The following is an outline of  a letter received from one of our Members. The content has been reduced, and specific details have been removed by the Editor. This has been done to protect the Writer and to possibly save other individuals from embarrassment.

From experiences gained during the restoration of  "my Castle" ( Castle name removed - editor) I hesitate to write as I do not want to get into more trouble, with the fine policemen of our architectural heritage, than I am in already. While my experiences relate to a single project, which is now complete, I do believe that other members may find the following points useful. Further discussion and debate may follow, but I believe that if the Scottish Castles Association is a campaigning body then open discussion may well resolve and clarify things for future restorers.

    Restoration of castles is not seen as politically correct. Potential restorers will receive a warmer welcome from Historic
Scotland if they are considering a mill or a steading. My experience is that there are no grants to be had for castle restoration, unless you are well connected. Despite my best efforts no public funds were used in restoring "my Castle".

    If you restore a listed building (or even worse, a scheduled monument) you appear to be entirely at the whim of the individual who is your local Historic Scotland inspector. Although there is a theoretical right of appeal to the Secretary of State, actually what happens is that he refers the appeal back to the very same individual in Historic Scotland who made the ruling in the first place. In effect Historic Scotland inspectors have dictatorial rights, so you better know what your individual inspector likes and dislikes at an early stage.

    It is very difficult for a young architect seeking to specialise in historic buildings to disagree with Historic Scotland, in that it might blight his future career. In choosing an architect, a potential restorer should consider how robust the architect is likely to be in fighting your corner against the might of Historic Scotland.

    If a restorer disagrees on some fundamental point with Historic Scotland, and, after all consultations and appeals, is unable to persuade them of this point, he should find out the potential penalties of non-compliance. Perhaps they are worth bearing.

    In making these points I do not wish to suggest that there is no role for Historic Scotland in policing the restoration of listed buildings. I would be the first to complain if an important building was demolished or redeveloped in a tacky manner. However, at a time when public funds are under pressure, I feel the government should adopt a positive attitude to those who wish to devote their own capital to restoring an old building. There are also some confusions in policy which I think open Historic Scotland up to criticism. 

    Historic Scotland should provide more information on how it spends public money. Details are published on major projects (Culzean Castle) but are difficult to find on small projects. It might also be questioned whether the correct balance of spending has been found between grand public projects (such extravagance as the new roof at Stirling Castle) and the needs of the many  individuals battling to preserve less well-known buildings. 

    If Historic Scotland spends public money on a project, there should be public access to that project. If the building is a private home, it is reasonable to restrict access to appointment only (or specific dates, occasions, times - Editor).  However, there seems to be a trend recently to restore castles but then restrict public access to appointment only, thus excluding the general public, even though they are uninhabited (e.g. Balvaird).

    Historic Scotland does not appear to have a clear policy on its approach to restoration, in that its views vary from year-to-year and place-to-place. At one time we were told restorations should be carried out so that it is difficult to see what is old and what is new, at other times, Historic Scotland have requested that restorations clearly indicate what is new, so as not to mislead future visitors. After allowing castles to be restored in cement block and then harled during the '80's, now all walls must be rebuilt in stone. Should harling be used and if so what kind?

And then there is the problem of what period to restore a castle. Castles were of course altered over many years to meet the needs of succeeding generations. Should the windows be taken back to the pretty, but impractical, leaded lights and shutters, or will sash-and-cash do? Should the Victorian door, which improves access, be filled to create a more authentic 16^th century tower house?
Perhaps Historic Scotland should consider a written code.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to air my views. I will be interested to hear of other member's experiences in dealing with Historic Scotland.     
   Name and Castle withheld for obvious reasons (Editor) 


This letter strikes on a theme that we hear frequently - we hope that the above comments stimulate further written responses from the membership, and that you use the newsletter as a vehicle to express our various views and to help the Scottish Castles Association formulate a considered and representative stance on these issues.