Controversial concrete seminary may be preserved

AFTER decades of arguments and a power struggle between architects, the Catholic church and Historic Scotland, it seems a solution may finally be at hand for the controversial St Peter's seminary site.

After a sometimes bitter wrangle between Scotland's artistic community, who claim the A-listed former seminary is an architectural gem, and the church, which owns the run-down buildings and wants to redevelop the site, all parties have come together to appoint an independent surveyor who will recommend what course to take.

Specialist firm Avanti Architects has a six-month, £70,000 contract to appraise St Peter's, near Cardross, and report to the Archdiocese of Glasgow, Argyll and Bute council and Historic Scotland this year.

Avanti is renowned for its conservation work on modernist buildings. It will have to decide whether developing land around the building would meet the costs of complete or partial preservation of the decaying concrete structure.

A spokesman for the archdiocese of Glasgow said the assessment would allow for consensus and "set out what will be required to meaningfully maintain the consolidated structure."

Malcolm Cooper, chief inspector with Historic Scotland, said that since the building was "undeniably important", the agency was prepared to fund the study.

"I am pleased Historic Scotland has been able to fund this assessment. This assessment will allow the key partners to take decisions regarding the future of the building on an informed basis, drawing on the knowledge and expertise of this specialist organisation," he added.

St Peter's was designed by Glasgow firm Gillespie Kidd and Coia in 1961 and opened in 1966. It never housed more than 50 seminarians and just 14 years later it closed owing to the falling number of young men entering the priesthood. It was granted grade-A listed status, but a dramatic saga of architectural debate has swirled around its concrete columns ever since.

A planning application to divide the building into flats and houses was rejected in 1994. In 1998, the church proposed selling the surrounding land for development and using the proceeds to preserve the shell; this was also rejected.

Last year, Historic Scotland was refusing to take control of St Peter's because of the ongoing planning applications. The planning authority, Argyll and Bute Council, was refusing to make a decision on the future of the site because it was awaiting expert evaluations from Historic Scotland. Vandals have been chipping away at the main building and the concrete structure has begun to crumble.

Despite its condition, St Peter's was named as Scotland's best modern building by the architecture magazine Prospect in 2005, beating the Scottish parliament and the Burrell Collection.

Penny Lewis, of the St Peter's Building Preservation Trust, which counts a number of Scotland's leading architects among its supporters, welcomed the assessment but warned that every day that passes without action adds to the problems conservationists will face.

"It has taken a year to get to this point, and another six months will pass now before the results from Avanti," she said. "We are quite positive about this decision, but everything does seem to be taking an inordinate amount of time."

The Sunday Herald can reveal that St Peter's has been nominated to the two-yearly World Monument Fund (WMF) watchlist, a catalogue of the world's 100 most endangered historic buildings.

It will be five months before campaigners know if St Peter's is on the list, which guarantees global media attention and architectural debate, but Michelle Berenfeld of WMF in New York said there was a growing trend for inclusion of modern buildings.

"The judging panel examines whether buildings are going to survive in the short term - in the UK a big problem is sites that no longer function in their intended purpose. Modern buildings in danger are an emerging theme on the list. The issue with many of those sites is that they are young, so often aren't included on national registers of importance, and that there isn't the public understanding of modern architecture. There is a certain public apathy about modern sites."