I
have lived at 83 High Street, Loanhead (right beside the driveway for Linden Lodge &
Mavisbank House) since 1979, and am interested to see your website and the
alternative views it represents to the somewhat grandiose and unrealistic
schemes being proposed by the Mavisbank Trust for restoration of the house and
grounds. Regrettably, due to other commitments, I was unable to attend the
workshop set up by the Mavisbank Trust in December, and it's encouraging to
see other views being made public. I may add that I still from time to time
have contact with Ray Thomson, a "friend" of Archie Stevenson (who I
also knew), and I am certain there are interesting aspects of Mavisbank's
recent history yet to be disclosed.
I
was present at the Local Public Inquiry which was held some years ago to
consider the Compulsory Purchase Order for various pieces of property
associated with the house (interestingly, the Reporters findings were never
issued), and at that time, Historic Scotland, who desperately wanted the house
and policies, expressed two particular views to the Reporter, namely:
-
It
would be inappropriate to rebuild the house, as that would effectively
create a replica; stabilisation and preservation of the original was
believed to be the right solution.
-
The
most important feature of the property was the "planned
landscape", which was unique in Scotland, and probably the UK, in
that there had been no significant remodelling by subsequent occupiers,
thus the original scheme created for Sir John Clerk could still be seen
(at least by the expert eye!).
The
ambitions of the Mavisbank Trust would seem to be completely at odds with
these views. It's hard to see how the planned landscape could remain undamaged
while providing the infrastructure necessary to create a "public
park", and turn the house into "holiday homes" (I somehow doubt
Sir John would have welcomed hordes of holiday-makers and day-trippers
strolling about his house and gardens.).
A
recent article in the Scotsman described the "virtual" restoration
of Hamilton House, which had been completely destroyed in 1928. Where
actual rebuilding would have been infeasible economically, and in any case
pointless (another replica), the virtual model would allow access to anyone
interested in viewing the building as it had been, along with its renowned art
collection.
The
parallels with Mavisbank House are striking, and I believe this would be a
considerably more practical and achievable solution for Mavisbank house. It
would also be able to provide valuable educational resource material for local
schools, and for those unable to access the site physically. Most importantly,
it would do no irreversible damage to the site.
The
easiest way to fund a project may be by appealing to the money-bag holders'
most readily satisfied tastes. Mavisbank has always presented very considerable difficulties (apparently
beyond Historic Scotland's best intentions), and in view of
this, there does need to be: a) a recognition that the most appropriate
solution, may not necessarily be the one which is easiest to fund; and b) a
willingness to invest some additional effort in securing funding for more
appropriate solutions which properly respect all the unique features of this
special place.
Wholehearted support of those members of the local
community who care most for Mavisbank and have the greatest knowledge and
understanding of it, could be of at least some benefit in helping secure
funding for a more appropriate solution.
If
you wish to contribute supportive comments please email
friends@mavisbank.plus.com