Save our Shirehall: Campaigners rally as report offers fresh hope for Shrewsbury landmark
Campaigners have urged councillors to resist demolition plans for Shrewsbury's landmark Shirehall.
Shropshire Council will tomorrow (February 26) be asked to vote on a report on the future of its former Abbey Foregate home, which sets out two divergent options for the future.
The report, prepared by a cross-party 'task and finish group', recommends pausing any demolition plans for six months while alternatives are explored.
Those alternatives include two approaches: either demolition and redevelopment, or retention and refurbishment.
The recommendations also suggest the council should look at both 'joint-venture' plans for the site, as well as private sales.
The report concluded: "Shirehall’s best days can still be ahead - if the council chooses to understand its value before destroying it. In the 1960s the construction of Shirehall put Shropshire on the map. A contemporary regeneration of the building and wider site could light Shropshire up again."
Ahead of tomorrow's meeting the 'Save our Shirehall' group, led by John Crowe, son of the building's architect Ralph Crowe, said: "To date the council has failed to explore bringing in new, outside private sector funds to save the building and needs the proposed six-month delay from demolition as a chance to explore joint venture options to get the best value for Shropshire people."
Martina Chamberlain of Shrewsbury Civic Society added: "We are really impressed with what the task and finish group has achieved in such a short space of time. I would urge all councillors to take the findings of this report seriously. By consulting widely, it has amassed a great deal of evidence that shows the costs and benefits of regeneration versus demolition of Shirehall which has not been properly evaluated.
"The task and finish report refers to 'incomplete and predetermined' information in the council’s review, released in December. With the group’s hard work, councillors now have more of the facts and should vote for a proper investigation of a future for this fantastic public asset and landmark 20th-century Shropshire building. Shrewsbury Civic Society and other organisations have offered their expertise in this work.”
Leanne Tritton, one of the founders of Don’t Waste Buildings, has also backed a move to reconsider demolition of the site.
She said: "The report from the task and finish group provides a clear and detailed account of the many ways in which the decision-making process fell short of properly exploring the opportunities to retain Shirehall as a valued community asset.
"We hope councillors will read and carefully digest this report, pause, and reconsider a course of action that would cause unnecessary damage to the community and result in a wholly avoidable waste of embodied carbon.
"Don’t Waste Buildings stands ready to work constructively with the council to explore how this deeply divisive decision could be reversed and transformed into a positive, collaborative outcome for Shrewsbury."
Meanwhile Liberal Democrat Councillor Chris Naylor, a member of the task and finish group, said: "Throughout my career I’ve worked with valued buildings which have been refurbished or reinvented for new roles - creating the Almeida Theatre, regenerating the Maiden Lane estate, promoting Charleston Farmhouse. Shirehall, until very recently Shropshire Council's HQ, offers just such exciting potential for a new life too.
"To continue with the decision to demolish would be easy - but a crying shame for such a distinguished and special building, opened by Queen Elizabeth II in 1967 and lauded by Niklaus Pevsner. Right now, there’s both interest in purchasing the building for higher education - and in investing to refurbish it as a ‘joint venture’, with commercial use such as hotel or conference centre alongside re-providing much-needed council offices.
"Our task and finish group feel the potential to secure external finance hasn’t been fully explored, and rather than go ahead to demolish now we’re recommending a six month pause to explore such exciting new options."
The campaigners also argue that councillors did not have enough time to consider the detail before a vote on demolishing the building in December.
They said the paper outlining demolition as the only option was issued less than 24 hours prior to the full council meeting and "failed to allow sufficient time for councillors to properly evaluate their proposals or to challenge the assumption that full demolition was the only option".
