City Hall campaigners question council numbers

Sep 16 2011 by Gordon Bannerman, Perthshire Advertiser Friday

COUNCIL chiefs have got their sums all wrong over plans to demolish Perth City Hall, it was claimed yesterday.

Sceptical about Perth and Kinross Council’s projected numbers in terms of the economic benefit to the Fair City if the City Hall is replaced by a civic square, campaigners battling to preserve part of the under-threat C-listed building have drafted-in a number cruncher of “international repute” to scrutinise the local authority’s figures.

One-time Euro MP James Provan, of the Perth City Centre Campaign, said PKC officials had reported that total demolition and re-use of the site as a civic square/public space created “greater quantifiable benefits to the local economy than any of the alternative options.”

But he dismissed the council figures as “highly speculative.”

Mr Provan noted: “The conclusion of the Locum Consulting report is, in our opinion, flawed when suggesting that full demolition and the creation of a civic square is a ‘clear winner under the adopted appraisal exercise’ because the partial demolition option calculations fail to recognise the value generated to the local economy by the residual square.

“However, senior officials are progressing their own proposal for total demolition without full council approval, without taking into account their duty of care for our historic buildings, and basing their proposal on a consultant’s report that clearly states it is difficult to quantify the impact of each option and that visitor numbers would need to be tested against market demand.”

Mr Provan also flagged up a lack of comparable information and that no accepted method of calculating economic impact generated by public realm development currently exists.

“PCCC, being aware of these cautionary statements surrounding the financial model, were fortunate to have a forensic accountant of international repute volunteer to look at the figures for the options that were floated by the council,” he declared.

“It is important, in accepting the model, to analyse in detail the build-up of these figures – as they are the only justification for the council officials’ proposal.

“The economic benefits, along with the views of Historic Scotland, are a major factor in determining the various options for the City Hall.

“The method used by the council’s consultants to calculate economic benefit is based primarily on the additional number of visitors who would be attracted by each option.

“We have no dispute with that, but the PCCC analysis has uncovered the fact that the additional visitor numbers used to justify total demolition are virtually double the number of visitors of any of the other options.

“This is pure speculation and PCCC strongly contests the basis for this assumption, especially as it is the only justification for the selection of that option. We refute the evidence on which the council are basing their proposal.”

PCCC says that the footprint of the retained part of the City Hall would take up only 11% of the total area available, “and provide an attractive, protected area”.

Visitors

“The activities planned for the square could all, equally well, be performed in the marginally smaller square and therefore attract a similar number of visitors,” said Mr Provan.

“If visitor benefits were equalised for the two options the financial benefit would also be equalised, and the PCCC option would be greatly enhanced, were a heritage and visitors centre to be included.

“Based on current ‘guestimates,’ total demolition of the City Hall would be an act of cultural vandalism that would deprive Perth of a historic building, a valuable piece of real estate, and a great asset for the future.

“We believe that the council should be cautious in agreeing to proceed with their senior officials’ proposal.

“In recent years Perth and Kinross Council have run into some major planning and development problems due to many projects not being based or justified by facts, estimates, and public opinion – and decisions have been taken to proceed that have caused public outcry.

“The Perth City Centre Campaign was originally formed to try to find a compromise for those wishing to preserve the City Hall, and those who sought total demolition.

“We strongly believe that we have achieved that objective, and at the same time have pushed the idea of creating a city centre of which the people of Perth could be proud.”

In response to Mr Provan’s claims, a PKC spokesman declared yesterday: “An independent appraisal by expert consultants found that a city square on the site of the City Hall will deliver significant benefits to economic growth in the city centre and to the wider community.

“The appraisal also concluded that other options for the building, including the partial demolition option, would require significant public subsidy and would not deliver as significant economic or community benefits.

“A city square was also the option most supported by the public and local businesses during an exhaustive consultation process carried out by the council last year.

“The new square will be a major economic driver for Perth and Kinross as it becomes a venue for regular markets and a venue for national and local cultural and social events, bringing investment and jobs to the area.

“The council’s attention remains fully focused on the very real benefits it will bring to residents and visitors alike.

“Currently the council is following due process by applying for listed building and planning consent and these proposals are expected to be considered by the development control committee in the autumn.’’