Elgin Place Congregational Church Destruction

[nodrog]

What about trying that architecture column in Private Eye?
Given it featured scathing comments about the council etc when the fire happened, they might be interested to pick up on this followup...

nodrog

[Closet Classicist]

Spooky! You read my mind nodrog. Just checked out the Private Eye website for details. Will send on a link and gap 74's image if that is ok with you gap 74? Can also fill Pilotti in on the blanks.

Cheers

CC

[Apollo]

BBC1 tonight: Tinderbox City

Wed 11 May, 19:00 - 19:30 30 mins

It's known as Tinderbox City - a label Glasgow has lived with for many years. You're more likely to die in a fire in the Strathclyde area than anywhere else in Britain and arson rates still remain alarmingly high. Tonight Frontline Scotland's Samantha Poling follows the work of the fire investigators of Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service and meets those whose lives have been devastated long after the flames have gone out.

[gap74]

Yeah, fire away CC...

Er. maybe I should rephrase that...

Gary

[mrlipring]

BBC1 tonight: Tinderbox City

Wed 11 May, 19:00 - 19:30 30 mins

It's known as Tinderbox City - a label Glasgow has lived with for many years. You're more likely to die in a fire in the Strathclyde area than anywhere else in Britain and arson rates still remain alarmingly high. Tonight Frontline Scotland's Samantha Poling follows the work of the fire investigators of Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service and meets those whose lives have been devastated long after the flames have gone out.

I meant to record that!

I'd told digiguide to remind me, but not put it in webscheduler. Grrr...

[red_kola]

I meant to record that!

I'd told digiguide to remind me, but not put it in webscheduler. Grrr...

You can watch it on the web if you go here and click on "Use the BBC Scotland Player to watch and listen to programmes". Select Frontline Scotland from inside the BBC's media player.

This direct link may also work
http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/newsplayer/?article=000065

Sadly dependent on installing realplayer, alas

[mrlipring]

I think i've sorted out a copy from elsewhere. Gotta love UKNova.

[nodrog]

First word on what will replace the Shack building in todays ET:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5038808.html

Obviously, it would be impossible to reinstate the building, but we hope a new building would be in keeping with the local environment

Hmm.

[Closet Classicist]

You beat me to it nodrog. Hmmmm there is more to it than this. Firstly they have to produce a replacement building in order to justify demolishing the original 'A' listed one. Secondly they have still to demonstrate that retention of the original building was impractical. Thirdly it wasn't the fire that caused the structural problems with the rear gable. Fourthly as I understand it (given off the cuff remarks by a senior official) Development and Regeneration Services are still angry about this church being demolished particularly when no representatives from either DRS or Historic scotland were present. Finally they wouldn't be in this mess if they had just retained the portico and other parts of the façade that were still structurally sound.

[nodrog]

Finally they wouldn't be in this mess if they had just retained the portico and other parts of the façade that were still structurally sound.

Oh I completely agree with your points - -

But are the owners in a mess as far as they're concerned? If they get the insurance cash, they can build themselves a shiny brand new building on the site, which will no doubt have a much larger crowd capacity and be much cheaper to run than an old historic church.
(not to mention it being cheaper and easier to fling up a new build than to have to work around a retained facade of course!)

So they could come out of this £££££££££££s in.....

[james73]

First word on what will replace the Shack building in todays ET:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5038808.html

Obviously, it would be impossible to reinstate the building, but we hope a new building would be in keeping with the local environment

Hmm.

Typical, and not at all surprising.



James H

[Closet Classicist]

I don't want something that will 'be in keeping with the local environment' (what does that mean exactly?). That sounds suspiciously insipid. I want something that is as outstandingly good as what we lost here and has the same kind of take no prisioners confidence to it. Something that Glaswegians will look at and not feel shortchanged.

[Sharon]

Hear hear.

A landmark building to replace a landmark building.

[Closet Classicist]

Thought you'd all be interested to hear that the council approved the demolition of the church at their meeting of 13th September. Unbelivably they have included a condition that

' A report outlining details on architectural salvage from the building, with a view to their retention and re-use shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to conserve the historic environment.'

Is that a joke? And how there's nothing left! Sound of stable doors being bolted anyone? This is persumably a fig leaf for the council to hide behind.

Is it just me or does this stink....?

I am absolutely fuming

Here's the full report if anyone is interested:

Development And Regeneration (Development Applications) Sub Committee
Report by Director of Development and Regeneration Services
Contact: Mr B Greenock Tel: 0141 287 6028
APPLICATION TYPE
Listed Building Consent incl Demolition
RECOMMENDATION
Grant Subject to Condition(s)
APPLICATION
05/00515/DC
DATE VALID
21.02.2005
SITE ADDRESS
193 - 197 Pitt Street Glasgow G2 4DT
PROPOSAL
Complete demolition of A listed building (Retrospective).
APPLICANT
Kapital Ltd
Third Floor, Trident House
42-48 Victoria Street
St Albans
Herts
AGENT
Structural Partnership
142 West Nile Street
Glasgow
G1 2RQ
WARD NO(S)
17, Anderston
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
02_031, Anderston
CONSERVATION AREA
Central Area
LISTED
A
ADVERT TYPE
Affecting a Conservation Area/Listed Building
PUBLISHED
4 March 2005
CITY PLAN
Principal Office Area
REPRESENTATIONS/ CONSULTATIONS
The responses from statutory consultees are summarised as follows:
Environmental Protection Services (Building Control) – The decision to demolish the building was correct given the severe fire damage and the deterioration in its structural stability and subsequent collapse, as outlined in ‘background’ (see below). The building was demolished under section 13.1.b of the Buildings Scotland Act.
Historic Scotland described the demolition of Elgin Place Church as one of the most serious losses to the heritage of Glasgow in recent years; one which diminishes the City’s cultural prosperity. The Inspectorate in considering the circumstances of the building’s demolition for the purposes of applying for retrospective listed building consent felt there was very little to be gained from criticising the approach taken by the parties involved. It also recommended discussions on strategy for avoiding future losses.
PAGE 2 05/00515/DC
The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland objects to the application in the strongest possible terms. The Society is of the opinion that, contrary to what the applicant states, retention of the majority of the façade was a practical solution, having regard to the policies of the Glasgow City Plan. In particular the Society viewed the demolition of the Church’s portico as a “wilful act of cultural vandalism” resulting in immense damage to the integrity of the outstanding Central Conservation Area. In addition the Society cannot understand why the current application is not accompanied by proposals for a replacement building which they see as a statutory requirement.
At a detailed level the Society questions the reasoned justification to gain access to the unstable gable wall via the only part of the church to be structurally stable, and claim more suitable alternatives existed. The Society also notes that Historic Scotland was not represented at a site meeting on 26 December 2005 at which these decisions were taken. The Society also questioned the timing of the Councils decision to issue a Section 13 Notice requiring the owners either to reinstate the structural integrity of the building or demolish the building to the underside of foundation. The Society felt this did not assist matters.
The Society is also of the opinion that the City Council has failed to exercise its duties under Part 51 of National Planning Policy Guideline 18 (NPPG 18 ) ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ to ensure that the outstanding features of this A listed Building were saved. Finally the Society urges the City Council not to grant consent for this application without seeing satisfactory proposals for a replacement building and request that an independent inquiry be set up to establish the facts of the case and what lessons can be learned from it.
One letter of objection/representation was received and the main issues are summarised below.
The objector expressed concerns about the loss of Elgin Place Church to the City and made reference to the circumstances surrounding the building’s demolition, the involvement of various public agencies, including Fire master and Strathclyde Police as well as related newspaper articles and television programmes. Reference was also made to other proposed developments by the applicants in the City Centre.
SITE AND DESCRIPTION
Listed Building Consent is sought on a retrospective basis for the demolition of the former ‘Elgin Place Congregational Church’, an ‘A’ Listed Building situated at 197 Pitt Street, Glasgow. The building which dated from 1855 was designed by John Burnett Snr, in the neo classical style of a Greek Temple and although ‘lamp blacked’ during the Second World War it remained a notable City Centre landmark. It was particularly noticeable among the Georgian architecture of Bath Street, characterised by its striking Greek Ionic portico on Pitt Street. It was in use most recently as a nightclub.
The building was severely damaged by an extensive fire on 26 November 2004 and unfortunately it could not be saved. Consequently works to demolish the building commenced in 27 December 2004 and the site has now been cleared. The application is supported by a ‘justification for demolition’ document prepared by The Structural Partnership Ltd, engineers acting on behalf of Kapital Ltd. This contains a Structural Conditional Report dated 26 November 2004, Structural Report on Sequence of Events Leading to Emergency Demolition dated 7 January 2005m and supporting appendices covering Monitoring, Photographs of the West Gable covering cracking, bulges, demolition and collapse and Demolition Method Statement.
BACKGROUND LEADING TO THE BUILDINGS DEMOLITION
The property was severely damaged by fire on 26 November 2004. Upon extinguishing of the fire and initial investigations by the fire and police services the building was released to the owners and assessed as a dangerous building by Environmental Protection Services (Building Control). To address immediate public safety concerns an exclusion zone was set around the building. At this time appraisal of the structure identified a substantial structural bulge to the west gable and bulging to the south wall as well as additional concerns about the building having lost much of its lateral stability with the collapse of the roof structure during the fire.
PAGE 3 05/00515/DC
Reports from the owners’ consulting engineers concluded the most viable solution to address the structural dangers would be to demolish the building. However, in view of the building’s listed status and the presumption in favour of its retention it was felt consideration should be given to the possibility of structural stabilizing works, albeit these would be intrinsically difficult and expensive to achieve. Discussions between officers of DRS and EPS identified the preference to further explore the possibility of retention and to facilitate this no immediate decision was taken regarding removal of the danger but the property was structurally monitored in the interim. However as obliged to do so by legislation a Dangerous Building Notice was served on 17 December 2004.
As a result of the structural monitoring it became apparent on 24 December that the west gable was deteriorating to an extent that it was considered to be in danger of collapse. This necessitated the evacuation of the adjoining tenement at 244/248 Bath Street in the interests of Public Safety. To remove this danger, operations to demolish this gable commenced that evening but during the course of these works the gable did in fact collapse onto the adjacent tenement. Works were suspended to allow further assessment during daylight on 25 December 2005. This appraisal determined that in addition to a large amount of fire debris, a substantial mass of the gables masonry was lying against the tenement gable creating a risk of serious structural damage to that building. It was a prime concern that no further load be allowed to surcharge onto this gable and that the collapsed material be removed off the gable at the earliest opportunity. The loss of the gable also had a significant adverse impart on the stability of the north and south elevational walls of the church building.
A meeting was scheduled for the 26 December 2004 to allow the specialist demolition contractor to consider options to remove the collapse safely without further damage being caused to 244/248 Bath Street and in light of the unstable elevational walls of the church. The meeting was attended by engineers and surveying staff of EPS (Building Control) along with the owners’ consulting engineers, DRS, Strathclyde Fire Brigade’s Fire Investigation Unit and consulting engineers on behalf of the building’s insurers. Debate determined that the placement of any mechanical plant onto the collapsed rubble would adversely surcharge the tenement’s gable most probably causing structural damage. That outcome was also anticipated if the elevational walls of the church were to be collapsed internally to allow mechanical plant access into the building remote from the adjacent tenement’s gable. The reaction of the east elevation of the church to such works was also a concern and an unknown.
Consequently, it was concluded that, to safely carry out any further works and minimise the risk of substantial damage to any adjacent premises taking cognisance of the advanced structural deterioration of the church following the fire and collapse, the only option was to commence demolition from the Pitt Street elevation of the church moving west towards the collapsed gable removing collapsed material and load away from 244/248 Bath Street. Works in this context commenced on 27 December 2004 under the instruction of the property owner and the site has now been cleared pending redevelopment.
POLICIES
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) (Scotland) Act 1997, Section 6 & Section 8(3).
The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000
The Glasgow City Plan 2003
National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 18 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’.
Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas
ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
The application for Listed Building Consent for demolition is retrospective as demolition of the building is complete and the site cleared. Proposals for demolition are normally assessed in terms of City Plan Policy HER 2 and the criteria in the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas 1998 – Historic Scotland. The process requires a thorough investigation of the building’s importance, condition and alternative uses.
PAGE 4 05/00515/DC
The principle planning issues to be addressed with respect to this application are considered to be:-
1. whether the proposals accords with the provisions of the Development Plan;
2. whether the proposals are acceptable relative to the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997; and its likely impact on the character and appearance of the Central Conservation Area and the adjoining listed building having regard to National Planning Policy Guidelines and Historic Scotland’s Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas and;
3. whether any consultations/representations received are relevant to the assessment of the proposals.
The current Development Plan comprises the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and the Glasgow City Plan 2003.
In respect of the Structure Plan; applications require to be assessed against Strategic Policy 9 – Assessment of Development Proposals. In view of the reasoned justification to demolish this building on grounds of public safety, it is considered that the criteria set out in the policy, 9 has been met, in particular B (iv) in terms of the need to “safeguard the environmental resources listed in Schedule 7 or identified in local plans” which includes the Glasgow Central Outstanding Conservation Area.
In respect of the Glasgow City Plan; application for the demolition of listed buildings must be assessed in terms of Policy HER 2 Listed Buildings (Buildings of Architectural and Historic Importance). This policy encourages the retention of listed buildings but states in Part 2 (iii) that “if demolition is proposed, an application for consent to demolish any listed building or part thereof, must demonstrate that retention is impractical”.
Under Section 6 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 it is an offence to execute or cause to be executed any unauthorised works either for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension in a way which would affect its character. However under Section 8(3) it can be a defence against the offences mentioned above to prove that works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of public safety or health. Section 8(3) requires that where emergency demolition does have to be undertaken, the need to obtain listed building consent is not abrogated but the defence of urgent necessity can be claimed if consent had not been obtained. The onus of proof will be on individuals who demolish their property, whether or not it was subject to a notice under the Buildings Acts, to show not only that works were urgently necessary but that no lesser solution than demolition was feasible. Individuals must also give notice in writing justifying in detail the carrying out of the works to the planning authority as soon as possible.
COMMENT
The application for listed building Consent (retrospective) is considered to satisfy the provisions of the Development Plan and the City Council, in the exercise of its duties is also considered to have met the requirements under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 in this instance (see also ‘background leading to the buildings demolition’ outlined above).
With reference to the letters of objection including representations from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland (AHSOS): A number of the issues raised by objectors relating to the circumstance surrounding the buildings demolition, media coverage, the involvement and role of other agencies and other listed buildings applications within the City Centre are not considered material to the determination of this particular application.
In respect of the assertion by the AHSOS that the demolition of the church’s portico was an act of cultural vandalism; this is refuted and the reasoned justification behind the decision to proceed in this manner is given on the background outlined above and the detailed report submitted as part of the application. As regards the AHSOS comments on the timing of the Section 13 Notice issued by Environmental Protection Services (Building Services), which it described as ‘not assisting matters’; this is matter for EPS (Building Services) who were obliged to issue the Section 13 under its responsibilities through the Building Scotland Act. In the exercise of its duties there was liaison with the Planning Authority as recommended in the Memorandum.
In respect of the AHSOS view that listed building consent in this instance should not be granted until a scheme for a replacement building has been approved, having regard to the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. Section 15(3) is not considered to apply in this case having regard to Section 6 and Section 8(3) as outlined above.
PAGE 5 05/00515/DC
The Society’s accusation that the City Council has failed to exercise its duties under Part 51 of National Planning Policy Guideline 18 ( NPPG 18 ) is also refuted give the public safety issues and circumstances that surrounded the building’s demolition as outlined above. A condition however has been attached requiring a statement from the applicant outlining details on architectural salvage from the building with a view to their retention and future re-use.
In respect of the AHSOS request that an independent inquiry be set up to establish the facts of the case and what lessons can be learned from it; the request for an inquiry is not relevant to the consideration of this application however there are ongoing discussions between the City Council and Historic Scotland about the development of a strategy for avoiding future losses of important listed buildings.
On the basis of the foregoing, it is recommended that Listed Building Consent be granted subject to conditions on a retrospective basis.
CONDITIONS AND REASONS
01. A suitable scheme of surface and boundary treatment which prevents fly posting, dumping and parking of vehicles shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority within one month of the date of this Decision Notice.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the surrounding Conservation Area.
02. A report outlining details on architectural salvage from the building, with a view to their retention and re-use shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority within one month of the date of this permission.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to conserve the historic environment.
ADVISORY NOTES TO COUNCIL
01. This application requires to be referred to Historic Scotland for Listed Building Consent.

[AlanM]

Fudge anyone?