Scotland’s music community has rallied around one of the cities most iconic music venues in the face of a planning fight.
Developers hoped to hoped to convert vacant offices at 266 St Vincent Street into 14 “bespoke” apartments. The application was refused by the planning case officer at Glasgow City Council due to the developer not implementing enough measures to mitigate noise from the venue within their development, which could disturb their residents.
In 2018 to 2019, King Tut’s Wah Wah Hut worked in collaboration with the Music Venues Trust and venues across Scotland to lobby for the Agent of Change legislation to pass in Scottish law under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019.
The act provides much needed protection to live music and cultural venues from property developers when needed.
In order to safeguard music and cultural venues, the Agent of Change ensures the person or business who plan on making the change is responsible for managing the impact of this, not at the cost and expense of cultural venues which have been operating there for a number of years.
An appeal has since been raised and this will go to the Glasgow City Council Planning Committee on March 30.
Prominent members of the Glasgow music scene have voiced their dissatisfaction over the development, with some saying it poses a threat to the very existence of the venue.
On the continuing development proposal which face the area surrounding King Tut’s, Jason Edwards, Executive Director of Scottish Music Industry Association (SMIA) said: “In light of what has already been an exceptionally challenging year for live music venues, protections such as Agent of Change should be staunchly defended and respected by all parties, so as to allow culturally essential venues such as King Tut’s to recover unimpeded.”
Mark Davyd, CEO of Music Venues Trust added: “It’s very possible to create sympathetic and respectful usages and purposes for buildings next to iconic grassroots music venues such as King Tut’s.
“Music Venue Trust, like many others, objects to the existing planning application because it doesn’t meet that simple test.”