Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Privacy
 

Developer bats off planning refusal in Glasgow’s west end

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

August 7 2019

Developer bats off planning refusal in Glasgow’s west end

The developer behind plans to build 19 flats in Glasgow’s west end has appealed after planners objected to the demolition of a ‘neutral’ unlisted building because it ‘would be detrimental to the character and appearance’ of the conservation area.

Concerns were raised by officials at the loss of trees arising from the increased footprint of a new apartment block designed by Holmes Miller Architects, together with worries that ‘it would erode the balance of buildings and space which characterises the street’.

The biggest stumbling block appears to be the potential presence of bats in the building with planners upset that no surveys had been carried out to confirm their presence.

Dismissing such concerns Rossweir has appealed to the Scottish government, arguing that their design would ‘enhance’ the area by replacing the ‘unsightly’ current building.

It is the latest twist for a contentious triangle of land at 127 Fergus Drive, which has become a battleground among locals concerned at a potential loss of amenity from the demolition of the abandoned office building.

Previous plans drawn up by CMM for a 77-room apart-hotel were thrown out in 2017.

Historic Environment Scotland had no objections to the demolition
Historic Environment Scotland had no objections to the demolition
This unassuming block has thwarted all redevelopment efforts
This unassuming block has thwarted all redevelopment efforts

7 Comments

Clarinda
#1 Posted by Clarinda on 7 Aug 2019 at 11:50 AM
Absolutely hilarious that Glasgow Council have chosen to refuse this when they allowing the demolition of significant listed buildings else where.

The building they are seeking to demolish isn't even in keeping with the conversation area and was only built after the demolition of a rather fine house!
Partick Bateman
#2 Posted by Partick Bateman on 7 Aug 2019 at 14:20 PM
I'm actually on the side of the developer on this. The quotes in the article from officials are gibberish and clearly contradict other planning decisions made in the past.
The building itself is nothing special; I'd say above average: nice big windows, balconies, facing materials look ok. Maybe a 7/10. It's certainly a lot better than the bunker currently there.
You have to wonder though, if this is unacceptable, what exactly would be acceptable for this space?
Having lived in the area for many years, I'm very aware of how active and strangely effective a little clique of NIMBYs are in the area. I expect they'll be eyeing-up up another community garden which can then lie unused 99.99% of the time.
Passer by
#3 Posted by Passer by on 7 Aug 2019 at 14:30 PM
I passed by this site a while back and there was a stall with a crowd of folk offering free sweets to anyone who would sign an an objection letter against this development, would even fill it in for you. As such, it's no wonder it didn't go ahead. Shame really, as the current building is completely outwith the character of the area even more so than the proposal.
Asimov
#4 Posted by Asimov on 8 Aug 2019 at 09:40 AM
I'm wholeheartedly with developer here, too.
HMR
#5 Posted by HMR on 8 Aug 2019 at 11:50 AM
Yeah, would have to agree this scheme actually looks ok on the site. Design looks fairly bold and complimentary of the context. Corner Bay with the the triple window is maybe too heavy in its form.
James Murphy
#6 Posted by James Murphy on 15 Aug 2019 at 21:55 PM
As i live in direct line of this proposed development I will be totally over shadowed with a loss of natural light also the area has a history of subsidence.The parking is a nightmare {i do not own or drive a car].The developers claim the site is vacant It never has been in recent times.
Alison
#7 Posted by Alison on 15 Aug 2019 at 22:56 PM
This application was refused on multiple counts.

The development " would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Glasgow West Conservation Area, SG 7 Natural Environment, SG 8 Water Environment and is contrary to Supplementary Guidance SG 9 Historic Environment and SG 1 Placemaking and thereby to Policies CDP 9 Historic Environment, CDP 1 The Placemaking Principle and CDP Sustainable Spatial Strategy of the City Development Plan 2017"
Also going against:
Interim Planning Guidance IG 12 Delivering Development
Policy CDP 12Delivering Development
Supplementary Guidance SG 8 Water Environment
Policy CDP 8 Water Environment.
Supplementary Guidance SG 11 Sustainable Transport
PolicyCDP 11 Sustainable Transport.

So, not just bats, trees and NIMBYS

Post your comments

 

All comments are pre-moderated and
must obey our house rules.

 

Back to August 2019

Search News
Subscribe to Urban Realm Magazine
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.