Interior photographs of staircase and theatre
taken in 1998
The UAHS has been campaigning for some years to prevent the demolition of this fine Victorian building on the seafront at Portrush, and was relieved when planning permission for its demolition by Coleraine Borough Council was refused at the end of 1999. Not unexpectedly, Coleraine BC appealed the decision, and the appeal was heard in April 2000. The UAHS was represented, along with the Historic Buildings Council appearing at an appeal for the first time, and Hearth representing the interests of building preservation trusts.
The finding by John Warke includes the following statements:
"None of the policy tests contained in [Planning Policy Statement
6, Planning Archaeology and the Built Heritage (1999)] have been
fulfilled by the appeal proposal."...
"The Commission, notwithstanding the initial views of the
Department that demolition of the building should be allowed,
endorses the appointed Member's conclusion that evidence at the
hearing demonstrated that the physical condition of the town hall
is not so poor as to overcome the presumption in favour of retaining
listed buildings as spelt out in Policy BH10 of PPS6"...
"The Commission has not been persuaded that a viable combination
of uses [for the building] cannot be found"...
In addition the PAC made a further comment that was encouraging
for the determination of future appeals of this nature:
"I accept that where building fabric is so damaged as to
be beyond repair, its replacement would amount to rebuilding rather
than conservation. To my mind, however, there is a distinction
between that situation and one where a substantial proportion
of a building, although in a poor state, is capable of being repaired...
The evidence presented on behalf of the appellants does not convince
me that 70% of the facing bricks are irreparable, let alone 70%
of the total building fabric. In any case, to my mind the precise
proportion of the fabric requiring replacement is not a conclusive
test of whether the works required to restore the building would
result in its conservation. A more important question is whether,
as a result of the works, the building's essential character and
features of special interest would be retained..."
This is particularly interesting in the light of Environment
and Heritage Services's current attitude that a building without
large amounts of "original" (as opposed to sympathetically
repaired or replaced after bomb damage, dereliction or general
wear and tear) fabric should no longer be listed. It is clear
that PAC regards a building's listing as depending as much on
its "architectural character" as on its "historic
character". We believe that both are important, and while
not wanting to see unnecessary replacement, we do want to see
fine architecture surviving even if (through whatever unfortunate
circumstances) much of the original fabric has been lost.
Return to headlines.