Petition
Item 3 is Brian Monteith's report on petition PE9 from Mr R H Guild. I welcome Mr Guild to the committee meeting this morning. I am sure that he will find this of interest. Brian, do you want to introduce your report?
Yes.
Have we received copies of this report? I do not seem to have one.
I got one this morning.
I got two.
Ken Macintosh has yours, Mike.
No. I got one last week and one this week.
I would be worried if you were getting my mail, Kenny.
Be worried.
My report is quite lengthy and I do not intend to go through every item, page by page. The sections on the Roman history of Cramond and on modern-day Cramond could be expanded considerably. I have included them simply to give a brief background; I do not intend to go into those subjects today.
The important point that I draw from the site of the Roman remains is that it is a scheduled monument area, as defined by Historic Scotland. The area was expanded in 1998, beyond the original boundaries of what had been defined as the Roman fort, to take in surrounding land because, while the Roman fort is where the main evidence of Roman remains is to be found, there is the likelihood of further evidence—albeit on a lesser scale—of civilian activities beyond it.
Although Historic Scotland defined the scheduled monument area, which is often called the scheduled site, it does not own any land in the area. That fundamental issue is probably at the heart of the difficulties of presenting, maintaining and protecting the site. I cannot tell members who the five owners of the land in the scheduled monument area are as third parties, including me, are not allowed to know that without the landowners' permission. I have had to ask Historic Scotland to seek that permission in order to be able to tell members who owns the land. However, it is fairly well known that one of the main landowners is the City of Edinburgh Council and that a small part of the land is owned by the University of Edinburgh.
The catalyst for this report was not just the neglect of the Roman remains, which is clear for everyone to see, but, more important, two developments, one of which is taking place and the other of which is planned to take place. The first is the introduction of a pumping station on the foreshore at Cramond; the second is the sale of the Moray House campus, which was formerly Dunfermline College of Physical Education. When Moray House Institute of Education merged with the University of Edinburgh, the campus became superfluous and the University of Edinburgh intends to sell it.
The pumping station is required under East of Scotland Water's scheme for dealing with untreated sewage. East of Scotland Water must comply with certain European laws, which require the treatment of sewage. Sewage is generally treated at Seafield and, at the moment, various gravity interceptors redirect it there. However, Cramond still has a sewage outfall, whence sewage must be redirected to Seafield. A pumping station is required as the sewage cannot be handled by gravity. While building a pumping station is certainly intrusive to the presentation of the site, when I examined the development I could not find anything that had not been done properly within planning and conservation guidelines and with archaeological considerations in mind.
Locating a pumping station on the foreshore at Cramond, partly encroaching on the scheduled monument area and laying sewage pipes through it will undoubtedly disturb the remains that are on those tracts of land. However, considerable effort has been made by all parties—the planning committee, interested conservation and archaeological bodies and East of Scotland Water—to minimise disturbance, and some compromises have been made.
Historic Scotland wanted the route of the pipeline to be taken out of and away from the scheduled monument area. There was concern that the pumping station could be located elsewhere. As members will see from the report, those options were considered. Ultimately, most agreement was for the lowest common denominator: siting the pumping station at its planned location, even though it slightly encroaches on the foreshore, and at least the pipeline will follow the line of previous pipelines. Although some remains may be uncovered and disturbed, less damage will be caused than if East of Scotland Water were to open a new route for the pipeline.
The scheme has already received planning permission and is moving ahead. It does not present a great opportunity to develop the site, but there was more concern about the damage that might be caused to it.
City of Edinburgh Council, which is the planning authority, has taken a great deal of interest in the development of Moray House campus, on which it has prepared a planning brief. The brief seeks to ensure that the archaeological remains and history of the area influence the three areas that can be developed within the Moray House campus.
The Moray House site is in three parts. The northern part, a small woodland, is the only part that lies within the scheduled monument area. It is protected as a green-belt area and it is not intended that any of it should be developed—it will remain woodland, which is fortunate. The college buildings are in the second part of the site, which, in a sense, one could call a brownfield site. The council has directed that area for housing development. The third part of the site is a considerable area—probably about three-fifths of the site—made up of a playing field, an Astroturf pitch and a rugby pitch. It is intended that they remain playing fields for local amenity use.
That was the situation prior to the University of Edinburgh putting out a tender for development. Then, Bryant Homes and AMA (New Town) Limited, which is a housing development company normally associated with the quality end of the market, won favoured tender status. Since then, the developers have tried to convince the planning authority to flip the planning brief, so that the playing field area is developed and the brownfield site is turned into a playing field. In my recommendations, which I will come to later, I suggest that those changes should be resisted.
It is not for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to discuss what the development of the Moray House campus might do for the amenity of Cramond. Our concern must be with the Roman remains and the opportunities or threats posed to them by the development, which I have tried to consider in my conclusion.
The main opportunity is, in a sense, the planning gain that may come from the development, which is a difficult issue for this committee to address. However, there is a clear planning gain in that, in proceeding with the development, the developers may wish to assist with the presentation of the Roman remains in some way. It has been suggested that they may support some sort of museum in the complex they are developing. More important, there is a possibility that they will provide a new access road.
Attempts to improve the presentation of the Roman remains would probably generate such traffic that Cramond could not cope. The roads in the village are narrow and both the local councillor and the local MSP have suggested that there would be some resistance from locals to a greater number of visits that might undermine the sanctity of Cramond itself. Therefore, the new development offers the opportunity of land becoming available that might allow a new access road, which Mr Guild pointed out to Gillian Baxendine and me when we visited the site.
I will move on to talk a little about the presentation of the site. The site is badly maintained and I suspect that part of the reason for that is the problem of local authority funding. In my conclusion, I say that the difficult decisions about the pumping station were handled properly and transparently. On the Moray House complex, it is important that the planning authority tries to resist changing its planning brief. If the brief is changed, it should be changed for the benefit not just of Cramond but of the presentation of the Roman remains.
Evidence shows that many public bodies want to improve the presentation of the Roman remains and to make that presentation work, but the remaining difficulty is that because there are so many landowners in the area no one is taking a lead and, without leadership, nothing will happen. While I am not trying to blame parties that were involved previously, one could argue that the city authorities, of which there have been a number over the years, could have done more to take leadership; however, they did not. Today, we have the opportunity to discuss that issue.
In concluding that more leadership is required, I have made a number of recommendations, which I will run through quickly. First, and at the very least, we should call for significant improvements to the signage for and description information of the Roman fort, as the signage appears to date back to the digs that took place in the mid-'60s. Secondly, a long-term development plan requires leadership. Although Historic Scotland does not own any of the land, it should be called upon to organise a management group. It could, if not permanently then at least initially, act as a catalyst to bring people together in a management group involving the five interested parties. That would allow plans to be proposed that might improve the site's presentation. Historic Scotland should then report to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on the feasibility of progressing such a management group, so that we will know whether that approach has been successful.
My fourth recommendation is that the City of Edinburgh Council should—I am not saying that it has to—consider giving over ownership of some land, perhaps not all of it, to Historic Scotland if funding and other priorities are problems for the council. That might release into the pot some funds from Historic Scotland. Great demands are placed on City of Edinburgh Council—such as funding the Usher Hall. The other night, I was in the Assembly Rooms, which need a lick of paint; and anyone who has been to the former Royal High building on Calton hill knows that it is run down and neglected. Those buildings are owned by the council, which obviously does not have the money to deal with the problems.
My fifth recommendation is that the landowners should urgently consider opening up a new access road. It would have to be a cul-de-sac, as one would not wish to create a through road into Cramond village, which might become a rat run. A cul-de-sac leading to the car park near the Roman remains might allow new access that would not damage Cramond village. However, it is not enough to say that the developers must be the players in building that road, as parts of land in addition to the development land would have to be given over.
It is only proper that I have suggested that various bodies, such as archaeological bodies and amenity groups, should be involved in the proposals and that consideration should be given to the impact of traffic. The conditions attached to the planning consent for the Moray House campus should be maintained as far as possible and those attaching to the pumping station should be strictly adhered to.
That makes nine recommendations in total. If we are able to progress those recommendations, we will create an initiative to co-ordinate the restoration of the presentation of the Roman remains by gaining some advantage from the development of Moray House campus.
Thank you, Brian. I congratulate you on a thorough report. It is clear that you spent a lot of time on it. I will open up the discussion to questions and comments from members of the committee.
I should first advise the committee that I have received a letter from Margaret Smith, who is the local MSP for the Cramond area. Brian spoke to her when he put together the report. Unfortunately, she was not informed that it was on the agenda today. We apologise for that. The Health and Community Care Committee is also meeting this morning, so she is unable to be here, but she wants to be kept informed of our views.
A number of Margaret's comments are included in the report, usually where she has said things that were not said by others. There was some repetition in the submissions and a great deal of consensus. Where Margaret added useful local insights, I have included them.
I have questions about Historic Scotland and the City of Edinburgh Council. Historic Scotland does not own the site and therefore has no remit on what goes on there. If it owned or in some other way managed the site, how willing and able would it be to make funds available? When the City of Edinburgh Council was consulted, was that just the planning department or was the recreation department included? How responsive is the council to finding alternative sources of funding for the site? How receptive is the planning department to the idea of flipping the site?
Historic Scotland seems to be frustrated about its inability to take leadership because it has no locus other than scheduling the monument as worthy of protection. It has commented on the poor presentation of the site. It would be willing to play an active role. I cannot make funding commitments on its behalf, but it seems clear that if it had some locus it might be in a position to include Cramond in a future budget—some way down the line perhaps. At present, it must give priority to its own estate.
Most of the evidence from the City of Edinburgh Council is from the planning department, but it includes evidence from the recreation department, which includes archaeology. I did not explore the issue of funding, but the council certainly wants to protect the site. Its difficulty is in doing anything beyond that.
The planning department intends to resist the proposal to flip the site. It may be convinced otherwise; the developer is carrying out an archaeological dig to see whether there is a basis for the planning brief as it stands and the council has said it will look at that evidence. That evidence might, of course, defeat the developer's intentions—that remains to be seen. As I said at a previous committee meeting, the proposal sounds like a tactic—if the site is flipped and the playing fields are developed and the current developed area is left as a green-field site, it would not be difficult for a developer to come along later and argue that the area was disturbed previously. I think the planning department is aware of that.
I congratulate Brian on a report that is not only comprehensive but reads well—better than his column in The Herald and a better use of his time. We should also pay tribute to Mr Guild for bringing the matter to our attention after many years of campaigning. It is encouraging when communities include people who are keen to see progress.
I endorse the recommendations with one suggested addition. At the Braehead shopping centre in Glasgow, a contribution to establish an outstation of the Scottish Maritime Museum at Braehead was part of the planning gain. The very useful commercial funding helps to give the museum security. That model could be relevant to a housing development on the Moray House campus. The planning gain could be some form of preservation: a museum and tourist attraction, perhaps.
Tourism is not the only important aspect. The story of the city and Scotland cannot be told without looking at the Roman influence. We would do a grave disservice if we failed to tell that story and allowed that evidence to be destroyed, damaged or hidden. I hope that Brian's recommendations will be taken on board. However, we are only advisory and should consider how we can ensure that that happens.
Brian's idea of asking Historic Scotland to be the link between the committee and what is done is good. If he can confirm that the organisation would do that, the next stage might be to disseminate the report to all the interested parties and to ask Historic Scotland to convene the first meeting. I suggest that Brian attends it on behalf of the committee and then sets up a reporting schedule to keep us informed so that if things go off-track we can try to help with advice.
I am touched that Mike reads my column—
No one else does.
Just as well!
I think that Historic Scotland will want to take the initiative forward. The only difficulty is that without knowing who all the landowners are I cannot say whether they will play ball. I am happy to take on Mike's suggestion that I play a role.
Has there been any discussion with the developers on paying for the road? The road seems integral to making the site work as an attraction.
I have not had any discussion with the developers, who are being kept at arm's length because of being only preferred bidders at present. The route of the suggested road is that of the old road that led to Cramond House, which is surrounded by the scheduled monument site. It is not used. There is a gatehouse that is privately owned and the permission of its owner would have to be sought. I think that the road through the campus site would have to be paid for by the developer but it could be advantageously used as part of the development, with a spur to extend it into the existing car park. That part of the construction could be intrinsic to the development or a planning gain. Until the planning issues are resolved it will not be clear whether such a road would be part of the developer's plans.
Would the City of Edinburgh Council be amenable to handing over land to Historic Scotland?
That is a recommendation I am making and it is made public here today, so I do not know.
In my discussion with the planning department, the idea that the road could have several benefits, including traffic calming in Cramond, was raised.
Brian has said that Historic Scotland would welcome a leading role. Is it possible for it to get people to work together?
It does not have a strong hand, but the backing of this committee's suggestion that everyone should be mature enough to get together to talk could give the leverage needed to achieve that. Any disagreement about taking things forward in that way would lead to comment. Historic Scotland has implied that it is frustrated because it cannot act. It is keen to get involved. As an outside body with no land there, it should convene the first meeting. If the council then says it will take on running things, that would be fine—I have no axe to grind with any of the parties.
I should have said before that I have an interest as a life member of Friends of Historic Scotland.
I should have said so too—but it is something you pay for.
There is a Roman bath house in Bearsden that is managed by Historic Scotland. It is beautifully laid out with very comprehensive signage and shows that opening such a site to the public can be very successful. Brian said that local folk are concerned about increased traffic if the site becomes a tourist attraction. Evidence on visitor numbers to the Bearsden site could be available and might allay fears in Cramond. I live nearby; it is not a case of coaches coming and going all day.
The Roman remains in Bearsden were found during the building of private houses in the 1970s. It may be instructive to find out whether the developers put money into the preservation of the site. The committee should visit the very interesting Bearsden Roman bath house—you can come to me for a cup of tea afterwards.
It is amazing how the people of Bearsden always claim to have everything first.
I have a slight concern about the way in which our inquiry, and the priority we have given to Cramond, may influence the wider agenda. There are historic monuments across Scotland, particularly in more remote areas, that are crying out for extra investment and support. It is unfortunate, if not surprising, that the first petition of this kind to the Parliament has come from Edinburgh. Mr Guild is to be commended for his initiative, but I am concerned about how we use our time in the committee. The more Brian gave details of his research, the more that concern grew.
While this is an important issue—it is particularly important to Cramond and Edinburgh—there may be many others who follow Mr Guild's example and seek our support for investment in their local heritage. I would like to hear the convener's views on that wider issue. It is also the case that a petition from an individual can result in many hours of effort for a committee. That is not necessarily a bad thing, although some of the single-name petitions that have been submitted to the Parliament have been much less substantial than this one. That is worth noting.
I take on board what Lewis Macdonald says. It is fair to say that, when the committee first received this petition, its work load was not what it is now, although we all anticipated that it would increase. I pay great credit to Gillian Baxendine and Alistair Fleming for the work that they did in helping me to put together the report. Essentially, the clerks did the work and I then read the papers; it is important to acknowledge that.
Lewis makes a fair point about the fact that petitions are sometimes submitted by only one person. However, the Roman remains at Cramond are significant, as the fort there is the only one to have survived the three phases of the Roman occupation of the lowlands of Scotland. As such, its significance is different from that of most, if not all, Roman remains and, among archaeologists, it is generally held to be pre-eminent among Roman sites in Scotland.
Mr Guild rightly approached the Parliament because no other body seemed able to co-ordinate anything and because we can have an overseeing role. Many other petitioners may approach us for those reasons. Several small museums have written to me about the difficulties that they face. I have written back to them saying that, although I am happy to raise their concerns, the possibility of anything being discussed in this parliamentary year is remote. We must be honest with petitioners and correspondents about that.
Lewis raises a relevant point about the time that the committee would be able to devote to issues such as this. However, it has been helpful for us to use this as a learning experience in discovering what the committee can do, and in finding out who else can deal with the substance of such requests. Petitioners should not expect the committee always to provide the answer, but we can guide people to somebody else who, in a professional capacity, could address the concerns expressed in the petitions. The committee will develop means of directing and enabling, rather than acting, in response to such petitions.
The only thing that we can say at this stage is that the committee must assess each petition on its merits and decide whether we want to spend a greater or lesser amount of time on it. The way in which each petition is handled will be decided by the committee, although time pressures will often dictate how involved the committee can get. We will use the experience that comes out of the reports, which Brian Monteith, Fiona McLeod and the others are undertaking, to inform the way in which we handle future petitions.
Through Brian's hard work, we have shown that we accept the principle of this petition. If we are not able to deal with a petition, it is not because we reject the idea of petitions being referred to us or because we push them aside lightly, saying that we do not have time for them. We have shown that we are willing to deal with petitions, and when the time comes we may be able to deal with others. However, we might not be able to do that on every occasion.
Are we happy to accept the recommendations that Brian Monteith has put to us? I have a brief question on those recommendations. I am not unhappy with the first one, that
"in the short term the signage and descriptive information at the site . . . be . . . improved".
However, who do you suggest should undertake that?
I suggest that City of Edinburgh Council undertake that improvement.
Okay. We will put that suggestion to the council. I hope that it takes it in the spirit in which it is intended.
Is the committee happy with the recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
What will happen next? Brian should return to Historic Scotland, asking it, as Mike suggested, to convene the meeting. Brian could attend the meeting to offer suggestions about ways in which the matter could be progressed, and he could then report back to us on the outcome. Is the committee happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.