New Petitions

I suggest that we take the next petitions together, as they are both from Mr David Wilson and relate to the same issue. PE662 is about disputes that relate to applications for listed building consent and PE678 is about the preservation of listed buildings, with particular regard to listed building consent for demolition. The petitions are detailed and, with members' permission, I will provide some of that detail for the record, as it is important that as much information as possible is placed in the public domain.The petitioner's main objective appears to be the restoration of Museum Hall at Bridge of Allan, which is in the process of being sold to a developer by Stirling Council, following a Court of Session ruling that granted permission for that disposal. PE662 calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to employ the services of an independent reporter to adjudicate in disputes that relate to applications for listed building consent. The petitioner claims that Historic Scotland gave a commitment to take into account public opinion in the event of any application for listed building consent, when in fact the decision on the redevelopment of Museum Hall had already been made.The petitioner argues that Historic Scotland and the Executive would inevitably have shown bias in any subsequent application for listed building consent and that there is therefore a need to appoint an independent reporter to adjudicate in disputes relating to such applications. The additional papers provided by Mr Wilson this morning include a letter from Historic Scotland, which refutes his claims and assures him that, should an application for listed building consent be made for works to the hall"all representations will be … taken fully into account when a decision is being made whether the application should be called-in for determination by Ministers rather than the Council."Historic Scotland makes it clear that any decision on the matter is "certainly not … predetermined."Petition PE678 calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to honour published Government policy in respect of the preservation of listed buildings with particular regard to listed building consent for demolition. The petitioner refers to the opinion of the Court of Session on an application by Stirling Council for approval to dispose of Museum Hall, which was held as common-good land. He claims that the court decided that the hall, a grade B, band 1 listed building, has insufficient heritage value to attract lottery funding and suggests that that would mean that no building in the UK in the same category would be eligible for such funding. However, nowhere in the opinion does Lord Penrose specifically mention that the hall has insufficient heritage value to attract lottery funding, as the petitioner suggests.Lord Penrose concluded:"the structure of the Museum Hall has so deteriorated that its restoration cannot be justified in view of the total cost which would fall on the wider community, and I am satisfied that authority must be given for its disposal."In addition, in the papers that have been handed out this morning, the petitioner has included a letter from the Heritage Lottery Fund that makes it clear that the Court of Session's opinion in no way prevents that organisation from funding buildings other than those that are listed at grade A. In that letter, the Heritage Lottery Fund confirms that it would consider any application for funding for Museum Hall and offers to provide Mr Wilson with an application pack. It is therefore clear that it is for Mr Wilson, Stirling Council or any developer to pursue the matter further. It is not the Parliament's role to interfere in individual listed building cases. Do members have any comments on the petitions? Although the petitions ask for general actions to be taken in relation to the way in which such issues are dealt with, they are specific to one building. I wonder whether the committee would be stepping into territory into which it has so far made it clear that it does not want to step. We do not sit in judgment on the decisions of other bodies. There are procedures and processes that Mr Wilson can go through to raise his concerns over Museum Hall.

Do members agree? We should make it clear why we take that view. It is not that we disagree in any way with what Mr Wilson says about the building in question; it is simply that it is not the Public Petitions Committee's role to sit in judgment on the decisions of any local authority or non-departmental public body that has the role of making, or the authority to make, such decisions.

I broadly share that view, but I have only just had the chance to read through the papers from Mr Wilson that were on our desks when we came in this morning. I do not quite understand how Historic Scotland gets to the point that it reaches in the final paragraph of its letter of 17 November to Mr Wilson, because I understood that Stirling Council was on the point of disposing of the building. I do not know whether disposing of the hall means selling or demolishing it or something else. In the final paragraph, the director of Historic Scotland, Graeme Munro, says:"I hope you can be persuaded to view recent events positively and constructively as steps towards promoting the retention and re-use of significant elements of the Hall."That seems to be a more positive position than the one that I understood we were in when I read the papers prior to the meeting. The case might not be as black and white as Mr Wilson has suggested.

The information that I have received is that one of the conditions is that part of the building be retained by any developer. In other words, some aspects of the building must be preserved.

We understand that that is not enough for Mr Wilson, who wants the building to be preserved in its current state.

That seems to be the case. I think that he wants it to be retained entirely for community use, but that is not a decision on which we can sit in judgment.

No, we cannot do that.

Do members agree that we should write back to the petitioner to advise him of our inability to sit in judgment on the decision in question and to tell him that the due processes are there for him to take advantage of?Members indicated agreement.

I support that. The petitioner is calling for a reporter to be introduced for cases that go to arbitration. From my experience of reporters, I would prefer the determination of such matters to be left in the hands of local government rather than handed over to a reporter in a central agency. I do not agree that it would be wise to go down that route. I support the view that the convener and other committee members have expressed.

Is everyone happy with that?Members indicated agreement.