There are two Glasgow City Council planning references being used by the Council to facilitate Celtic’s quest for the destruction of the London Road Primary School which they don’t own.
The first is 12/01359/DC which relates to the Development of the site containing the school:
And the second is 12/01360/DC which relates to the Demolition of the school:
Only Glasgow City Council would get things backwards when the Development comes first in the sequence before Demolition. The last entry in the Demolition doc list is ‘Decision’ which is the approval and is dated 3 July 2013 whereas in the Development list the last doc called ‘Notice of Initiation’ is dated 1 Nov 2013.
Under the Demolition doc list is Historic Scotland’s assessment. It is the second STATUTORY CONSULTEE doc dated 12th Sept 2012 where Louisa Humm, Senior Heritage Management Officer rejects the demolition.
The Demolition ‘Decision’ doc contains a clause preventing demolition until there is a bat survey. There is also Clause no. 2:
So the redevelopment contracts have to be in place before demolition. Who is the developer?
Notice of Initiation under the Development
Note: the body carrying out the development is the DRS, this is Glasgow City Council’s Development and Regeneration Services dept and the Owner in the next box down, because it is blank, is the same as the applicant, Celtic.
When did Celtic purchase the site? What was the price? Was it the £300,000 leaked through Gerry Braiden on 08/05/2013 to test the waters of public opinion? http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/celtics-superstore-and-museum-on-old-school-site-given-go-ahead-123675n.21020173 Where did this figure get plucked out of the air from?
No documents can be found searching the Glasgow City Council doc search facility for London Road Primary School except the 3 Planning Application Committee docs from 7th May 2013 when the land was still in Council’s hands until the 18th Nov 2013. One doc is a Minute and the other two are reports dated 10th August 2012 and no sale is mentioned. Meaning the Notice of Initiation above is wrong and the Council still owns the land. The Notice of Initiation has to be redrafted with no coverup or corruption.
With the Development and Regeneration Services dept. of Glasgow City Council acting as the Developer this verifies that the Council still owns the site. Looks like DRS demolishes the site then Glasgow City Council hands it over to Celtic. Wouldn’t want Celtic having the extra costs for demolition when the Council can pay. So prior to any demolition the DRS contracts should appear on the Glasgow City council doc search site:
Note: The start date on the Notice of Initiation is 11/11/13 when WH Malcolm’s was to start. Malcolm’s is known as a demolisher and not known for construction. Why isn’t this in Demolition list?
London Road Primary School
What does Celtic get from demolition of the school? Take a look at the previous Masterplan Framework (2009) which preserved the school:
The ‘Avenue of Heroes’ is there with the green arrows, there’s carparking between it and the Superstore/Museum/Ticket Office in sky blue and the school in purple with VIP parking on the RHS. What extra does the demolition give Celtic? Let’s look at the new Phase 1 plans of the same area after demolition:
All Celtic are gaining is moving the VIP carparking closer to the Superstore/Museum/Ticket Office, which was always two stories high. So part of Glasgow’s heritage is destroyed so VIPs don’t have to walk as far.
It appears that Glasgow City Council sat and did nothing to preserve this historic building since 2004 when it closed. Willfully allowing the last B-listed school in Glasgow to rot and decay to such a condition that it will be condemned. Glasgow City Council doing the dirty work and taking the bad PR for the demolition then allow Celtic to swan in when the dust literally settles, purchase the land and build over the site.
Why could the school building not have been part of the proposed Celtic Museum development and retained? It is open plan within the centre, with lots of light coming through a central atrium like an art gallery or museum. It seems Celtic did not want to retain the history of the locality. Celtic would appear to have an aversion to history.
Simple question: Which one of these buildings represents timeless architecture built by craftsmen stonemasons, that should be preserved?
Another Glasgow City Council Favour to Celtic
Why is Glasgow City Council planning to demolish a historic building that the council, sorry taxpayers, own for the purposes of another party, Celtic, which didn’t own the land, develop the site then sell the land off cheaply? Because there is no way Celtic will not end up with this land which is within the Celtic Triangle [where land value disappears] when the Council has cheaply sold all it’s other parcels of land to Celtic.
The Council, a public body, might not be aware but Celtic is a PLC, Public Limited Company, a profit making company. It’s listed on the Stock Exchange their accounts are so hidden they’re available online to everyone – including councils. In the year to Sept 2013, Celtic’s Group Revenue increased by 47.7% to £75.82m (In 2012 it was £51.34m). Does this sound like they need a financial leg up?
The London Road Primary School site is worth more than £300,000. Celtic have been dying to get it for years. Clue to Council on Negotiation 101. When somebody really wants something they are willing to pay a lot for it. How much would Tesco or Asda pay for that site? That’s what the Council should have be asking for the land. Even just to compensate for the loss of a historic site, the price should be set higher and the extra money given to Historic Scotland, to save other buildings which are out of the reach of Glasgow City Council and Celtic.
Single party closed transactions are a fraud and a corruption on the taxpayers of Glasgow who would have had their bills reduced or services increased/not closed if these councillors were not doing favours for one particular party repeatedly and the highest price was obtained. Glasgow ratepayers look likely to be shafted by their Council representatives yet again.