UPDATE: Please go to our “Support Us – Planning application – Phase 2″ page for the latest on how to support the campaign to save this land.
What follows was written in 2012 and refers to the 1st Phase of the planning application objection process, we are now into phase 2 hence following the “Support Us – Planning application – Phase 2″ page suggestions. Thanks
The planning application by developers New City Vision to build 90 properties on the Meadow was received by the Council in Dec 2012. The North Kelvin Meadow campaign along with many hundreds of residents want to see these plans for development of the Meadow firmly rejected.
This page contains the downloadable plans from the developer’s application, images extracted from their documents and other useful information
(Update: The North Kelvin Meadow campaign submitted a detailed objection document to the Council’s Planning officer detailing our arguments against granting of Planning Permission. You can download the document here (8MB Word .doc)).
How to object
To make it is easier to object to the planning proposals, we have produced a standard letter containing some of the main reasons why the proposal should not be granted planning permission.
The deadline for these objection letters was 1 January 2013.
Anyone anywhere is allowed to send in an objection.
All you needed to do was copy and paste the text into a new email, insert your name at the bottom and send to firstname.lastname@example.org It’s entirely up to you if you include your street address if sending by email however you must quote the Planning Ref number 12/00924/DC in the subject header of your email. If you’re going to print your letter out and send it by letter then please sign it and include your address.
You are very welcome to change this standard letter, or to add some words from the heart about why you want to save the Meadow, and what it means to you.
To: Ian Briggs, Planning Officer
Development and Regeneration Services
Glasgow City Council
231 George Street
Glasgow G1 1RX
Planning Reference Number 12/00924/DC
I am writing to object to the Planning Application lodged by New City Vision to develop housing on a site at Kelbourne St / Sanda St / Clouston St, Glasgow (ref: 12/00924/DC).
I object for the following reasons:
The proposed development runs counter to a number of adopted Council policies:
- This land has never been built on. It is not a brownfield site, nor a gap site, nor in a state of disrepair as described in the planning application. Since 1993 when the Council stopped maintaining the site as sports pitches, the land has been used as a community greenspace, and now consists of grassland and 480 trees, many over 30 feet high. It is currently used for a range of activities including childrens’ educational and recreational events, allotments, a natural habitat, a local composting facility, a community garden and dog-walking. The site was a finalist in the Best Environmental Award category of the Evening Times Streets Ahead awards in June 2012 and has also won two awards from Beautiful Scotland.
- City Plan 2 designates the site as ENV1 (Protected Open Space). The Planning application by New City Vision does not address the designation of the land as ENV1. This must be addressed and an argument made for the development of a protected open space. The development is contrary to this policy’s “strong presumption in favour of the retention of all public and private green/open space.” The North Kelvin Meadow is defined on the Glasgow Open Space Map as a sports area. This simplistic definition is considered to misrepresent the multi-functional nature of the open space. Although historically a blaes playing field, the meadow has long since been re-colonised by nature and now functions as: a semi natural greenspace (8); a wild playspace for local children (4) and a community growing space (6).
- The Housing Land Audit designates the site as New Build on Greenfield in an Urban setting, yet City Plan 2 (ENV 12 Development of Brownfield Land and Contaminated Sites) sets out that housing development on brownfield sites is preferable to greenfield sites. The site was formerly a playing field which is a greenfield land use. The site has since been re-colonised by nature but is most certainly not a brownfield site.
- The City Plan policy team is not listed as consultees on this planning application. Given that the proposal concerns land designated as ENV1 they should be.
- ENV1 requires that like for like compensation is provided where open space is to be developed: “equivalent or higher quality open space to directly replace the type of open space that would be lost”. This land is not designated as sports pitches under ENV1 and yet the Council is proposing to compensate the community by the provision of improved sports facilities on Queen Margaret Drive. The Council should instead compensate the local community with the type of open space that would be lost: greenspace, a natural habitat, a wild play area for children, allotments, an amenity greenspace, a communal garden.
- The proposed development will degrade the adaptability, success, sustainability and vibrancy of the North Kelvinside area through the destruction of a valued greenspace which currently provides opportunities for passive recreation, outdoor education and community growing. It will also cause the loss of biodiversity. This is counter to the Council’s policy STRAT 1 – Design and Sustainable Development in City Plan 2.
- The proposed development will erode the integrity of the local townscape and green network through the destruction of a valued community greenspace. This runs counter to DEV 2 Residential and Supporting Uses
- The proposed development involves the destruction of a valued community greenspace and is therefore contrary to this policy’s “strong presumption in favour of the retention of all public and private green/ open space” (DEV 11 Green Space)
- The proposed development through its destruction of a valued community greenspace does not reinforce connectivity to the green network or safeguard the natural environment (DES 1 Development Design Principles)
- The proposed development does not contribute towards achieving sustainable design and construction as it destroys existing biodiversity features which currently exist on site and does not propose adequate compensation for this loss (DES 2 Sustainable Design and Construction)
- The North Kelvin Meadow was historically a school playing field which added an open character to this part of the Glasgow West conservation area and reinforced its status as a recreational/ educational hub. The proposed development will therefore lead to the loss of existing open space which contributes positively to the historic character of the area (DES 3 Protecting and Enhancing the City’s Historic Environment)
- The proposed development will destroy local diversity and distinctiveness through destruction of an open space which has been reclaimed by nature and has a high biodiversity value (DES 4 Protecting and Enhancing the City’s Natural Environment)
- The proposed development may have an adverse effect on existing habitats protected in law, international conventions or agreements or which are identified as a priority in government objectives, the Glasgow LBAP or are important because of their conservation status. Ecological surveys carried out to date have not demonstrated that the development will not have the adverse effects described above, or that: there will be no fragmentation or isolation of habitats or species as a result of the development; the development will is sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on the biodiversity of the site (including its environmental quality, ecological status and viability); and public benefits at a national, or city region wide level, clearly outweigh the value of the habitat for biodiversity conservation, therefore the proposed development is contrary to ENV 6 Biodiversity.
- The proposed development causes the loss of trees on Council owned land in a conservation area (in direct contravention of ENV 8 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows) and it has not been demonstrated that: the public benefits at the local level clearly outweigh the value of the habitat; the development has been sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on the biodiversity of the site, including its environmental quality, ecological status and viability; and all mature trees affected have been, or will be, surveyed for bats prior to the granting of planning permission.
- The community will lose a valuable resource if the land is developed. Although the Council is proposing to invest approx. £1m from the sale of the land in sports facilities for the local community, there is a significant shortfall between the value of the land (between £5m and £10m) and the benefit provided to the local community.
- The Planning system is supposed to allow for the representation of the views of the local community. I am concerned that the Council is disposing of land designated as open space in order to benefit from the price of the sale. The community will not benefit from the sale, as we will lose a valuable and well-used greenspace, and we have no right of appeal.
- During the Pre-planning consultation process significant concerns were raised by the local community about the size, scale, position and layout of the public open space that was proposed as part of the development. It was strongly felt by a majority of the local community that the open space was too small, too manicured, and that the position of the open space made it seem to be private space, for the use of residents only. Not only has the new design not addressed these concerns, but it has actually made the situation worse. The new design has reduced the area of open space available.
- The developer has not put forward plans for the ownership and management of the open space within the site. This is fundamental to the ongoing use and success of this space.
- The development includes no social housing, in contravention of the Council’s Social Housing Policy.
- DES2 states that any development should protect existing biodiversity and compensate for any unavoidable loss. No compensation for the loss of biodiversity is proposed. The site supports a range of habitat and wildlife, and provides an important green network corridor between the River Kelvin and Dawsholm Park, the Canal and Ruchill Park.
- The proposed development conflicts with other Council policies and strategies including the Strategy for Outdoor Learning. Currently the site is used for a range of educational events and activities for children, including a regular pre-school play group that is part of the Scottish Pre School Play Association. Other local nursery groups also regularly use the site. An established Forest School Group is also using the site, in conjunction with four local schools.
The proposed development does not maintain the character of the Conservation Area:
- The change of use of the land from a protected greenspace to a housing development would change the character of the area, which is supposed to be protected by the Conservation Area.
- The planned development fails to maintain the layout characteristic of the area, introducing a completely new layout and block structure to the area.
- Listed buildings border the site and the impact on them has not been addressed. The proposed development would significantly affect these buildings, and the view of them.
- This development brings a completely new pattern of ‘mews housing’ to the area. Mews are small buildings dotted along the lanes behind townhouses and occasionally tenements. The mews in this development form a continuous terrace and dominate the site. There is nothing like them currently in the area.
- The development brings a completely new block size, pattern, building depth and layout of the block interior to the area. This is detrimental to the character of the area.
- There is no precedent for a 2.5 storey mews house in the area.
Material design considerations:
- The new sewers planned for this development will flow into the existing combined sewers. These sewers already overflow and deposit raw sewage on the Kelvin Walkway regularly because of the strain on the sewer infrastructure in the local area (these incidents have been reported to Scottish Water). The additional strain placed on the existing system by the surface water and foul sewer from 90 housing units will exacerbate this problem.
- The plans show that the surface water run-off will be directed to the corner of Sanda and Kelbourne Streets, an area that already suffers from flooding problems.
- The land currently acts as a sink for rainwater, if developed this advantage would be lost.
- No account has been taken of the cost of upgrading the sewage system that would be required by Scottish Water in order to meet the increased demand.
- The plans for drainage and surface water should be approved by planning officers with this specific remit. These are not marked as being consultees on this development.
- The proposed development proposes to provide parking for the site on Clouston Street, Sanda Street and Kelbourne Street. These streets are currently fully used for parking, and no additional space is available.
- The plan takes no account of the effect on traffic of the barriers (bollards) on Clouston Street which will impact on the flow of traffic, causing severe strain on the roads that filter into Queen Margaret Drive. The main flow of traffic to and from the site will go past a children’s play park.
- A Right of Way currently exists on the site, and this has not been accounted for within the development plans. The plans should retain this Right of Way.
- The current infrastructure capacity of the local area regarding schools, General Practitioners, roads and sewers has not been adequately considered. A development of 90 housing units will place additional strain on local amenities and this has not been considered. Especially with the other nearby housing developments that are currently in progress or just finished e.g. the ex school site between Maryhill Road and Oban Drive and the ex petrol station site on Queen Margaret Drive.
- The Tree survey carried out by the developer significantly underestimates the number of trees on the site. We count more than 480.
- The ecological assessment that has been submitted as part of the Planning Application refers to additional work that needs to be carried out in order to fully document the species that are present on the land. This work has not been carried out. Also the preliminary ecological assessment was conducted at a time of year when species are inactive.
- The character of local housing is one of bay-windowed tenements with deep undulating facades. The extremely flat facade of the townhouse section looks out of place in its architectural context. There is no historical precedent for the townhouses to have a flat roof. The townhouse element of the design is not sympathetic to the character of neighbouring buildings in this Conservation Area.
Address (optional): ____________________________________________
Images of the proposed development
These images are taken from New City Vision’s Planning Application and give a good idea of the scale and design of the development.
Planning Application Documents
The Glasgow City Council planning portal has been periodically unavailable over the last few days so we have reposted the key documents from the planning application here. They are reproduced without any amendment.
The original source of these documents is publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/
We will organise this shortly into a more logical list.
Adopted Roads – Drawing-435169
Apartment Open Space
Apartment visualisation – Drawing-435067
Apartments First Floor Plan – Drawing-435216
Apartments Ground Floor – Drawing-435215
Apartments Kelbourne St – Drawing-435265
Apartments Kelbourne St Details – Drawing-435262
Apartments Roof Plan – Drawing-435231
Apartments Sanda St – Drawing-435261
Apartments fourth floor – Drawing-435229
Apartments front elevations – Drawing-435234
Apartments rear elevation – Drawing-435267
Apartments rear elevations – Drawing-435236
Apartments second Floor plan – Drawing-435226
Apartments third floor plan – Drawing-436089
Appendix 1 – Drawing-435091
Appendix 2 – Waste Water – Drawing-435129
Appendix 3 – Drawing-435093
Appendix 4 – Drawing-435094
Appendix 5 – Drawing-435095
Appendix 6 – Drawing-435098
Appendix 7 – Drawing-435111
Bin and Bike Pavillions – Drawing-435274
Boundary Details – Drawing-435190
Central Open Space – Drawing-435170
Clouston St Axonometric – Drawing-435068
Clouston St Open Space – Drawing-435182
Clouston St Sanda St Axonometric – Drawing-435283
Clouston Street Townhouse visualisation – Drawing-435064
Clouston and Sanda Elevations – Drawing-435193
Covering Letter May 2012 – BackGround Papers-401798
Design and Access – BackGround Papers-435322
Design and Access statement – BackGround Papers-435324
Design and Access statement – BackGround Papers-435328
Development Plan – Drawing-435166
Drainage Report Sept 2012 – Drawing-435116
Drawing Register – Other-435057
Ecological Assessment v1 – BackGround Papers-435307
Kelbourne St Axonometric – Drawing-435074
Kelbourne St elevation – Drawing-435196
Location Plan – Drawing-435161
Materials Plan – Drawing-435168
Mews Elevation visualisation – Drawing-435282
Mews House Details – Drawing-435273
Mews House Front Elevation – Drawing-435270
Mews House Plans – Drawing-435268
Mews Houses Rear Elevation – Drawing-435271
Notice to Owners – Other-436074
Pre-application Consultation Report – BackGround Papers-435342
Pre-application consultation report – BackGround Papers-435346
Pre-application consultation report – BackGround Papers-435350
Sanda St Kelbourne St Axonometric – Drawing-435071
Site Section A-A – Drawing-435183
Site Section B-B – Drawing-435184
Site Section C-C – Drawing-435186
Topographical Survey – Drawing-435162
Townhouse Elevations – Drawing-435206
Townhouse Plans – Drawing-435198
Townhouse Rear Elevation – Drawing-435209
Townhouse details – Drawing-435211
Tree Survey – BackGround Papers-435308
Tree Survey Plan – Drawing-435167
A zip file containing a complete set of the above documents can be downloaded here. (Warning: it is a big file – 86MB)
Some other sources of information that might help in forming an objection.