INTRODUCTION
Knock Castle under
restoration in 2013.
zenith of its influence, Scotland began to see the
open emergence of what has been termed an “antirestoration lobby”. A few voices from within the
heritage establishment were beginning to question
restorations of previous decades and even, in some
cases, the principle of castle restoration. Yet, as the
new Buildings at Risk Register indicated, the continuing
threat to our architectural heritage, in terms of
outright demolition or unimpeded neglect, was all too
real.
In retrospect, the conservation movement seemed to
have run full circle. Although opposition to restoration
is rarely put in print, to some extent it takes authority
from William Morris and the manifesto he wrote in
1877 for The Society for the Protection of Ancient
Buildings (SPAB). The SPAB website today makes clear
the open opposition of that Society:
Although no building can withstand decay, neglect and
depredation entirely, neither can aesthetic judgement
nor archaeological proof justify the reproduction of
worn or missing parts. Only as a practical expedient on
a small scale can such a case for restoration be argued.
In a more general sense, however, antipathy to
restoration may simply stem from a view of the
sanctity of ruins as archaeological sites.
The emergence of the anti-restoration perspective
can be traced in successive international conservation
charters, culminating in the Charter of Krakow in
2000. Whether those who regulate architectural
conservation in Scotland - conservation professionals,
politicians and, ultimately, all of us in the shape of
public opinion - come to see the restoration of a
myriad of small, sculptural towers and turreted houses
as an aberration against conservation values or an
amazing re-flowering of native culture, is certainly
an interesting question. It is this very question of
divergence within conservation circles which this book
sets out to explore.
8
Of course, not all restorations since World War Two
have been handled to the satisfaction of even many
supporters of the castle restoration phenomenon.
Although the general quality was high and could
be inspiring, there had arguably been damaging
interventions. However, from the 1990s, criticisms
sometimes seemed to be not so much concerned with
how work was done as to whether, in some cases,
restoration should be undertaken at all. At any rate,
an element of the conservation establishment seemed
to view castle restoration as a potential threat, rather
than an opportunity. In this trend, the crucial case was
the proposed restoration of Castle Tioram in Moidart.
There, despite the declining condition of the ruin and
a very reasonable scheme by leading conservation
architects ARP Lorimer and Associates, Historic
Scotland opposed restoration and successfully fought
an appeal in 2001 in order to prevent restoration.
Historic Scotland’s opposition came primarily from
within their Scheduled Monuments division. Two
documents in the public domain assist examination of
their general principles. The first is Richard Fawcett’s
2001 “The Conservation of Architectural Ancient
Monuments in Scotland: Guidance on Principles”1,
published by Historic Scotland in their Heritage
Policy series, which will henceforth be referred to as
“Guidance on Principles”. Although its Chapter 16
is specifically concerned with castle restoration, it
could hardly be considered to be an easy read. It is
not wholly opposed to restoration, but substantially
restricts the conditions under which restoration is
considered acceptable to the author. Although it
bears the Historic Scotland “Heritage Policy” logo, this
proved on enquiry to be merely the series title and
does not in fact imply that it is official policy. However
misleading this may be, it is a guidance document
on the subject of policy from Historic Scotland, and
it does give a good indication of the approach of the
Scheduled Monuments division of Historic Scotland at
that time.