June 5 2024

A backlash against a decision by Glasgow planners to permit the demolition of an unlisted Victorian warehouse has begun amidst fears of ongoing erosion of the city's history.

Riverfront Property and architects Sheppard Robson were successful in convincing officials that the building at 11 Oswald Street, had to go for a new build hotel.

Dating from around 1844 the heavily altered warehouse received a mansard roof extension in 1902 but has suffered 'extensive' water damage in recent years.

Making the case for demolition the applicant wrote: "Many of the structural elements have reached the end of their design life and substantial remediation works would be required to reinstate the building into a safe habitable condition."

A structural condition report commissioned by the developer in 2022 backs up this case, with core samples suggesting the stonework is '... certainly not suitable for incorporation into a building structure for another life cycle.'

The plans drew 54 objections including representations from the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, councillor Philip Bratt and the Friends of Glasgow West with just 14 letters of support. Historic Environment Scotland was neutral on the demolition as the building's structural condition prevented its re-use at a reasonable cost.

Writing on X, the social platform formerly known as Twitter, Paul Sweeney MSP said: "I'm appalled that the Planning Committee has agreed to approve the demolition of this historic warehouse on Oswald Street. The last vestige of this street's history at the heart of the Port of Glasgow is now to be wiped out for a speculative hotel development. Shocking decision."

Salvaged stonework that is assessed to be of sufficient integrity for re-use will be relaid for the base of the proposed new hotel.

The loss coincides with the launch of a Built Heritage Commission for the city, a forum looking at issues around vacant and neglected buildings supported by a £1.7m fund to help bring them back into use.  

7 Comments

#1 Posted by devilish advocaat on 5 Jun 2024 at 13:33 PM

Maybe a bit ranty but the "water got in so we need to knock it down" excuse is really getting old now. Building owners need to be held to a much higher level of accountability with regards property upkeep. If the roof leaks, fix it. If you can't afford to fix it, sell/transfer ownership to someone that can. There needs to be an actual punishment or deterrent for those that sit on buildings that have formed part of the city fabric for decades or longer and allow them to degrade to the point where the only viable course of action is demolition.

#2 Posted by Nairns Bairn on 5 Jun 2024 at 16:43 PM

@1
Yes, in an ideal world, but where buildings are unoccupied they will deteriorate, there just isn't the motivation to maintain them. They have a finite life.

Until such time as:
- Such buildings are listed and HES has the money and teeth to enforce owners to maintain them, and
- VAT for work to existing buildings is zero-rated

..nothing will change. It's more cost-effective to replace a non-listed building, and all the Heritage Societies in the world can't change that.

Its just a shame that what will replace it will undoubtedly not have the same simple elegance.

#3 Posted by Fat Bloke on Tour on 6 Jun 2024 at 11:29 AM

What chance an emergency C listing done at the gallop by a harassed HES?

Works in Possil.

#4 Posted by Ed on 7 Jun 2024 at 10:34 AM

If you key in oswald street warehouse in yo*tube you'll get a couple of recent videos from urban expeditions

#5 Posted by town planner on 7 Jun 2024 at 10:59 AM

I get that small poky windows are not what many modern building tenants are looking for, but the facade should have been retained, and elevation could have been added above it. Strange decision.

#6 Posted by Glasgow bob on 8 Jun 2024 at 06:13 AM

With so much old buildings empty and failing where's the money going to come from to force regeneration if developers hold dilapidated property till it falls down? Think we need to be more selective till we can introduce some sort of certificate of health for buildings. I find it bizarre that you need a yearly mot for a vehicle's that are a fraction of the cost of a building and yet a building needs zip!

#7 Posted by Johnv on 11 Jun 2024 at 09:01 AM

The building is beyond repair. It reached the end of its life cycle decades ago and needs replaced. Its not a particularly striking building in any case so id question the "erosion of heritage" here and is now just an eyesore.

Post your comments