Kelbourne Street: another planning application
A new planning application has been submitted for part of the derelict land beside the Happy Park on Kelbourne St. It is for a seven-storey block of 10 flats:
21/03226/FUL Erection of flatted residential development (10no units). | Site Formerly Known As 10 Kelbourne Street Glasgow
This small piece of land was already included last year in a different developer’s proposal for 39 flats covering the whole derelict site beside the playpark. This previous application was controversially approved on appeal, despite many objections from the local community.
If you want to make an official comment on the present application, please note the closing date is Friday 26th November 2021. See the City Council website for guidance on how to submit a comment.
These are our draft comments on the application. We expect to make amendments before submitting them:
We wish to register our objection to the above planning application. Our reasons for objecting to this particular application are as follows:
We have significant concerns about road safety, traffic and parking. The area is primarily pre-1919 tenemental property and there are long-standing pressures on residential parking. The proposed site is just off Queen Margaret Drive which is a busy route connecting Great Western Road to Maryhill Road and the north of the city. We have had reports at our Community Council meetings about speeding on Queen Margaret Drive. The site is also close to the new North Kelvinside Primary School which will increase both traffic and people in the area when it opens.
The site is adjacent to a well-used children’s playpark, likely to be even more popular when the new primary school opens. The proposed design has no provision for amenity space within its plot. The design being 7 storeys tall significantly overshadows the playpark which it immediately borders. We note that the shadow map on page 37 shows the impact of light lost in March and June; in March there is considerable loss of light into the park in the afternoon, meaning that from November to February the loss of light will be even worse.
In addition, given the very close proximity to the children’s playpark, it is also very likely that construction on this site will affect and limit the use of the park for some time. Construction and delivery vehicles attending the site will aggravate the existing road safety challenges and will be a real risk with children of primary and pre-school age entering and leaving the park.
From considering the designs presented as part of the planning application, we consider that the proposed design is not sympathetic to existing buildings in the area. The front page of the design statement clearly shows how oversized the design is. The flat roof style is jarring when compared to the pitched roofs of the tenements and other new buildings in the area. It is also too tall: this is apparent from the rear elevation, and it overshadows the surrounding buildings by at least 2 storeys. If this building goes ahead it will undoubtedly detract from the character of the area. It also appears that the building takes up the whole of the available site with no space allowed around the curtilage of the building.
The designs are also presented in a misleading fashion; they do not reflect the impact of the other development currently approved for the adjacent site. The application has very limited information about finish and material, but the images given in the design statements are not sympathetic.
We are supportive of sustainable housing development which meets the housing needs of the area but this proposal is simply overdevelopment designed to maximise profit with no consideration given to the amenity and character of the area. In addition if it goes ahead it will reduce the light and amenity of the playpark and impact on local children’s health and well-being.
We also have wider concerns. We understand that the other development currently pending for Kelbourne Street cannot go ahead in its current format if this application is approved. We find this to be a very unsettling situation and residents have already contacted us to try and understand what is happening with the site.
As we understand it the land is still owned by City Property. Given the apparent conflict between these two planning applications, would there be an opportunity to revisit the proposals for the site and work towards a more sympathetic development for the area? Would one of the Registered Social Landlords in the area be a possible partner to develop the site?
We would welcome and make ourselves available for further conversation to help progress this in a constructive manner.