Platform

No fudge, just a way to take the past into the present, writes Keith Halstead

Kirsty Gunn offered thoughts about possible changes to the National Trust for Scotland’s management of Gladstone’s Land in Edinburgh’s Royal Mile (“Tartan fudge is a poor substitute for a ‘land’ we can all call home”, 26 June).

I have already tried to explain our thinking (“Gladstone’s Land rethink will convey richer insight”, 14 June) but take issue with Ms Gunn on some points.

She suggests that built heritage should be similar to natural heritage and be allocated to a “right to roam” and not subject to the need to turn a profit. Laudable though that is, I have to tell her that this is not the way it works.

As custodians of 76,000 hectares of important natural heritage, we know all too well that the costs are eye-watering. We need to find £100 every minute of every day. Freedom has a cost – where would the “right to roam” be without the car parks, pathways and care we provide? Someone has to pick up the tab and that’s us.

Although we receive some state support, it is only 3 per cent of income. The rest depends upon our members, generous donors and, yes, ticket sales in shops and cafés. Without this there would be no heritage for Ms Gunn to visit.

I certainly agree with Ms Gunn that Gladstone’s Land must be conserved for the nation. She takes issue with the fact that there is “a sort of a gift shop” at the entrance. Ironically, we now know that it is probably the most accurate representation of how the ground floor of the building was used, as are the three holiday apartments currently on the upper floors. These fulfil the tenement’s original purpose, with commerce below and accommodation above.

From new research we know that the room layouts of recent decades, using non-original fixtures and furniture, are not accurate. The trust’s initial purpose in acquiring Gladstone’s Land was merely to save it from demolition, bring it up to modern standards and then to let out retail and office space – saving heritage by ensuring it has a useful purpose. Only later was a decision made to re-present rooms for visitors. In truth, the only original interior details which remain are the magnificent painted ceilings Ms Gunn mentions.

Regardless of whatever use is made of the ground floor, the current configuration of the building makes it very difficult to run on a purely “drop in” basis for visitors. The entrance is small and there are challenges in admitting larger groups of people – its awkwardness means that it attracts relatively few visitors.

Whether or not we work with a partner, we need to find ways to deliver a sustainable future for Gladstone’s Land and maintain public access. We also want to take the opportunity to tell the newly discovered stories of the building and its inhabitants. The status quo will not permit this.

I appreciate that Ms Gunn may wish for solitary contemplation of places like Gladstone’s Land – hopefully there will always be opportunity for that – but our purpose is to ensure that as many people as possible can enjoy their heritage. We need a re-think at Gladstone’s Land and elsewhere about how we do this to suit the needs of new generations. We would be happy to invite Ms Gunn to join us at one of our properties and have a look behind the scenes to see the challenges we face.

Incidentally, the shop at Gladstone’s Land does not sell fudge, tartan or otherwise. l Keith Halstead is the National Trust for Scotland’s head of special projects