Kinloch Castle Study: Final report

Round 1 results

This section sets out the Round 1 results in full.

1. Kinloch Castle

Question 3 asked: ‘To what extent do you agree that Kinloch Castle should be sold, in order to be redeveloped and brought back into operational use?’

Over two thirds of respondents (67%) to the survey agreed that Kinloch Castle should be sold, in order to be redeveloped and brought back into operational use.

A total of 9 respondents (43%) strongly agreed; 5 respondents (24%) agreed; 3 (14%) were neutral and 4 (19%) strongly disagreed (see Figure 1).^[15]

Question 4 asked: ‘Overall, what impact do you think the sale, redevelopment and operational use of Kinloch Castle will have on the Rum community?’

Over half (62%) of respondents felt that the sale, redevelopment and operational use of Kinloch Castle will have a positive impact on the Rum community. Just under a fifth (19%) thought the impact would be ‘Very negative’.

A total of 9 respondents (43%) said ‘Very positive’; 4 respondents (19%) said ‘Positive’; 4 (19%) said ‘Neutral’ and 4 (19%) said ‘Very negative’ (see Figure 2).

Question 5 asked: ‘There are a number of options for the future use of the castle building and the surrounding land. Please rank these in order of preference, from your most preferred option (1) to least preferred option (5).’

In terms of the different options for the future use of the castle building and the surrounding land, over half (57%) of respondents selected ‘Public use’ as either their first or second most preferred option. Almost half (47%) selected ‘Commercial use’ as either their first or second most preferred option. Over half (57%) selected ‘Private use’ as either their fourth or fifth least preferred option. Overall, the options given in order of preference were: Public use; Commercial use; Mixed use; Private use; Other (see Figure 3).^[16]

We asked respondents to rank options for the future use of the castle building and the surrounding land in order of preference, from their most preferred to least preferred option. The results were:

• Public use – 33% ranked this as their first choice, 24% as their second, 33% as their third, and 10% as their fourth choice.
• Commercial use – 33% ranked this as their first choice, 14% as their second, 24% as their third, 19% as their fourth and 10% as their last choice.
• Mixed use - 10% ranked this as their first choice, 29% as their second, 29% as their third, and 33% as their fourth choice.
• Private use - 5% ranked this as their first choice, 24% as their second, 19% as their third, and 53% as their last choice.

Question 6 asked: ‘Is there anything you would like us to take into account, in terms of the future use of the castle?’

Respondents were asked if there was anything else they would like to see taken into account, in terms of the future use of the castle. A total of 17 respondents answered this question. Their responses can be broadly categorised into three groups:

• Disagreement with the sale of the castle;
• Agreement with the sale of the castle;
• Focus on the community.

Focus on the community

Around a quarter of the responses to this question focused on the impact that selling the castle may have on the Rum community, and the importance of taking this into account.

In several cases, this was framed in terms of making the most of potential benefits. As one respondent commented, any ‘sale of the castle must be positive for the community’.

Another respondent wrote that the castle’s use should be ‘sympathetic’:

‘Most people in the community I feel are very detached from the Castle as it has not been a part of their lives in any way, other than just being there. Future use needs to be sympathetic to the community.’

This group of respondents raised points such as:

• The role of the castle in attracting visitors to the island;
• The need to recognise the reality of life on the island today and its environment, in contrast to when the castle was built, and as a factor in why people choose to live and work on Rum;
• The risk of community views not being taken into account after the initial sale, if the castle was then sold on again;
• The need to work with the community in determining the castle’s future.

Two respondents argued that the castle represents a negative part of Scotland’s history, with one describing it as a ‘monument to the Highland Clearances’, which should be allowed to ‘crumble’. A second respondent stated the need for a new approach, to create ‘something positive’ rather than ‘celebrating’ this part of the island’s history. A third respondent highlighted the changed circumstances since the castle was built:

‘It is extremely important that any decision or discussion of future use of the castle takes into account the reality of the impact on the community, derived from better understanding of the extremely unusual circumstances present on Rum - this isn’t a community in search of a benevolent paternalistic presence to gainfully employ us […] we are all employed, all living on Rum because of how it is now and of the environment it provides to live in and raise children. A dramatic change from the status quo would be destructive.’

As noted above, two respondents focused on the role of the castle in attracting visitors to the island. As one commented, it is a ‘draw for visitors and access should be available somehow’. They raised several points, including maintaining use of the access road and access to the grounds, and the need to take environmental considerations into account in any development of the castle, for example in terms of building practices, materials and the use of renewable energy. These issues were raised by a number of people who responded to the survey, and are discussed in more detail in Section 3.

One respondent stated that some of the outbuildings are currently in use, with a room in the old dairy being used as a freezer room for the Isle of Rum Red Deer Project.^[17]

As indicated above, two respondents expressed a preference for curated decay. One said that this option would allow the land to ‘be given back to the community’. The second commented that ‘the difficulty of finding any beneficial public use for this building’ shows that curated decay is the most ‘appropriate’ option.

Lastly, one respondent was unhappy that the community had not been consulted in the development of this survey, and said that they hoped the government would ‘work more closely’ with them going forward, including on the castle’s future use.

Disagreement with the sale of the castle

Five respondents to this question indicated disagreement with the sale of the castle, with several people identifying potential risks for islanders and the independence of the community. The key points raised by this group were:

• Complaints about the approach taken by NatureScot in engaging with the community and handling issues which impact them;
• The potential public costs of a private sale, if government grants or financial support were given to a private buyer;
• The need for safeguards to protect the community in the event of future sales;
• Disagreement with the amount of land to be included with the sale;
• The importance of maintaining public access.

One respondent wrote that they ‘do not support the amount of land planned to be sold with the Castle’, adding:

‘I think the [sale] of the Castle and the associated land in the heart of our village is an existential threat to our community. To sell the Castle footprint and / or with the castle fields adjacent and opposite would be acceptable, but not the further lands and buildings. Residents and members of the public have a right of public access in front of the castle and this should not be threatened in any way.’

Another wrote that they did ‘not think selling the castle is the right thing to do’, and that this would lead to the ‘imposition of a private estate’ in the centre of ‘a community owned village’. Referencing the Scottish Government’s aim of empowering communities through land ownership, and the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, they stated that a private sale would negatively impact residents’ influence in shaping the ‘future of the village’:

‘Selling the castle now even if the terms and [conditions] meet the needs of the current community means little if the owner sells it on again, with no safeguards in place to ensure any future owner has the best interests of the local community at heart.’

This respondent also stated that they did not agree with the minimum amount of land to be included with the sale, as set out in Section 2 of the survey, and that the concerns of the Isle of Rum Community Trust had not been taken into account despite their ongoing engagement with NatureScot. Lastly, one respondent wrote that:

‘Any positive response on the sale of the castle hinges on it not being sold to a private individual / company for private / commercial use.’

Agreement with the sale of the castle

Six respondents to this question indicated agreement with the sale of the castle. One respondent stated that the ‘solution was provided’ with the previous proposed sale to a private buyer, and that they couldn’t imagine a ‘better use’ for the castle. Another said it needs to be sold so that the community can ‘move on’, whilst a third highlighted that ‘No solution will please everyone.’

Another respondent highlighted concerns about the cost to the public of restoring the castle, and the potential positive impacts on the community if it is redeveloped and brought back into operational use:

‘The Castle has to be privately funded going forward. The amount of taxpayers money invested into a declining building cannot continue, and would be incredibly unwise to offer as a community run enterprise due to the level of funding required to refurbish and maintain a building of that scale. Any sale, either for commercial use, or private use will give employment, and boost [the] island economy.’

Of this group, two respondents stated that the development and future use of the castle should be determined by its new owner, including whether it is open for public tours.

2. Sale of the castle

Question 7 asked: ‘To what extent do you agree that the following should be included in the sale of Kinloch Castle, in addition to the main castle building?’

There was broad agreement among respondents that some buildings, including the gazebo, racket court and walled garden, should be included in the sale of Kinloch Castle. There was less consensus about the inclusion of the old dairy, steading and workshop / byre and carpenters shed (see Figure 4).

• Nearly three-quarters (71%) of respondents agreed that the gazebo and racket court should be included in the sale of Kinloch Castle. Between 14-19% disagreed.
• Over 6 out of 10 (62%) of respondents agreed that the walled garden should be included in the sale of Kinloch Castle. 29% disagreed.
• Over half (53%) of respondents agreed that the old dairy should be included in the sale of Kinloch Castle. 29% disagreed.
• Below half (48%) of respondents agreed that the steading should be included in the sale of Kinloch Castle. 43% disagreed.
• Over half (53%) disagreed that the workshop/byre and carpenters shed should be included in the sale of Kinloch Castle. A smaller number (38%) of respondents agreed that they should be included in the sale.

Question 8 asked: ‘Are there any other buildings or facilities you are aware of that could be included in the sale, and should be taken into account?’

Around a quarter of respondents were not aware of any other buildings or facilities that could be included in the sale. Three people identified buildings or facilities that could be included in the sale and should be taken into account:^[18]

• Dairy woods
• Football pitch / old tree nursery
• Monica’s rose garden
• The tiered garden area between the community swimming pool and Ivy Cottage
• Power house

In terms of the power house, this respondent stated that the building:

‘will become another disused asset with a historical connection to the castle if the power supply is upgraded - therefore I see no reason in it not been proposed to be included within the sale providing assurances are put in place over control of power supply at present’.

Another respondent identified that the community owns the old swimming pool / Nissen hut in the Dairy Woods, which ‘is in the grounds for sale’.

Other respondents gave their view more generally on what should be included in the sale. One respondent wrote that the ‘road should be included’. Another expressed agreement with the buildings identified being included in the sale of the castle:

‘All the buildings listed above are surplus to the requirements of NatureScot and are a liability going forward as no budget to put buildings right. It is common sense these are sold with the castle, to allow for redevelopment’

Around a quarter of respondents indicated their view that the sale should not include additional buildings or land. For example, one stated: ‘No other building should be included’, whilst another said: ‘No. Its already too much. The land is useful to the community.’ Similarly, two further respondents stated that the scope of the land and buildings to be included in a sale should be more limited:

‘I think the sale should include only the castle and adjacent and opposite fields, possibly the walled garden.’

‘Only the castle footprint, and the community should own the ground / land to protect ourselves in potential future sales.’

3. Conditions of sale

Question 9 asked: ‘What conditions would you like to see attached to any sale of Kinloch Castle?’

Section 3 of the survey stated that any sale of Kinloch Castle will involve some degree of redevelopment, conservation and negotiation around public access to the building and surrounding land. It gave a list of suggested conditions of sale:

• Redevelopment of the castle building
• Maintain use of access road
• Access rights (front of castle)
• Active community involvement
• Contribution to the sustainability of the Rum community
• Contribution to enhancing nature on Rum, promotion and encouragement of its enjoyment, and interest in the island
• Minimising the carbon footprint and environmental impact from the use of the castle
• Adherence to the Scottish Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement

There was broad agreement with the suggested conditions of sale:

• Over half (52%) of respondents were supportive of the list above, and around half of this group made additional suggestions;
• Around a fifth (19%) stated that any conditions should not prevent the sale of the castle;
• Around a quarter (24%) did not have a view on conditions of sale, three of whom were strongly in agreement with the sale of the castle in order for it to be redeveloped and brought back into operational use, and one of whom expressed a preference for ‘curated decay’;
• One respondent said ‘none’;
• Lastly, one respondent stated that they would prefer a different approach is taken to the sale, with its use agreed first.

Respondents’ answers broadly fell into three groups:

• Agreement with the suggested conditions of sale, with a particular focus on access rights, environmental issues and community involvement;
• The view that any conditions should not prevent a sale;
• No view on conditions of sale, or preference for an alternative approach.

These answers are explored in more detail below.

1. Agreement with the suggested conditions of sale

There was broad agreement with the suggested conditions of sale, with over half (52%) of respondents supportive of the list above, with additional suggestions.

Four respondents gave brief answers to state that they agreed with all of the above suggestions, with three giving one further suggestion each (see list below).

Among other respondents who gave more detailed answers, there was a particular focus on access rights, environmental issues and community involvement.

Access rights and use of access road

Five respondents identified use of the access road and access to the castle grounds as a key priority, with two suggested conditions being:

• Full access to castle grounds and maintain use of all roads for community use and access;
• Access along the roads as current and access to the Castle grounds.

However, another respondent who expressed agreement with the list of suggested conditions noted that ‘there is the shore road for vehicular access to the village shop area and nature reserve’.

Environmental issues

Four respondents highlighted environmental factors. Of these, three made reference to the island’s application to the International Dark Sky Association,^[19] from support for and involvement with this application, to the suggestion that the buyer joins the island’s International Dark Sky Sanctuary team.

Further suggested conditions related to the environment were:

• Promoting sustainable use of the island and its natural resources;
• A commitment to help improve the current hydro system as use of the castle will impact the community’s only power supply;
• Pioneering use of renewable energy to power the castle building;
• Complying with measures put in place for the island’s Dark Sky Reserve status application and potential future designation;
• Minimising the carbon footprint and environmental impact of the use and maintenance of the castle;
• No external lighting and black out blinds on windows to minimise light pollution and the effect on Manx Shearwaters, a type of seabird, and to support the community’s Dark Skies Sanctuary status application;
• Enhancing nature on Rum whilst taking into consideration other activities that take place on the island.

Community involvement

A number of respondents also focused on community involvement in their answers, with one stating that active community involvement was ‘the most important’ condition. Suggested conditions on this topic were:

• Minimal impact to the current life of the community and their businesses;
• Active contribution to the community of Rum on a level partnership basis;
• Community input sought and acted upon in redevelopment decisions;
• The community and businesses on Rum should also adhere to the conditions of sale especially with consideration to the environmental impacts;
• Community access to the castle public areas.

One further response suggested that the community should own the land the castle sits on to protect themselves in future sales, and that any other land (fields, walled garden and so on) is owned by the community and can be leased to the buyer if required.

One respondent stated that they would prefer a different approach to be taken, and would prefer that ‘a future use of the castle is agreed first and then investment sought for that purpose’. They said that there are further options for the future use of the castle that the community would have liked to have been considered as part of this discussion.

2. The conditions should not prevent a sale

Four respondents expressed the view that any conditions should not prevent the sale of the castle, with two referencing what had happened with the previous proposed sale. One commented that the conditions should not be ‘restrictive’; a second stated ‘I think the conditions of the original sale were reasonable’, and a third: ‘Nothing that restricts the sale / makes the sale impossible.’ A fourth respondent wrote:

‘I have no view on conditions which should be attached to the sale of the Castle. Any redevelopment, either private or commercial[,] will significantly enhance the aesthetics of the village, as the buildings in their current state are quite an eyesore, and declining as time goes on. If we want investment, conditions cannot be strict. Any sale will result in employment for the island, either private or commercial - I view this as a good thing, and will help to boost island economy.

I have no issues if access rights / road are removed as previously discussed. The plan to build a new road behind the Castle I felt was an acceptable compromise, as the original 'shore road' is still in place, therefore no access is getting cut off, and a new road would be constructed. The majority of the village live to the south of the castle, with 3 current properties to the north, therefore it would not significantly disadvantage the 'majority' of the community. I don't feel direct community involvement is appropriate in the sale of the castle, and the method of individual surveys conducted by a third party is the best way forward to get a collective unbiased view. Lessons should be learned from last time when IRCT took a stance which was not a conclusive view and was not voted upon.’

3. No view on conditions of sale

Four respondents did not have a view on conditions of sale. In addition to the response above, one respondent wrote ‘Just sell it’. A third wrote ‘Curated decay, I do not agree with private sale.’ A fourth wrote ‘Pub and a tour before it’s sold’.

Question 10 asked: ‘Is there anything else you would like to tell us?’

The last question of the Round 1 survey asked respondents if there was anything else they would like to tell us. A total of 13 people responded to this question. Their responses can be grouped into three main themes:

• Support for a private sale, in terms of: the potential community benefits it could bring, agreement with the proposed minimum land to be included in any sale, and concerns about the high public costs of maintaining the castle;
• The role of community engagement, including: the need to recognise islanders as important stakeholders in decisions about the use of the castle, to maintain access rights, and for potential buyers to be open about their plans;
• The role of two stakeholder groups: the Isle of Rum Community Trust and Kinloch Castle Friends Association.

Support for a private sale

One group of respondents reiterated their support for a private sale in answering this question, with one highlighting the positive impacts this could have, including employment opportunities and improvements to the condition of the building. This respondent also noted the loss of visitors to the island due to the castle being closed, and the financial impact on the community. A second respondent stated that having the castle ‘back in action’ would be beneficial for ‘community growth’.

The first added that they felt that the ‘amount of land on offer with the castle is proportionate’, as it covers the historic buildings and gardens. Similarly, a third wrote that the ‘castle design landscape area is well known and has always been that area’.

Two respondents expressed their disagreement with Scottish Government funds being used to maintain Kinloch Castle, at a high public cost. One added:

‘A private developer is good in my opinion. I think the other buildings in the village should be sold to a different developer which would help the community by improving competition in island employment.’

The importance of community engagement

A third of respondents (33%) focused on the need for community engagement around any proposed sale or use of Kinloch Castle. Responses included:

‘If the castle is sold, it is so important that the community has a seat at the table when making decisions about its future use as it will impact the daily lives of the islanders.’

‘Without community involvement, participation and access the sale of the castle would be hugely destructive for the community and the sustainability of the island.’

‘The castle lies at the physical heart of the village, it is important in all respects for the roads and paths to remain open to the public. The community need to remain present and vocal in all discussions pertaining to the castle and its potential development […] the impact cannot be judged as positive or negative until we know what the sale involves […] if we could find a buyer who willingly engaged with the locals, was open about their plans and didn’t see Rum just as a playground, maybe a positive outcome could be a reality. A potential buyer needs to get to know the island and the people, and not assume they know what is good for us. They need to be an active member of the community, not just someone who runs a business here.’

One respondent emphasised the need to learn lessons from the recent unsuccessful sale, including the need to ‘engage the community properly, early’, and for islanders to be recognised as ‘important stakeholders’ by any prospective buyers:

‘The last time a private buyer was interested he refused to accept that the local community were sufficiently important stakeholders in the negotiations to be granted consideration, given information, or consulted throughout the process. This was compounded by the prospective buyer’s use of an extremely aggressive, abrasive agent who was unable, and perhaps unwilling, to build consensus. This meant that the community was forced into a position where we had to gather increasingly powerful advocates, from SG and elsewhere, to ensure representation in the negotiations, and led ultimately to the sale falling through.’

The role of stakeholder groups

Other respondents focused on the role of two specific stakeholder groups: the Isle of Rum Community Trust, and the Friends of Kinloch Castle Association.

Four respondents were critical of involving the Friends of Kinloch Castle Association in this study, with one noting that whilst this group has an interest in the castle, its members shouldn't be able to speak or make decisions on behalf of the Rum community, and should consider the impact of any future sale on islanders.

Another respondent stated that this group supports the continuation of the ‘old owner[’s lifestyle]’, and two respondents highlighted online criticism of islanders by members of this organisation following the collapse of the previous sale.

One respondent stated that the Isle of Rum Community Trust does not represent the wider community’s views, and had not shared its approach during discussions about the previous proposed sale with all islanders. In contrast, another respondent felt that this group should have been able to have more input into this study.

This respondent stated that ‘community was key’, and that islanders’ views should be taken into account by other stakeholders, including NatureScot and the Friends of Kinloch Castle Association. They felt that the potential development of a ‘private accommodation business’ in the castle would be counter-productive in terms of the islands’ ‘sustainable’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ economy:

‘I'm more in favour of a forward thinking proposal which is more sustainable than a sale. We all know that unless the buyer has bottomless finances that any restoration proposal is doomed to failure […] An alternative suggestion is creating a modern visitors centre and centre for excellence which showcases all of Rùm, community empowerment and what modern land reform really should look like. Sited adjacent to the castle using the castle facade as a reminder of outdated land ownership models and social structures. The rest of the building could be rendered into adaptive reuse as a visitor attraction as ruin and a habitat for nature. Scrapping the unnecessary designed landscape would free up land for other innovative land use in keeping with the spirit of [Rum].’

This respondent also noted that the community has previously enquired about an asset transfer of the walled garden, where they currently use two polytunnels. Islanders would still like to develop this land for food production, they stated, due to a lack of available suitable land elsewhere, and the neglect by NatureScot of the deer fence.

Lastly, one respondent highlighted the need for ‘more community input’ into this study, adding: ‘I feel we are in a position to create questions that will give the community greater scope to answer fully.’