment that is not designated is no, because it amends three pieces of legislation that deal only with designated assets. One of the reasons why the BEF is making its second ask in particular and seeking an additional amendment is that it could provide not only that protection but the ability to manage the resource better at the front line through the planning process.
Archaeology Scotland fully supports the BEF’s two asks and is 100 per cent behind the need for additional legislation. Although we applaud Historic Scotland’s work in talking to local authorities and influencing hearts and minds, the fact is that we are facing stringent cuts, and we feel that we have to take a firmer line on protecting our historic environment.
As I have said, the SRPBA is concerned about the definition used in the bill. Although we fully support attempts to make people understand what is to be protected, the fact is that once something has been scheduled it is very difficult to do anything not only with it but with the adjoining land, which can be a large area. We need to know what Historic Scotland wants to protect, but at the moment the definition is so wide that it could well take in vast swathes, if not the whole of Scotland.
The NTS’s submission notes that the bill does not contain sufficient
That issue sits more within conservation area management, which is outwith the scope of the bill. I should also say that the NTS fully supports the bill’s provisions, and from discussions with Historic Scotland and others I think that such conservation area management issues, which are slightly different, should be covered at another time.
That concludes the committee’s questions. I thank the witnesses very much for their attendance and suspend the meeting briefly to allow them to leave.
Previous
Attendance