このたび、旧香川県立体育館をめぐる住民訴訟において、以前より原告側が申し立てておりました「証拠保全」について大きな進展がありましたので、ご報告申し上げます。
2026年7月15日の進行協議期日において、高松地方裁判所から、旧香川県立体育館の耐震性能を鑑定するための現地調査【証拠保全】の必要性について言及があり、9月15日から「解体工事の停止」及び原告側による現地調査を実施することとなりました。 7月中旬の「証拠保全」の要請後、期間・方法の調整、さらには、県による検討・承認等の必要な手続を経て、8月31日承認。本日ようやく公表に至ることができました。
今回の証拠保全では、旧香川県立体育館の耐震性能を正確に「鑑定」するための地盤構成、コンクリート強度等のデータを取得します。その後、得られた調査結果をもとに、専門家による耐震性の鑑定へと進む予定です。
戦後モダニズム公共建築の保存をめぐる住民訴訟において事実上の「証拠保全」発出の事例は、公開資料の範囲では先例を確認できず、極めて異例であると考えております。我々は県の耐震性能の評価方法や判断過程に重大な疑義があることを指摘してきました。今回、客観的・科学的に検証する機会が司法判断として確保されたことには、大きな意義があると受け止めています。
しかしながら、今回認められた現地調査の期間は10月14日までであり、その後の2,3か月所要する「鑑定」期間（法的に設定できず）については、建物の現状維持が確保されているわけではなく、鑑定結果が明らかになる前に、現地調査終了後の10月14日以降、解体工事が再開される可能性が高いと推測できます。
耐震性能の客観的な検証と、10億円に近い公金の支出の価値再考の機会が確保されたにもかかわらず、その鑑定結果が示される前に建物そのものが失われてしまう可能性がありますが、私たちは、この機会を最後まで大切にし、事実を明らかにしていく所存です。
「旧香川県立体育館」は、日本の戦後建築史を考える上でも重要な文化資産あり、その建物が本当に解体されなければならない状態にあるのか。そして、科学的な検証結果が示される前に、不可逆的な解体を進めることが適切なのか。 そして、専門分野とは言え、何度も直接問いかけてきた明らかな「耐震診断書」の読み違えを司法の場で検証していかなくてはならなかったのか。
いま改めて、そして最後に、社会全体で考えるべき機会を与えて頂いたと考えております。
皆様におかれましては、旧香川県立体育館をめぐる現在の状況と、今回の証拠保全の持つ意味、そして民意と司法に対し行政がどう向き合うべきかを再考して頂けるよう、心よりお願い申し上げます。
旧香川県立体育館再生委員会：長田慶太
We would like to report that there has been significant progress regarding the “preservation of evidence” that the plaintiffs had previously requested in the residents’ lawsuit concerning the former Kagawa Prefectural Gymnasium.
At the procedural hearing held on July 15, 2026, the Takamatsu District Court acknowledged the necessity of an on-site inspection [preservation of evidence] to assess the seismic performance of the former Kagawa Prefectural Gymnasium. Consequently, it was decided that demolition work would be suspended starting September 15, and that the plaintiffs would conduct the on-site inspection. Following the request for “preservation of evidence” in mid-July, after coordinating the timeline and methods, as well as completing the necessary procedures—including review and approval by the prefecture—approval was granted on August 31. We are finally able to make this announcement today.
Through this preservation of evidence, we will collect data on soil composition, concrete strength, and other factors necessary to accurately “assess” the seismic performance of the former Kagawa Prefectural Gymnasium. Subsequently, based on the survey results obtained, we plan to proceed with a seismic performance assessment by experts.
To the best of our knowledge, based on publicly available records, there are no precedents for the de facto issuance of a “preservation of evidence” order in a resident lawsuit concerning the preservation of postwar modernist public architecture; we consider this to be an extremely rare occurrence. We have consistently pointed out that there are serious doubts regarding the prefecture’s methods for evaluating seismic performance and its decision-making process. We view it as highly significant that this judicial decision has secured an opportunity for objective and scientific verification.
However, the period for the on-site survey granted in this case extends only until October 14. Regarding the subsequent “appraisal” period—which is expected to take two to three months (and cannot be legally mandated)—there is no guarantee that the building’s current condition will be preserved. It is highly likely that demolition work will resume after October 14, once the on-site survey concludes, before the appraisal results are made public.
Despite the fact that an opportunity has been secured for an objective verification of seismic performance and a reevaluation of the value of the expenditure of nearly 1 billion yen in public funds, there is a possibility that the building itself will be lost before the results of the expert assessment are presented. Nevertheless, we intend to cherish this opportunity to the very end and continue to uncover the facts.
The “Former Kagawa Prefectural Gymnasium” is a cultural asset of great importance in the context of Japan’s postwar architectural history. Is the building truly in a condition that necessitates demolition? And is it appropriate to proceed with irreversible demolition before the results of scientific verification are presented? Furthermore, even though this is a specialized field, did we really have to have the obvious misinterpretation of the “seismic assessment report”—which we had repeatedly questioned directly—verified in a judicial setting?
I believe we have now been given an opportunity—once again, and for the final time—for society as a whole to reflect on this matter.
I sincerely ask that you all reconsider the current situation surrounding the Former Kagawa Prefectural Gymnasium, the significance of this preservation of evidence, and how the administration should respond to public opinion and the judiciary.
Former Kagawa Prefectural Gymnasium Revitalization Committee: Keita Nagata
