walkhighlands

This forum is for general discussion about walking and scrambling... If writing a report or sharing your experiences from a route, please use the other boards.

Glencoe planning issue

Glencoe planning issue


Postby rodderss » Sun Jan 23, 2022 9:35 am

rodderss
 
Posts: 139
Munros:43   Corbetts:10
Grahams:7   
Sub 2000:25   
Islands:2
Joined: Sep 2, 2016

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby iain_atkinson_1986 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 9:59 am

I don't see the problem with this tbh. It's basically what most modern architecture in the Highlands looks like (wood panelling everywhere) and the glen is already trashed.

Personally I'd like to see it demolished and replaced with nothing as it's on quite a tight corner and having cars pulling in and out of there won't be the best for road safety.
iain_atkinson_1986
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 358
Munros:49   Corbetts:180
Grahams:9   Donalds:8
Sub 2000:4   
Joined: Jul 27, 2016
Location: Inverness

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby al78 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 11:14 am

This looks like an example of emotion over logic again.

If the building is still in a usable condition (i.e. not in a dangerous state of decay) then logically it should be used. Demolishing it and building something with the same utility is wasteful of money and resources.
User avatar
al78
Walker
 
Posts: 1148
Munros:28   Corbetts:8
Donalds:1
Joined: Feb 1, 2018

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby dav2930 » Sun Jan 23, 2022 2:30 pm

Hmm...the proposed design looks to me like an architect's ego trip. I agree with Stuart Younie that it doesn't blend in with the surroundings and is insensitively intrusive. And all for the sake of replacing one wealthy person's holiday home with another wealthy person's holiday home.
User avatar
dav2930
Ambler
 
Posts: 1524
Munros:242   Corbetts:13
Grahams:16   Donalds:45
Sub 2000:1   Hewitts:164
Wainwrights:214   Islands:2
Joined: Feb 13, 2015
Location: Cumbria

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby yellowbelly » Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:45 pm

Looks gopping. I'd rather see just clouds than Kevin McCloud.
User avatar
yellowbelly
Wanderer
 
Posts: 138
Munros:59   Corbetts:6
Grahams:2   
Hewitts:125
Wainwrights:214   
Joined: Sep 13, 2010
Location: West Cumbria

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby WalkWithWallace » Sun Jan 23, 2022 7:10 pm

The cottage will regrettably be forever tarnished with association to that monster, so it's probably right to demolish it. That said the artist's impression of the replacement isn't in keeping with the Glen, but we all said that with the new Kingie too. :?
User avatar
WalkWithWallace
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 653
Munros:102   Corbetts:153
Grahams:56   Donalds:33
Hewitts:41
Wainwrights:29   Islands:25
Joined: Jan 27, 2019
Location: www.youtube.com/c/walkwithwallace
Walk wish-list

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby Caberfeidh » Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:56 am

The winter (and summer) gales are going to howl and wail around those sharp angles. Best build something low and rounded like the indiginous style from centuries past. But I don't think it's anyone elses' business; I don't like this idea of "Mountaineers" having a say in local planning decisions, we only visit, it's rude to visit and start trying to influence stuff like this.
User avatar
Caberfeidh
Stravaiging
 
Posts: 7838
Joined: Feb 5, 2009

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby Scraggygoat » Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:48 pm

I see Mountaineering Scotland are prepared to be vociferous over a single dwelling planning application, contrast that to their timidity and silence over travel restrictions during covid.

One severely affected our access and ability to partake in mountain activities, the other doesn’t.

Given that recent performance and dichotomy, we really would be better off without them…..is this the priority and standard of representation that serves our interests…..I think not.
Scraggygoat
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Mar 7, 2014

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby Sunset tripper » Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:27 pm

Scraggygoat wrote:I see Mountaineering Scotland are prepared to be vociferous over a single dwelling planning application, contrast that to their timidity and silence over travel restrictions during covid.

One severely affected our access and ability to partake in mountain activities, the other doesn’t.

Given that recent performance and dichotomy, we really would be better off without them…..is this the priority and standard of representation that serves our interests…..I think not.


Mountaineering Scotland benefits appear to be the discount for shops, courses and the free magazine.
They seem politically naive though, and I doubt if they will influence the decision. They protested against the Kings House, the Glen Etive hydro schemes and the £9 parking charge at Arrochar, amongst other things, and were widely ignored.

Their advice during the covid was bizarre and unnecessarily negative. I didn't have an issue with them giving advice to their members but they appeared to be giving their interpretation on the advice to everyone and seemed to be trying to give the impression that they were an authority on the matter.

Regarding the Jimmy Saville hoose - it always looked a bit out of place to me and a bit of an eyesore.

If they have to build something there it would be a nice place for a wee log cabin style bar I reckon, breaking up the journey from the Clachaig to the Kings House. :D
User avatar
Sunset tripper
 
Posts: 2614
Joined: Nov 3, 2013
Location: Inverness

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby rockhopper » Tue Jan 25, 2022 12:36 am

Looking at this tangentially, a grey coloured building on the corner may merge better into the background than a white building in a similar way to how the Ballachulish Bridge (to me anyway, perhaps not others) merges into its Loch Leven / Loch Linnhe background; similarly for the Kylesku Bridge and its environs. At the end of the day, the person who pays the piper calls the tune.
User avatar
rockhopper
 
Posts: 7026
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Grahams:81   Donalds:89
Sub 2000:15   Hewitts:2
Wainwrights:3   Islands:19
Joined: Jun 1, 2009
Location: Glasgow

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby Scraggygoat » Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:11 am

At the risk of further derailment of this thread, MountaineeringScot function now appears to be two fold; 1) Represent the Scottish Government to hill goers (rather than vice versa) and 2) act as the business development arm for commercial course providers, instructors and award schemes.

Some cynics would add that in conjunction with the mountain safety group they now are trying to in certain circumstances discourage people going on the hill; independent thought not allowed.
Scraggygoat
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Mar 7, 2014

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby Alex W » Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:57 pm

It seems a pity that this house is known as the Saville House. I believe before Saville it was Hamish McInnes's house. So maybe don't destroy the house due to its association with Saville, but erase that period from history and think of it as McInnes's house. In any case, it wasn't the house's fault!

If the house is now beyond repair, then it needs rebuilt in keeping with the area. I don't like the proposal put forward, but then I'm not fond of modern architecture - that's just me. If the house is intact, then just let someone buy it and leave Saville in the past.
Alex W
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 92
Munros:190   Corbetts:4
Grahams:5   Donalds:13
Sub 2000:9   
Islands:8
Joined: Dec 14, 2020

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby Caberfeidh » Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:17 pm

Alex W wrote:It seems a pity that this house is known as the Saville House. I believe before Saville it was Hamish McInnes's house. So maybe don't destroy the house due to its association with Saville, but erase that period from history and think of it as McInnes's house. In any case, it wasn't the house's fault! If the house is now beyond repair, then it needs rebuilt in keeping with the area. I don't like the proposal put forward, but then I'm not fond of modern architecture - that's just me. If the house is intact, then just let someone buy it and leave Saville in the past.


Well said. Unfortunately that quote from Shakespeare; "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft enterr'd with their bones" is all too real here. Let's celebrate MacInnes and forget the evil bugger.
User avatar
Caberfeidh
Stravaiging
 
Posts: 7838
Joined: Feb 5, 2009

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby simon-b » Tue Jan 25, 2022 3:56 pm

Caberfeidh wrote:
Alex W wrote:It seems a pity that this house is known as the Saville House. I believe before Saville it was Hamish McInnes's house. So maybe don't destroy the house due to its association with Saville, but erase that period from history and think of it as McInnes's house. In any case, it wasn't the house's fault! If the house is now beyond repair, then it needs rebuilt in keeping with the area. I don't like the proposal put forward, but then I'm not fond of modern architecture - that's just me. If the house is intact, then just let someone buy it and leave Saville in the past.


Well said. Unfortunately that quote from Shakespeare; "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft enterr'd with their bones" is all too real here. Let's celebrate MacInnes and forget the evil bugger.


True, Alex and Caberfeidh. If it were appropriate to demolish the building because of Jimmy Saville, then it could be said his former dwellings in Leeds and Scarborough should also be demolished. Not to mention any property at some time occupied by Wayne Couzens, the Yorkshire ripper, Brady and Hindley etc. Clearly not practical. It might seem more feasible with the Glen Coe House as it's detached and isolated, but the 'ghost of past evil' is just as much there in those other properties.
User avatar
simon-b
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 2109
Munros:282   Corbetts:30
Grahams:7   Donalds:12
Sub 2000:1   Hewitts:155
Wainwrights:214   Islands:4
Joined: Jan 2, 2012
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire

Re: Glencoe planning issue

Postby Alex W » Tue Jan 25, 2022 6:09 pm

simon-b wrote:
Caberfeidh wrote:
Alex W wrote:It seems a pity that this house is known as the Saville House. I believe before Saville it was Hamish McInnes's house. So maybe don't destroy the house due to its association with Saville, but erase that period from history and think of it as McInnes's house. In any case, it wasn't the house's fault! If the house is now beyond repair, then it needs rebuilt in keeping with the area. I don't like the proposal put forward, but then I'm not fond of modern architecture - that's just me. If the house is intact, then just let someone buy it and leave Saville in the past.


Well said. Unfortunately that quote from Shakespeare; "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft enterr'd with their bones" is all too real here. Let's celebrate MacInnes and forget the evil bugger.


True, Alex and Caberfeidh. If it were appropriate to demolish the building because of Jimmy Saville, then it could be said his former dwellings in Leeds and Scarborough should also be demolished. Not to mention any property at some time occupied by Wayne Couzens, the Yorkshire ripper, Brady and Hindley etc. Clearly not practical. It might seem more feasible with the Glen Coe House as it's detached and isolated, but the 'ghost of past evil' is just as much there in those other properties.

I don't believe any of Savile's monstrous deeds took place in the house - maybe we don't know. There is a case to demolish a location associated with evil deeds if the location is likely to become a shrine - like Rudolf Hess's prison or Hitler's bunker - that isn't the case with this house. There is a case to preserve a location as a reminder and a symbol of why something should never be allowed to happen again - like Auschwitz - that's not the case here either.

So leave the house be. Demolish if uninhabitable. Let someone buy it and live in it if it's in reasonable repair.
Alex W
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 92
Munros:190   Corbetts:4
Grahams:5   Donalds:13
Sub 2000:9   
Islands:8
Joined: Dec 14, 2020

Next



Walkhighlands community forum is advert free


Your generosity keeps this site running.
Can you help support Walkhighlands and the online community by donating by direct debit?



Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eva78, Mikebr, pancho777777 and 11 guests