A proposal by the Department for Communities to grant Listed Building status to Marlborough House in Craigavon has been criticised by councillors.
The towering complex, opposite Rushmere Shopping Centre, was built in the 1970s as an office block as part of the initial development of the new city of Craigavon.
It is currently owned by the Department of Finance, who plan to vacate the premises entirely by the end of 2025.
Listed buildings are those that have ‘special architectural or historic interest,’ meaning planning permission for these properties is restricted.
The Department for Communities wrote to Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council on September 13 requesting the council’s views on the proposed listing of the property.
The issue was raised at meeting of the ABC Council Planning and Regulatory Services Committee on Wednesday, October 2, with councillors reacting negatively to the proposal, citing economic concerns for future development in the area.
Speaking at the meeting, Colm Gallagher, Senior Planning Officer, explained that a decision was required by committee members to approve a draft response to the Department.
A timeline for response by the council had been extended to November 5.
Reading the report from the Department for Communities, he said the Department had assessed the merits of listing Marlborough House against their criteria.
“DfC in their survey described Marlborough House as a robust, cuboid, seven-story, modern-style office block built between 1973 and 1977 and it was part of the initial development of the urban core of the new city of Craigavon.
“While the building is relatively unchanged, it is noted that detailing in the foyer and stairwell have been altered. The Department advises that Marlborough House was designed by the Craigavon Development Commission architects and indicate it is one of the best preserved examples of large-scale 1970s modernism in Northern Ireland.
“The building is one of the most prominent single components of what was originally planned as the town centre of Craigavon and it remains the only part of the first phase of that vision to have survived in its original form.
“The DfC considers it an individualistic structure and indeed a memorable local landmark.”
Mr Gallagher continued that the draft response from council advised that, “while council has no objections to the proposed Listing, it will be supportive of the property owner if they were to raise any concern in relation to the proposed Listing of this property.”
Councillor Kevin Savage (Sinn Fein) said a “more robust” response was required to ask the proposed Listing be rejected.
He said: “If this building is listed it has the potential to not only hamstring this council, but any development of that land for years and years to come.
“DoF (Department of Finance) are getting rid of the building for a reason. It’s not fit for purpose. They’re decanting everybody from it.
“If it is listed it will certainly not be sold on the open market. Nobody will want to buy it. It will remain empty and perhaps a hub for anti-social activities in the area.”
Councillor Savage’s proposal that a response be formulated highlighting objections to the Listing was seconded by Alderman Gareth Wilson (DUP).
Alderman Wilson commented: “I couldn’t agree more with councillor Savage and I would second his proposal.
“I don’t think there would be one tear shed if that building, if there was no one in it obviously, ended up in a dusty pile and was taken away and buried somewhere,” he said.
He added that it was “completely the wrong decision for this site” and one that was “going to destroy any opportunity” for the area.
Councillor Peter Lavery (Alliance), who is Vice-Chair of the planning committee, said the issue should be brought to the relevant Department Minister.
“This is maybe a small decision within a small team here which could have maybe tens of multiple millions of pounds of negative impact in this area.
“… I don’t think that can really be covered in a response to a consultation.”
Alderman Wilson added: “Ministerially there needs to be a discussion on this because it has implications across departments.”
It was agreed the council response would be amended to reflect these comments and this would be commented to the Department for Communities Minister.
The committee also agreed to write separately to the Department of Finance Minister around the “wider social economic considerations” of the move.
