Jura Consultants’ defence on St Kilda centre controversy 16/11/09
► Council issues statement after over St Kilda centre row
ST.KILDA WORKING GROUP 12 NOVEMBER 2009
ITEM 2(c)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON JURA CONSULTANT’S ST KILDA CENTRE RECOMMENDATION PAPER
Introduction
This paper provides a response from Jura Consultants to the issues raised in a press
release produced by the proposers of the Leverburgh site, and a letter sent to the
Working Group by Councillor Uisdean Robertson, Chair of the Sealladh Hiort group
-
Purpose of the Study
In advance of responding to the concerns raised by the Leverburgh and Cleitreval
groups, we wish to re-
World class centre which reflects the sense of place of St Kilda
This study is the first stage in a long development process, and as such was intended to provide guidance on several key issues, including a recommendation on the best site for the centre. In order to achieve this, an important task is identifying and assessing the unique attributes of each proposal and the issues associated with the location.
Our role in this process is to provide an independent view of the unique opportunities
which each site provides, from the point of view of the visitor or user of the centre
in that location. Our process to this point has included comprehensive consultation
with each of the short-
Overview of Response to Concerns
We reject all criticism raised concerning the transparency, robustness or fairness of this process and the recommendation made to the Working Group. We have met with all shortlisted community groups on two occasions, and for the purposes of transparency and in the interests of fairness invited representatives of each community group to a meeting with the Working Group and ourselves to discuss their aspirations for the St Kilda Centre in their community and to highlight key messages which they would like the Working Group to consider.
We welcome this opportunity to address the criticisms and comments made by the Leverburgh and Cleitreval groups. In summary, the main concerns raised by the groups are:
§ Changes made to the initial criteria issued to communities at the outset of the process
§ ‘Arbitrary points system’ of 1-
§ Changes to the initial assessment criteria
§ Removal of some initial criteria
We would like to highlight that the full report has yet to be issued. Thus far, community groups have had access to a briefing paper, which highlights our view of their site, and the recommendation paper.
Issues Related to Criteria
We wish to reassure the Working Group of the reasoning behind our recommendation of Mangurstadh as the location for the St Kilda Centre, and to respond to recent concerns from the communities in relation to the process we have adopted. We are confident that our process has been fair, open and transparent, and has been verified at each stage by our client, the Working Group.
Before we provide a response to the issues raised against the assessment mechanism,
we would like to highlight that this was a ranking exercise, aimed at assessing the
options open to the Working Group against the criteria and wider brief, i.e. the
three short-
Our task was to assess the most appropriate location for proposals for the St Kilda Centre, and we felt that the fairest approach to assess locations was to consult with any community in the Outer Hebrides with an interest in the project. At the beginning of the process the groups were made aware, in writing, of the aspiration for the study, which was to “develop the concept for a world class visitor centre in connection with the UK’s only dual world heritage site.”
In addition to this aspiration, criteria were outlined at the beginning of the process, the purpose of which was to provide guidance for the areas which were considered important by the study team at the outset of the study for the St Kilda Centre. These were developed before the first study team visits to the sites and as such, clearly communicated to the groups in writing that the criteria were “outline areas for consideration” and “may be reviewed to reflect any new areas of consideration which emerge during the course of the research”. From our perspective, it was always intended that this would be an iterative process, with our view being shaped and challenged by discussions with community groups and the Working Group.
None of the criteria were changed between the development of the long list and short-
§ “Journey to the site” was considered to be an important consideration in terms of the visitor experience. Following our analysis of the tourism market in the Outer Hebrides, it was felt that a package of benefits would be necessary to attract visitors to a world class destination, and that the overall journey is an important part of this experience. The journey to each of the sites has been considered as strong and we have noted that the journey to Cleitreval “offers a sense of remoteness” which would be appealing to visitors, and that the journey to Leverburgh is “outstanding”, but the journey to Mangurstadh is comparatively stronger and, in our view, it is “more reflective of the harsh environment and isolation of St Kilda”.
§ “Access to St Kilda” was viewed as an important consideration. We are aware of the limitation on access to St Kilda in terms of capacity and affordability, but the opportunity to do so was viewed as an important part of the visitor experience. This criterion was refined following more detailed discussions with the short listed sites, and with the Working Group. As a result of this refined criterion, Leverburgh scored highest due to the proximity to operators offering St Kilda boat trips, and the frequency and duration of their crossing.
These refinements to the assessment process were introduced to provide additional differentiation between the sites. If the rankings applied to these criteria are removed from the overall ranking process the net effect is as follows:
TABLE 1
IMPACT OF REMOVING ADDITIONAL CRITERIA
Leverburgh Mangurstadh Cleitreval
Existing Aggregate Ranking 20 25 20
Journey to the Site reflecting St Kilda -
Ease of Access to St Kilda -
New Aggregate Ranking 15 20 17
The removal of the additional criteria has no material effect on the outcome.
In terms of the criteria which have not been ranked, we would stress that these criteria have not been ignored and have not been excluded from the assessment of the proposals. However, we have only ranked those criteria which, in our view, can effectively differentiate between the 3 proposals; we have not ranked those which, in our view, do not allow differentiation between the proposals. To explain each in turn:
· “Location specific interpretation opportunities” has not been ranked as each of the 3 sites have the ability to meet this requirement. The focus of the centre should be on St Kilda, and it is our view that effective interpretation can be used to tell the St Kilda story in the same way at each of the 3 sites.
· “Collection of materials held in area which are relevant to St Kilda” has not been ranked. Each of the groups has highlighted local collections in the surrounding areas which could be relevant to the St Kilda Centre. We acknowledge the relationship between Leverburgh and the Seallam! Centre, and the written confirmation of the Northton Heritage Trust to work with the Leverburgh group on the development of the centre; this has been noted in the recommendation paper as an advantage of the Leverburgh option. However, it is our view that regardless of location, in order to provide a world class visitor experience, the St Kilda Centre will need to attract as wide a collection as possible from a range of sources, local, national and international. As such, we feel the St Kilda Centre at each location has the potential to develop and attract a collection of relevant materials, and each of the sites would therefore be ranked equally. In addition, having viewed the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) collection of St Kilda material and discussed this project with the NTS Archivist, it is clear that there are substantial holdings of relevant material elsewhere which would undoubtedly support a centre of international standing.
· “Current relationship with St Kilda” was considered from a visitors’ point of view, and as such it was considered that each of the locations could present an argument in this respect. Leverburgh has direct access to St Kilda and St Kilda is in the parish of Harris; Mangurstadh also provides access to St Kilda, has a view of the archipelago and is most reflective of the island’s environment, flora and fauna; and Cleitreval has a contemporary military connection to St Kilda and the best view of any of the sites. On this basis, the sites could therefore be ranked equally.
· “Economic benefits.” Each of the proposals has been viewed as viable based on a very restricted business case produced by Jura Consultants, and as such it was agreed with the Working Group that level of viability would not be a primary consideration in identifying the preferred location. In response to further comments, viability should be distinguished from economic benefit; viability relates to how well the centre would be able to support operations via income generation and controlling expenditure, whilst economic benefit relates to the impact which the centre could have on the location and, more importantly, the Outer Hebrides as a whole. Investment in a St Kilda Centre could generate direct, indirect and induced economic impacts across the islands. As such, the economic benefit of investment in the St Kilda Centre has not been distinguished between each of the sites as the impact of creating the centre in one community would not deliver benefits solely with that community. Due to visitor characteristics and behaviour on the Outer Hebrides, it is likely that the economic benefits of the centre would be distributed across the islands, irrespective of the centre’s location.
· “Social benefits”. Each of the proposals provided a strong argument relating to the social benefits which would arise as a result of hosting the St Kilda Centre. Each of these arguments have been made in the context of population decline and economic challenges, and each argument would result in an equal ranking on this criteria.
In relation to the comment that remaining criteria (i.e. those that were ranked) were amended from the original criteria, this has been the result of minor rephrasing which reflect the overall purpose of the project. For example “dramatic scenic impact” was reworded as “dramatic scenic impact reflecting St Kilda”, which emphasises that all criteria were viewed within the context of the brief for a St Kilda Centre. The Harris group has commented that the first criterion on “site development potential” was originally focussed on the ability to accommodate significant visitor numbers, but that the importance of visitor numbers was removed. All three sites could accommodate large visitor numbers, so the assessment of this criterion related to the other elements of site development potential in the context of the brief. The criterion which refers to “opportunity for host community to present the ‘spirit of place’ of St Kilda” relating to “remoteness cultural heritage\shared traditions and natural environment” was always viewed as three separate considerations, rather than one.
The ranking of the criteria, as was stated in the recommendation paper, is a subjective
approach based on the view of the study team. However, as we had not any former relationship
with these communities or locations before commissioning, the study team could examine
each site with as much clarity and objectivity as possible. We accept it is difficult
to place a ranking against the merits of each of these strong proposals, but the
view taken by the study team, and endorsed by the Working Group, has placed primary
importance on the visitor experience and the capacity of the proposals to meet the
original brief for a world-
Conclusion
We believe that the study process conducted has been open, transparent and fair. We put in place mechanisms to engage with proposers of locations for the centre and considered carefully information provided by community groups and other stakeholders.
In response to the criticism that the ‘criteria were added’ during the process, we respond:
The criteria were refined as the project study progressed to ensure that the recommendation met the initial brief for the study from the Working Group. As shown above, if the ‘additional’ criteria are removed there is no impact on the recommendation.
In response to the criticism that ‘criteria were removed or the language changed’:
Only criteria which allow differentiation between the potential sites or locations have been included. If the initial criteria were added into the process, each site would achieve the same ranking against the criteria. Therefore there is no material impact on the recommendation.
We believe that the Mangurstadh location has been shown to be the best location for the proposed St Kilda Centre. This is the case when the site is considered against the criteria used and when considered against the fundamental principles of the centre as identified by the Working Group, i.e. world class centre which reflects a sense of place of St Kilda. We believe that Mangurstadh is the best location as:
§ The journey to the site reinforces the harsh remoteness of life on St Kilda
§ The location and surrounding landscape is visually stunning, providing a sense of life on St Kilda, and cannot be replicated at an alternative site
§ The landscape provides opportunities to support the visitor experience, in terms of preparing the visitor for their engagement at the centre
§ The site provides the opportunity to view St Kilda from the Outer Hebrides and there are opportunities for visitors to access St Kilda in close proximity to the centre.
§ The site is the most appealing from the perspective of developing a world class centre with world class architecture due to the surrounding landscape.