Kinloch Castle Study: Final report

Round 3 results

This section sets out the Round 3 results in full.

Round 3 workshop and drop-in session

During Round 3, we met with islanders in person to discuss issues raised during Rounds 1 and 2. We conducted 6 interviews during a 2 hour drop-in session, with two paired interviews. 17 island residents attended the 2 hour workshop, but not all stayed for the duration. Some of the drop-in attendees also attended the workshop. Nearly all of the community participated in the process, including some younger residents.

The workshop was facilitated by a professional community facilitator, and included presentations by NatureScot, Historic Environment Scotland and the Scottish Government.

Workshop questions

The workshop was based on a World Café format, although this was adapted for purpose.^[32] Attendees sat in small groups and group discussion took place around these questions:

• Why is the Castle important to me and to my community?
• What should Kinloch Castle add to the island and the community in 5, 10 and 20 years?
• What might a successful sale look like to you and how could that be achieved?
• How can all the community feel heard?

Feedback to the room was given by a spokesperson from each of the groups. Answers were written on Post-it notes and put on the wall so they could be seen by all the groups.

Tables were encouraged to rank and discuss the answers given, and to try to agree on the top three answers. This process proved difficult as not all workshop participants could agree. It was difficult to reach consensus at the workshop as there were differences of opinion amongst the workshop participants.

During the workshop, residents discussed a number of further topics. These are explored in more detail below:

• Memories of visiting Kinloch Castle
• Kinloch Castle as a valuable asset
• Community empowerment
• Concern about the road

Islanders’ views on Kinloch Castle

This section sets out the exact words written on Post-it notes by workshop participants and table facilitators during discussion around each question.

Workshop question 1. Why is the Castle important to me and to my community?

Comments from workshop participants

Positive comments

• It could be important (but not with Hosking)^[33]
• Could be an asset
• It is big and imposing and the first thing people see from the ferry - it is difficult to explain to visitors
• It brings visitors to the island - business
• Potential asset if used properly it could help tourism

Negative comments

• It is not important
• Do not want another George Bullough^[34]
• It is a threat
• It's a perceived threat
• Doesn't mean anything, never seen it open
• It's dividing the community

Workshop question 2. What should Kinloch Castle add to the island and the community in 5, 10 and 20 years?

Comments from workshop participants

Positive comments

• Profit
• Sustainability, economically, environmentally, financially
• Potential to increase employment / diversity
• To be part of a bigger picture of Rum Heritage
• Harmony, accommodation solutions, stability and security for the community
• Benefit community
• It has potential but is currently meaningless
• Could work with right buyer
• Another way to support young residents who want to stay or return
• Undercover space for islander and visitor activities
• Provide accommodation to friends and family of islanders
• Walled garden to be used - in any capacity
• Should be a visitor attraction
• Bring visitors, grow economy and jobs, benefit community
• Could have diversity of employment
• Gardens could offer an attraction in themselves
• Opportunity
• Some degree of community involvement in ownership / management

Negative comments

• Buyer will have power and that could imbalance community
• It's not [important]
• Never been inside
• Rum has other interesting things
• Crush it up for the roads

Neutral comments

• Depends who buys it, we don't have much say and hopes won't change anything
• No more endless rounds of stuff like this

Workshop question 3. What might a successful sale look like to you and how could that be achieved?

Workshop question 4. How can all the community feel heard?

Comments from workshop participants

• A buyer who is active in the community
• An agreement is reached without yelling and shouting
• Transparent process - information passed to us by third party
• A successful sale shouldn't damage the island / community
• Should provide something to the community Jobs / Benefit/Stuff
• Meeting with potential buyer (not a spokesperson)
• Direct communication, start process again from top down and being inclusive
• Buyer with actual interest in the community
• Strong community influence - trust is equal part of negotiations
• Buyer is active part of community - will they live here?
• More open with plans/ideas of what's proposed
• Share their business plan/long-term plans
• A buyer who is interested in community and island
• Not against sale in principle but important to right person and purpose

Further topics

Memories of visiting Kinloch Castle

• Some residents remembered when Kinloch Castle was open. The island was very busy and good fun, with Kinloch Castle always the centre of activity.
• Islanders said that the day trippers who came when the Castle was open brought a lot of money to the island: ‘There used to be 30-40 people waiting to get into the Castle in the summer time.’ Also when the Castle was open, cruise ships called in and brought visitors and there used to be a ferry every day.
• Residents spoke about positive memories attached to the Castle, including hen parties and weddings. It was said to be ‘somewhere to go’ and ‘a reason to get dressed up’.
• Islanders remembered when they could get access to the Castle to play snooker and use the bar which was open to the public. Some islanders had got married there. Now with Kinloch Castle closed, it was said that there was nowhere to go.

Kinloch Castle as a valuable asset

• Many islanders saw the Castle as a valuable asset to the island.
• Some islanders said that they could benefit from the sale, for example an increase in visitor numbers would personally benefit them as the Castle would increase business opportunities and their income. Most thought that an increase in visitor numbers would be a positive change.
• Kinloch Castle would be an asset if it opened up again and bring a diversity of jobs. Currently, it was said that there is little opportunity for jobs on Rum (‘I think it would be a good thing to have the Castle open’; ‘I don’t think you could have got a better offer than the guy from Arisaig, no better fit.’)
• Many islanders said that the Castle was the reason they came to the island. One islander felt that any buyer wouldn’t have to live in the Castle, so long as it was open and had staff that would still benefit the community. Most islanders said that more employment opportunities would benefit the community.
• It was felt by many that selling the Castle and creating employment would bring more people to the island, perhaps leading to more homes being built and help keep the local school open. Currently, there are only 6 children in the school. If the Castle had staff, then it was thought they may have families and their children could go to the school. Many said that even a small increase in numbers of people in the community, for example 6 more people, would benefit the shop, and there would be more people to volunteer.
• A few islanders mentioned that if the Castle re-opened then the MV (Motor Vessel) Sheerwater ferry^[35] from Arisaig may start up again. Islanders explained that the Sheerwater ferry could bring around 80 people on a trip. It was said that having 2 ferry services (CalMac^[36] and the Sheerwater) would make life easier for islanders as an islander could be away one night rather than 3 nights.

Positive views about a sale

• Generally it was agreed by most islanders, that the Castle should be sold to a private buyer. One islander said that something needed to happen, and another that a positive step in any direction would be good.
• The Castle was said to have a lot of potential, and many hoped someone would buy it. Most felt that the Castle could generate an income, that it could serve different purposes and offer a variety of opportunities in the future.
• A few islanders said that the gardens could be an attraction in themselves, creating biodiversity and with gardeners bringing diversity of employment. Although it was recognised that the exact nature of access rights would depend on what the Castle’s future purpose is, some suggested there could be paid access to the gardens. Canna House, currently owned by the National Trust for Scotland, was used an example.

Future use / Views on buyer

• There was general support for a sale, and some had further views on it going to the right person, but some were simply supportive of any sale. Some felt the outcome for the island was dependent on who the buyer was: ‘It could have potential, someone with money and sense, not just buying it as an asset’.
• Some islanders expressed views about the nature of a future buyer. Some expressed agreement that the Castle should be sold to a private individual. One person described their ideal buyer as ‘someone who liked Rum … already knew the island, and is thinking about what the community needs and does not just like profit’.
• Amongst those who expressed a view, they felt that ideally the buyer should be an active part of the community, not just a ‘random landowner’.
• Quite a few islanders thought that the future use should be for the positive benefit of the community, rather than a private use. Many said they were in favour of sale. One said they would ‘like to see the plan and how it fits with the community’.
• It was suggested that the idea of being managed by a trust was preferable to being managed by an individual because a trust would be less of a threat to the community.
• The buyer could be an organisation or a charity who may be able to get funding. It would need to help Net Zero goals and need to help with the community. In contrast one participant felt that was no point in saying what they wanted as they had no control over it.
• One person said that they were ‘not against the sale in principle but only the individual who offered to purchase the Castle previously’.
• There was said to be a co-dependency between the Castle and the community. The new business would have to work with the community. It would be short-sighted to think the Castle could operate in isolation: ‘On Rum, nothing can happen in isolation.’

Previous sale positives

• Many residents felt positive about the recent potential sale. Quite a few islanders were positive about the previous proposals and wished they had gone ahead: ‘I didn’t care about who the buyer was, where he had made his money or what his political opinions were, so long as the Castle had been repaired and continue to be used.’
• Any investment was said to be a good thing. A brochure of the previous Castle proposal had been sent round, including part of it to be used a hotel, it seemed to some islanders like a fair vision.

Future use of the Castle

• There were few fixed views as to what the future use of the Castle should be. Generally, it was felt that it would be nice to have a communal use, but islanders recognised that future use of the castle depends on the buyer.

Impact of Kinloch Castle closure

• Most islanders said that things are worse on the island now since Kinloch Castle closed. It was explained that it was not as easy to make a living now, and there are not as many people. With the Castle out of use, islanders observed that they can see the visitor profile change and numbers decline. It was said that there has been a large drop in visitor numbers since the Castle tours stopped and the castle closed.
• Direct connections were made between the castle closure and the decline in the island economy, absence of a tea-shop, and the stopping of the MV Sheerwater passenger ferry.^[37] Many agreed the castle would be an asset if it opened up again.
• Currently, visitors are always asking locals when it will be open and how they can see it. It is said to be a big draw for tourists to come over. It was said to be pointless having the castle closed, and it is causing upheaval in the community.
• However, there were also a minority of conflicting views on whether the Kinloch Castle closure has had an impact. One islander said that it had been closed 10 years, and that the impact hadn’t been noticed and that it hadn’t devastated the village. Another individual said that at the present time the castle was not important to them, but it would be lovely if the castle was a bigger part of their life.

Negative views of the future Castle sale

• There were a few concerns that Kinloch Castle is a threat to the community from a vocal minority. One participant felt that the Castle could never be a commercial venture / financially viable, so it would only benefit individuals. They felt it would only provide what they described as ‘servant’s work’ with seasonal workers, and the community would just become the Castle.
• Referring to when the Castle was open one islander expressed the view that the Castle was not successful / profitable when it was last operational. They felt that previously, the Castle was not a good hotel and that NatureScot has wasted public money on the Castle. One expressed a concern about the future Castle energy requirements and also about the impact on the local dark skies project.^[38]
• In thinking about the current situation, it was said that the Castle is ‘not connected’ [to the community] and one person said they struggled to see how it is relevant. As their own job doesn’t depend on the Castle, they could not see how the Castle had much relevance to them and they described it as ‘just a lump’.
• Another islander felt that no more tax payers’ money should be spent on it.
• For those that didn’t see the Castle as relevant, it was suggested by one that perhaps the footprint only could have housing potential. Through control of land by the community, the Castle could have relevance and realise value. One participant could see problems [unspecified] in Jura and worried the same would happen in Rum.

Views on other buildings

• One islander asked that the Byre^[39] is kept separate from the Castle sale, and asked if NatureScot would agree to sell or lease it separately. Another mentioned the Byre required something done with it, not just the Castle.
• Some islanders wanted also to include surrounding land, gardens and assets, for example a formal designation for Garden and Designed Landscape (GDL).^[40]
• It was also suggested that Polytunnels could be relocated.

Power imbalance

• A few islanders were concerned about the sale of Kinloch Castle resulting in a power imbalance on the island. It was recognised that it was possible that the Castle could contribute to the success of the community, but at the same time possible it could also threaten the community. There was a chance that the community would go back to being disempowered. It was said that a buyer with a lot of money would also bring a lot of power. For instance, if ever there was a legal battle between any millionaire and the community, the community would be at a significant disadvantage.
• A minority were concerned that once Kinloch Castle was sold to an individual, the community would have no control over it. If the Castle was sold with the current land, then it would put one person in charge of the village. This would say that the castle was ‘more important than the community’.
• One view was that selling the Castle to a billionaire at a time of great inequality would be insensitive. They did not want an imbalance of power, and felt that the Castle should benefit the community.

Community empowerment

• One islander explained that they felt that the community has been empowered by the land transfer from NatureScot, and that this has enabled people to have a future on Rum. They felt that the small community of Rum has achieved a lot in a small period of time since the community asset handover. They were concerned that it would be a shame if the Castle changed that. They worried that a wealthy, powerful person may start to dominate and be a threat.

Concern about the road

• There was concern about the existing access road. While most had no concern about the exact placement of the access road (front road, coast road or an alternative/new road), it was stressed that a well-maintained road was important to maintain supply routes and be suitable for heavy loads. It was referred to as a ‘lifeline’ and was essential. One respondent said they would have happily accepted the placement of the road proposed in the previous sale. It would have been a nice, smooth road and they didn’t care about the placement of the road, but were more focused on its condition. The current roads in the village are the responsibility of the Isle of Rum Community Trust.

Conditions/Vision for successful sale

• There were a range of views on what a successful sale may involve. One participant ‘couldn’t imagine a successful sale’, whilst another said that ‘an agreement without shouting would be a success’. There was optimism that a future sale process would be handled differently and that all could ‘start a new sale from a clean slate’. Islanders recognised that full consensus around a future sale may not be achievable.
• At the same time as recognising the importance of a potential sale, a couple of islanders were keen to stress that their support for a sale was contingent on the condition that it should not damage the community and have no negative impact, for example stopping the use of a road. Some felt that a successful sale should have long-term conditions and safeguards in place and should address perceived threats.
• One participant said that any buyer is not just buying a house, but buying into the community and that a serious buyer needs to come and see the island to understand.
• Another expressed that a future Castle owner would have to work together and to understand future plans for the community. They felt that how community and owner could help each other should be explored, as both are dependent on each other.
• Getting the communication right in any future sale was said to be the key to making the process go smoothly. Communication was said to be ‘everything’, as was having the right individuals involved. Employing a middle-person who was neutral, with no bias either way, was thought to be important. A person who could come over to the island and talk to everyone was desired. An ideal process was said to be a transparent process, with information passed to directly the community and with an opportunity to meet the buyer.
• Going forward, most islanders said they would like to be kept informed about what was being proposed about any future sale through direct communication to individuals, and to give input as individuals and not be represented through a community group.
• There was almost universal agreement about a future sale process involving getting in touch with individual islanders, emailing them individually and sending a letter for each household. Islanders asked for opportunities to communicate one-to-one in person if possible, as well as being kept informed by post and email (‘… would like a face to face drop in session like this’).
• One individual said they did not want to be involved in the details of the sale, just for the sale to go ahead. One islander asked for ‘proper’ consultation by NatureScot.
• In the future, accurate communications were said to be required to build trust. In the future, there would need to be a lack of bias and perhaps use of a third party in the communication process.
• One participant suggested that once trust is built, the community could pick their own facilitator – someone they trusted. One participant felt that NatureScot could not be trusted.
• A successful sale was said to be ‘one which would not damage the island, and one which should be achieved with no yelling or shouting’.
• There was a reluctance amongst some to attend community events as they can get shouted down by a minority. There was described to be a couple of dominant people in the community.
• Preference was for the community to be involved at any early stage, at the beginning of an offer process. There was general agreement that most would like to meet with the buyer. Some residents expressed a wish to have a public community face-to-face meeting with the buyer and there should be a transparent process with speaking to people individually and not through a body that doesn’t represent everybody. A successful sale would involve talking to everyone as much as possible, and making sure all the stakeholders were involved. Hopes were expressed that the selling process would lead to shared understanding of how stakeholders plans can overlap and support each other.
• It was fully appreciated that there would need to be confidential discussion between NatureScot and any buyer before community engagement took place.
• Also one person queried whether people who do not live on the island now who have an interest could be involved in the communication.

Previous sale challenges

• There were many negative comments about the process of handling the previous sale, for example: ‘Process would have been less ugly if there had been better communication from all parties’.
• There was general, but not universal, agreement that if the previous process had been different and inclusive right from the beginning, there was a possibility that the outcome may have been different.
• Many island residents complained about the process of the previous sale and the communication between buyer and community. It was felt that island residents didn’t hear anything because the Isle of Rum Community Trust wasn’t telling them anything and did not pass information on. It was said that personal political views influenced the Isle of Rum Community Trust’s actions and communications. There was said to be a clash between the political views of members of the Isle of Rum Community and the political views of the buyer, and that this influenced all communication which came out of the Isle of Rum Community Trust (‘I think some of the people who expressed most of the concerns had ulterior motives and were motivated by their own personal circumstances’).
• It was said there was a perceived bias in the emails from the Isle of Rum Community Trust (‘I didn’t like the communications that went out from the xxx [Isle of Rum Community Trust] … were disgusting … a peasant’s road being built … don’t trust them, should have been neutral’).
• Some islanders said they would rather have had something (the sale) rather than nothing (no sale). It was expressed that it was hard to see the future business plans or other ambitions because of the unclear communication. One participant said that during the previous sale, they didn’t know what the buyer wanted out of the sale. Other complaints were that they were drip-fed information about the previous sale.
• One resident gave an example of asking the Isle of Rum Community Trust for an up-date after a meeting. They were told that nothing had happened at the meeting and there was no up-date (‘We weren’t allowed a voice in the sale last time’; ‘I would rather not be represented by the [Isle of Rum] Community Trust. Same stuff, whoever is on the board’).
• It was felt that NatureScot did not consult the community during the previous sale, and a few people said there was no trust left with NatureScot, and that they had a perceived bias.
• It was also felt that wider stakeholders had more information than islanders (‘Kinloch Castle Friends Association (KCFA) appeared to have inside information on the previous sale. [Islanders] were hearing information from the ‘friends’ and that they (Kinloch Castle Friends Association) appeared more important [than islanders]’.)

Community Fatigue

• Community Fatigue on this issue was evident. One person said they were ‘exhausted by the whole sale process’.

Lack of trusted relationships

NatureScot

• One participant expressed negative views about NatureScot, stating that the organisation ‘specialises in dividing our community’. A lack of trust was described (‘NatureScot lies all the time’) as well as difficulties during the asset transfer process which one described as ‘awful’, and ‘a political struggle’.
• Whilst previously NatureScot would have negotiated with the community to pass on buildings and land, islanders suggested they are ‘now keeping assets close because they want to sell them’.

Isle of Rum Community Trust

• A recurring theme that emerged from the islanders was a negative view of the Isle of Rum Community Trust. It was said that the Isle of Rum Community Trust had lots of land, ‘has enough, should not have more’. Although not relevant to the discussion, complaints were made about how the Isle of Rum Community Trust has maintained the housing. One comment was that it had been mismanaged. It was said that the Isle of Rum Community Trust cannot run what they are managing at the moment efficiently. It was said that the individuals involved in the Isle of Rum Community Trust had a conflict of interest, and in the past self-interest had been a factor (‘I don’t think the Isle of Rum Community Trust should have a say in it’; ‘Isle of Rum Community Trust needs to be taken out [of any sale process], just speak to individuals’).
• One person voiced dissatisfaction with the proposed sale of the farmhouse by the Isle of Rum Community Trust and instead proposed that each unit should be sold for £1 with burdens, giving opportunities for families. Their view was that the property needs a lot to be spent on it. The community has not been consulted by the Isle of Rum Community Trust about the farmhouse sale, and NatureScot has not been involved.
• One participant felt that individual islanders could have inappropriate suggestions and that since the sale can affect people’s lives, there has to be accountability. Therefore, it is important to weight the view of Isle of Rum Community Trust more than that of the individual islanders. They felt that the Isle of Rum Community Trust as a land owner should have been included.
• Comments were also made about the Isle of Rum Community Trust and this current research process. One islander commented that they were very glad that the Isle of Rum Community Trust was not allowed on the steering group of the research.
• In a directly opposing view, another participant wanted the Isle of Rum Community Trust to be included in the Research Advisory Group, and felt that the Isle of Rum Community Trust had been left out of the consultation. The same participant noted that the Kinloch Castle Friends Association had been included in the research, and wanted to know why the land owner of the village – the Isle of Rum Community Trust – had not been included, and felt it was a real worry.^[41]