Fears work on house could be dangerous
Tradesmen could end up being seriously injured if a watchdog keeps insisting a property in Kinross ought to be repaired and not replaced, according to a planning consultant.
Walter Gray made the claim in paperwork sent to the Scottish Government last week appealing Perth and Kinross Council’s decision to deny Sandy Thomson consent to tear down 27 Curate Wynd.
Officials refused Mr Thomson’s planning application last year after Historic Environment Scotland (HES) said he “should be made to establish whether the existing building can be retained”.
Mr Thomson wants to demolish it so he can build a new two-storey property in its place.
HES said: “We are … of the view that the house makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the [Kinross] conservation area, particularly when entering Curate Wynd to the south.”
The group also said the most recent inspection report failed to “demonstrate that the shell and roof are structurally unsound”.
But Walter Gray has since claimed Mr Thomson and another man have already sustained “substantial injuries” while working within the “dangerous” building. And he says more tradesmen will be put at risk of harm if HES keeps standing in the way of his client’s proposal being passed.
He told the government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) this week: “It is important to appreciate the … history relating to the current situation which has led to this appeal [and] also to understand how my client ended up with ownership of the property under review. My client is a very experienced master builder with over 40 years working in the industry.
“[The] property was left to him by a relative who passed away. His initial thoughts were to renovate this property re-establishing it as a family home using a team of his experienced builders.
“This reconstruction work started about two years ago [and] during the initial assessment whilst working on the firstfloor, the timber joists/floor collapsed from under my client and also one of the other tradesmen.
“[Both men ended] up in hospital with substantial injuries [and] the subsequent result of this event was that the team withdrew and refused to return to work in the property.”
Mr Gray went on to claim three different engineers had already assessed the building and two of them had said it was rotten and beyond repair at a reasonable cost. He added: “It is only a miracle there hasn’t been an external wall collapse onto the street or rear property.”
And he concluded: “In summary it is inconceivable why HES cannot [accept] three independent reports prepared by different structural engineers [and] their comments regarding the structure and dangerous condition of this building.
“Notwithstanding, this they do not recognise the health and safety issues which surround this property for anyone who is skilled and would be prepared to work within the building if the law permitted.
“I support the importance of saving historical architecture, however in this case it is ill-founded.”
The DPEA has asked PKC to respond to Mr Gray’s remarks.