Villagers ‘furious’ over Covenanters U-turn on housing

Jan 25 2007 By Alastair McNeill

THE Scottish Covenanters’ Memorial Association were under fire this week for changing their position on housebuilding at Bothwell’s Covenanters’ field.

When the issue of zoning the field for housing emerged last year, the SCMA accused South Lanarkshire Council of ‘flying in the face’ of Scottish Executive policy and ‘betraying the memory’ of those who gave their lives during the 1679 Battle of Bothwell Bridge.

But during a meeting with South Lanarkshire leader Eddie McAvoy and senior council officials in December, the SCMA accepted the case for a ‘small scale, high quality’ housing development at the site off Hamilton Road.

In return, the council agreed to work with the SCMA to draw up plans for a memorial garden, which would involve relocating the current 19th century memorial at the bridge, and information boards telling the story of the battle.

Villagers, however, are furious at the SCMA’s “U-turn” — and Bothwell Community Council this week accused the SCMA of “selling out” by accepting that housing could be built on the field.

The SCMA responded by saying that their change of mind was based on “finding a realistic way forward to resolve the issue” and accused critics of being “politically naive.”

Bothwell Community Council chairman Eric Denton, who attended the December meeting, told the Advertiser that he had spent time discussing the field with SCMA officials beforehand, and at that point they had given no indication of a change of mind.

Mr Denton pointed out that SCMA vice president David Bryce, in a radio interview in November, had said zoning the field for housing amounted to ‘tramping on the memory’ of the Covenanters who fought in the battle.

And in a letter to council chief executive Archie Strang, dated November 30, SCMA president Bill Niven, also expressed opposition, and stated that the field should be protected as a battlefield.

Mr Denton stressed it was Mr Bryce — and not council representatives — who suggested at the meeting that part of the field could be sold to a housing developer to pay for moving the existing monument at Bothwell Bridge into the field.

“This came as a bolt from the blue. Up until that point I had been led to believe that the SCMA were vehemently opposed to any housing at the site,” Mr Denton explained.

“Only weeks before, David Bryce had described the Battle of Bothwell Bridge as the ’Lowlands Culloden.’

“Then, to my amazement, David Bryce brought up the matter of building houses on the field to pay for the moving of the memorial.

“None of the SCMA officials live in Bothwell. They do not have the right to bargain away an area of land in a village they do not live in.

“They do not speak for anyone in Bothwell, and therefore this so-called deal, or agreement, with the council is no such thing.”

Bothwell South councillor Henry Mitchell this week described the SCMA’s behaviour as “narrow-minded” and “deplorable.”

He said: “Their only consideration has been the monument, which after all is a Victorian structure. But to me it is the field which is the most important thing.”

Mr Bryce, however, hit back by accusing critics of being unrealistic and lacking political sophistication.

He also questioned if they could claim to represent the people of Bothwell, since no public meeting had been held to gauge villagers’ opinions on the matter.

“The SCMA did not go into the meeting with a fixed position,” he said.

“Our preference would have been for the whole field to have been retained. However, it became clear during the meeting that this would not be possible.

“The council did not have the money to move the memorial to the field — and using part of the field for housing was the only way for money to be made available.

“The SCMA saw that the ideal of having no houses on the field was not achievable, and went for the possible — and we have got something out of the possible.”

Mr Bryce also pointed out that the SCMA’s change of mind was also down to the fact that there was no legal statute in place to force the council to protect the site as a battlefield.

He added: “That’s very unfortunate — but without such a statutory instrument our judgement was that the scope for preventing house building on the field is extremely limited.”