WRITING ON THE WALL FOR SHRUBHILL WALL

The latest development proposals (Refs 13/01070/FUL and 13/01071/LBC) for the land at Shrubhill will go to committee on 23 October with a recommendation for approval, writes local resident Christopher Gray (see Breaking news, 9.4.13).   

This is despite numerous objections to proposals to dramatically reduce the height of the boundary wall between the site and the Shaw colonies, and thus lose its distinctive saw-tooth profile.

As the proposals amount effectively to part-demolition of a B-listed structure, the applicant  – Frasers Hamilton (Shrubhill) Ltd, in administration – was obliged to assess the proposals against the Scottish Historic Environment Policy (SHEP test). Although Historic Scotland in their consultation stated that ‘the conclusions of the submitted SHEP test report (July 2013) do not really address any of the SHEP tests successfully’, in the next paragraph of their statement they suggest that the boundary wall’s interest is diminished because it no longer forms part of the building for which it was designed.

This argument appears to have been enough for the Planning officer to support the application, regardless of the importance the wall plays to the character of the adjacent colonies which were recently granted Conservation Area status. 

See also the remarks of Archaeology officer John A. Lawson in the letter attached below.

Whilst few would argue against redevelopment of the site, this particular application by the administrators does appear more of a paper exercise than a ‘shovel-ready’ scheme (see Issue 218). The principle of demolition of a ‘difficult’ heritage element is now established though, and makes the site more attractive to other buyers who may not put forward as agreeable a mix of family homes. The retention of the wall would arguably have contributed an instant identity to the new development and thus benefited new residents in the long term.

However, the decision to grant approval is another sad example of the piecemeal erosion of our industrial heritage.

Should industrial archaeology be respected and retained here? Or is it time to move on and make the site as 'permeable' and attractive to developers as possible? Let us know what you think by email spurtle@hotmail.co.uk on Facebook Broughton Spurtle or Twitter @theSpurtle 

@papawasarodeo @theSpurtle The AHSS argued they are part of the same thing. Significance of former partly defined by latter...

@papawasarodeo@theSpurtle & 05/03128/FUL stated “gable wall to be retained/exposed as historic feature *characterising nature of the site*"