Ex-planning chief aims salvo at MP

Aug 12 2011 by Gordon Bannerman, Perthshire Advertiser Friday

Dear Editor, – MP Pete Wishart’s intemperate outburst in the PA last week on the City Hall was big on bluster and personal insult but short on facts. Actually, there wasn’t a single one.

In his attack on people like me who are opponents of the scheme, and are former council officials, here is what he got wrong:

MAJORITY/MINORITY: I don’t know where he gets the idea that we are a handful of people thinking “everyone else is wrong”.

As I write this, I see that the PA’s on-line opinion poll shows our partial demolition option is favoured by 69.3% of respondents with only 26% supporting the council’s “clear fell” scheme.

In the space of a month, and with virtually no resources, we have mounted a small exhibition in Willows (it’s still there readers) to show how much better the square would be if the “front” part of the City Hall is retained.

As a regular customer, I have been amazed at the near-unanimous support for the scheme among people who stop to look at it.

This small exhibition and the PA’s own publication of what Mr Wishart describes facetiously as “pretty drawings” have led to 500 individual objections in the space of three weeks.

In the same period, these “pretty drawings” have been considered by the body representing the Tayside architects and it has described the council’s scheme as “wanton destruction of such a fine example of Edwardian architecture”.

Last week, we learned that the Scottish Civic Trust have also objected to the Council’s applications.

UNDEMOCRATIC: Sometime during the past three weeks the chairman of the PCCC described the council’s actions as undemocratic and Mr Wishart has been steamed-up about it ever since.

As I didn’t make the comment it is not for me to defend it but there is no doubt that the project has lacked proper democratic oversight.

The reason is that on June 16 last year the council decided to “give further consideration” to the demolition issue but, since then, the officers have drawn up a set of plans and submitted them for planning and listed building consent without (a) a subsequent “demolish” decision being taken by our councillors, or (b) the council, as applicant and owner, approving the plans submitted in its name.

The official, complacent defence of this state of affairs issued on behalf of the council and by Mr Wishart himself is that the “councillors are not complaining”.

Even if that is true, it completely overlooks the fact that, in addition to councillors and officials, there is a third interest group to be considered here and it’s called THE PUBLIC.

They are entitled to expect that councillors should have cast a critical eye over the officers’ ideas before they became planning applications.

They are also entitled to read council minutes – like the one of June 16 last year – and understand what was decided without the need for further explanation from those in and behind the council whom Mr Wishart describes affectionately as “young scamps”. For students of sophistry their explanation is well worth reading.

In relation to Mr Wishart’s own notion of democracy it is worrying that constituents who hold views like mine – whether we are a majority or not – will, under the Wishart Doctrine, get little consideration from our elected representatives.

According to him: “Thankfully, and rightly, Perth and Kinross Council will take little notice of their incessant mutterings.”

We must hope that in Historic Scotland, where the final decision will be made, reasoned argument will count for more than ridicule and facts will get a fairer hearing.

CONSULTATION: Prior to the council’s inconclusive decision in June last year their consultants did, indeed, carry out a form of public consultation on the demolition/partial demolition issue.

But they did so “in the abstract” without illustrations of what type of square would result. That was a serious flaw because the advantages of partial demolition become immediately obvious when one looks at the vivid drawings prepared by Ian Dunsire for the PCCC exhibition.

Over the past year, council officers have drawn-up detailed plans for a single, non-negotiable, proposal and the public at large were unable see or comment on them until they were submitted as applications.

Far from being generous, the opportunities for meaningful input have been pitiful and, contrary to Mr Wishart’s claim that his meeting last year pre-dated “most of the former high heid yins’” interest in this issue, he is wide of the mark by 10 years in my case.

Towards the end of his piece Mr Wishart describes the council’s scheme as “a fantastic vision for the heart of Perth” which is simply a parrot-like repetition of the official council line.

Sadly, and with the notable exception of the Kirk, most of the buildings around the council’s square (including the one I live in) have mediocre facades and will never create a space which will be “one of the best in Europe”.

That is just empty hype. On the other hand, with the retention of the front part of the City Hall there would be a building with dignity, mass, and apparent age to serve as a counterpoint to the Kirk and provide both enclosure and a degree of protection from westerly winds.

It could also accommodate tourist and heritage uses which would actually draw visitors to the area. This alternative square would still measure 62 metres from west to east and cause no loss of function for civic activities.

What we need from our MP is less bombast and a more open-minded, respectful engagement with those of his constituents who do not agree with his council chums. This is not a party political issue.

Denis Munro.

By e-mail.