St Peters-Section 12 Appendices - Historic Scotland

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT - VOLUME 1: ST PETER’S SEMINARY FEBRUARY 2008 319 Final Issue Applaud Historic Scotland for funding report, but regret that Historic Scotland chose not to participate as a ‘joint client stakeholder’. Historic Scotland should now accept shared responsibility for a Conservation Management Plan The draft report is not the much needed Conservation Management Plan. Such a plan, or a prescribed process for its production is now required. Important additional matters will need to be addressed by the Conservation Management Plan. The Plan will need to : Consider vulnerabilities and challenges generally and provide area specifi c policies Provide policies for management of specifi c threats Examples of issues to be addressed include inaccessible roof drainage; introduction of modern services; how new needs might be met without damage to historic fabric and setting; how modern standards of thermal comfort and energy conservation might be met; how disabled access might be met. A clear statement of fi ndings of fact is essential Report should include policy recommendations of a conservation led approach Robust fi nding that the current planning application is not in accordance with the statement of signifi cance. Report should state that the current planning application should be withdrawn/abandoned Report should recommend immediate measures for security and protection of the building. No recommendation for a conservation led approach. Report makes clear that full restoration of the asset remains practicable. Any short term scheme/ action should be compatible with eventual full restoration Further investigations of potential possible new and sustainable use are required and should be advocated. The plan does not prescribe ‘next steps’ to be followed in short and medium term. Repairs and consolidation should be undertaken according to established conservation practice. Public authorities have statutory powers to serve repair notices and compulsorily purchase neglected properties. The present condition of building is completely unacceptable and represents a failure of those responsible to discharge their proper obligations for it. Separation of the ownership of the seminary and the estate should be rejected out of hand.
12.10.18 12.10.19 12.10.20 CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT - VOLUME 1: ST PETER’S SEMINARY FEBRUARY 2008 320 Final Issue Public access should be informed by a curatorial programme. Appropriate treatment of classroom wing is essential. Removal of the roof is not acceptable. Avanti Architects Response/Actions Include synopsis of Twentieth Century Society’s feedback in Appendix. Statement that Historic Scotland did not participate is incorrect. Historic Scotland took part in all project meetings and was author of the brief - entitled Conservation Assessment, (see Appendix 12.8). Note that report addresses all the requirements of the appointment brief, and was not tasked to present specifi c scheme designs – which would have required brief for a new use brief and business case, which at present do not exist. Supplement Executive Summary to summarize recommendations for immediate future action, including reference to management plan, immediate security requirements, elimination of non-compliant options and progression of conservation and re-use. Vulnerability of asset is fully described and illustrated. Key fi ndings of fact are included in Executive Summary. Option/s considered to be non-viable are stated as such. Separation of ownership of former seminary buildings and Kilmahew Estate is not proposed or assumed, but the question of appropriate management arrangements for the various elements of the asset is raised as an issue to be addressed. Arrangements for public access provision are described in Sections 7 and 8. Classroom roof is not recommended for removal, but is now so dilapidated and hazardous, that it may require deconstruction before reconstruction is feasible. Charles Cooper Feedback Very impressive report. Very intelligent, open and detailed explication. Architectural value and potential is immense, but dilapidations are extensive, and all that comes over in a well balanced way that is covered from all angles. Parkland and landscape section of the report came across very strongly and added an unexpected aspect to the equation, offering a possible key to restoration. Greatest fear is that ‘the fate of St Peter’s will be decided by tactics rather than debate.’
Page 1 and 2:
Section 12 Appendices CONSERVATION
Page 3 and 4:
General Roy’s map showing ‘indi
Page 5 and 6: 2nd Edition Ordnance Survey, 1896-1
Page 7 and 8: Aerial photograph, 15 May 1940 12.1
Page 9 and 10: Current ordnance survey map 12. APP
Page 11 and 12: MacGibbon and Ross indeed suggest a
Page 13 and 14: iii. The Gothick mansion The remain
Page 15 and 16: Detail of the upper part of the E s
Page 17 and 18: vi. Significance The significance o
Page 19 and 20: The possibility that much earlier a
Page 21 and 22: 12. APPENDICES CONSERVATION ASSESSM
Page 23 and 24: 18th Century 1721 ‘…the estate
Page 25 and 26: 1865-95 1st Edition Ordnance Survey
Page 27 and 28: The curling pond is labelled The no
Page 29 and 30: 1967 2 April: Opening of classroom
Page 31 and 32: Helensburgh Library West King Stree
Page 33 and 34: 12. APPENDICES CONSERVATION ASSESSM
Page 35 and 36: CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT - VOLUME 1:
Page 37 and 38: Buildings at Risk Register for Scot
Page 43 and 44: 12.9.6 12.9.7 12.9.8 12.9.9 12.9.10
Page 45 and 46: 12.9.17 12.9.18 12.9.19 12.9.20 12.
Page 47 and 48: 12.9.27 12.9.28 12.9.29 12.9.30 12.
Page 49 and 50: 12.9.38 12.9.39 12.9.40 12. APPENDI
Page 51 and 52: 12.10 12.10.1 12.10.2 12.10.3 12.10
Page 53 and 54: 12.10.10 12.10.11 12.10.12 12.10.13
Page 55: 12.10.15 12.10.16 12.10.17 CONSERVA
Page 59 and 60: 12.10.23 12.10.24 12.10.25 12.10.26
Page 61 and 62: authenticity the characteristics th
show all

St Peters-Section 12 Appendices - Historic Scotland

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?