Furious reaction as developer demolishes Bothwell villa

Jul 31 2008 by Alastair McNeill, Hamilton Advertiser

NEIGHBOURS reacted with fury this week when a derelict Victorian villa was knocked down in Bothwell’s conservation area.

The shell of the red sandstone building at 5 Fife Crescent was levelled on Monday morning after South Lanarkshire Council instructed that it be demolished for safety reasons.

Its owner, Glasgow-based property developer the Coakley Group, received planning permission earlier this year for seven flats at the site which involved keeping the building’s facade.

But in May company chairman Tom Coakley claimed the building was “structurally unsound.”

He added that the group’s plans for the site were “a work in progress”, but considered individual houses the “best solution.”

A Fife Crescent resident pointed out this week that workmen had been at the address on the afternoon of Wednesday, July 23 and partially demolished walls.

The woman was told by council officials on Thursday the remaining walls of the building, with the exception of the facade, had to be demolished as they was dangerous.

“This is a conservation area. We have to apply for planning permission if we wish to install double-glazed windows yet a beautiful house like this one has been demolished after it was allowed to decay,” she said.

“A piece of the village’s fabric has been destroyed.”

Bothwell councillor Henry Mitchell was also angry, and pointed out the building had been “perfectly sound” three years ago.

“The planning department have allowed matters to reach the stage where it recommended the demolition of another fine Victorian building in the centre of Bothwell’s conservation area,” he said.

“Once again the department has been totally incompetent and shown a complete dereliction of duty.

“It makes me ask why the department employs so many highly-paid staff, at taxpayers’ expense.”

The Advertiser contacted Coakley’s agent G D Lodge and Partners this week, but no-one returned the call.

A council spokeswoman pointed out the owner had told them that they had not instructed any work to be carried out at the building.

She added: “Building Standards therefore instructed them to demolish the building, retaining the facade if possible and, if not, retaining the stonework for assessment on its suitability for reuse in any redevelopment proposals.”

It was also pointed out by the authority’s spokesperson that a retrospective planning application for the demolition will be required, as well as an application for any redevelopment work.

The spokeswoman said: “The building is not listed, but is located within the conservation area.

“The council have also been involved in regular inspections of the property to ensure that the site was sufficiently secure and that the building was not dangerous.

“While it is regrettable that the building had to be demolished for safety reasons, the council does not have the powers or resources to carry out work to such buildings.”

Earlier this year a Victorian villa at 9 Old Bothwell Road, built in 1872, was flattened under controversial circumstances.

Council officials had said that they had not received a ‘prior approval’ application under which the method of demolition is considered.

A month later plans for two houses at the site were lodged with planners.