1 10 3 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/45/613/BuildingResilienceCapacityInRemoteRuralCommunities_LochKenTrust_20240326.jpg 22e004e6cbdafa5a08356960f9392a81 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/45/613/BuildingResilienceCapacityInRemoteRuralCommunities_LochKenTrust_20240326.1.pdf d1cbb31212da42f89ee649becbe496ad PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Contemporary Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Building Resilience Capacity in Remote Rural Communities Research funded by The National Centre for Resilience Author: Barnaby Fryer & Lindsay Stewart Institution: Loch Ken Trust: Institution Logo: Date: 26/03/2024: Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Contents List of figures List of tables List of acronyms Executive Summary Main body 2 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards List of figures Figure 1 Map of Glenkens Community Council Areas List of tables Table 1 Project Participants List of acronyms CC Community Council GCAT Glenkens Community & Arts Trust LKRS Loch Ken Ranger Service LKT Loch Ken Trust 3 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Executive Summary Climate change is increasing both the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. This is putting increasing pressure on remote rural communities to have robust community resilience plans. Local authorities look to community councils to lead on the development of community resilience plans, but they are struggling to make progress. This is not from any lack of desire, rather from a lack of knowledge and capacity, coupled with conflicting priorities from other commitments. Having a trusted community organisation support and coordinate this work can lead to significant progress being made by community councils, that they wouldn’t be able to make alone. Ideally, this work should be co-ordinated across multiple community council areas. This enables the sharing of both ideas and resources between neighbouring areas, improving community resilience on a sub-regional basis. Community spaces, e.g. town/village halls, have a key role to play in improving community resilience. They will often be the focal point of community response to natural hazards, providing warm spaces, shelter and a ‘command centre’ to co-ordinate community activity. However, very few community spaces have dedicated resilience plans. There is an opportunity to drive improvements in community resilience by compiling a ‘toolkit’ of templates, checklists and other resources to support community spaces to create resilience plans. At a time when local authority resources are more stretched than ever, it is vital that communities are supported to make progress on this issue themselves. Unfortunately, for remote rural communities this is unlikely to happen without some dedicated support at community level. 4 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Main body Introduction The increase in both frequency and severity of natural hazards in recent years has coincided with a steady reduction in public sector funding, capacity and resources to address these hazards. Essentially, as demand is rising, supply is falling. This situation hits remote rural communities especially hard, as they represent some of the smallest, hardest to reach communities anywhere in Scotland. As such, they will inevitably be low down on any priority list for overstretched public sector resources. Increasingly, communities are being asked to take on more responsibility for their own resilience. This process is often being led by community councils, who struggle to make meaningful progress. This can be for a number of reasons, primarily through lack of knowledge or capacity. This action research project aims to investigate the potential benefits of a community-based organisation supporting communities to develop their resilience plans. It is also looking at effective mechanisms for neighbouring communities to support each other. Background and Context Loch Ken Ranger Service (LKRS) was established by Loch Ken Trust in 2021, as one of Scotland’s first truly community-owned and led ranger services. Whilst much of their work is traditional countryside ranger activity, they are also exploring what else a community ranger service could do to support its communities. This includes a growing amount of work around community resilience. Loch Ken Trust (LKT), as the operators of LKRS, were established as a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO) in 2020, in response to the withdrawal of countryside ranger services in 2019 by Dumfries & Galloway Council. Their purpose is to support sustainable local communities around Loch Ken and in April 2022 they published the Loch Ken Plan as a strategic plan to guide their work. 5 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Recognising the importance of both community resilience and climate adaptation, LKT previously worked with Adaptation Scotland on the ‘Climate Ready Ken’ project, as part of the Climate Ready Localities programme. F IGURE 1 - MAP OF G LENKENS C OMMUNITY C OUNCIL A REAS The Glenkens is well-defined both geographically and culturally, while at the same time not having any borders on a map. It can be considered as a grouping of 9 Community Council parishes grouped around the catchment of the Ken / Dee river in remote-rural Dumfries and Galloway. It stretches from Carsphairn in the North to Crossmichael in the south. 6 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards It encompasses the villages of Balmaclellan, Carsphairn, Corsock, Crossmichael, Kirkpatrick Durham, Laurieston, Mossdale, New Galloway, Parton and St John’s Town of Dalry, plus outlying houses and farmstead and comprises about 4,000 people. It has an ageing population, with many older people living on their own or in couples. The Glenkens Community & Arts Trust (GCAT) has a 22-year track record of economic regeneration through arts and community work in the Glenkens. They were created in response to the devastating Foot and Mouth epidemic of 1998 and since then have consistently delivered high-quality arts and community development work for our remote-rural community. They are a key anchor organisation for the area, with a vision of making the Glenkens an excellent place to live for people of all ages. They are a key partner in this project, through their delivery of both the Glenkens Hub website and the Glenkens Community Spaces Network. Research Methods Community & LA Engagement The initial phase of the project was around engagement. Through GCAT, information was sent to all 9 Glenkens community councils about the project and expressions of interest were invited. Positive responses were received from 5 of the 9 community councils. LKT attended a meeting of the Glenkens Community Spaces Network, to explain the project and invite expressions of interest from the 24 different community spaces (village halls, town halls etc) in the network. Positive responses were received from 6 of the spaces. Given the important role that the local authority plays in co-ordinating community resilience teams across the region, it was also important to engage with the LA’s Community Resilience team. LKT had initial meetings with relevant officers who were very keen to support the project. The project came at a serendipitous time, as there had been a number of personnel changes with the LA, so this project presented an opportunity for the new officers to come and meet with individual community councils. The LA had also been updating the official council template for resilience plans and were preparing to roll the new template out across the region. 7 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Selecting Project Participants From the received expressions of interest, 3 community councils and 3 community spaces needed to be chosen. To maximise the potential learnings from the project, a diversity in the participants was sought. First, we aimed to secure a geographical spread of participants around the project area, looking for participants on both sides of Loch Ken as well as to the north of the Glenkens. Secondly, we aimed to choose participants who were at very different stages of preparedness and progress on community resilience matters. Some communities have made much more progress than others and we were keen to see if those areas at the beginning of this journey could learn from their more advanced peers. Finally, we were keen to have at least one pilot community where we were working with both the community council and community space from that community. This would allow us to investigate any potential benefits of working co-operatively with both groups, for example how the community council and community space could support each other’s work. The chosen project participants were: Community Councils Community Spaces Balmaclellan CC Balmaclellan Village Hall Balmaghie CC New Galloway Town Hall Dalry CC Parton Village Hall T ABLE 1 - P ROJECT P ARTICIPANTS Methodology A workshop was delivered to each participant group, with Balmaclellan CC and Balmaclellan Village Hall opting to have a combined workshop for both groups. The workshops had two main components; a review and gap analysis of existing paperwork and plans, followed by a scenario exercise to explore the decision-making required to actually implement resilience plans during a natural hazard event. 8 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards The outputs of these workshops were then used to inform follow-up activity, with LKRS supporting participant groups to ensure that each was able to complete an up-to-date resilience plan. Gap Analysis of Existing Plans The first challenge faced in carrying out the gap analysis part of the workshop was sourcing the existing plans and paperwork. For the community councils, there were two options; directly from the community council themselves, or from the local authority (who hold copies of all community resilience plans registered with them). Within the community councils, it was frequently the case that committee members had changed since the previous plans were completed and no-one knew where to locate copies of the plan. Some groups were even unsure whether or not a previous plan had actually been produced. Sourcing copies from the local authority didn’t prove much easier. The personnel changes mentioned above meant that the new officers struggled to locate and share the plans to LKRS, as an external partner. Where previous plans and associated paperwork could not be sourced in advance of the workshop, we instead looked through a blank copy of the new council template in detail, to inform the group of what information would be required. For the community spaces the situation was much simpler; none of them had any previous resilience plans or paperwork to examine. In these workshops, we looked through the council template for community councils, to agree which bits were relevant for community spaces, in order to construct a meaningful template for those groups. In all workshops, the gap analysis helped identify where the community needed to verify and update information. LKRS documented these actions and co-ordinated follow up activity to fill gaps within the existing paperwork. 9 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Scenario Exercise This part of the workshop was based around the fictional scenario of ‘Storm Ken’ approaching the area. Initial focus was on the decision making as the storm approached and what steps (if any) the participants would take to communicate the risks to the wider community and what preparations should be taken. The session then looked at the sort of decisions and actions the participants would need to take during the actual storm and how the plan could be activated and delivered. The LKRS team would introduce new scenario ‘updates’, as roads became impassable or other events occurred. These were designed to look at a broad range of issue, such as the provision of personal care to vulnerable local residents, rather than just looking at the impact on access to communities i.e. road closures. Each workshop closed with a summary session and agreement on next steps, with the aim to ensure that each participant had a fully completed resilience plan by the end of the project. Post workshop engagement and follow up activity LKRS wrote up details of each workshop, highlighting the information gaps and agreed actions to plug them. A follow-up meeting was arranged with each group to go through this work. Additionally, a number of resources were suggested through the workshops that LKRS created and circulated to participants. These included a number of template forms and checklists that could help guide groups through decision-making during hazard events. These were made available to all groups. Resilience Focus Event Following our workshop with Dalry CC, they were keen to hold an event to engage the wider community on resilience issues. There was a good turnout and lots of willing volunteers keen to help with resilience. They talked through the importance of listing volunteers so they can be covered for light resilience duties on the Council’s insurance policy. 10 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards They also came up with the idea of resilience postcards which could be printed and delivered to every household. The leaflets had some useful contact numbers on them and encouraged people to get in touch if they wished to be involved resilience planning. Also, it gave the opportunity for people to ask to be checked on in an extreme weather event. Learnings Capacity The primary learning from the project is that there is no lack of desire within communities to do more on community resilience, but there is a lack of time and capacity withing community groups to make meaningful progress. In remote rural communities, many of the volunteers on community councils and hall committees are also members of various other groups and lack the time needed to progress resilience work. Information and Communication Rural community councils often cover a large, sparsely populated geographical area. Community councils often have very limited data and information about their own area. For example, many of the participants mentioned how useful it would be to have a full list of residential addresses in their area. Communication was a key theme, both between committee members and to the wider community. Many members of community councils use personal email addresses for all communication. This creates a problem when committee members change and details become out of date. A way around this is to set up generic email addresses with access by multiple committee members. This also removes the risk of a key committee member being away and messages not being received. 11 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards When communicating to the wider community, things to consider included introducing people to the resilience plan as early as possible, via leaflet drops, social media and posters on the notice board. Resources Through the course of project delivery, it became clear that different communities had very different levels of resources available to them. For example, one group identified a potential need for additional privacy screens, for use in an emergency, but didn’t know how they would go about sourcing them. The next group we worked with, when we mentioned this, made clear that they had multiple screens and would be happy to make them available if needed. This highlighted an important benefit to having a trusted partner co-ordinating action across multiple neighbouring communities. LKRS is continuing to work with all groups to list what resources are available for use by other communities in times of crisis. In addition to identifying resources already available in our communities, we also sought to identify a ‘wish list’ of additional resources that each community would like, if possible. These range from basic resources such as heaters and radios, through to more substantial items such as generators etc. 12 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Outputs Project outputs are below: 1. 3 community council areas with up to date, active ‘local support plans’ developed and agreed Balmaghie, Dalry and Balmaclellan Community Councils all have up to date local support plans developed and agreed 2. 3 ‘community spaces’ (village/town halls etc.) with support plans developed and agreed for extreme events Balmaclellan Village Hall, Parton Village Hall and New Galloway Town Hall all have up to date local support plans agreed 3. Dedicated resilience section on the Glenkens Hub website, with key information and signposting to relevant support Balmaclellan, Dalry and Balmaghie Community Councils now have secure static pages on the Glenkens Hub with resilience information and signposting to support Likewise, New Galloway Town Hall, Balmaclellan Village Hall and Parton Village Hall also have secure static pages on the Glenkens Hub. 4. ‘Emergency communication protocol’ agreed with key partners, to ensure that key comms messages can reach remote rural communities and outlying, isolated properties Improved links and open communication now exist between our Council Resilience Team and the Community Councils and Spaces, making it easier to access support. Communities are more aware of those who are isolated and communities have various methods of promoting resilience messages. There is still further work to do to develop and agree a formal communication protocol with key partners, in line with the output. 5. Evidence base for the key issues to address in bridging the gap between remote rural communities and existing support from local authorities and the wider resilience community 13 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Communication has been improved between the participant communities and local authority (and partner) support. Further work (post project) will continue to develop this evidence base 6. Evidence base for implementation of national/regional strategies via on-the-ground community action in a remote rural setting. This evidence base has been begun, but not progressed to any great detail during this project. Self-Assessment Dumfries and Galloway Council run an Emergency Community Resilience Recognition Scheme with three levels, depending on the level of activity of the group. The groups were asked to selfassess against the listed criteria, indicating the tasks they were able to carry out. All participant groups achieved a minimum Silver standard, with some achieving the Gold level, recognising their continued commitment to community resilience. Real-life Situations Since the workshops were held, we have experienced two named storms which have hit the region. These real-life situations have definitely brought resilience to the forefront of people’s minds, and Community Councils are now communicating with each other and offering support to neighbouring resilience groups. When power was out in New Galloway, they were offered assistance form Balmaclellan. Also as a result of the workshops, New Galloway were able to open up the Village Hall for providing hot water during the recent lengthy power cut. As a result of this, a Community Council Network has been set up, meeting once a quarter to share learnings. 14 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Conclusions and Next Steps Every community that was part of this project had a strong desire to make their communities more resilient, but were struggling to make progress. Primarily, this is due to a lack of capacity and support. The members of community councils and hall committees are all volunteers, many of them elderly and many with a number of other commitments. By providing support and co-ordination, Loch Ken Ranger Service has been able to support every community council to complete their resilience plans and have them registered with the local authority. This simply wouldn’t have happened without the support. For the hall committees, the situation was even worse. None of the halls in this project had even considered having a dedicated resilience plan for their hall, before joining the project. At least with the community councils, the local authority provides a template for them to complete. With the halls it was a case of starting from scratch. Using the local authority template as a base, a template for creating a resilience plan for community spaces has been developed, along with a number of other resources, such as checklists, templates etc. This could form the basis of a toolkit for committees trying to manage community spaces. The project has also highlighted the importance of not just looking at a single community in isolation. The connections made between participant communities as part of this project has led to some very useful co-operation between different communities to share ideas and resources. 15 Building Scotland’s resilience to Natural Hazards Previously, some of this work could have been driven by local authority resilience teams. Unfortunately, local authority resources are so stretched that it would be difficult to prioritise this work. Loch Ken Ranger Service will continue to work with our communities to support them to become more resilient, but the level of support we are able to provide will be limited by available funding. To accelerate the speed at which communities are able to become more resilient, it is vital that support is provided to community councils in remote rural areas. Without that support, few will be able to make meaningful progress, due to the other demands on their time. 16  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Building Resilience Capacity in Remote Rural Communities Description An account of the resource Loch Ken Trust Research Project Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context LKT_1 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Loch Ken Trust Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2024 resilience https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/45/612/PartonKirk-StrategicContextAssessment_cover.jpg e6c0bd86299f488547b1f1877b67424f https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/45/612/Parton_Kirk-_Strategic_Context_Assessment_v1.1_[1].pdf 67423a604c64c941c800852a7e0e987a PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Contemporary Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Parton Kirk Strategic Context Assessment March 2023 1 Front Cover photograph credit: Parton Kirk - Scotlands Churches Trust OS Paper Map Copying License No: 100064783 This document has been developed and compiled by authors from One Planet Consulting James.Stuart@oneplanet.consulting 2 Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Location .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Map 1: Location of Parton and Loch Ken within Southern Scotland. ............................................. 5 National Strategic context ................................................................................................................. 6 National Tourism Strategy ................................................................................................................ 6 Tourism Megatrends ........................................................................................................................ 7 Table 1 – Scottish tourism mega trends, source: Scottish Tourism Alliance/ Scottish Enterprise .. 7 National Planning Framework 4........................................................................................................ 8 Regional Strategic Context ............................................................................................................... 9 Dumfries and Galloway Local Development Plan (LDP2) ................................................................. 9 Development Plan Scheme, November 2022, 14th Edition. Page 6. .............................................. 9 South of Scotland Destination Alliance ........................................................................................... 10 Loch Ken Plan ................................................................................................................................ 11 Glenkens and District Community Action Plan - 2020 ..................................................................... 11 Loch Ken Strategic Visitor Framework........................................................................................... 13 Policy and Principles Alignment ...................................................................................................... 14 Table 1 from the SVIF ................................................................................................................. 16 View Points .................................................................................................................................... 17 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 18 3 Introduction This report has been commissioned by Parton Community Council (PCC) to consider the strategic context that a project – Parton Kirk and James Clerk Maxwell Centre - they are evaluating will operate in. The project centres on the future of Parton Kirk - the burial site of renowned mathematician and scientist James Clerk Maxwell (JCM) - which, following recent decommissioning, the community understand is to be sold. The PCC have commissioned a concurrent assessment of potential business case for Parton Kirk including the integration of a JCM visitor/science centre. 4 Location Parton is situated in the middle of the eastern shore of Loch Ken. Nine miles in length, running from the Glenkens to the outskirts of Castle Douglas, Loch Ken constitutes the largest body of freshwater in Southern Scotland. Southern Scotland Loch Ken and Parton Map 1: Location of Parton and Loch Ken within Southern Scotland. Loch Ken is an increasingly popular visitor destination, offering a wide selection of outdoor activities and cultural experiences. In recent years, the Loch has witnessed a low level of investment in visitor infrastructure, with a constraint developing on the number of visitors that can be appropriately hosted. This came to a peak in the summers of 2020 and 2021 when spikes in visitor related access issues were recorded, particularly connected with wild camping and access rights being exercised irresponsibly. While there was certainly a link to the pandemic, there is an underlying longer-term trend of increasing visitor management challenges in the area. 5 National Strategic context National Tourism Strategy Scotland Outlook 2030 is the national tourism strategy and aims to establish Scotland as the world leader in 21st Century tourism. It was developed through an equal partnership between the Scottish Tourism Alliance, Scottish Government, VisitScotland, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Skills Development Scotland. The strategy development was guided by a steering group and built on a robust evidence base and engagement with over 2500 tourism leaders and stakeholders. The Strategy was launched on the 4th of March 2020. Outlook 2030 – A summary The Vision – We will be the world leader in 21st century tourism. The Mission – Together we will grow the value and positively enhance the benefits of tourism across Scotland by delivering the very best for our visitors, our businesses, our people, our communities and our environment. Key Priorities – Our passionate people, our thriving places, our diverse businesses, our memorable experiences. Our Commitments – For each of the key priorities there are an agreed set of commitments. These commitments will ensure delivery on the vision to be the world leader in 21st century tourism. Download a copy of the strategy: The strategy is intended to influence regional and sector planning, and so the direct links to Parton, the future use of the Kirk and the JCM centre are limited. However, there are clear links to the priority areas: thriving places and memorable experiences. 6 Tourism Megatrends Megatrends describe the global shifts in views and behaviours displayed by our visitors. The Scottish Tourism Alliance grouped and characterized the most relevant of these global trends in the Scottish context as: Experience More Limitless Discoveries Evolving Traveler Technology to Stimulate and Inform offering more genuine experiences and helping visitors to be more than “tourists”. marketing the whole of Scotland not just the favourite places. recognising the many different types of visitors, both culturally and demographically using widely available technology to improve and influence the customer experience. Table 1 – Scottish tourism mega trends, source: Scottish Tourism Alliance/ Scottish Enterprise Further work by VisitScotland Insights department published in Feb 2020 noted the specific trends that would characterize the 2020’s including: • • • • • • Loco-mational Travel and the Eco-Drive – the rise of the green and low carbon agenda. Transforming the Typical – disrupting the market through product development. Solivagant Spirits and the March of the Global Nomad – the importance of the individual traveller. Rise of the Reviewistas – advocates, ambassadors and referrals. Pre-crastination – getting everything done in advance. Water-ways – capitalizing on the appeal of Scotland’s coasts and waters. These trends were described prior to the COVID 19 pandemic. Euromonitor research suggests that the trends have endured. The pandemic also saw several other trends emerge which are of note; especially the shift to “staycation”, the drop-off of the international visitor market, increases in cycling and other adventurous activities and a continuation in the shift towards more ethical and environmentally conscious decision making. Whilst these are global trends, they relate well to the development of further visitor infrastrucutre and expereinces in Parton. Specifically, highlighting the link to JCM will resonate driectly with Global Nomads offering a unique expereince and insight. Beyond the Kirk and JCM, Parton is well placed to respond to the Water-ways trend and Locamational and Eco-Drive visitors. 7 National Planning Framework 4 The National Planning Framework (NPF) is part of the statutory development plan and directly influences planning decisions and Local Development Plans adopted by each Planning Authority. NPF4 replaced NPF 3 in February 2023. The new framework sets out a vision for how Scotland will change in the future. It reflects priorities from across Scottish Government portfolios and brings together a wide range of plans, programmes and policies. The framework establishes several spatial principles and action-areas that seek to build a climateconscious and nature-positive future and respond to the needs of communities across Scotland. Download a copy of NPF4 The following statements and priorities offer high level endorsement to Parton and the wider area ambitions: • National Development Statement 8 - National Walking, Cycling and Wheeling Network • To deliver sustainable places, Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Plans in this area should protect environmental assets and stimulate investment in natural and engineered solutions to climate change and nature restoration, whilst decarbonising transport and building resilient physical and digital connections. • To deliver liveable places, Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Plans in this area should increase the population by improving local liveability, creating a low carbon network of towns and supporting sustainable rural development. 8 Regional Strategic Context Dumfries and Galloway Local Development Plan (LDP2) The Dumfries and Galloway Local Development Plan (LDP2) sets out how and where land and property will be used in Dumfries and Galloway to realise the vision for the next 20 years. The written policies give guidance on all aspects of development, when it will be supported and when it won’t. The current LDP (LDP2) was adopted on 3 October 2019 and replaces the previous plan adopted in 2014. The overarching principle of the plan is that all development proposal should support sustainable development, including the reduction of carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. The LDP2 Action Plan was Published in May 2022. The Action Programme lists all the actions needed to deliver the policies and proposals contained in LDP2, when they are expected to be delivered and who will take the lead in delivering them. As NPF4 has now been adopted, Dumfries and Galloway Council have 5 years to revise the Local Development Plan to reflect the new guidance. This process was anticipated and in November 2022 the Council published the Development Plan Scheme, which lays out the process the Council will undertake to develop the next LDP, LDP3. There are no direct references to Parton or Loch Ken in LDP2 or the Action Programme. However, the Development Plans Scheme references the future importance of Local Place Plans which may be of particular note to the Parton Community and could usefully link to the furtherance of this project. See extract below. Regardless of whether this project progresses or not, it is appropriate for Parton and the wider GlenKens Community to consider if the development of a Local Place Plan is beneficial. Local Place Plans Local Place Plans (LPPs) are a new tool by which communities can engage in the production of LDP3 by producing a plan for their locality, which must be taken into consideration by a planning authority when preparing an LDP. While the regulations set out the legislative process, they leave scope for different approaches to consultation and production. For each LPP to be taken into account in the LDP process, the LPP must be finished by early 2025. Information and guidance have been published for community groups who are interested in producing their own LPP (www.dumgal.gov.uk/local-place-plans). Additionally, procedures are in place where communities can seek assistance from the Council and its partners. This process of support is designed to be flexible so as to respond to issues as they arise. Development Plan Scheme, November 2022, 14th Edition. Page 6. Download a copy of Dumfries and Galloway LDP2 9 South of Scotland Destination Alliance The South of Scotland Destination Alliance (SSDA) is the strategic Destination Management and Marketing Organisation for the South of Scotland, encompassing Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. Their ambition is to transform the South of Scotland not a year-round world class destination, growing tourism spend in the region to £1Bn by 2030 and creating an additional 6500 jobs. Their key priorities are: • • • • • Establishing ‘Scotland Starts Here’ as the destination brand for the region, developing short and long term marketing plans targeting both domestic and international visitors. This is on the back of the MBTAG activity delivered to date through Midlothian and the Scottish Borders and will now also include Dumfries and Galloway Engaging members on a local level and working closely with the industry on recovery, product development, business readiness and future workforce education Strategic destination development planning, focused on understanding the region’s longer term needs to inform capital and infrastructure investments Working actively with local communities to demonstrate the value of the tourism sector and to cement its part in the place-making activity of the South Working closely with South of Scotland Enterprise and representing the needs of the industry amongst local and national governments Visitor facilities development in Parton will naturally align with the SSDA ambitions. Noted above, the SSDA are seeking to understand and support communities to unlock sustainable tourism opportunities that improve placemaking. They are also focused on strategic destination development and seeking to inform wider tousim infrastrucure investment. The Kirk and Parton, in and of themselves, will not be strategic in the sense that SSDA developments will be viewed. However, in light of the wider work of the Loch Ken Strategic Visitor Infrastructure Framework (SVIF) and the physical location of Parton – and indeed the Kirk within that – this potetnial development, if nested in a wider area concept or prorgamme of work, may actually have stratgic consequences or opportunities associated with it. It would therefore be prudent, should this project move on another stage, to highlight this opportunity to SSDA as a potetnial component of their wider strategic development. 10 Loch Ken Plan The Loch Ken Plan (LKP) developed by the Loch Ken Trust (LKT) is framed using the United National Sustainable Development Goals and highlights three major themes: People, Prosperity and Planet. Across these areas and the 19 goals that sit behind them, the aim is to nurture Loch Ken and the surrounding area into a thriving set of sustainable communities. Download a copy of the Loch Ken Plan The Prosperity strand of activity being championed by the Loch Ken Plan could be tightly aligned to a development in Parton or at the Kirk. Specifically, a development in Parton could contribute to the following goals: • Loch Ken Active Travel Network – through improvement of the disused railway and offering a “hub” or “nodal” point to suppor the development of the network. This is also noted in the SVIF, explored later in the this document. • Improving Sanitation – through inclusion of public toilets in any development. This may be useful to any development anyway to generate another income line to supprot their maintenance as a fee can be charged simply through the use of contactless payments. • SVIF – through the development of visitor infrastructure that improves the offering to visiotrs and links expereinces across the area and up and down Loch Ken. • Parton is situated in a strategically significant postion within the Loch Ken area. At the midpoint on the eastern shore, any development would almost certianly act as a key link in a network solution to active travel, to sanitation and to wider visitor experiences/tours and journeys. In the context of the Loch Ken Plan, Parton appears to offer a strategically significant opportunity to wider regional development. Regardless of the community decsion to progress with a development or not, the stratgic assessment should be highlighted to regional partners including LKT and the group of stakeholders who are aligned with the LKP ambitions. Glenkens and District Community Action Plan - 2020 The Glenkens & District Trust sponsored the creation of a Glenkens and District Community Action Plan which was published in 2020. The action plan covers the Balmaghie, New Galloway & Kells, Dalry, Balmaclellan, Corsock & KPD, Parton and Crossmichael Community Council areas. It sets out an overall goal: “That the Glenkens will be a connected, resilient and carbon neutral place, where people will want to live, work and visit, to bring up their families, and to grow old.” 11 The action plan has four themes (below) with short, medium and longer term goals associated with them. • • • • A connected community An asset rich community An economically flourishing community A carbon neutral community A development in Parton, whilst not identified as a direct action, could contribute to a number of these themes. Download a copy of the Glenkens Community Action Plan Executive Summary 12 Loch Ken Strategic Visitor Framework The Loch Ken Strategic Visitor Infrastructure Framework (SVIF) establishes a set of policies and principles that will inform and guide the long-term development of visitor infrastructure across the area. The SVIF aims are: • • • To respond to current and emergent visitor pressures To support the development of a high quality, integrated and seamless visitor experience across the Loch Ken areas Support the delivery of the Loch Ken Plan. The SVIF will also nest within and support the delivery of the broader Biosphere and South of Scotland approaches and ambitions. The plan does not carry the status of a Local Development Plan but does provide potential developer a clear sense of the ambition and direction of development the communities around Loch Ken seek to follow. It should therefore offer a firm anchor point for developers – including PCC - to build their approaches from. The polices and principles are: Policy 1 – to consider alternatives to new or additional capacity ahead of committing to infrastructure development. Policy 2 – to enhance, protect and restore the natural capital of the Loch Ken area as part of visitor infrastructure developments wherever possible Policy 3 – to refresh, extend or repurpose existing capacity in preference to brand new developments. Policy 4 – We will develop a networked infrastructure approach, considering Loch Ken as a destination rather than any single node, venue or community in isolation. Policy 5 – We will adopt the use of zoning to reduce pressures of multiple activities in one space and to support behaviour change. We will support differentiated infrastructure development across these zones. Policy 6 – We will seek to inform behaviours to address visitor pressures through the development of a strong area identity and the use a signage system. Policy 7 – We will develop infrastructure and signage that encourages low carbon, low impact behaviours and increased dwell time. Principle 1 – to target market segments that display low impact, low carbon, and high dwell time behaviours. 13 Principle 2 – to target developments and opportunities which enhance our natural capital, build on our strengths and focus on market segments with desired behaviours. Development in Parton aligns very stronly with these principes and should therefore secure support in principle from the parties who drew the framework togther including Dunfries and Galloway Council, Galloway Glen Landscape Partnership, LKT and VisitScotland. Development in Parton could be a criital link in the wider ambitons of the area and so should be highlighted as such to this group of partners. If the Council were minded to adopt the project this would also open up an avenue of investment from the Rural Tourism Infrastucture Fund as part of the next steps for SVIF activity. Policy and Principles Alignment Policy 1 – to consider alternatives to new or additional capacity ahead of committing to infrastructure development. Policy 2 – to enhance, protect and restore the natural capital of the Loch Ken area as part of visitor infrastructure developments wherever possible Policy 3 – to refresh, extend or repurpose existing capacity in preference to brand new developments. The opportunity to redevelop the Kirk and to build upon and enhance the existing infrastructure links well to policy 1. Contribution to Policy 2 is less obvious, but with careful design the policy can be achieved at a local level. There is also opportunity to showcase the natural assets and capital of the area in the services provided by the development. Development at the Kirk aligns strongly with Policy 3 and will allow the heritage of the area to be showcased effectively in doing so. Policy 4 – We will develop a networked infrastructure approach, considering Loch Ken as a destination rather than any single node, venue or community in isolation. Geographically, Parton’s situation lends to being an essential link in a networked approach to infrastructure and service provision. At present the networking across the Loch Ken area is limited. Active travel routes are fragmented and the bias of access is towards car based journeys. A nodal 14 development in Parton (linked to gateway development near Castle Douglas and the development of the eastern shore active travel corridor, would be transformative to the area and support visitors and communities alike. Policy 5 – We will adopt the use of zoning to reduce pressures of multiple activities in one space and to support behaviour change. We will support differentiated infrastructure development across these zones. Parton sits across the zone boundaries and could support zonation through separation of the shore based offer. Currently all provision is through the public slip, which congests that area and has been causing increasing visitor management problems. An offer to the south of Parton could divert some of this pressure. In addition the owner of the viaduct, is open to development ideas which position the viaduct as a part of a journey, rather than a destination in its self. To open that avenue of development stopping points which are separated from the viaduct are necessary. Mossdale (with further development) already has the potential to offer services beyond the viaduct and link to the much wider area offer for walking and bikes. A development to the south of Parton could work in harmony with the Mossdale offering and support the viaduct owners ambition to avoid congestion on the viaduct and immediate area. The development/offer at the south of Parton could include a view point of the viaduct which would further enhance the incentive to view rather than stop on the viaduct and also address a notable gap in provision on the east shore (the almost total absence of easy access view points). Policy 6 – We will seek to inform behaviours to address visitor pressures through the development of a strong area identity and the use a signage system. Any development at Parton would be able to support this, and the physical provision of options to encourage dispersal – noted above – would compliment policy 6 effectively. Policy 7 – We will develop infrastructure and signage that encourages low carbon, low impact behaviours and increased dwell time. A development in Parton is well placed to support policy 7. The SVIF includes the table 1 below which notes several examples of actions or activity that would accord with the policy. A development in Parton could embrace all of these – some however may be less desirable in Parton’s specific context (aires and pump out facilities for example). 15 Table 1 from the SVIF Low Carbon • • • • Park and ride facilities Reduced parking spaces Car Park Charging More active and accessible travel routes E-charging and greater access to electric or active modes of travel Public transport integration • • Low impact • • • • • Bin provision (all painted) Aires located in communities not out of town Area pump out facility Toilet provision at key nodes and signage to support good decision making in areas with no public toilet (What to do when you need a poo) Interaction with ranger or volunteer (on site ranger or volunteer) Increased dwell time • • • • • Car Park charging Switch to active travel Interpretation and viewing platforms Activities Food and drink Development as a primary destination and node on the active travel artery envisioned by the wider regional plan would meet policy 7 and effectively unlock the concept for the whole area. Specifically: • The development of a visitor centre and a view point with short walk near/on the Loch would notably increase dwell time and address gaps in the wider provision in the area. Linked development of food and drink provision would enhance this further and could lead to a stacked set of income lines which may be able to underpin the long term viability of the development (car park fee, toilet fee, food and drink, visitor centre). • This could be taken a step further and if Loch shore access can be linked to the development then the offer for slow-adventure activities could be integrated (open water swimming, stand up paddle boarding and wildlife watching for example). • Within the food and drink offering there is a specific opportunity to enhance the night-time economy offering of the Loch Ken area (a restaurant and/or a performance venue for example). At present this is very poorly serviced, with limited provision of a mixed quality. The holiday park to the north of Parton, has c. 900 guests most nights from Apr through to October. This effectively increases Parton population by a factor of 6. This is an immediate pool of custom that could underpin any venture into this space. • Loch Ken Trust has invested in developing a ranger provision, current that is a floating arrangement augmented by support from Loch Ken Marina to facilitate the registration of craft accessing Loch Ken. A development at the south of Parton could offer a focus point for ranger activity being well places to service the wider Loch Ken area and further supporting the displacement of visitors from pressure points to better provision. • At a more local level, the provision of electric car charging points, capitalising on the existing public transport (bus) links and incorporating a public toilet would all further this aim and improve the overall visitor and community offer in Parton. 16 Principle 1 – to target market segments that display low impact, low carbon, and high dwell time behaviours. Principle 2 – to target developments and opportunities which enhance our natural capital, build on our strengths and focus on market segments with desired behaviours. The SVIF noted 4 specific themes associated with these principles as opportunities: • • • • Wildlife and environment Built and cultural heritage Cycling and adventure Accessibility Development in Parton, of the Kirk will support principles 1 and 2 and would cater directly for two of the target themes (built and cultural heritage and accessibility). The development could also cater for the other two target themes through integration of active travel facilities and a viewing platform. View Points As noted above a view point is an effective way to increase dwell time – a behaviour sought by the Loch ken SVIF. There are remarkably few view points of Loch Ken and almost none easily accessible by car on the eastern shore. The mound just to the west of Parton Kirk has one of the best views of the Loch. Development of a view point there could link powerfully with the future use of the Kirk. The view point itself could be a feature and amplify some of the key attributes of the local built and natural heritage and link to the wider brand and identity project captured in Principle 6. Some examples of this are illustrated below. Sources: (L to R) 1 - Unique partnership delivers multiple health and wellbeing benefits from NHS greenspace (worldlandscapearchitect.com) 2 - The Pyramid Viewpoint | Architect Magazine 3 - East Brackley Viewpoint, Loch Leven - Icosis 17 Conclusions Parton, and Parton Kirk within the village itself, sit in strategically significant position within the wider Loch Ken and Glenken environs. At the mid-point on the eastern shore, on the disused railway and with access to outstanding views of Loch Ken there are considerable and unique geographical advantages to this location. Will thoughtful development the reimagined use of Paton Kirk and the immediate surroundings could unlock a set out outcomes that benefit the wider region. This could include: • A key destination on the active travel artery; working in conjunction with a gateway towards the south of Loch Ken near the A75, Parton would be an excellent initial destination for a walk or bike ride before continuing over the viaduct and on towards Mossdale. • Regional visitor management; alongside development of the public slipway a development to the south of Parton would alleviate existing and growing visitor pressures at key points on Loch Ken, could fill provision gaps (public toilets) and could act as an base for wider ranger activity. • Deepening of the scientific and natural heritage offering of the area. Extending the James Clerk Maxwell offering to encompass wider scientific features of the area (i.e. hydro-power, wind-power biodiversity etc.) could see Parton develop as a scientific/nature counterpart to the cultural and arts regional development that the CatStrand already offers. It could also offer a focal point for some partner activity (including Drax and the Biosphere) to tell the wider story of Loch Ken and the Glenkens. • Improvements to the regional visitor offering. In addition to a themed visitor experience (Science/JCM centre) the development could address gaps in provision for visitor including a lack of night-time economy options (restaurant or performance events), a lack of view points on Loch Ken’s eastern (and more accessible) shore and a limited food and drink offering outside of New Galloway and Castle Douglas. The development of Parton Kirk as a single community activity is the subject of another report and may be challenging to achieve. However, there is considerable merit in regional actors considering Parton, and the pending sale of Parton Kirk, as an opportunity to meet there wider strategic ambitions. 18  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Parton Kirk Strategic Context Assessment Description An account of the resource Commissioned by Parton Community Council 2023. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Parton_2 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Parton Community Council community spaces https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/45/611/PartonKirkFeasibilityStudy_cover.jpg 7dd0aabd99ad3825d1edfb12ef996fc8 https://glenkensarchive.scot/glenkens_archive/files/original/45/611/Parton_Kirk_Feasibility_Study_FINAL.pdf eff133c7e80d987470ca8b426acf1207 PDF Text Text pdftext_placeholder Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Contemporary Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document PARTON KIRK as a Community and Science Centre a feasibility study prepared for Parton Community Council by Julian Watson Consultancy April 2023 2 This feasibility study was commissioned by Parton Community Council. It was supported by the Scottish Government’s Rural and Island Communities Idea into Action Fund, delivered by Inspiring Scotland. 3 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 INTRODUCTION: 7 Parton Kirk and its present status Parton and its community Parton, James Clerk Maxwell and his contribution to science CONSIDERING THE BUILDING: Previous architectural study for change of use Updated Building Costs OTHER CONSIDERATIONS The Present Situation A New Village Hall? What is a Visitor Centre? A Different Perspective 7 8 10 13 13 27 29 29 30 31 32 A WIDER COMMUNITY – LOOKING TO THE FUTURE 34 PROPOSAL 36 A Different Enterprise Project Development Conclusions Acknowledgements 36 38 42 44 4 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Study introduces Parton Kirk and its place within its community in Dumfries and Galloway. Its congregation merged with those of Crossmichael and Balmaghie since 2015, Parton Kirk was decommissioned as a formal place of worship in 2022. With the current reduction of dedicated Church of Scotland properties across the country, the sale of the building now seems probable, even imminent. When is not yet clear. The first step towards this outcome, listing by the Presbytery of South West Scotland, has not, as of April 2023, occurred. Parton Community Council have been sensitive to this developing situation for many years. In 2010 they commissioned Ayr-based ARPL Architects Ltd to produce a condition report, which also looked at a wide range of options for change-of-use in the building. This report was revisited in 2017, with the formerly identified, but now single, focus on Parton Kirk continuing - as it was then still constituted to do - as a place of worship for its congregation, and with separate space for displays on the life and work of the globally renowned 19th century scientist, James Clerk Maxwell, who was from the area and who is buried in the graveyard. This present study was commissioned in the context of Parton Kirk’s decommissioning. It was to look at the feasibility of ‘a James Clerk Maxwell Science and Innovation Centre’ in Parton Kirk. The working assumption was that this might be a Visitor Centre dedicated to the scientist, while maintaining a wider community use. It draws on the earlier work by ARPL Architects, which remains current and useful, and investigates the required steps involved in community acquisition of former churches. It looks at what ‘Visitor Centres’ are, how they operate, and the strengths and weaknesses in the model. It provides updated financial estimates of the figures provided in the 2017 report and examines the implications for the community in aspiring to taking on a project such as this. Board members of the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation, members of the Parton community, and members of the wider science and natural sciences community have been consulted. Concurrently, a report on the ‘Parton Strategic Context’ has been produced by One Planet Consulting. This looks at relevant and current National, Regional and Loch Ken area strategies, with a particular eye to future development. Rather than repeat this work, it is recommended that this Feasibility Study is read in conjunction with the Parton Strategic Context Report. While Parton Kirk’s connection to its community is strong and undeniable, former working assumptions for the project can no longer be seen as on target. In the process of reaching this conclusion, however, seeing Parton Kirk’s place in a wider community and centered on a different, more enterprising entity in the building, produces a project founded in the original assumptions but more useful and broader in its remit.This is feasible, but it will require the formation of a Trust to action it, accruing allies and sound business planning to bring it to fruition. 6 7 INTRODUCTION The three subjects in this Introduction - Parton Kirk and its present status, Parton and its community, and Parton, James Clerk Maxwell and his contribution to science - look at the building; its locality and people; and the remarkable man who could be celebrated in the building. A lot of information is available elsewhere on all of these subjects. This is a distillation. The intention is to concentrate on a core of components, oftenlinking, in pursuit of the issue of whether - and in what form - Parton Kirk could be a Community and Science Centre. PARTON KIRK AND ITS PRESENT STATUS ~ Designed by the prominent Dumfries-based architect, Walter Newall, and supervised by local architect and builder, Adam Halliday, Parton Kirk was built over an 18-month period between 1833 and 1834. The first service took place there on 15th June 1834. There was debate about the positioning of the new church, but in the end the site which was chosen was the one that maintained traditional associations with worship for the community. The remains of the 16th century Old Kirk are in the churchyard only a few yards to the south of Parton Kirk. The decrepit condition of that building in 1818 prompted the Presbytery to agree to the new building. The story goes back further. Before the Old Kirk, there was a medieval Barony Chapel nearby and to the southwest, a couple of hundred yards away, is the 12th century Kirkland Motte which took advantage of the same higher ground and wide views across the valley. Parton Kirk is in the heart of a place that is redolent of its history and sense of place. Some people remember uncertainty about the future of Parton Kirk and its congregation in the 1980’s. Parton Community Council’s concern in 2010 to investigate options for change of use in Parton Kirk is evidence that awareness of change was in the air, locally and nationally. In 2019 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland approved a strategy that required every presbytery to prepare a mission plan by the end of the year on how growing congregations could be enhanced but spending could be cut, and administrational structures dramatically reduced. The fall-out from this has seen many dozens (the number is hard to ascertain) of churches across Scotland, particularly small ones in rural areas, slated for closure and sale. This has had a challenging impact on communities, whether churchgoers or not. Prior to closure, congregations are often amalgamated, as in the case of Parton, Crossmichael and Balmaghie. When a church is eventually ‘decommissioned’, as Parton Kirk was in 2022, a decision on its future rests with its area presbytery. (The number of area presbyteries have themselves been reduced - from 45 to 12). Decision made; it may then be placed on a list by its presbytery. This list is then given to the Church of Scotland central office for the collation of relevant records, prior to handing on to the legal department who initiate sales. 8 PARTON AND ITS COMMUNITY ~ This is a view of the village of Parton from just north of Parton Kirk. There is more to the community than that distinctive line of cottages. More houses line the road to the northwest, and beyond them, amongst trees and close to the shore, is the Loch Ken Holiday Park. Its short-term population, from Easter until early autumn, can be six times that of the village. The cottages in the photograph were built, or improved, in 1901 as something of a model development by Benjamin Rigby Murray, of Parton House. The clock tower was added to an existing byre which was converted into a communal laundry, now a house. The Village Hall, to the right, was added in 1908. For some years the building across from the Hall was a village shop and post office but, as with many small settlements now, is so no longer. It was the home of Sam Callander (1922 - 2012) who devoted much of his life to promoting the memory of James Clerk Maxwell. 9 The Community Council area, shown on this map, climbs inland from Loch Ken to Glenlair, formerly the home of the Clerk Maxwell family, and edges close to Mertland and Corsock. The Dumfries and Galloway Council website gives the population of the Community Council area as 146. Parton is situated towards the southern end of the A713, one of the few roads across the Southern Upland hills from Dumfries and Galloway to the western Central Belt. Approximately midway between St John’s Town of Dalry to the north, and Castle Douglas to the south, the village is at a midpoint on the eastern shore of the long, scenic, hydroscheme-enhanced Loch Ken. Parton is an old settlement, dating back to the 7th or 8th centuries. It is not particularly isolated; it is small; but it is historic. 10 PARTON, JAMES CLERK MAXWELL AND HIS CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE ~ In 2008 a full-scale, plinthed sculpture by Alexander Stoddart of a seated James Clerk Maxwell was placed prominently at the east end of George Street in Edinburgh. In spite of this modern acknowledgement, it is truly remarkable how little even his name - let alone his achievement - is generally known in his home country. In the history of science, the pivotal names of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein are cited together. This is not a trope in some kind of hagiography. The implications of his achievements are colossal. His work and insights underpin understanding and technologies which are in so many ways at the heart of our modern world. The plaque, close to the entrance to Parton Kirk and unveiled on 11th June 1989, gives a succinct description, but it is also worth quoting fellow scientists to gain a feeling for the breadth and substance of his achievement. 11 ….. many think that Maxwell’s study of the particles of Saturn’s rings led him directly and inevitably into the realm of the kinetic theory of gases, in which so much of his life was spent. However this may be, when he crossed the bridge from Astronomy to Physics he left behind him forever the prospects of becoming a great mathematical astronomer – but only to become the greatest mathematical physicist the world has seen since Newton. Sir James Jeans One scientific epoch ended and another began with James Clerk Maxwell. Albert Einstein There can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th century will be judged as Maxwell’s discovery of the laws of electrodynamics. The American Civil War will pale into provincial insignificance in comparison with this important scientific event of the same decade. Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Laureate James Clerk Maxwell (1831 – 1879) was born in Edinburgh but spent his childhood summers at Glenlair, which was the country seat of his land-owning family and then in the parish of Parton. His mother died when he was eight years old. His father, John, had commissioned Walter Newall to design the house at Glenlair and was a church elder and chairman of the heritors in the congregation at Parton, signing Newall’s plans for the new Kirk. A distinctively practical and creative man he seems to have warmly encouraged his son’s lively and inquisitive mind. He died in 1856, leaving Glenlair to James, who continued to return there from a succession of academic appointments in Cambridge, Aberdeen, London, and again in Cambridge as the first Chair in Experimental Physics at the newly formed Cavendish Laboratory. He generally attended church as an elder in Corsock where another church had been built in 1839, largely through the support of his father. He is buried, with the remains of his parents and his wife, in Parton, the Kirk there remaining in the Church of Scotland after the Secession. James Clerk Maxwell was not only a scientist and physicist. He was also deeply religious, a poet, and a profoundly enquiring man, who could turn his hand to producing offshoots to his work, such as the world’s first ever colour photograph (shown here). Parton maintains supportive links with the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation which has representatives in science and research departments in universities in Scotland and around the world. 12 13 CONSIDERING THE BUILDING The aerial photograph (opposite) gives a very good idea of the overall site and its place in its landscape. It shows the south elevation of the Kirk and its proximity to the Old Kirk (with the Clerk Maxwell gravestone visible). The following subjects – Previous Architectural Study for Change of Use and Updated Building Costs – look at proposals for the adaptation of Parton Kirk and provide background on thinking up to recently on whether - and in what form - Parton Kirk could be a Community and Science Centre. PREVIOUS ARCHITECTURAL STUDY FOR CHANGE OF USE ~ In 2010 Parton Community Council commissioned Ayr-based ARPL Architects Ltd to produce a condition report, which also looked at a wide range of options for change-of-use in the building. This report was revisited in 2017, with the formerly identified, but now single, focus on Parton Kirk continuing - as it was then still constituted to do - as a place of worship for its congregation, and with separate space for displays on the life and work of James Clerk Maxwell. THE 2010 REPORT remains informative and useful, particularly as - for reasons which have more recently come to the fore - the enterprise that might be most feasible, appropriate and viable in the building may be less the ‘visitor centre’ that was reasonably envisaged in 2017, and more an innovative ‘study centre’ with other elements in it which are addressed in the earlier report. It is necessary, however, to summarise both reports to get a handle on the practical issues suggested here. Addressing the condition of the building, the report then proceeds to present fourteen conceivable options for change-of-use. These are: (1) Museum/Visitor Centre; (2) Residential Development (Private Homes or Holiday Accommodation); (3) Arts/ Gallery/ Theatre/ Studios Use; (4) Private Hostel or Bunk House; (5) Hotel/ Restaurant/ Venue (with 6 bedrooms); (6) Leisure/ Sports/ Fitness/ Spa Facility; (7) Commercial/ Hospitality/ Leisure combined; (8) Partnership of Community Use/ Commercial Residential Use; (9) Education; (10) Community Centre Use; (11) Music/ Dance Studio; (12) Children’s Centre/ Play Area; (13) Archive/ Library; (14) Commercial Office/ Retail/ 2nd Hand Junk Store. The first eight (here in bold) were considered more viable. Accompanying architectural sketches for the division of the interior space for each are provided in the report. Edited presentations of the SUMMARY, POTENTIAL FOR NEW USES, and PREFERRED OPTIONS BY THE COMMUNITY are presented here: 14 We have examined all the possibilities suggested through the consultations to see how user options could be accommodated, to test how they work in spatial terms and to take an overview of the financial position for the conversions. It must be recognised that different options would call for different levels of repair of the existing fabric, and [that these would depend] on capital funding and opportunity for planned maintenance. The figures shown reflect this. For many of the options to be viable it is anticipated that only a proportion of the possible fabric works would be considered [appropriate] with the conversion. The existing church is a usable working building that is in a reasonably good state of repair for its age and could be managed on an economic long term maintenance plan. There is a commitment for the congregation and community to maintain and care for the treasured features, furnishings and fittings which for a conversion would be removed and re-housed in a more appropriate setting. The responsibility for running and maintaining a building of this size is an expensive demand on a population the size of Parton and may compromise the commitment they already have for the Village Hall which currently just manages to sustain itself. Realistically outside support will be required to keep the building in use. The listing of the building will have a significant impact on the potential for conversion, alteration and change, for which some options are more demanding than others. The Church is a significant element of the Parton landscape and needs to be treated with some care. POTENTIAL FOR NEW USES - The church has certain characteristics which make it attractive to new owners: It has a good visual presence at the roadside entering the village with the lay-by facilitating existing vehicular and reasonably level pedestrian access. - the church is a well-proportioned simple single volume suitable for lightweight structural intervention, - the positioning of windows and entrances are easy to work with in various options, - the condition of the church is reasonably good, - the setting and historic interest of the building and the graveyard are visually attractive. The potential uses of this church are numerous; …. it does seem suited to accommodating a flexible range of community functions seen to be preferred by the village. However, the building [may be] too large to accommodate these functions financially in a remote location with a small population and limited visitor and tourist numbers. It is unlikely to achieve adequate funding or to cover running costs with only community use unless a great deal of management and servicing is carried out on a volunteer basis. 15 The value and attractiveness of the site, if offered for sale will be limited because of the restrictions due to the public graveyard and lack of existing services to the building. The ongoing maintenance costs and the cost of conversion, combined with the cost of providing drainage, suggest that if a user is found for the church a sale would likely be at a nominal value. Therefore, a community led purchase of the building for alternative use would not be a major expense. [This observation was valid in 2010 but may not be so in 2023]. The commercial and residential uses, other than holiday accommodation, do not seem to be viable under current conditions, but may appeal to a one-off purchaser. This however cannot be relied on. PREFERRED OPTIONS BY THE COMMUNITY - Local preference is for a multi-purpose community use and the key to this would be capital fundraising and long-term revenue funding. [The three options looked at by the study seemed most relevant to the community] - A multi-use community building with simple and basic new facilities of café with kitchen and toilets, and an exhibition area provided in one third of the building and retaining 2/3 as a large hall space. This would be a community owned and run facility. - A new commercial business use takes over the majority of the building, with very limited access for the community and public to the tower room. Ownership could be considered by the Community Council and leased, which would generate and income for the community. This would also keep future options open and care for the building within the control of the community should a business venture fail. - A hybrid option of a community facility in partnership with a residential use, where public access the ground floor and basic facilities are provided with an upper floor are provided with self-contained holiday apartment managed on a business basis.…Ownership by the community council with financial support from the business use. [The Vivat Trust was considered to be a possible manager, but it went into liquidation in 2018]. A fourth option that has to be considered is that the community are not able to take on the commitment required to develop any of these potentials and that the building will go onto the open market where a new use might be found for which there is no local involvement. The building may be closed and become redundant for some time if no buyer is found. THE 2017 REPORT covers some of the ground of the previous study, but it concentrates on one option, and provides designs for it: The local community considered a range of options for alternative uses for Parton village church outlined in a feasibility study in 2010. The congregation are now on a periodic monthly use of Parton Kirk for worship, with other services held at Crossmichael [this is no longer the situation 16 in 2023] and the village community are looking for ways to extend the purposeful use of the Kirk. From the original option study there was a layout, which seemed to give a suitable layout for the combined church and visitor use. This preferred option has now been developed further with a more defined brief to provide the following accommodation: - Mezzanine gallery to the West end of the church, to be open to the main space, - Under the mezzanine to provide catering / hospitality area and exhibition, to be enclosed for heating /security /separation of space but to be flexible, - Exhibition areas for James Clark Maxwell and local interests, - Level access for visitors to new areas, including a lift if possible, - Replacement of the old boiler house with new toilets, which can be accessed from the outside when the church building is closed, - The new areas to be created with appropriate materials, structure and services to suit the needs of the spaces and comply with Building Regulations. USE- For flexibility of spaces, it is proposed to provide sub-division using glass screens so that the main whole space is not lost but there is localised control of heating, lighting, security and access. The proposal does not alter the existing structural form of the building, and the new areas are created with inserted structure and the build of an extension. SITE LIMITATIONS - Existing layout of the churchyard with extensive number of graves restricts the size of the extension and new drainage is proposed to follow the historically established paths to a septic tank located in a place where there are no graves and least sensitive archaeological areas. There are 3 locations which will require negotiation with the council and owners: Option A is [the] most economic location (shortest drain run); however, option C would be easiest to agree as this neighbour has already indicated willingness, but [it] is the longest drain run. 17 18 DESIGN OF EXTENSION - The location for the toilets is in a discrete position when viewed from the surrounding area and is slightly larger than the existing redundant boiler housing, which is in a poor condition. It is anticipated that this will be an acceptable location with local planners for the formal Listed Building Consent and also unlikely to have archaeological issues. The West entrance door can also be provided with a ramped level access within the existing path area. The proposal for the structure of the new extension is a timber well insulated frame structure with timber boarding which will weather to a soft grey colour, and a slate roof. Small timber windows will allow for natural light and keep the use of electricity down. The foundation for the structure can be kept lightweight on the ground, avoiding disturbance of the church structure and be an economical build. Two regular-sized cubicles and a fully accessible disabled toilet with baby change facilities are proposed. As the toilets can be accessed when the church is locked, they will be available for visitors at any time, including walkers or mourners attending burials in the cemetery etc. INTERIOR ALTERATIONS -The new mezzanine gallery works best with the building regulations by remaining as a single large space volume with an open gallery and fire protection will be necessary for the supporting structure and can be achieved with plasterboard and fire linings. New structure is proposed as a steel frame and would have new foundation pads located within the existing church masonry structure. At ground floor we propose to enclose the space with frameless glass screen with two pairs of glass doors, which gives maximum visual link with the main church space but can be locked for security and heated separately. The glass doors can open in both directions and when left open the under-gallery space can be used as an overflow area to the main space. The catering provision is for a simple kitchen, referred to as a servery, with plenty of counter space and could function well for serving light refreshments and use as a seasonal café space. For aesthetics the recommendation would be to have domestic contract cupboard units and worktops, which are suitable for this level of use (catering stainless steel is not necessary). A stair to the gallery level is conveniently accessed from the entrance area and a platform lift, which can accommodate 4 or 5 people, gives disabled access to the gallery level. The cost of a lift will be circa £20k and if considered not necessary at the outset, could be added at a later date, as there is not a major structural or operational technical requirement. The gallery level will benefit from the large west facing window and as a flexible space can accommodate various activities and or exhibitions. The glass balustrade would be part of the overall glass screen design for the underside area. The main area of the church sanctuary will continue to serve as a large flexible public space. New facilities are at the west end and extension and will be picked up on one new drain run, which will then have to find a route through the churchyard without disturbing archaeological remains. Localised and zoned controls are proposed to make the systems flexible and economic to run. Hot water would be most economically provided by 19 electric localised water heaters to the kitchen sink and washbasins. Re-modelled areas are to have new lighting to suit the activities and upgrade on the power distribution will service the kitchen area with a suitable number of socket outlets. The existing church heating system can be upgraded to cope with the ground floor use of the space and an extended supply to radiators at gallery level. The toilets would be best to have a separate localised heating arrangement, possibly with the use of electric convectors or oil filled radiators on timer and frost stat controls. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSENTS - A number of consents and licenses would be required for the conversion proposals to be implemented. This would include Planning and Listed Building Consent and Building Warrant for the extension from the local authority, Dumfries & Galloway Council. We do not anticipate that these consents will be difficult or contentious….The drainage and location and discharge from the septic tank will require D&GC and SEPA approval. These are detailed negotiations and submissions for the next stage of detail design. The church is a grade B listed building and as such is deemed to be of national interest. The Historic Scotland Listing Report concentrates on the exterior features including the tower and windows. No particular features of the interior are noted. The Local Authority and Historic Scotland are actively supporting the need for alternative uses for churches and other recent similar projects in the region have been considered sympathetically, providing it is carried out sensitively. The prominent location of the church on the village landscape gives the building significance beyond its architecture and particular care will be needed to ensure a quality and long life for the building. The 2017 report contains seven pages of plans in support of the presentation of this option. They are reproduced here. It is conceivable, in the face of the 2023 context and the light of revised thinking, that a ‘hybrid’ option from the 2010 report may prove to be more appropriate. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 UPDATED BUILDING COSTS ~ ARPL’s 2017 report provided an elemental cost plan for the repair and conversion of Parton Kirk to according to the plans which are reproduced above. Building costs having risen substantially in the last five years, and it is prudent to have an updated understanding of the 2017 proposal. ELEMENTAL COST PLAN Job Title: Job Ref: Location: Gross Internal Floor Area (m2) : ELEMENT 1. SUBSTRUCTURE 1.1 Substructure 1.2 Lowest Floor Slab Group Element Total 2. SUPERSTRUCTURE 2.1 Frame 2.2 Upper floors 2.3 Roof 2.4 Stairs & walkways 2.5 External walls 2.6 Windows, screens & external doors 2.7 Internal walls & partitions 2.8 Internal doors and screens Group Element Total 3. INTERNAL FINISHES 3.1 Wall finishes 3.2 Floor finishes 3.3 Ceiling finishes 3.4 Decoration Group Element Total 4. FITTINGS & FURNISHINGS 4.1 Fittings & furnishings Group Element Total 5. SERVICES 5.1 Sanitary appliances 5.2 Services equipment 5.3 Disposal installations 5.4 Water installations 5.5 Heat source 5.6 Space heating & air treatment 5.7 Ventilating systems 5.8 Electrical installations Parton Kirk DQ3617 Castle Douglas 278 ELEMENTAL COST PLAN Total Cost Cost/m2 of of Element (£) Gross Floor Area (£) 5,556.50 5,088.50 10,645.00 19.99 18.30 38.29 5,480.00 7,075.00 7,902.50 11,100.00 10,650.90 14,775.00 3,780.00 3,120.00 63,883.40 19.71 25.45 28.43 39.93 38.31 53.15 13.60 11.22 229.80 3,028.30 10,420.00 4,150.00 9,730.00 27,328.30 10.89 37.48 14.93 35.00 98.30 8,500.00 8,500.00 30.58 30.58 3,750.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,200.00 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 19,750.00 13.49 0.00 3.60 4.32 0.00 7.19 0.00 71.04 28 5.9 Gas installations 5.10 Lift & conveyor installations 5.11 Protective installations 5.12 Communication installations 5.13 Special installations 5.14 Builders work in connection with services 5.15 Builders profit & attendance on services Group Element Total 6. EXTERNAL WORKS 6.1 Site work 6.2 Drainage 6.3 External services 7.1 Other building works External Fabric Repairs to the existing building - extent unknown at this stage - pc sum to cover the items listed in the report of May 2017 0.00 30,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 61,200.00 0.00 107.91 10.79 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 220.14 21,200.00 30,000.00 0.00 6,000.00 76.26 107.91 0.00 21.58 150,000.00 207,200.00 539.57 205.75 378,756.70 1,362.43 Preliminaries 18% 68,176.21 245.24 Contingencies 10% £44,693.29 491,626.20 1,768.44 Group Element Total SUBTOTAL TOTAL Notes:1. Costs are exclusive of professional fees, loose furniture/fittings and VAT. 2. Costs assume no abnormal ground conditions existing. 3. Costs are exclusive of any underpinning works to existing stone walls. 4. Cost assume tenders will be sought no later that 3Q23. 5. Note the above costs are for the drainage, site works, new extension and mezzanine and all associated works. 6. A provisional amount of £150k has been incorporated above to include for external fabric repairs identified in the May 2017 report however the extent and quantity of these is unknown for costing at this stage - TBC by the Architect. McGowan Miller Construction Consultants 20th March 2023 The full budget total in 2017 was £384,000. It is over £491,000 in 2023. Not considered in 2017, but worth mentioning now, is the costing of displays. An approximate estimate from the Glasgow Science Centre, provided in January 2023, states that they can be between £1,000 / m2 and £3,000 / m2, depending on the level of their involvement in specification, development, interpretation and installation. The building price - hard to ascertain without professional valuation - may, from current Scottish sale figures for churches, be in the region of £150,00. 29 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS How Parton Kirk’s building was appraised in recent years remains coherent and useful. Current considerations, however, present some fundamental adjustments to how the situation is understood. The following subjects – The Present Situation; A New Village Hall?; What is a Visitor Centre? and A Different Perspective – look at these considerations. They are key to a revised understanding of the project... THE PRESENT SITUATION ~ In 2010 and 2017, when the ARPL reports were presented, there was still, formally, a congregation in Parton. People could see the Kirk as naturally ‘theirs’ and the Kirk as fundamentally a Church of Scotland church. That the community council would want to be supportive and join with the congregation in thought about a Parton-based future for the Kirk, was also sound. In 2023, circumstances are quite different. The situation is no longer one where the congregation is looking for an extended use for its functioning, albeit-in-a-reduced-capacity Kirk. Parton is home to a fine church building, it is home to kirk members, but, formally speaking, it no longer has a church. Anyone wanting to effect major changes to the building will have to purchase it. How the building is purchased is subject to a process which is defined, but subject to periods of limbo and uncertainty. Moreover, it is neither possible nor advisable for the community council to aim to purchase the Kirk. In the case of community interest, the Church of Scotland, as the seller, and funders, who might support the purchase, can only negotiate with a constituted charitable trust. This pending, but not-yet-clear situation has difficulties. There is an opportunity, but it is difficult to be quite sure when it will arrive. When it does, it is a one-off. If the community cannot respond, this cornerstone of community life will be gone, effectively, forever. And is it just a case of ‘trying to save the Church’? If this is the main motive, it probably won’t succeed. There are many communities facing the same problem. Without a viable and sustainable proposal - in addition to that understandable motive - they are usually unsuccessful. Their churches then appear on the open market and disappear from community use. In the case of Parton, ‘trying to save the church’ is a quieter motive, in the face of the awareness of a genuine creative opportunity. Fundamentally, as community-based change-of-use and its business planning are brought together, the need will to be the presentation of a viable enterprise. Reframing what the ‘community’ is, as well as the enterprise which might include a visitor centre within a wider remit, gets much closer to a feasible formulation. 30 A NEW VILLAGE HALL? ~ Parton’s Village Hall is a small, serviceable, wooden building. It was built in 1908, in step with the nearby cottages and has been appreciated and used well ever since. In the wake of severe flooding in 2016, it required substantial repair. With it being wooden and over 100 years old, people have begun to ask practical questions. What will happen when flooding comes again? Will further repair be feasible? Might it be better to move to Parton Kirk? With Parton being small, is it in a position to have two communal buildings at its heart? Does this mean disposing of this old Village Hall? And, if so, how and when? As it is at present, affection for the Village Hall is strong. It is part of village life and used as it should be. But its future is questionable and uncertain. The Kirk’s future is also questionable - and dependent on future developments, which, at this point in time, may be promising but are yet to be worked out. For the time being, Parton’s base will be in the Village Hall. However, given the uncertainty surrounding it future, the community council should ensure it maintains an interest in the Kirk and in any Trust that is established to further a Community and Science Centre there. 31 WHAT IS A VISITOR CENTRE? ~ A working assumption had been that Parton Kirk might be a Visitor Centre dedicated to James Clerk Maxwell. This would form a ‘unique selling point’ in a building that would otherwise maintain a local community use. A ‘Visitors’ Centre’ is a common model. Its core components are simple: - an entrance and reception, - displays on ‘the attraction’s’ theme, - a café, - a shop. There are hundreds of such places across the country and the model is applied to large and small attractions. Because it can be a serviceable and useful model, an assumption arises from the outside that one can pretty much ‘buy one off the shelf’ and viability will be assured. In fact, each of these components requires continuing work. If the attraction is in a sort of elite, like Skara Brae or Stonehenge, it may have more traction, but the public can lose interest easily if the displays stay the same, notice if the shop’s stock gets lacklustre, and move away if the café fails to maintain standards. These issues may not be obstacles that irredeemably close the place - but they do sometimes - or they can consign it to a struggling half-life that is dispiriting to be responsible for and work in. The most successful visitors’ centres find ways – relevant and enterprising ways - to spread their remit and focus more widely, to the point where their offer is more - a lot more - than what their title might suggest. This adds complexity to the model which, in turn, requires more detailed business planning. The basic question in the Parton context is: would people stop from their journey along the A713 to visit a Clerk Maxwell Science and Innovation Centre, to buy a cup of coffee, pay an entrance charge and look at a small - however well formed - display in sufficient quantities to bear the expense of a manager, a café operator and the maintenance of the building? One can look at the density of traffic flow on the road, accept that it might be a seasonal operation only, look at how the large space might be used more intensively (for performance, concert, conferencing) but there is no escaping that success will require energy and sustained commitment, with the likelihood of continuingly tight margins. Moreover, this basic model - of a ‘visitor centre’, as such - is unlikely to be particularly attractive to funders. The working assumption had been that somehow Parton, in the form of its community council, would have to deliver this project and take responsibility for its viability. This might have been justified in 2017 when there was still a local congregation affiliated with Parton Kirk. Now, with the building decommissioned, the assumption that a new Parton-based charitable trust, with Parton’s population of 146, can purchase and take on the building, institute a visitor centre and guide it to viability is not realistic. Reframing what the ‘community’ is, and the enterprise, which might include a visitor centre within a wider remit, gets much closer to a feasible formulation. 32 A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ~ Two further facets transform perspectives and shift away positively from the initial working assumptions. One arises from conversation with the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation about what it cannot and can do in support of ‘a James Clerk Maxwell Science and Innovation Centre’ in Parton Kirk. The other arises from an examination of the wider strategic contexts which are in process in the country, region and area. The latter has been addressed in a study concurrently with this one and is referenced in the next Section. The former is addressed here. Both significantly adjust what one means by ‘community’, while respecting its original Parton aspect. Both open a way to envisaging an enterprise which is dynamic and forward looking, as well as respecting of original aspirations. The James Clerk Maxwell Foundation was founded in 1977 and, as well as commemorating the man and conserving his scientific inheritance, exists (selecting some core aims) to: promote, encourage and advance the study of, the research into and the dissemination of knowledge relating to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) in all their aspects; to organize and/or contribute towards the cost of, inter alia: teaching, lectures and symposia, bursaries, scholarships and research grants for, or relating to, and research into any branch or aspect of STEM or the history thereof; to co-operate with, in any manner the trustees may in their discretion consider proper, other societies, individuals, trusts, associations, universities, colleges and other educational establishments and local or national authorities or institutions in any undertaking or project which will advance any of the foregoing objects. It cannot fund what might happen in Parton Kirk, but (minuted in a meeting with Parton Community Council on 25th July 2022) it can help significantly in finding support and in bringing to the Project: Partnership - bringing expert knowledge on the significance of James Clerk Maxwell’s work; Science communication; Contacts with scientific bodies, educational institutions, learned societies; Contacts with possible philanthropists, businesspeople, industrialists and those likely to have an interest in helping to promote Maxwell; Support with contacts with tourist [and cultural-] related organisations….; Promotion of Maxwell’s non-scientific input too, e.g. poetry, humour, wit, needlework, association with colour photography; Promotion and publicity, e.g. via Trustees, Fellows, visitors to house, and Foundation website and publications; Help with crowdfunding; Connection-making with other existing local and wider ventures; Bringing the Project to the notice of the wider group of Trustees and Fellows of the Foundation. The Foundation thus has an international as well as national and local perspectives, and connections with many respected scientific institutions. It is clear from the above, and from further conversation, that it can contribute significantly to what a Science and Innovation Centre could consist of as well as contributing insight into how it could viably sustain itself. 33 34 A WIDER COMMUNITY: LOOKING TO THE FUTURE The preceding photograph is a view to the northwest from the Kirkland Motte. Parton Kirk is just visible through the trees to the right. In front of them is the embankment for the railway line which used to run from Dumfries to Loch Ken and then on spectacularly over the hills to Stranraer. The transformation of this into a cycling and walking route is under close consideration. To the left, across a field below the Motte, is Loch Ken. A major part of James Clerk Maxwell’s work was in his foundational, theoretical investigation of the electromagnetic spectrum. His association with this landscape is a family and lifetime one, and he had a vision of Creation in its depths. The subsequent development of applied, electrical generation technologies, in response to our society’s vastly increasing needs, have greatly impacted on this landscape, with Loch Ken’s ambitious interlinking scheme of hydro power, and the windmills now proliferating in the hills. This is a view to a much wider ‘community’, which includes science, natural heritage, as well as the resident, and visiting, public in South West Scotland. Concurrent with this study has been one produced by One Planet Consulting: Parton Kirk – Strategic Context Assessment. This looks at current development strategies at National, Regional and Area levels relevant to a development of Parton Kirk, which is seen to be well positioned to respond to, and with, them. Parton Kirk – Strategic Context Assessment should be read in conjunction with this study. It looks at the location of Parton Kirk and then widens the perspective to examine the National Strategic context with the National Tourism Strategy, Tourism Megatrends and the National Planning Framework that structure it. Within this, the Regional Strategic Context, via the Dumfries and Galloway Local Development Plan (LDP2), and the South of Scotland Destination Alliance and Loch Ken Plan initiatives present a more detailed and specific intermediary insight. Within this, bringing the focus to the Area, the 2020 Glenkens and District Community Action Plan and the Loch Ken Strategic Visitor Framework are used to return to pointing out the advantages of the location and how all these policies and principles can align. The benefit in widening the project’s location to include access to a view point and the shores of Loch Ken are also addressed. Parton Kirk – Strategic Context Assessment concludes with: Parton, and Parton Kirk within the village itself, sit in strategically significant position within the wider Loch Ken and Glenkens environs. At the mid-point on the eastern shore, on the disused railway and with access to outstanding views of Loch Ken there are considerable and unique geographical advantages to this location. With thoughtful development the reimagined use of Parton Kirk and the immediate surroundings could unlock a set of outcomes that benefit the wider region. This could include: 35 • A key destination on the active travel artery; working in conjunction with a gateway towards the south of Loch Ken near the A75, Parton would be an excellent initial destination for a walk or bike ride before continuing over the viaduct and on towards Mossdale. • Regional visitor management; alongside development of the public slipway a development to the south of Parton would alleviate existing and growing visitor pressures at key points on Loch Ken, could fill provision gaps (public toilets) and could act as an base for wider ranger activity. • Deepening of the scientific and natural heritage offering of the area. Extending the James Clerk Maxwell offering to encompass wider scientific features of the area (i.e., hydro-power, wind-power, biodiversity etc.) could see Parton develop as a scientific/nature counterpart to the cultural and arts regional development that the CatStrand already offers. It could also offer a focal point for some partner activity (including Drax and the Biosphere) to tell the wider story of Loch Ken and the Glenkens. • Improvements to the regional visitor offering. In addition to a themed visitor experience (Science/JCM centre) the development could address gaps in provision for visitors including a lack of night-time economy options (restaurant or performance events), a lack of view points on Loch Ken’s eastern (and more accessible) shore and a limited food and drink offering outside of New Galloway and Castle Douglas. The development of Parton Kirk as a single community activity is the subject of another report and may be challenging to achieve. However, there is considerable merit in regional actors considering Parton, and the pending sale of Parton Kirk, as an opportunity to meet their wider strategic ambitions. 36 PROPOSAL A DIFFERENT ENTERPRISE ~ The Project has rested on an assumption of the creation of a Visitors’ Centre - the James Clerk Maxwell Science and Innovation Centre – in Parton Kirk. The building is appropriately located, well positioned, about the right size, but still ‘the model’ of a Visitors’ Centre can be a bit passive, indeed unenterprising. What would a ‘Science and Innovation Centre’ be, contain, as well as look like? This was always going to have to be worked out - and with the right expertise. A conversation with a member of the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation around the difficulties of the basic model, produced an idea which changes the view. The suggestion was that the Centre could be based on a buy-in by science departments – nationally, even internationally – in a sort of ‘academic time-share’. Those that were part of the scheme would use the Centre according to their allotted time for conferencing, project development, formulation time, as well as be participative in wider education and as a visitor attraction. In return, this would be one way for the Centre to achieve an enterprising and steadier income foundation. The suggestion also, along the way, affirms science as being current, active, a doing, rather than just consigning it to part of the heritage industry. This is a first step in looking at the situation differently. The proposal needs to be worked on. Questions arise around nature, content and accommodation which should transform the idea further. Whatever is presented in Parton Kirk would need to answer the needs of its users. Content and business planning will have to be worked out in much more detail than we have now. There are, however, some helpful, parallel precedents. This is the Hive, the recently built community centre for Glentrool, Dumfries and Galloway ( https://www.glentroolhive.co.uk/ ). The village is slightly smaller than Parton. The building primarily consists of a flexible hall and kitchen. There is also some office space and showering facilities for walkers and cyclists. Less visible, but part of the overall scheme and of crucial importance in its business planning, is holiday accommodation at the back of the building and, across the road, three houses which are let out to local residents at 37 affordable rents. The creation of this income stream, which answers serious local and community need, was encouraged by South of Scotland Enterprise. It enables the Hive to operate as a steadier state operation. Hall hire and other activities are offered but the Hive’s viability does not solely depend on them. The model of rented artist studios ( https://www.fairislestudio.com/fair-isle ) in creatively conducive places is one that might have a parallel for the sciences. The fundamental direction needs, however, to be one of answering needs through consultation with scientists and science departments and in partnership with the network of science-based organisations in Dumfries and Galloway. Provision of office space for the ranger team active on Loch Ken is appropriate in terms of practicality, location and theme. As the perspective in the previous section shows, there is advantage in seeing this project as wider than just Parton Kirk, and including routes to the shore of Loch Ken and a view point that is integrated with other routes that are planned. The project becomes larger with these steps, but they can also be seen as part of a longer term, phased and creative development. 38 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ~ These are the main, and often interlinking steps, which will bring this project to fruition: Forming the Trust: This is the viable community-based route to purchasing the building. The Trust’s purpose aims and objectives should be more than building-purchase and include an understanding all the other steps (below), plus a foundation in the project’s ‘vision’. Help with Trust formation can be obtained through engaging with the Scottish Land Fund process (stage 1) and from the Development Trust Association of Scotland (https://dtascot.org.uk/ ). The Trust should have Parton representation but should draw involvement from a much wider field, including science and environmental representation from the area, regional and national contexts. James Clerk Maxwell Foundation: The JCMF is already aware of this project as a potential undertaking and is supportive of it. As soon as it begins to build, the Project should be linked with the JCMF and members for the Trust sought. The Foundation has networks and connections which are directly appropriate to the Project and its advice and connections will be valuable and insightful. Business Planning - establishing the business model and the nature of the enterprise: South of Scotland Enterprise should be approached (https://www.southofscotlandenterprise.com/ ) as should Community Enterprise (https://communityenterprise.co.uk/ ) at an early opportunity. They can help greatly in this core process and help in identifying supportive structures and appropriate funding. Purchasing the Building: When Parton Kirk becomes recommended for sale, and the Church of Scotland has included the Trust’s interest in the building in its considerations, the probable route for purchase will be through the Scottish Land Fund (stage 2), but by this time the Trust should have made contact not just with SLF, but with SOSE and Community Enterprise and other possibilities may become apparent. The Heritage Trust Network: (https://www.heritagetrustnetwork.org.uk/ ) is helpful for bodies wanting to take on and understand the implications of a historic building. Grand Bequest is a new organisation (www.grandbequest.co.uk ) which may be able to help get support. A note on the Scottish Land Fund: The Fund can support acquisition of many types of land, land assets and buildings ranging from large estates and forestry to community shops and hubs where a route to ownership can be identified. They can fund capital and some revenue costs associated with the acquisition of assets. Consulting on and creating the contents of the Science Centre: What will be in the Science and Innovation Centre? How to build Institutional buy-in and Institutional use and public use? How to formulate the displays? All these should involve JCMF and other science bodies. Displays can be labour intensive and require maintenance and care should be exercised in their selection and choice. 39 Accommodation: Reference to the Glentrool Hive indicates a model that includes various kinds of accommodation (office, services and residential) within the building. Options for it elsewhere and nearby, may be advisable. This will be a subject in the business planning process. To what extent is hard to ascertain at this point, but the subject’s presence in the model both aids project sustainability and supports community wellbeing. Briefing the Architect: Because a somewhat different business model has been suggested, it is possible that some adjustment to the building specification will be necessary, possibly in line with the hybrid options suggested in the 2010 report. The Project’s integration within its landscape: ‘As the perspective in the previous section shows, there is advantage in seeing this project as wider than just Parton Kirk, and including routes to the shore of Loch Ken and a view point that is integrated with other routes that are planned. The project becomes larger with these steps, but they can also be seen as part of a longer term, phased and creative development’. Establishing and maintaining Community Use: As has been pointed out there are differing but linking communities involved. As far as Parton is concerned, sensitivity should be exercised and an openness to community use should it be maintained. Partnership working: Excellent opportunities can be provided by partnership working between organisations with similar visions and values, including joint projects, the provision of match funding, opportunities for underwriting projects in periods of uncertainty and the sharing of resources. Operational and reputational risks can be present, but good relationships can lead to projects of real substance. Fund raising: Purchase, Development, Capital and Project Costs are all in different categories. Project management Funding should be sought for a development officer who would be able to: develop the finer detail of the project (including partnership arrangements where appropriate); look to secure capital funding; continue to work up the business model for the viable operation of the Centre; begin promotion of the offerings that will ultimately be available; and begin developing an education programme. Potential funding streams for the development phase: These are a few of the possibilities: The National Lottery Community Fund - Community Led: Through Community Led funding the National Lottery Community Fund aim to support communities to improve the places in which they live and the wellbeing of those most in need. They fund organisations to deliver work that achieves the following outcomes: - Everyone in the community has the opportunity to influence and get involved in community-led activity. - People in the community are better connected and work together to improve their wellbeing. 40 Community Benefit Funds: Community benefit funds distribute the money made available to communities as a result of wind farms in the locality. National Lottery Open Fund for Organisations: This has recently been announced (by Creative Scotland). As well as funding organisations to deliver a wide range of creative activity, the fund can also support: Organisations to undertake business and organisational development that will: - enhance their business sustainability through the development of new or more diverse income streams or - consider broader organisational development costs. Potential Funding for the capital phase: Although the funding climate is changeable – having seen significant changes to the availability of capital funding in the few years since Covid – it is prudent to outline some of the current capital funding streams (other than the Scottish Land Fund) that may provide the support needed to take this project from vision to reality. Community Wellbeing Facilities Fund: The funding is part of the Place Based Investment Programme (PBIP), an overall Scotland wide investment of £325m, that supports community led regeneration and town centre revitalisation. The programme also seeks to build on the work of the Regeneration Capital Grant Fund (RCGF) and Town Centre Action Plan. The Community Ownership Fund – UK wide, match funding: Dependent on the option chosen, the UK-wide Community Ownership can support the ownership of the freehold or a long-term leasehold of at least 25 years minimum (with no break clauses). The fund can support purchase and/or renovation costs. The fund requires match funding up to 50% and can include revenue costs up to a maximum of 20% of the project costs. The National Lottery Community Fund - Community Led: Through Community Led funding the National Lottery Community Fund aims to support communities to improve the places in which they live and the wellbeing of those most in need, funding organisations to deliver work that achieves the following outcomes: - Everyone in the community has the opportunity to influence and get involved in community-led activity. - People in the community are better connected and work together to improve their wellbeing. £50,000 of minor capital costs can be built into an application and so could be considered as part of a larger funding strategy. 41 Trusts and Foundations The following are known to support capital projects and so, as part of a larger application, could help to achieve the overall target: - Tudor Trust - Clothworkers Foundation - Wolfson Foundation - Percy Bilton - Robert Barr Charitable Trust - AMW Charitable Trust - Darroch Charitable Trust - Garfield Weston - Hugh Fraser Foundation - Stafford Trust - The Barrack Charitable Trust - The Meikle Foundation - The Swire Charitable Trust - Rank Foundation - The Glasgow Galloway Association 42 CONCLUSIONS ~ This project is distinctive - and feasible. It will require development, partnership and work. Requiring several stages, the outcome cannot be assured, but with vision and leadership the goal can be achieved. It can provide a truly significant contribution to science education, green tourism, heritage understanding and environmental and community support. The business model which this Project follows must maintain a wide perspective. It must and can express a creative, flexible and enterprising approach. This will be essential to how the Project operates effectively and links viably with its communities. Parton Kirk’s building is important for its architectural quality, location and position; its history; its role in gathering its community together and its openness to adaptation, while maintaining its original qualities. Its creative adaptation is also possible and feasible. Its association with James Clerk Maxwell is vital - for its connection to the man and his work, but, quite as much, for how it can partner with present science practice and how science is applied in the landscape - now. 43 44 Acknowledgements With warm thanks to: Paul Hodson, Tom Marshall, John Simpson; those who attended the consultation in Parton Village Hall and who completed the survey; Rebecca Cadie of ARPL Architects Ltd; James Stuart of One Planet Consulting Catherine Booth, Professor Martin Hendry, Dr Howie Firth and Dr Alan Walker of the James Clerk Maxwell Foundation; Barnaby Fryer (Loch Ken Trust); Frances Coombey and Colin McLean (Kirkcudbright Dark Skies Planetarium); Julia Muir-Watt (Whithorn Trust); David Devereux (formerly Kirkcudbright Museum); Katy Jackson (South of Scotland Enterprise); Billie Jones (Glentrool Hive).  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Parton Kirk Feasibility Study Description An account of the resource Commissioned by Parton Community Council 2023. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Parton_1 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource GCAT Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Parton Community Council Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2023 community spaces