Hansard

I welcome this rare opportunity to focus on the role of Historic Scotland. At one point, I was concerned about whether there would be a ministerial statement, and whether we would require to reschedule the debate to preserve it. I suppose that we are all delighted that we have an extra two minutes in which to make our points.

No one can be in any doubt about the significance of Scotland's unique built environment. It creates a link to centuries and millennia of history—from the first signs of human life in these islands to our somewhat brutal and bloody past, the enlightenment, our industrial heritage, up to the modern day—and to iconic buildings, such as the Holyrood Parliament in which we are sitting.

No one doubts the importance of the built environment to Scotland's economy and communities. Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the number of visitors to Edinburgh castle. Every year, more and more people come to see it and hundreds of other historic buildings throughout our country, which benefits our tourism industry. Those buildings will also play a valuable role in promoting next year's year of homecoming.

In my constituency of North East Fife, we have many examples of some of the finest listed buildings, scheduled monuments and conservation areas, which not only boost tourism but define the type of community that North East Fife is. They include St Andrews, with its castle and cathedral; Falkland palace and conservation village; harbours such as Crail and Cellardyke; Kellie castle and gardens; St Monans church; and Ceres and many other villages with conservation areas that protect the integrity of the historic townscapes while ensuring that they remain vibrant communities.

Historic Scotland plays a vital role in designating and preserving such valuable national assets so that they can be enjoyed not only by us but by future generations. Most of what Historic Scotland does, as Malcolm Chisholm rightly said, it does well, but there are concerns that it can be out of touch and inflexible. In particular, it can be unaccountable to the people and communities that are affected by its decisions.

The built environment is a living entity. For buildings to survive, they must be able to adapt to new uses and functions, otherwise they become redundant and fall into ruin or are demolished to make way for something new. There is a fine line to be drawn between preservation and blight. At times, it seems that Historic Scotland would rather see a building or site fall into decay than engage with its owners and with communities to find ways for sensible and sensitive redevelopment and restoration. Making works unaffordable often leads to nothing being done, so that rather than preserve buildings we create eyesores. Historic Scotland can place burdens on property owners without having any responsibility to assist them to meet those burdens.

In that respect, I have some sympathy with Ted Brocklebank's amendment, but I share the minister's concerns about its wording, which implies that the final responsibility for funding any works on a listed building or scheduled monument should fall on Historic Scotland and the public purse. Had the final clause not included the words "Historic Scotland" but simply stated "particularly where there is no realistic means of funding the desired preservation or conservation outcomes", we could probably have supported his amendment. However, we cannot support it as it stands.

A major concern is the process by which Historic Scotland designates a building or monument as listed or scheduled. The process seems to be shrouded in mystery. Although Historic Scotland is required to consult the local authority before making a designation, neither Historic Scotland nor the local authority is required to consult the communities affected. Often, the first that local people know about it is when a notice appears stating that a building has been listed, to the bafflement of the local community.

For example, last summer—Ted Brocklebank mentioned this example, but I will repeat it as it affects my community—Historic Scotland decided, for reasons known only to itself, that Madras college in Kilrymont Road, St Andrews, should be B-listed. The building is a typical 1960s-design secondary school, which one former pupil described to me as "ghastly". Madras college is one of Scotland's last split-site secondary schools, with part of the school located in the 1960s eyesore on Kilrymont Road and part in the original, much older, building on South Street. Both buildings are in need of significant repair, and the accommodation was panned by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. It is generally accepted that the best solution would be to replace both buildings with a new single-site school. However, the listing of the building, which no one wants to keep, may make redevelopment of the site—and therefore the possibility of a new school—more difficult.

Another example, which Ted Brocklebank also mentioned, is the world war two airfield at Crail. I have been involved for some time in trying to find a solution to that problem. The airfield is largely a series of ramshackle prefabricated buildings in various states of disrepair. When the site was mysteriously scheduled about a decade ago, the owner was prevented from redeveloping it. It took some time for me to be able to initiate a meeting involving the owner, the local community, the local council and Historic Scotland so that we could try to find a way forward. That meeting took place some time ago, but progress remains slow even though Historic Scotland has agreed to deschedule some of the site. In the meantime, the site is being used for purposes such as trash and drag racing, which cause considerable inconvenience to the local community.

I welcome the minister's pilot scheme, which I hope will be a step in the right direction. However, I am sure that she recognises that local authority planning and enforcement officers are under considerable pressure, not least in preparing for the implementation of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. I would welcome an assurance from her that appropriate resources will be made available to the pilot authorities, including the possibility of seconding staff from Historic Scotland.

The role of Historic Scotland would be greatly enhanced if it engaged more effectively with local communities. That is what my amendment intends to achieve. I thank the minister for her support and I commend my amendment to the Parliament.

I move amendment S3M-1751.3, to insert at end:

"and encourages Historic Scotland to work with local authorities to improve the consultation with local communities on the designation of listed buildings and scheduled monuments".