Kelbourne Street: another planning application

LATEST NEWS (December 2021): planning permission was refused for the application discussed below. Thanks to all for submitting comments.

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.

Our view

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.



  • andrew stewart

    I absolutely agree this is bad idea. This will be an additional concentration of houses who will be using gas central heating will pollute the air further. We also lack playparks in our area and our daughter uses Happy Park after school along with other children in the area. I cannot believe that park won’t be either a) closed completely while materials and brought in, or b) reduced in size.

    The issue with sun light is another factor, but also children’s privacy to play freely and not have tower of eyes gawping at them. After Cop26, we committed to creating a better living environment for all. This in my mind does the complete opposite.

  • NKCC Admin

    Thanks for your comment. We feel that the spirit and the letter of the City Development Plan (p. 30) are not being adhered to:
    “The Placemaking Principle, will be applied to all development proposals throughout the City. By giving increased weight and importance to placemaking and the impact of development on health and wellbeing, it is intended that there will be an obligation for developers to demonstrate how The Placemaking Principle has been applied. …
    “The Policy aims to improve the quality of development taking place in Glasgow by promoting a design-led approach. This will contribute towards protecting and improving the quality of the environment, improving health and reducing health inequality, making the planning process as inclusive as possible and ensuring that new development attains the highest sustainability levels.”

  • Gillian Keith

    It would increase an already population dense area. Th eroads are now impassible dueling busy times with long lines of cars trying to move up Queen Margaret Drive. The area also has insufficient parking as it stands again an dincralease in population bringing more cars would result in gridlock.
    The area is too small for more buildings.

  • Kay

    All for development. I don’t understand why so many people are against development. Development correlates with gentrification. It’s about time north kelvinside was duly gentrified. The more dwellings the better and safer for the area.

  • NKCC Admin

    @Gillian Thanks for your comment

  • NKCC Admin

    @Kay Thanks for your comment. As a community council we are opposed to inappropriate development where insufficient account has been taken of the local context. We would welcome the chance to discuss with prospective developers what would be appropriate for this piece of ground.

  • Marie Therese Allison

    QMD and local area is being ruined by these proposed flats whose design is contrary to the nearby iconic tenements.squeezed into land creating overcrowding and congestion. It is beside a well used park and not only near a newbuild school but other prmary schools which include children with additional support needs.making it potentially dangerous for children. What happened to the traffic calming idea for QMD!? The multiplicity of feeds into QMD is already a hazard. It feels like these new developments like the one in Fergus Drive are out to spoil the west end.

  • NKCC Admin

    Thanks for your comment

  • Arthur Fairfull

    I fully support the NKCC position on this, and would love to think the Council would take you up on your offer of working together on a low-rise use of this land which would enhance, rather than detract from, the local environment – and which would comply with the worthy objectives of the City Development Plan. Meanwhile, it’s concerning to see the relatively low numbers of objections so far on the Planning portal – only 12, compared to around 50 for the previous proposal. I appreciate this stuff gets fatiguing, but would urge everyone to submit their views. There’s certainly no shortage of issues to go on – lack of parking, exacerbated by the RPZ and upcoming QMD cycle lane; general traffic access and safety; and in particular the overshadowing and loss of privacy to the playparks. Even the Council’s own Neighbourhood Services Parks department objected to the previous proposal on this latter point…

  • Alex

    The current waste ground is an eyesore so any change will be an improvement.

    With that being said the plans don’t fit with the surrounding area. It’s hard to believe the tenements have to abide by the conservation guidelines for windows, doors and brickwork but these buildings that are totally out of character height and style in their design for the area.

    The parking situation is already a nightmare with commuters using the area for all day parking. Additional buildings and residents is going to increase the problem tenfold. It’s extremely shortsighted to fire these buildings up without taking parking into consideration.

    It’s a shame the space isn’t being used for green space.

  • Ingrid mitchell

    My kids use the happy park all the time it is going to really affect there ability to play with lorries and trucks delivering materials.
    As mentioned also the light that these buildings will.block impacts the happy park and surrounding areas.
    With a new school opening in the vicinity also belhaven nursery Clarence House nursery west end nursery ,Cunard primary and St Charles primary all within a half mile radius I don’t think we need any more cars polluting such a smAll demographic area damaging our children’s health and the right to play outdoors . Spend money on upgrading the park for our young people.
    It’s an accident waiting to happen.

  • Andrea Fisher

    The building is too high;
    It will overshadow the happy park;
    The new school will bring in more kids and the Happy Park is a vital play area for kids- people should have priority over buidlings in this densely populated area- the new housing right across the road has brought resident numbers up in the past few years;
    Parking and increase of traffic has not been considered;
    Local context (architecture, height) has not been taken into consideration;
    Traffic will increase with the opening of the school just across the road;
    This will add to pollution due to gridlock- many children/ families on foot or bike use Queen Margaret Drive to get to 5 surrounding schools and work.
    COP 26 encouraged traffic free, bike friendly and green zones/ cities. This goes against exactly this.

  • NKCC Admin

    Thank you all for your comments. A final reminder, Friday 26th November is the final day that residents can submit their comments to the City Council at

  • Hello, an appeal has been lodged for the 10 units development.

  • NKCC Admin

    Thanks Marco

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *