INDEX 1745  GLOBAL MURALS  PRESTONPANS  ARTS FESTIVAL  GOTHENBURG FOWLERS..


Home

Origins & History

Heritage & Museum

Clan Court & Household

University Press

Regalia

Golfing Delights

Appointments

Court Records

Picture Gallery

Manor of Milton Malsor
Oceana
East Lodge Prestonpans
Laird of Glencairn

MBE

Barony of Lochnaw

Barga
Shop Online

News & Email

Search
Site News

[Not an Inch!] Cape Proposals must be overturned. Historic Scotland or Ministers must call in the decision.

Battle Trust removes the 'Inch' .. we are never going to concede even that wee amount of the battle site!

Writing in The Scotsman today, ALEXANDER LAWRIE reports what the 1745 Battle Trust increasingly believes ...

"HISTORIC Scotland has been criticised over its involvement in a planning application that could see a windfarm substation built on a historic battle site. East Lothian Council granted permission for the controversial substation to be built on “a substantial proportion” of the site of the Battle of Prestonpans last week.

The move has angered the local community and around 800 people packed into a church in Cockenzie, East Lothian, last week to voice their frustrations at the proposals. The Coastal Regeneration Alliance (CRA) has set up a protest group to fight the development, which could also see an enormous marine energy park built on the site of the now-defunct Cockenzie power station.

And during last week’s public meeting, Gareth Bryn-Jones, a member of the steering group and Chairman of the Battle of Prestonpans [1745] Heritage Trust, claimed members of Historic Scotland involved in discussions about the windfarm proposal were being “leant on” to approve the plans.

[Inch]Cape Offshore Windfarms Ltd plans to build the substation on the north-west corner of the battle site which is said to contain the remains of hundreds of soldiers who fell during the conflict. Mr Jones said: “Historic Scotland did not object to the [Inch] Cape proposal because they were being leant on from above.

“They are a government agency. I know the people involved personally in these processes in the battlefield’s register – and I don’t believe they would have made the statements that they made in the final response to East Lothian Council on the [Inch]Cape proposals had somebody else not told them, or made them do it.

“They care passionately about battlefields – like most people from Historic Scotland, they care about the historic environment – but it is pressure from above that is making them make statements that are not actually what they believe personally.

Historic Scotland did, at the initial stage of [Inch]Cape, write quite a fulsome response that was pages long and went into all the details of why they objected to them building on the battlefield, but at the final stage they withdrew it claiming the applicant had changed the details and therefore it was all fine. But the way the applicant had changed the details was to move the suggested area where the transformer units might be, and rather than one large building there were two large buildings.

“They didn’t change the red line boundary area – it was the exactly as it was in the original application which includes a substantial proportion of the battlefield – so Historic Scotland has allowed East Lothian Council to grant consent for a development on the battlefield which is on the national register of battlefields.”

He added: “I think that is totally unacceptable and I think Historic Scotland need to take a good look at themselves and the way they are behaving. I don’t think this is the last we will hear of this either.”

Historic Scotland’s website claims any proposal to build on the Battle of Prestonpans site “would not have a significant impact on the battlefield landscape” and an archaeological dig would take place before any work began on the area.

A Historic Scotland spokesman said: “In June 2014 we highlighted the importance of considering the impacts of any proposal for an energy park upon the Prestonpans Battlefield, in the Environmental Impact Assessment which Scottish Enterprise are currently undertaking.”



Consider the impacts?

How patronising can it get? There must be no impacts, zero impacts, niet, nil, nix, nada ..... Just don't do it. It's in the National Inventory to be conserved. It's not complicated at all. In fact, the regulations stress that every effort should actually be made to improve the heritage asset not undermine it.

As Gareth Bryn-Jones has indicated, one has to doubt whether Historic Scotland can hope to do their proper job within their existing quango context as a Government agency being lent on. If that remains the case then a completely fresh independent body must necessarily be created. The 4th Biennial National Battlefields Symposium on October 24th is fast emerging as the moment when some hard decisions will have to be made.

Before then the outcome of the 1745 Battle Trust's Freedom of Information Request will be apparent. How did Historic Scotland get from 'Significant Objections' to 'It's fine [Inch] Cape, build away - as long as the building [sorry two buildings please] is painted green!'

That'll shut 'em up? Some chance ....

Ministers contrived to get themselves off the hook after the Culloden fiasco last year ...

It's not as though this is the first time Historic Scotland has let the nation's battlefield heritage down. They've got form! Last year it was building at Culloden.

Ministers swiftly worked out how to stay out of a public confrontation. They resolved that they would only Call in Planning Decisions to mis-conserve battlefields in the Inventory if an Objection by Historic Scotland had been ignored by a Local Planning Authority.

QED. Lean on Historic Scotland behind the scenes to go through the motions of an Objection, haggle with the developer and then no longer object. Gives a clear run to the Local Authority, which says: "Historic Scotland doesn't object, why should we?" And it keeps Ministers out of the gameplay.

Judge and jury in their own cause. That wont do, no way. Not an Inch, as we now say every day.



Published Date: September 8th 2014


Back Back to top
ugg pas cher bottes fourr¨¦es ugg ugg bottes