|
|
Strathclyde Group Cases Panel updated 09.08.04 Since our last report we have experienced an increase in telephone calls and letters requesting our help - an indication of growing concern for the scale and nature of change affecting some conservation areas. Most frequently it is the planning application that seeks to replace a small building with a larger one. As local plans are ambivalent on this issue, seeing all development as positive, even as 'enhancement' and as frequently developers are not respecters of heritage, we have found ourselves supporting many protesters who feel threatened by the current policy of urbanisation. For example, villas in large gardens are being targeted because building land is in short supply. One case in Glasgow's West End was for the demolition of a traditional house to accommodate a block of flats. By occupying twice the footprint this block would be at odds with the rules that require 60% of a garden to be preserved when a house is extended. But the design of the flats was good and might even qualify as 'enhancement'. However, we objected because the villa was neither redundant nor dangerous. Its presence preserved the plot ratio and character of its conservation area. Another very different case involving us in support of local concern was brought to our attention by our case worker in East Ayrshire, beginning a saga about a demolished bridge that began in 2001. In April of that year we wrote to East Ayrshire Head of Planning about the unauthorised demolition of an A-listed bridge by David Hamilton in the curtilage of Dunlop House, also by Hamilton. The developer concerned, McTaggart Construction Ltd, had plans to develop the house and grounds which evidently did not include the bridge. There followed an Enforcement Order to replace it, against which the developer appealed. In August his Appeal was dismissed and the Reporter affirmed that the bridge be re-instated, as was, in matching stone in six months from the date the Council approved the plans. An application was submitted in October to rebuild the bridge but not confirmed until March 2002. What concerned us was that the application was for artificial stone that, according to McTaggart, would 'match the original'. East Ayrshire seemed to be seriously considering this proposal, even waiting two months to see a sample before commenting. Along with local people we were seriously concerned at what seemed a disregard of a Reporter's statement and wrote a letter to this effect in June 2002. By October we were asking for an up-date on the 'progress' being made because we were considering informing the Ombudsman. In November, we wrote again and had a reply that was difficult to interpret. The second application had been returned and it was now the original that was being considered (not the number designated 'L B') and the issue was still one of 'matching' synthetic stone. How can this relate to an Enforcement Order for reinstatement in natural stone as approved by the Scottish Executive? The Ombudsman was unable to help because no decision had yet been made and no individual had suffered hardship or injustice as a result! Meanwhile the plans for the conversion of Dunlop House with enabling development are to be advertised. Apart from organising campaigns local action to other ends can be very valuable. For instance two AHSS members succeeded in recommending that a charming redundant school in Uplawmoor be listed. We had the pleasure recently of commending a planning application to convert it to housing. Of all the numerous applications for extensions (home improvements?), two come to mind. One was for a small listed house in North Lanarkshire and the other for a large detached villa in Renfrewshire. The first was interesting because I thought the architect was not happy with his client's ideas and welcomed support for an alternative design. The second was an astonishing amendment to an extension which we had previously found acceptable. An additional storey was required, from 2 to 2½ , in order to accommodate three children's bedrooms, each with its own dressing-room and bathroom. Unfortunately this meant the roofline was now level with that of the two-storey villa, making the extension appear to be part of it but because of lower ceiling heights and differences of scale in windows, etc, this relationship did not work. The extension had to remain an obvious addition and have a lower profile. Press reports can sometimes be misleading. One brought to my attention claimed that the AHSS had approved partial demolition of an old listed smithy in South Lanarkshire in conjunction with new development. Against a background of local objections this seemed odd and raised a query at our Annual General Meeting. While in essence correct, the report had omitted to mention that there were two sets of plans. We had objected, like others, to the first set of proposals, but as our concerns were largely addressed in an amended version we did finally recommend for approval. As Glasgow re-invents itself with many new projects we have seen a few designs of promise, not all built, that we could commend but were surprised to read in a news comment that according to Murray Dunlop Architects, 'Glasgow Planners received reputedly the first ever letter of approval for a radically modern building from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and Glasgow's Amenity Liaison Group'. Not very accurate, it just happens to be the first of our comments that they have noted. It referred to a Murray Dunlop design to be built on a site between Waterloo Street and Douglas Street. We also commend the recent restoration of a section of Queen's Gardens, a terrace of 1882-93 in Glasgow's West End which had been damaged in an air raid in WW2 and subsequently infilled with an incongruous 1960s block. Fortunately planning consent for its removal was conditional on a reinstatement which would be a facsimile of the original. This has been expertly and seamlessly done although the interiors are fully modern. For Westpoint Homes it has been a most successful and appreciated landmark development as all sixteen apartments were sold from the plans. Update I can also report the resolution of another ongoing case - the retained façade in Ingram Street, Glasgow. This surviving portion of a warehouse terminates Brunswick Street as Hutcheson's Hospital by Hamilton does for the neighbouring Hutcheson's Street. Two development plans submitted had assumed that this could be demolished. However Glasgow Council has stood firm on the original conditions of eight years ago that the façade should be incorporated into any new build. Such a plan has now materialised and has been approved. Audrey R Gardner Proposal for Listing: Paisley Civic Centre, Cotton
Street, Paisley The design by Hutchison, Locke and Monk won a two stage national architectural competition in 1964 for a development to provide headquarters for the two then constituted authorities - Paisley Town Council and Renfrewshire County Council - together with a Police Station and District Court. Built in stages from 1968 to 1972 by the separate parties, the original design was not quite fully realised, notably by the omission of a linking concourse between the north and south blocks. Subsequent reorganisations of local government have led to the two main units housing the various departments of Renfrewshire Council. It came to our notice that the Council had resolved to accommodate all staff and councillor accommodation within an extended South Building and to sell the site of the North Building after demolition. As far as can be ascertained this appears to be an attempt to 'rationalise' the accommodation needs of the Council and to limit the necessary upgrading of cladding and ventilation of the existing provision. In the context of Paisley town centre we view these civic buildings as part of an exceptional stretch of unalloyed public realm land stretching from the Lagoon Leisure Centre east of Mill Street, through the police and court group, the Council Headquarters, along the Abbey precinct to the Victorian town hall and over the River Cart to the public gardens on the corner of St Mirren Street and the Cross. We believe this council buildings group, remarked on in Glendinning, MacInnes, & MacKechnie's History of Scottish Architecture for its 'grandeur of urban space', merits the protection of listing in its own right. We are even more certain of its worth as part of the unique character of the heart of Paisley. It will take some time for the local authority to finalise its proposals which are opposed by the staff, many of whom work in inferior satellite offices. We would hope that by the time plans are brought forward it would be necessary for them to meet the criteria that apply to listed buildings before any demolition could be contemplated and that adaptation may prove the more attractive option. At time of writing (November 2003) we understand that Historic Scotland is giving serious consideration to the proposal. In any case we hope that the local authority can be brought to take a more comprehensive approach to the possibilities that the site presents. We are certain that a co-ordinated design-led approach could upgrade the complex to 21st century standards while retaining its integrity and its contribution to the exceptional character of the locality. Neil Pirrit Update Audrey R Gardner |
|
