|
Back to Environment Homepage
10 December 2002
Fire in Edinburgh Old Town destroys much of World Heritage Site
Were Historic Scotland and the planners really looking after it
properly? Does Historic Scotland have its priorities right?
Editorial: James Irvine
Edinburgh and Perthshire, Scotland
A devastating fire has just ruined much of the
historic buildings in the Cowgate of Edinburgh, a World Heritage
Site. The fire was difficult to control because of the tall nature
of the tenement buildings, the multiple rooms and the narrow streets.
The sections affected have to be demolished as their structure is
no longer safe. Yet we are told that this area had become a busy
nightclub district where clubbers gathered. No one was hurt except
we are informed that a fireman was slightly injured. We are also
informed that, as no lives were at risk, had the firemen held their
scheduled strike for a 40% pay rise, they would not have turned
up to fight the blaze and the damage would have been even more extensive.
So who cares for such an important World Heritage Site? Clearly
the firemen put their pay demands higher on their agenda, but most
of the citizens of Edinburgh and many folk around the world certainly
care.
Lets look at things from the perspective of a
private individual trying to look after and manage land and buildings.
Planners are notoriously obstructive regarding anything that has
a listed building category and they will charge exorbitant fees
for doing so. They have been shown to be zealous in preventing the
demolition of ruined listed buildings when their demands regarding
renovation are quite impractical in terms of expense for the owner
who nevertheless has health and safety issues to contend with (another
Government Department/Agency), and neither the planners or Historic
Scotland will help. They just persist on being obstructive and must
spend a lot of tax payers money doing so. They stifle development
in rural areas, unless of course it is in relation to one of their
pet projects on property acquired by one of the Government’s
agencies.
So how come that the planners in Edinburgh in
conjunction with Historic Scotland can somehow change all that when
it suites them? Nightclubs must surely be a well recognised fire
risk. The architecture of the building would make it obvious that
controlling a fire with whatever resources would be extremely difficult.
While no one would want these historic buildings to be a sterile
museum, it does seem that the authorities were pushing their luck.
Why? Did attracting tourists to the City to swell its coffers have
anything to do with it? What happened to their rigorous fire prevention
schemes that they impose on others? True, no lives were lost but
a substantial part of this important World Heritage site was.
Ironically, a few days later the farm was telephoned
by Historic Scotland expressing concern about a small number of
very uninteresting-looking “cumuli” and what is recognised
by the archaeological authorities as being an uninteresting Roman
Camp which is unlikely to reveal anything of significance. There
is a much more important Roman site a few miles away at Ardoch,
Braco, also in Perthshire. The “cumuli” are alleged to
be ancient burial grounds whose only feature on the farm is that
of a small featureless mound. There is simply nothing else to see
other than a mound.
What Historic Scotland wanted was to have each
of these totally featureless little mounds fenced off and the weeds
controlled so that nice little non-descript but tidy alleged ancient
cemeteries on the farm could be protected and the cattle kept away.
Allegedly because of the inclement weather (honest, they did not
mention global warming) the cattle were causing “erosion”
on these forlorn little heaps by their hoofs. So we would end up
with a contract agreement to maintain neat little fenced-off, weed-controlled
mounds in the middle of farm fields paid for by the taxpayer. For
what purpose?
But then Historic Scotland did not endear themselves
here when they clamped on an extension of restriction orders delivered
in the most important looking format imaginable. These orders further
restricted the farm from activities over an even greater area of
a singularly unspectacular Roman Camp, only visible from the air
in the form of changed colour patterns on the ground when the barley
is at the right stage for that esoteric pursuit. They were not interested
and did not want to understand the effect of their officious action
on the farm and would not consider any form of compensation. They
just imposed it following an opportunity for sham consultation,
and expect people to be co-operative in the future. Besides, a public
road was built right through the restricted area. A prisoner of
war camp (World War 2 - not the Romans) consisting today of essentially
upgraded tin huts (complete with a relatively recent massive concrete
firing range to create noise pollution largely by school cadets)
lies next to these humble historical artefacts which Historic Scotland
are so keen to preserve. Again the Government and its agencies turn
a blind eye when something of interest to them is involved and proceed
to violate the beauty and tranquility of the scene they want others
to preserve through regulation dictated by Historic Scotland, SNH
and the planners.
The importance of a viable mixed livestock/arable
farm to the local environment is immense - the neat artefactual
presentation of featureless alleged small burial grounds is not.
But then it is government (central and local) and their agencies
who do the most damage to the environment in this area and do it
with impunity (1).
Historic Scotland and the planners would be better
employed looking after their World Heritage site in the centre of
the Capital. No doubt the millions of pounds and all the disruption
which the rebuilding will incur, trying to keep the facade or an
imitation of it, will be put down to “just one of these things”
and no one will carry the can. Have they got their priorities right?
This writer does not think so.
©LandCare Scotland
References
1. Gilvear, David. Report for
Scottish Wild Rivers Project. This report is included in “Botched
Flood Prevention Scheme - how not to do it”. www.land-care.org.uk.
(View
Article).
|
