DEVELOPERS seeking to build 16 luxury houses adjacent to the site of the Battle of Culloden are facing formidable obstacles even though planning permission has already been controversially granted for houses on the site.
The National can reveal that even though the planning application for Viewhill Farm by Kirkwood Homes of Inverurie has the weight of an approval decision by the Scottish Government behind it, Highland Council’s archaeological experts and the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) are making serious objections to the new planning application.
The Group to Stop the Development at Culloden Battlefield (GSDC) says it is “a site of international significance” containing war graves of people whose “descendants are scattered throughout the world”.
However it may be bureaucracy, rather than an emotive campaign, that at least delays the project. A report from Highland Council’s own officers is recommending that a condition be attached to any planning consent.
It states: “No development or work (including site clearance) shall commence until proposals for an archaeological watching brief to be carried out during site clearance and excavation works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority. Thereafter, the watching brief shall be implemented as approved.”
That could lead to long delays in the development, and the NTS has also raised strong objections.
In its submission to the council, it states: “The primary significance of Culloden is the tremendous emotion that both the name and the events surrounding the battle arouse.
“For many Scots and descendants of the Scottish and Highland diaspora, the site represents a part of their cultural identity and is of spiritual significance to them. This is reflected in the fact that the property is seen as a memorial and site of pilgrimage.
“The tangible aspects of the property, the battlefield, the landscape, monuments and structures, provide visitors with a setting for a meaningful connection with these events and contribute to the site’s evocative sense of place. The property is a crucial location to explore the history of the Jacobite rising, the events of the battle and its national and international repercussions.
“Furthermore, as a site of such outstanding historic and cultural significance, Culloden provides an excellent opportunity to explore the nature of identity, conflict and leadership within our world.
“Although we acknowledge that the development principle has now been established, we feel that given the sensitivity surrounding the site the proposals coming forward should be based on a full understanding of the area. They should have a minimal visual impact and be of a high design in both buildings and associated landscaping.”
NTS added: “The trust regrets that Highland Council’s refusal of planning consents for this housing development has been over-ruled, as it will affect part of the battlefield designated under the Inventory of Historic Battlefields. The Trust’s research shows how important battlefields such as Culloden are for Scottish identity.
“In January 2016, we asked a representative sample of the Scottish public how they thought Scotland’s national battlefields should be protected and found that 83 per cent of Scots thought further development should be avoided on significant battlefields. Given this starting point, we believe it is important even now that the impact of the development for public understanding and appreciation of the battlefield is minimised as far as possible.
“Specifically, the trust would like to see: effective landscaping and screening of the development from the remainder of the battlefield; landscape visualisations showing how the proposed designs will appear from the battlefield; prevention of any further extension of the housing development or any further encroachment through new developments being enabled; an appropriate archaeological survey to be carried out working to robust methodologies for recovery and recording.”
Highland Council confirmed to The National that the application is unlikely to be decided until at least February.
Kirkwood Homes is known to be angry at the spread of what has been called “misinformation” about its plans, but the company has maintained a “no comment” policy on its planning application and did not respond to The National yesterday.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here