A formal complaint has been submitted to the public services ombudsman about the ”disgraceful” way in which the council and its senior officials have conducted the process of determining the future of Perth City Hall.
The matter has been raised by the council’s former chief executive, James Cormie, who has been outraged by the decision by councillors to pursue demolition of the Edwardian, B-listed building and to replace it with a civic square.
”The determination of the political administration and the officials to bulldoze through what could, at best, be called a highly speculative and unproven scheme to create a ‘civic square’ at a cost to the hard pressed council tax payers of some £4 million to £5 million is altogether a sorry tale of arrogance, incompetence, stupidity and total disregard for both the democratic process and the government’s Scottish historic environment policy,” he said.
”Now that what appears to be a very attractive scheme for the conversion of the hall to a covered market and food hall, at no cost to the council, has been submitted by Messrs. Simpson and Brown of Edinburgh, would it be too much to ask that fair and unbiased consideration is given to this scheme?”
Mr Cormie says he was ”intrigued” to find out that Jim Irons, depute chief executive of Perth and Kinross Council, has submitted a report on Perth City Hall to strategic policy and resources committee on Wednesday.
”The report confirms that the council, on June 16 2010, ‘agreed to give further consideration to the complete demolition of the city hall’ and requests the council ‘to authorise officers to make arrangements for the demolition of Perth City Hall and to make arrangements for the creation of a new civic square once all relevant consents have been obtained’,” said Mr Cormie.
”Up to this point, both officials and elected members have insisted that the council decision of June 16 2010 authorised officers to make all necessary arrangements for the demolition of the city hall and for the creation of a new civic square, once all relevant consents had been obtained.
”The fact that the above report is being submitted to the council proves conclusively that I have been correct throughout in alleging that no such decision was ever taken and that both the council and its officials were therefore acting beyond their authority in submitting planning applications before taking a policy decision on the future of the city hall.
”What the council and its officials are now seeking to do is to rectify their own unlawful actions which, up to now, they have insisted were fully correct and legal.”
Mr Cormie believes his lodging of a complaint is not unconnected with the paper which is going before councillors.
A spokesman for the council took issue with Mr Cormie’s assertions, saying: ”The council considers that all appropriate processes have been followed in taking this matter forward, and we would strongly refute any claims that suggested otherwise.
”What Mr Cormie is saying is untrue. We have made every effort to help Mr Cormie understand the process being followed which clearly separates the council’s decisions as planning authority from its decisions as building owner.”
He said the issues are ”out of the council’s hands”.
The final decision by the Scottish ministers will take into account a recommendation of Historic Scotland.