The demolition of Perth City Hall has taken a significant step closer to reality, with councillors backing plans to replace it with a new civic square.
A crushing blow for objectors, many of whom regard the redundant century-old hall with a strong nostalgic attachment, a number of people made last-minute submissions to Wednesday’s meeting of the development control committee in an effort to provoke a rethink of the demolition/city square option.
Despite the committee’s decision the plan still faces a considerable hurdle before the bulldozers move in. Historic Scotland must be convinced that all options for use of the Edwardian, B-listed building have been adequately explored before they would consider allowing the council to raze it to the ground.
Among those to address councillors was former MEP James Provan, who described Perth City Hall as ”an iconic building of huge historical interest”. He headed up the Perth City Centre Campaign which came up with a alternative option to what to do with the hall partial demolition as well as a square.
Mr Provan maintained this option was more likely to find favour with Historic Scotland and was the best of all worlds as it would provide space for a permanent stage for concerts, a tourist information centre and facilities such as toilets.
The emotive nature of the issue was made plain to the committee, with local woman Maureen Summers describing any decision to demolish the hall as ”wanton destruction”.
Others suggested retaining the hall for an indoor market or new museum but it fell to depute council chief executive Jim Irons to quash the arguments for opposing the civic square plan.
”The applications before you today for planning and listed building consents are the latest steps in achieving a long-standing vision held by both this council and by its predecessor district council,” said Mr Irons.
”The vision is of a vibrant and viable city centre with a high-quality environment and diverse range of land uses that will enhance its competitiveness and improve the employment prospects, prosperity and quality of life of its citizens.
”The proposal before you aims to do this by creating a focal point of activity and a venue for events in what is already the most important part of the city from an historic perspective and from a retail and leisure perspective.”
He said while in recent months a number of alternative proposals for the reuse or partial reuse of the hall had been put forward, all had been previously evaluated by the council and rejected by them.
Continued…
”Whilst many of these alternative proposals on the face of it appear to present a reasonable way forward the stark facts are that in the two years since the council agreed to terminate its agreement with Wharfside (the company whose bid to convert the hall into a retail centre failed) not one single proposal has come forward with a viable business plan and an identified source of funding,” said Mr Irons.
”When we consulted on a number of options during the early part of last year, unsurprisingly there was a divergence of opinion on the future of the city hall with significant numbers supporting both reuse and demolition. However one very strong message emerged which was that over 90% of the public are opposed to postponing a decision and waiting to see if the economic climate improves.
”Importantly, however, the council’s principal reason for seeking to create a new civic square is not founded on the premise that there is no viable alternative use for the city hall even although none has so far emerged it is founded on the belief that the creation of a new civic square will produce greater benefits to economic growth and the wider community.”
Mr Irons said he was aware the issue had polarised public opinion, but he believed demolition and a new square would lead the revitalisation of the city centre as a destination for tourists and shoppers.
At the beginning of the meeting, committee convener Councillor Willie Wilson said he would not be taking part in the debate as there may have been a perception in some quarters that he had made his preference known with regard to the applications prior to the meeting.
The proposals split the committee with suggestions for deferral for further investigation (Councillor Alan Jack) and refusal of the applications (Councillor Lorraine Caddell), but eventually the paper was moved by Councillor John Kellas and voted through with seven for approval with four against.
The matter will now go to Historic Scotland which will make a recommendation on the application to the Scottish Government.