Burntisland Harbour expert heritage advice.

Forth Ports, the owners of Burntisland harbour, have applied for Listed Building Consent to enable them to erect security fencing around the perimeter of the whole site, effectively bringing to an end public access which has been safely enjoyed by the community for generations.

In opposing Forth Ports’ application for Listed Building Consent, one of the main arguments on which we’re relying is that it fails to properly assess the negative impact of the proposal on the character and setting of the harbour as a Listed structure and consistently understates this impact.

The proposal directly compromises the five characteristics of listed buildings and structure as detailed in ‘Scotland’s Listed Buildings’, Historic Environment Scotland (2019).

Although Forth Ports allege that their plans include mitigation measures through sensitive design, there is no evidence or even a realistic hint of such measures in the application. In our view their Heritage Impact Analysis is very poor. The designs are simply for standard security fencing.

As we’ve previously stated however, we’re extremely disappointed at the responses of

(a)  Historic Environment Scotland (HES), who astonishingly make no comment, and

(b)  Fife Council, who (following our pointing out how compromises could be made) are prepared to concede only that MINOR revision of the layout and design of the fencing and gates may be appropriate.

We have put forward perfectly reasonable and workable alternatives, with illustrated examples from other ports and UK harbours, which would fully satisfy health and safety requirements whilst allowing continued access to all but the vicinity of the North Dock (where the shipping activity occurs).

However, we believe that the stance of HES and the Council seriously undermines our case and that our views unfortunately won’t count against this ‘expert advice’. As things currently stand we are concerned that the application may be granted.

We therefore need to provide a credible counter-argument, i.e. independent expert opinion. Accordingly we’ve approached a firm of architects who specialise in heritage consultancy. They have offered:

• Phase One: a rapid viability assessment would include a site visit and an assessment of the Design Statement and consultee comments, with findings and recommendations set out in a short advisory report. If it is considered that we have a worthwhile case, they would then move on to:
• Phase Two: significance assessment of the cultural heritage impacts of the proposed fencing and gates, to include background historical research in readily available archival and published primary and secondary sources; an assessment of the significance of the site both in itself and in relation to views and setting (including the Burntisland Conservation Area and other relevant heritage assets); and a detailed assessment of the impacts of the proposals, all supported by relevant photographs and illustrations. The findings would be set out in a full report suitable for submission to the planning authorities. 

These things obviously come at a price. We’re looking at around £1000 for the Phase One report and, if we request it, a further £2800 for Phase Two.

This step is considered so important that two of the directors of the Burntisland Harbour Access Trust have very kindly put up their own money to pay for Phase One, on the understanding that we set up a crowdfunding appeal.

If the report backs up our opinions, we intend to use it in an attempt to have the application “called in”, i.e. to request that the Scottish Government takes the decision-making power out of the Council’s hands and makes its own determination.

We’re asking you, the community, to consider making a donation, however small, to continue your support for the Fight the Fence campaign. We must point out of course that this is a gamble: although we are looking at other possible routes to having the application called in, there is always the possibility that the independent report fails to support our case.

Thank you.