Appendix 2 - Responses to Consultation
Perth and Kinross Council · 22 June 2026
Back to Perth Common Good Fund Committee — 22 June 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Appendix 2 Disposal - Part of the Navigate Building, George Inn Lane, Perth Responses to consultation Are you a resident or former resident of Perth? - Yes/No What are your views on the general principal of disposing of part of the Navigate building and former Provost's Garage? - What are your views on the general principal of disposing of part of the Navigate building and former Provost's garage? What are your views on the proposed recommendation to Perth Common Good Fund Committee to approve the sale? - What are your views on the proposed recommendation to Perth Common Good Fund Committee to approve the sale as part of the proposed hotel development at 1-5 High Street, Perth? 1 Yes It should be put up for sale on the open market! The council has proven its inability to hold fair and transparent processes by selling the building to Lockheed for nominal money instead of putting it on the open market. No it should only be approved if it’s put on the open market. However as we know the council disregards public opinion and thinks it knows best so it will happen anyway. 2 Yes This sale should not proceed as it demonstrates the lack of foresight it respect of the future requirements of the City in respect of facilities. If the sale did proceed any Market Value should reflect the special purchaser status of the buyer as it would in any commercial transaction. This proposal is flawed and does not reflect best value for the Common Good Fund. 3 Yes Why is this being sold at market value but the main building sold for £1? No. Stop the whole development and sell the whole area at market value to a local bidder without form for failure 4 Yes I assume the staff welfare accommodation is to provide overnight accommodation for hotel staff, if so why is this required? 5 Yes My understanding of the development of 1-5 High Street is it will be serviced apartments rather than a hotel. If it is not a hotel why does it need a laundry or staff accommodation? The laundry can be carried out by local businesses and if staff are recruited locally surely they would have accommodation? What would happen if the property is sold and Navigate require additional premises? This whole sorry process requires to be independently reviewed. I do not support the sale of these properties. 6 Yes I am against the disposal of the former provost garage and part of the navigate building I would be asking councillors to reject the sale 7 Yes If it is unused and there is a full and transparent valuation of the build and the council is transparent in the amount paid by the developers. Why was there not a consultation on the sale of 1-5 high street to the same developers and why was that building not sold at market value? I agree with the sale as long as the funds are going back into projects for the people of Perth. 8 No I am a Scone resident and think this should not happen. Nor should a company that has been It should not happen, the company has a sorry history!
Page 2
twice liquidated be given any part of 1-5 High Street ever! 9 No Are these properties to be sold at market value agreed by the District Valuer, or other independent RICS valuer? According to reports in the press, there seem to have been breakdowns in communication between Council Officers and Councillors, as to information that was made available on the proposed disposal to the preferred development company. If the developer is now proposing serviced apartments, will the developer be required at the planning stage, to make any contribution towards affordable housing? 10 No These properties should only be disposed off at open market value, as agreed by the District Valuer. According to press reports, there appear to have been breakdowns of communication between Council Officers and Elected Members, in the information made available prior to agreement on this disposal. Why can a bidding process not be reopened, to allow any other interested parties to make an offer for the property? If the property is now to become serviced apartments, will the developer be required at planning stage, to make a contribution towards affordable housing? If not, why not? What conditions are included in the sale to mitigate against the developer failing to complete the development, and the Council being left with a half converted development ? 11 Yes Against this proposal. It sounds like the Council are being held to ransom via conditions imposed by Lock Terrace Ltd. The property should be made available to local communities groups, failing which any sale should be on the open market. 12 Yes Disposal of property from the Perth Common Good fund should only be undertaken where it directly benefits the people of Perth. Property should only be sold to another organisation dedicated to the common good (that can only every be a non-profit), or if there is a specific other common good function that requires funding. I am not convinced that this proposal meets these criteria and therefore I do not believe it should proceed. While I am not fully aware of all the commercial pressures being brought to bear on this situation I cannot see how the common good of the people of Perth is served by this sale. Therefore I believe the recommendation to be an error that should be reversed. 13 Yes Against Against 14 Yes These buildings are ‘Not for sale’. You should be ashamed of yourselves even thinking about it, Should not even consider it. 15 Yes In light of the ridiculous deal the council have done with the hotel group I wouldn’t let them do another property deal again. It would be amazing to find out how the committee would fritter this money away.
Page 3
16 Yes Totally against. Totally against 17 Yes I think it is disgraceful that a beautiful building that was owned by the people of Perth is being given to a London-based firm owned by two people from the previous firm that went bust that was originally given the building. And throwing £1.9m their way to help them is utter criminality. No wonder no-one trusts anything P&K Council do. Those that voted for this should be made to state their personal reasons to the people of Perth. The building should be refitted to its original purposes or redeveloped for the community. Every building that disappears from public ownership is given to the private sector to make money from. Look at the former Balhousie Primary School. Rather than using the space for something to the community (leisure facilities, swimming, ice-rink, community halls, etc), it gets turned over to the private sector to cram as many homes into the space as possible. When was the last time something was built or refitted for the common good of Perth residents in the central areas of Perth? The councillors should be ashamed of themselves. They do not represent the views of any person I speak to. I think it is a disgrace and should be looked at by the Scottish government. There is no reason why a referendum into important decisions like this should not be put to the people of P&K. We own the building, not the councillors. It should be up to us what happens to historical buildings such as this. 18 Yes I am an economist by trade and education, living in Perth. My response is probably longer than the average response, but please give serious consideration to what I've written. My intent is to be respectful and factual and provide the PKC my honest thoughts and analysis. I know from PKC's own treasury documents that they recently borrowed at 4.88–4.91%, and that current 25-year PWLB certainty rates are approximately 5.0–5.2%. Borrowing to fund the grant costs Perth taxpayers more over 25 years than simply keeping and maintaining the building, even if you use the council's own cost figure of £143,000/year. The grant is non- recoverable. Local authorities can only borrow for capital purposes, and borrowing must be affordable, prudent and sustainable, yet this borrowing funds a gift to a private company with no equity retained, no clawback clause, and a predecessor that failed with £67m in debts. If Lock Terrace fails, PKC holds 100% of the debt and 0% of the asset. Rather than disposing of two Common Good assets to provide back-of-house services for a serviced apartment operator, the council should consider uses that maximise community benefit, which is the legal and ethical purpose of the Common Good Fund. 1. Creative and Cultural Hub Perth is developing an identity as a cultural city following investment in Perth Museum. A small creative hub like shared studios, makers' spaces, artist residencies would animate the city centre, attract footfall, and support the creative economy. The adjacent George Inn Lane building has already attracted a preferred bidder in Fergus Purdie Architects for precisely this kind of mixed creative/residential use, showing market appetite. 2. Affordable Workspace / Business Incubation There is a well-documented shortage of affordable, quality workspace for micro-businesses and start-ups in
Page 4
Additionally, the headline figures don't withstand scrutiny. Councillors were told the council was spending an estimated £143,000 a year on the upkeep of the empty building, but a Freedom of Information request obtained figures showing it spent less than £66,000 on maintenance last year. This is highly significant: the stated operating cost was more than doubled when presented to councillors as justification for the deal, which materially undermines the case made for urgency and disposal. The firm did not exist when the council first agreed to sell 1-5 High Street to a "hotel" developer for £1 in 2020. This timeline alone, a £1 sale agreed in 2020, original developer collapsed, replacement run by its former directors, now asking for additional Common Good property should give serious pause to any committee. Lock Terrace Ltd is now planning to create "good quality serviced accommodation" instead 74 bedrooms, with no restaurant or bar. This is a material reduction from the original hotel proposition promised to Perth. What was marketed as a flagship destination hotel has become a serviced apartment block with no hospitality offering, delivering far less economic multiplier effect to the city. The Navigate building on George Inn Lane and the adjoining former Provost's Garage are both recognised as common good property owned by Perth and Kinross Council and held on the Perth Common Good Fund. Common Good assets exist specifically for the benefit of the community in perpetuity. Disposing of them to a private developer so that developer can use them as laundry facilities and staff welfare rooms is a deeply poor use of this category of asset. The community good being served is essentially the operational convenience of a private hospitality business. Ultimately, the council is proposing to pay significantly more to give a public asset away than it would cost to keep it. This is not regeneration, it is a wealth transfer from the Perth Common Good Fund to a private developer, financed by public borrowing, at a net cost to taxpayers that exceeds the operating savings claimed as justification by a factor of more than three to one. Perth city centre. A managed workspace facility would generate rental income for the Common Good Fund, support local employment, and attract younger businesses to the city core. It aligns with Perth's economic regeneration goals without requiring a grant subsidy to an external developer. 3. Community Health or Third Sector Hub NHS Tayside and local third-sector organisations consistently lack adequate office and consultation space in the city centre. A managed letting to health, social care, or voluntary sector tenants would generate modest but stable revenue, serve clear public need, and keep the asset in community use consistent with Common Good obligations. 4. Refurbish and Retain for Council Use At £68,000 per annum in operating costs, the building is not an expensive asset to hold. A targeted refurbishment — potentially grant-funded through Historic Environment Scotland given its character — could bring both the southern Navigate space and the Provost's Garage back into productive use for the council's own expanding services, avoiding both disposal and the debt burden of the £1.9m grant entirely. 5. Community-Led Development Under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, the very legislation triggering this consultation, community bodies have the right to request to purchase or lease assets. The council should actively test whether a community development trust or similar body could bring forward a proposal before committing to Lock Terrace. 19 Yes Common good land should never be sold. It’s against the spirit of the whole ideal Disagree strongly 20 Yes I am not opposed in principle to the disposal of the disused southern portion of the Navigate I strongly oppose the recommendation to approve the sale as currently
Page 5
building and the former Provost's Garage. Both properties have been vacant for a number of years, neither is in an occupiable condition, and it is reasonable for the Council to consider releasing underused Common Good assets where it can be demonstrated that doing so serves the public interest and delivers fair value to the Perth Common Good Fund. However, accepting the principle of disposal does not mean accepting the proposed method or the proposed purchaser. Any disposal must satisfy the following conditions, none of which have currently been met: • Independent open-market valuation. The sale price must be established by a qualified, independent valuer who has regard to open-market evidence. The Council's statement that the price 'will be equal to market value' is an assertion, not a valuation. The full valuation report should be published before the Committee votes. • Open marketing to test the market. The assets should be actively marketed before any purchaser is selected. Selling directly to a single developer — identified in connection with an adjacent project rather than through competitive process — does not demonstrate best value. The Council's own handling of 1-5 High Street, where a competing local buyer's approaches were not followed up, underlines why open marketing is essential rather than optional. • Assessment of alternative uses. The consultation documentation does not set out whether alternative community, cultural or commercial uses for these spaces have been considered. Given their central Perth location, this analysis should be provided to the public before disposal proceeds. • Protection of adjacent proprietors. As an owner of the immediately neighbouring property at 23/25/27 George Street, I have a legitimate interest in the structural and amenity implications of any development. These must be assessed and documented before a disposal is approved. In summary: disposal in principle — yes, subject to proper process. Disposal on the current terms and to the current proposed purchaser without open marketing — no. framed. My objection is not to the idea of disposal but to approving a specific sale to a specific purchaser under terms that fail to protect the Common Good Fund, before the serious concerns surrounding the wider 1-5 High Street transaction have been resolved. My reasons are set out below. A. The proposed sale is inseparable from the controversial 1-5 High Street disposal The sole stated justification for this disposal is that Lock Terrace Ltd requires laundry and staff welfare facilities to make its hotel at 1-5 High Street viable. This means the Committee is being asked to approve the permanent transfer of Common Good land as a subsidy to a private developer's operational requirements not as a stand-alone asset management decision in the public interest. The 1-5 High Street deal has attracted significant public criticism: the property was effectively gifted at £1 accompanied by a £1.9 million non- repayable grant; a local purchaser's repeated approaches were not followed up; Councillors voted without full information; the project changed fundamentally from a boutique hotel to 74 serviced apartments; and planning permission was granted despite objections from SEPA and the Council's own Flooding Team. Approving the Navigate disposal without addressing those unresolved concerns compounds an already questionable sequence of decisions. B. No open marketing has taken place Lock Terrace Ltd has been identified as the purchaser because of its involvement in the adjacent project, not because it has competed for these assets. The Council has not published any evidence that the market has been tested for the southern Navigate unit or the Provost's Garage as standalone assets. Best value cannot be demonstrated without this. Given the Council's own admission that 1-5 High Street was never marketed for any use other than a hotel, the same error should not be repeated here. C. The title transfer mechanism
Page 6
creates unacceptable risk for the Common Good Fund The proposal is that title does not transfer until the hotel development is complete, but the subjects will be included in the development lease to Lock Terrace Ltd from the outset. This gives a developer with a limited track record effective control over Common Good land before the Fund receives any consideration. If the development stalls or is abandoned as happened with the previous preferred developer Henley Homes Group the Council will be left managing partially separated, potentially altered properties, with no clear remedy. The Committee should not approve an arrangement of this nature without independent legal advice on the Fund's protections in a failure scenario, and that advice should be made available to the public. D. The impact on adjacent proprietors has not been addressed The proposed terms state that the purchaser is solely responsible for all costs and consents relating to the separation of the Navigate building. This is a significant structural undertaking immediately adjacent to my property at 23/25/27 George Street. No structural impact assessment or amenity assessment has been shared with neighbouring proprietors as part of this consultation. The intended use of the Provost's Garage as a commercial laundry and staff welfare facility will also introduce regular deliveries and operational activity into the George Street area. These impacts on neighbours are a material consideration the Committee must address before approving the sale. 21 Yes I am Against the principle No right to dispose of this 22 Yes Pathetic! You have already embarrassed yourselves with 1-5 High Street Poundland deal. Who in their right mind can think that was a good idea, so good in fact you give them £1.9m to spend. Did anyone even check the track record of the beneficiary? So, no to the sale, the most embarrassing and shameful set of councillors, just another comedy decision. Should not be sold on to this particular purchaser.
Page 7
23 Yes Poor judgement by P&KC as is the donation to the company proposing to not supply a high quality hotel, just serviced apartments It should be rejected 24 Yes Why give it to A London? Pair of??????? And Why should I Be Paying For A Building that YOU Sold to them With out the Approval of The People WHO Pay Your Wages, The Answer Is NO to The Pair of Them WHO Went Bankrupt the last time. The Perth Common Good Fund Can sell it BUT NOT TO THEM Some other Party 25 Yes Disposing of The Building is fine if it Tops up the Pot for future use buy the Public not the Cooncil , There’s enough Hotels in PERTH already if the other two were used for what They were Built for not to house Foreigners who WE are Paying for that’s two hotels ruined, Buy all means dispose of the Buildings BUT not TO THE PEOPLE who (GOT) the High Street ones You never asked ( The people who help To pay your wages etc if we would like to pay for them to change the Building BUT not to A Fancy Hotel??) So Can you Justify WHY I should Help You Pay Back for the Money £1.9 Million that you ARE Giving them ??? 26 Yes I suppose it’s better than lying derelict At least you’re not giving it away for nothing !!! 27 Yes Should be put on hold and proper consideration given to the whole decision as it appears to have been rushed without sufficient information being available. Not sufficient details have been made available for a proper decision to be made, so the whole thing has to be done again, giving the opportunity for new proposals to taken into account. 28 Yes Against the general principal. The Council needs to pull back from the original deal. Definitely not give more Common Good Fund property over to this project. Against this proposal. 29 No I am against the sale as I am against the sale of the High Street property. Why compound the error? I am against it. 30 Yes I think it should be disposed of as part of a sale, rather than us funding for it to be refurbished. If it is a sale then I would agree, but a sale where we have to spend money to sell it is not effective. 31 Yes Strongly disagree with the principal … strongly disagree with the deal that was done by in first place … effectively 4m of council funding to a private company so they can make money from it ? Rather pay the maintenance ongoing until local interest and benefit is found Don’t… can’t see much “good” for Perth people .. sure some restaurants will benefit but what else ? 32 Yes I do not wish this sold at market value, donated or any form of giving away to the proposed development please. Do not proceed with this idea. 33 Yes Ridiculous, giving it away. Absolutely ridiculous, who elected this council? 34 Yes Do not sell to this company Do not recommend selling the property 35 Yes Totally against disposal Against proposal The proposal and actions of Council would not be for the benefit of the residents of Perth Incurring sizable debt and allowing the transfer to a questionable solvent
Page 8
company is definitely not good economical sense 36 Yes Agree with the general principle of disposing of buildings lying empty for correct market value but strongly disagree with selling it to help businessmen who have a very poor track record. The Tay street building should not have been handed over for a £1 and the council certainly should not be handing over our money to assist them. Good idea if it wasn’t connected to the foolhardy plan for the Tay Street building. 37 Yes all good I have grave concerns about the suitability of the Osmani brothers.I also object to the free gift of 1.9m to them. 38 Yes Against sale to a Developer with a track record of going bust. Misguided. 39 Yes Council Tax payers money should not be wasted on disposing of a public asset and subsidising an investment company to profiteer by developing a publicly owned building at little or no cost to them. From public information request indicating the current real cost to PKC is less than half of that previously advised indicates that a full investigation is required to obtain true facts before any decision to sell the property under the agreed terms proceeds. The local business man should also be allowed to pursue his interest in the property in an open and transparent manner. Wake up PKC Councillors and openly show due diligence here and that you are delivering for your voters and Council Tax Payers and not wasting our money! See above.