May 18 2022

Ambassador Living and Ark Architecture & Design have prepared updated plans for a major residential-led scheme at 30 Finnieston Street, Glasgow, following discussions with planners around scale, height, daylighting and amenity.

'Significant concerns' in these areas have prompted a redesign of the scheme as originally proposed with particular concern given to the prominent corner element sweeping through to Minerva Street.

As such the one floor has been lopped off the corner element, with a commensurate reduction in the number of apartments from 153 to 132. An increase in amenity space has also been provided in a covered landscaped deck to the rear along with a roof terrace to the corner element.

In a covering note planning consultant Savills wrote: "The applicant has carefully considered GCC's position and subsequently prepared a revised scheme which primarily seeks to reduce the building scale and height. The top floor of the building over the corner element has been removed and replaced with a roof terrace for residents to utilise for amenity purposes.

"The updated proposals actively seek to mitigate a number of conflicts the previous proposal raised."

To address the daylighting concerns of neighbours the building steps back from Minerva Street and is also diminished by a single floor. Other minor amendments include an increase in height of pend access for services to permit lorries to reverse inside, negating the need for on-street parking.  

13 Comments

#1 Posted by George Buchanan on 18 May 2022 at 12:52 PM

This will be a positive contribution to this challenging junction.
Well done Ark!

#2 Posted by Hamish on 18 May 2022 at 14:32 PM

I agree. Will look good and be a huge improvement. If only both retail units could be demolished, housing built across the whole site and the shop incorporated into the ground floor of the development. Would look much better and be a lot more sustainable

#3 Posted by MV on 18 May 2022 at 16:36 PM

I think this is a decent scheme... but the previous scheme looked better. I think input from the planners and co often lead to less good designs.

#4 Posted by Sue Pearman on 19 May 2022 at 09:14 AM

Whilst the scale is definitely better - it's still too bulky. It's a very strange move to pull the facade back from the less busy street and counter to the local norm. The facade is also a little incoherent I think and could do with being simplified somewhat. My thoughts anyway FWIW.

#5 Posted by Hamish on 19 May 2022 at 10:14 AM

I agree. Will look good and be a huge improvement. If only both retail units could be demolished, housing built across the whole site and the shop incorporated into the ground floor of the development. Would look much better and be a lot more sustainable

#6 Posted by pooka on 19 May 2022 at 11:42 AM

They've successfully managed to make it look bigger.

#7 Posted by HMR on 19 May 2022 at 14:41 PM

Totally agree with the comments, the changes actually make it look larger. Also, feel the elevation should be paired back a bit, too many competing styles.

#8 Posted by The Heart of Saturday Night on 19 May 2022 at 14:46 PM

It's certainly an improvement - I'm glad that the 'drum' on the corner has been omitted.

I'm very much in agreement with #4 re. the treatment of the two frontages - it's a particularly busy junction to Finnieston Street which could do with a bit of room to breathe to the ground floor. Although it does look as though the trees on Minerva St are existing?

#9 Posted by Partick Bateman on 19 May 2022 at 15:59 PM

Agree with #4. Pulling the front back is an odd one, leaving the gable end exposed is none too pretty. It will though make a nice place for concert go-ers to urinate.

#10 Posted by Ilias Hisset on 19 May 2022 at 16:25 PM

Considering what's nearby on Finnieston St and Argyle St I found the objections to scale of the original proposal to be entirely spurious. I also quite liked the drum, it spoke to the two rather grand drum-ended tenements that treated this and the opposite corner where (Anderston Police Station is). Agree with Sue regards the set-back to Minerva St, it's the one aspect of the original proposal I actually found objectionable, and they've only gone and made it worse. That new amenity space masquerading as a running track on the roof looks like a maintenance and rammy wi the neighbours can-o-worms in the making - hugely costly to maintain and renew, and it wouldn't be long before the top floor flats start complaining about the noise.

Please, someone CTRL+Z this and find another arrangement for the amenity space, I'll write you a thorough letter of support if you do...

#11 Posted by Steppish on 20 May 2022 at 12:07 PM

They haven't set it back from Minerva Street because they wanted to, or because they thought it looked better - they've done it because that litter-strewn stretch of trees has somehow ended up on the council's register of officially designated open spaces and the massive objection letter writing campaign from local residents and councilors has used it as a stick to beat them with. Look at the application on the council's planning website - there are literally hundreds of objections against it and they almost all focus on the loss of those trees it's now being set back to protect

#12 Posted by David on 20 May 2022 at 12:49 PM

as far as I know the conservation area boundary steps across Minerva Street along this stretch to incorporate the trees...

#13 Posted by E=mc2 on 20 May 2022 at 22:17 PM

Well, it'squite often the case that while the number of units may reduce, the overall floor area increase, yielding a price premium for the developer. Planners, being planners, only count units, not measure floor area in relation to density. Duh!

Post your comments