June 20 2023

Wemyss Properties have set out three possible paths for the redevelopment of a ruined church at Cresswell Street, Hillhead, after abandoning efforts at facade retention.

Prior attempts to salvage at least two external walls of the B-listed former Hillhead Baptist Church have been deemed unviable, with the developer setting out 'imitation', 'rational' and 'sculptural' alternative approaches for a new build facade instead.

In a statement, Wemyss wrote: "Planning permission is in place for demolition of the former church with the retention of 2 external walls and a new building within however a condition survey and an economic analysis has shown that the retention of the 2 walls is not a viable proposition. The unavoidable implication is that demolition of the façade represents the only economically reasonable way forward.

"Given the ongoing deterioration of the building and the economic implication of further inaction, it is now imperative to reconsider the future of this site. The development appraisal demonstrates that no matter the ownership of the site, any economically viable long-term use of the site would require the demolition of the façade."

The 'imitation' route would see the height and proportions of existing masonry replicated in simplified form. Alternatively, under the 'rational' approach, only the broad height and proportions of existing glazing would carry forward with a further rationalisation of massing and window placement.

Finally, Wemyss detail a 'sculptural' solution in which larger more contemporary windows make a complete break with the past.

A full planning application is expected in November for a start on-site by summer 2024. 

2019 facade retention proposals by EMA were delayed by the Covid-pandemic, with Wemyss removing the roof in January 2022 as an emergency measure due to its 'unstable condition'.

16 Comments

#1 Posted by Chris on 20 Jun 2023 at 09:25 AM

Piss right off. If you don’t have the capital to repurpose the building then sell it to someone who does.

#2 Posted by Georwell 84 on 20 Jun 2023 at 09:27 AM

Destroying a facade like that is not acceptable. Developers just trying to squeeze more flats in due to location. Would never happen in Edinburgh. GCC must step in here.

#3 Posted by Cressfallen on 20 Jun 2023 at 10:27 AM

Doubtless the condition of the facade rapidly deteriorated after the 'emergency' removal of the roof. Once again developers prove themselves untrustworthy guardians of the city's historic assets.

Couldn't agree more with #1; if you don't have the money to do the job properly, you don't have the money to do it at all.

#4 Posted by Heidfirst on 20 Jun 2023 at 11:27 AM

Depressing ...

#5 Posted by Ben on 20 Jun 2023 at 12:11 PM

#2 "would never happen in Edinburgh," it is an Edinburgh based developer that is seeking to demolish them! Agree that GCC should step in here, and I suspect they will.

#6 Posted by David on 20 Jun 2023 at 12:52 PM

This is indefensible. Even if the site was brownfield none of the 3 proposed 'options' are good enough, but the audacity of proposing demolition of this building is shameful. Planners need to show some here...

#7 Posted by Roddy_ on 20 Jun 2023 at 14:51 PM

Typical of the kind of thing we allow to happen in the city. More built heritage potentially disappears forever. Hopefully Paul Sweeney is on the case as we speak...

#8 Posted by Ce Lorbusier on 20 Jun 2023 at 17:35 PM

If a listed building in a conservation area can't be protected we have a problem.

Roof removed conveniently in the middle of winter with no effort protect the structure. "Economic analysis suggested that we can't afford a big tarp because its much more profitable to let nature give us an excuse to demolish..."

#9 Posted by Ghetto King on 21 Jun 2023 at 09:12 AM

Let's be honest with ourselves. Are we really that surprised that this has happened? How many times has a developer or development company taken on a project with the end result being the destruction of the original building due to lack of funds to make it safe and water tight until the project starts properly.
Now , this building may not have been listed but that doesn't mean it is not of local and historical importance. It could be time when these projects when conceived and then given planning permission that a 3rd party investigates the developers' finances to make sure there is or will be the money to complete their projects. Perhaps , if the developers do have the cash then a maintenance fund should be held by a 3rd in good faith for repairs until the project starts.
Moreover , how much investigation is carried out into developers / development companies not only on their solvency but their track records of producing completed projects near to on time and near to budget constraints? Is there a national database where this can be checked by their prospective customers?

#10 Posted by G on 21 Jun 2023 at 09:43 AM

#9 The building IS listed.

#11 Posted by KLD on 21 Jun 2023 at 14:26 PM

The loss of the facade is unacceptable.

#12 Posted by Bob ra Builder on 22 Jun 2023 at 12:29 PM

#1 no other developer has come forward and that's the reality. Keep the facade and it's a pastiche. Maybe there's a need to allow sketches from key board experts to be uploaded and costed to prove this is the unpalatable proof...

#13 Posted by Lovely on 23 Jun 2023 at 10:57 AM

Loving the 'no other developer has come forward' nonsense talk.

The council should have hit them with compulsory repair notices years ago and still could.

Then they would quickly either invest or sell to someone who can actually do a proper project with a listed building.

The well trodden path of deliberate vandalism to get a cleared site must stop.

Make just one developer repair the building fully to how it was at their cost with no possibility of permission for new build and this nonsense will stop very soon.

#14 Posted by Bob ra Builder on 24 Jun 2023 at 13:00 PM

#13 lovely aka hands over ears la la la.
Cash strapped councils - you forgot that bit - and i would rather they provide basics to the needy rather than follys for the few to chase developers as they move ownership from one shell company to the next. Follow the lady?
Yes most developers hanging onto lion chambers, Egyptian chambers, India buildings, etc will panic and sell up despite them owning for +20 years..

#15 Posted by Lovely on 26 Jun 2023 at 11:06 AM

You illustrate my point very nicely with your examples.

The council has the power to force repairs and put things back as they were but they don't use it.

These legal notices are small money compared to the terrible destruction and dereliction ongoing.

Keep telling yourself you can't do something and of course you won't manage to do it.

A simple change of attitude needed urgently.

#16 Posted by The Realist on 29 Jun 2023 at 15:33 PM

You do of course realise that this former church will be left as a part demo'd facade until it is deemed unsafe and fully demo'd in a few years.

The harsh reality is if there isn't an economical case for the private sector to develop then redevelopment wont happen. GCC cant even empty bins efficiently, never mind add another multi-million pound property to their ever crumbling estate that already isnt maintained.

The real options are either demo and redevelop or have another boarded up gap site with an unsafe building for the next decade. I know what option I'd choose if i was a nearby resident.

Post your comments