A Planning application has been made to Glasgow City Council to demolish the Hillhead Baptist Church in its entirety.
Objections must be made to Glasgow City Council by midnight on 20 September 2024.
To object simply email your concerns citing Objection to both Planning Application 24/01934/FUL and Listed Building Application 24/01935/LBA for demolition of building and erection of flatted residential development (32 units) with associated landscaping and infrastructure at Hillhead Baptist Church 30 Cranworth Street to: Planning.Representations@drs.glasgow.gov.uk
My objection letter is below which you can use as a template:
Dear sir,
I write to object to the two associated applications noted above for listed building consent to demolish the category B-listed Hillhead Baptist Church (LB32860) designed by Thomas Lennox Watson (1850-1920) which was completed in 1883. The building was listed in December 1970. It is situated in the Glasgow West Conservation Area.
Having read the supporting documentation provided by the applicant in support of their case for listed building consent for demolition and having met the applicant on site in July 2023 as part of their pre-application consultation and subsequently in March 2024, I remain of the firm view that their justification for full demolition of the listed building does not credibly meet any of the four tests required in policy 7(b) of the National Planning Framework 4, which requires the applicant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for its loss.
Considerations include whether the:
i. building is no longer of special interest;
ii. building is incapable of physical repair and re-use as verified through a detailed structural condition survey report;
iii. repair of the building is not economically viable and there has been adequate marketing for existing and/or new uses at a price reflecting its location and condition for a reasonable period to attract interest from potential restoring purchasers; or
iv. demolition of the building is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community.
Test one: it is no longer of special interest.
It is not disputed that the building remains of special architectural interest, befitting its listed status and prominent location at the junction of Cresswell Street and Cranworth Street within the Glasgow West Conservation Area. External features of the church building include prominent ionic columns in a classical portico, casement windows, and a triple-doorway front access, with doors, by tradition, painted sky blue which all remain intact and predate the surrounding red sandstone tenements, highlighting the historic development pattern of Hillhead as one of Britain’s most intact and successful Victorian urban set pieces.
Thomas Lennox Watson was the brother of naval architect, George Lennox Watson, which is an important link between the industrial and architectural achievements of Glasgow during this period. The church is one of three Watson completed in a ten-year period in Glasgow: Adelaide Place Baptist Church, Pitt Street (1875-7), Hillhead Baptist Church, Creswell Street (1883) and Wellington Church, University Avenue (1882-4). The building is therefore of significant architectural and social importance as a critical landmark of Glasgow’s gilded age.
Test two: building is incapable of physical repair and re-use as verified through a detailed structural condition survey report.
The survey and structural inspections carried out by an architectural consultant appointed by the developer make it clear that the building is indeed capable of physical repair. Indeed, the Simpson & Brown condition survey highlights that:
“There is relatively little wrong with the structure of the masonry which appears to have been well-built, if not well-specified.”
Furthermore, in relation to the main entrance element, it states:
“The ionic columns and capitals are attractively carved and have been an important element within the architectural design of the building. Both capitals and columns should be retained for possible salvage because they are generally in better condition than most of the carved work.”
The report then goes on to set out a programme of stonework and associated façade repair works in categories of Urgent, Necessary and Desirable. This highlights that the building is indeed capable of physical repair.
There has been no conservation-accredited structural engineer appointed to inspect the building’s condition and feasibility for façade retention, a glaring omission. The proposed replacement building also makes no effort to incorporate this feature portico, either through retention or deconstruction and reassembly, as recommended.
The applicant also claims that:
“There would also need to be significant temporary works to restrain the façade while the internal existing structure is demolished, further adding cost and carbon to the project.”
This statement has failed to consider the option of deconstructing and reassembling the principal façade, an approach that has previously been undertaken at the B-listed former Steiner School in Yorkhill, the B-listed warehouse building at 140 Trongate that has been incorporated into the new Candleriggs Square development, as well as the planned approached to salvage of the principal facades at the B-listed Golfhill School in Dennistoun by Spectrum Properties and B-listed Haghill School by Milnbank Housing Association. The fact that this approach for retention has not even been addressed by the applicant highlights the deficiency of their justification for full demolition.
Test three: repair of the building is not economically viable and there has been adequate marketing for existing and/or new uses at a price reflecting its location and condition for a reasonable period to attract interest from potential restoring purchasers.
The applicant is primarily relying on this justification to demolish the building, but has failed to provide compelling evidence that at least the option of retaining the main portico is not economically viable, claiming that:
“The deficit is borne partly out of the cost of retaining, stabilising and integrating the existing portico in a new building, but also because of the suppressed value of the flats created behind the façade. The values are suppressed because the internal layout and provision of windows is compromised necessarily by the constraints of the retained part of the building.
“A sensitivity analysis was carried out on the partial façade retention option and there would need to be a 10% reduction in expected costs and a 10% increase in revenue for the part-façade retention option to meet the lowered profit on cost (PoC). It is highly unlikely that this level of return would be attractive to any other 3rd party developers or investors. Guidance of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) sets 20% as the level of PoC a typical developer / investor would expect to achieve.”
The indicative design layout for flats under this option has been poorly designed by a non-conservation-accredited architect with poor alignments between the historic façade and the new-build element behind. It is obvious from numerous other façade retention projects in the city, including the nearby category A-listed former Arnold Clark garage on Vinicombe Street, that it is feasible to retain the façade with contemporary insertion of windows into the portico that would not reduce the value of the flats behind the façade. No competent effort has been taken to demonstrate this option and appears to have been done in a contrived manner to drive the developer’s narrative towards full demolition.
Furthermore, the applicant’s own supporting documents demonstrate that is indeed economically viable to retain the façade, but that it would just not give a sufficient profit margin relative to new-build development. Insufficient profit is a completely inadequate justification for the complete demolition of a listed building in a conservation area.
This is further corroborated by Glasgow City Heritage Trust’s decision to decline grant funding support as they do not believe that the conservation deficit being claimed by the applicant is unreasonable or insurmountable.
Given that the applicant is motivated by a desire to maximise profit on the site and that successful façade retention options have been achieved in areas of the city with much lower land values, and despite worse structural condition, most notably the recent work by LAR Housing Trust to salvage the B-listed former Inn on the Green in Bridgeton, it is my firm view that a partial façade retention of the main B-listed portico is economically viable at Hillhead Baptist Church and this should be insisted upon by the planning authority.
Edinburgh-based Wemyss became the owner of the Hillhead Baptist Church building in April 2022. They have undertaken no marketing of the site for alternative development since they concluded that retaining the listed building was no longer of commercial interest to them. They attempt to justify this in the following statement:
“As set out in the development appraisals and summarised above, a façade restoration scheme is no longer viable Furthermore, it is unlikely that an alternative developer would be willing to accept the reduced PoC that the Applicant is for the new build proposal. As such, it is considered that pursuing further marketing in search of a purchaser who would be motivated to undertake a retention scheme would be in vain.”
Not only has the applicant failed to demonstrate beyond doubt that at least a partial façade retention of the main portico is not viable, they have failed to undertake active marketing of the site after they decided not to proceed with the existing consented scheme to establish interest in taking such a development on. There has been no marketing of the site since at least 2017, before which the assumption was always that the entire building must be retained and converted. There has been no market testing of an option of at least partial façade retention.
As we have seen from other, more challenging, listed buildings in the city, from the Inn on the Green to Golfhill School, façade retention or reconstruction is currently being actively undertaken by other developers. The justification for full demolition of the listed building in this case, at one of the most valuable sites in the city, is therefore dubious, and the site should be openly market tested with the existing planning consents for façade retention.
Test four: demolition of the building is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or the wider community.
Total demolition of the listed building is not essential to achieve economic reactivation of the site, and the proposed development of high-end private housing does not deliver any significant community benefit. The total loss of the listed-church building, previously in use by the wider community will be a net loss of community amenity and a permanent loss of Glasgow’s built heritage. It is completely unjustifiable when the mitigation of partial façade retention has not been fully explored due to the developer’s commercially driven preference for a cleared site and new build development.
Conclusion
In addition to not satisfying any of the tests set out above in National Planning Framework 4 and Historic Environment Scotland guidance, demolition of the listed building would breach CDP 9 of the Glasgow Development Plan in relation to the historic environment and undermine the historic amenity of the Glasgow West Conservation Area.
I urge your department’s officers to recommend to Councillors on the Planning Committee that this application for demolition of the listed building in the Glasgow West Conservation Area be refused and to advise the applicant to market the site with the existing planning consents granted consent in 2019 (19/01408/FUL and 19/01405/LBA).
The continued state of dereliction of the Hillhead Baptist Church and its inclusion on the Buildings at Risk Register for Scotland remain undesirable, however every effort should be made to pursue façade retention that would retain the external architectural amenity of the listed building in whole or part, which would deliver a sustainable reuse for this important listed church building in the heart of one of the best preserved Victorian urban neighbourhoods in Britain.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Sweeney MSP
Member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow Region
Comments