Its time to have your say !
The Proposed City Development Plan has been published for consultation. North Kelvin Meadow, including the Children Wood, has been allocated for the development of approximately 100 houses. Its time to make your representation to the Council telling them it shouldn’t be housing and should be designated as a protected open space. You need to describe to them what its being used for; how much you value it and why it should not be built on.
What follows is how you do this:
The reasons stated below are just examples so feel free to come up with your own words if you like.
The reference Number that must be quoted: City Development Plan (CDP) Housing Proposal Number H023 – Sanda St / Kelbourne st / Clouston st. (Site 1703)
All representations on the Proposed Plan must be received by 4pm on Friday 27 June 2014. Anyone wishing to make representations must do so using the representation form. By using this form, you will help to ensure that your representation is fully understood and that the issues raised are presented in a format consistent with the development plan examination procedures.
Try to keep your points under headings so it’s easy for the Council to group the comments. The Council cannot accept representations which do not have a name and postal or email address.
The Form (you may have to copy and paste into your web browser):
The form can be submitted electronically or downloaded and returned by email to
firstname.lastname@example.org. You can print or photocopy the blank representation form.
Hard copies of the form can be returned to:
Development Plan Team,
Development and Regeneration
Services, Glasgow City Council,
231 George Street,
Glasgow, G1 1RX. Phone: 0141 287 8608
Representations should be concise (no more than 2,000 words plus any limited supporting information), and should fully explain the issues that you wish to be considered. Pictures can be included in supporting documentation.
You will not have another opportunity to make your case to the Council so be sure to include all the information which you think will help your case and save the North Kelvin Meadow
On-line: electronic forms can be completed and automatically submitted at: http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/developmentplan Tip – write it out first in a Word / Pages document and then copy and paste it into their form.
Email: forms can be downloaded, completed and sent to email@example.com
On-line the Council gives more details here:
See Council documents: “Location Plans of Housing Proposals” (page 23 of 122)
And “Schedule of proposals” look for Ref H023.
In the Form (link above) tick box: Proposed City Development Plan.
Write Proposal Number: H023
Question in form “Please indicate what changes you would like made to the Proposed Plan.”
“ Please delete housing proposal H023 Sanda St / Kelbourne st / Clouston st. “
“ Please amend the Glasgow Open Space Map to show the land at Sanda St / Kelbourne St / Clouston St to be designated as:
“6.72 – Natural / Semi-natural greenspace – Open semi-natural.” “
Reasons to protect this land from being built on:
It’s a Green Place – As it’s a wild natural green place within a well built up area, it brings health and happiness to all ages that use it within the local community. Its always been used by the community and has never had building on it. In the past it was a Playing Field and Sports ground, until the goalposts were removed by the then Strathclyde Regional Authority.
It’s a safer community – There are a variety of formal and informal community groups and individuals that use the land which connect people from all walks of life. They say just knowing a few people on your street helps communities become safer as people look out for each other. As North Kelvin Meadow is managed by the local community it’s enabled that over many years.
It’s a place for kids – Kids benefit both mentally and physically from playing in a natural green environment. It gives them something that classrooms and indeed formal gardens don’t.
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) says it should be protected – Paragraph 153 of SPP states: “153. Open spaces which are identified in the open space audit and strategy as valued and functional, or which are capable of being brought into functional use to meet a need identified in the open space strategy, should be identified and protected in the development plan. There is a presumption against development of these open spaces. Open space which is not identified in the strategy but which is valued and functional or contributes to local amenity or biodiversity should also be protected. Only where there is strong justification should open space be developed either partly or fully for a purpose unrelated to use as open space.”
There is sufficient Housing supply in the area – Being a tenement style area of housing there is high density re number of people. This has led to car parking issues not just in the surrounding streets but being a burden on the West End in general. The Local Development Plan (LDP), Main Issues Report (MIR) states (Para 2.9, p.9) “the SDP Proposed Plan concludes that the private housing supply across the SDP area is more than sufficient to meet demand”. Note should be taken that the current proposed housing is at the high end of affordability in this particular area. There are still many brownfield sites close to this area available for building, e.g: here is a list of sites numbers (area in hectares):
4058 (0.57), 4493 (0.63), 2696 (1,67), 4176 A&B (1.24&0.41), 2982ABC&D (1.58,1.86,1.72&0.57), 4401A&B(2.14&0.57), 4128(1.45) and more.
The Site is a Greenfield Site, having never had buildings on it. The City Development Plan itself expresses a strong preference for building on brownfield sites over greenfield sites; e.g.: (i) p 23 “utilise brownfield in preference to greenfield sites”
(ii) p.53 Meeting Housing Needs – “it is anticipated that the City’s brownfield opportunities . .will contribute to a rise in housing completions” and “ . . the Plan’s sustainable strategy which states a preference for brownfield development.”
(iii) The plan is also supposed to be in accord with the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (May 2012) which states (Para 4.72, p.42) “the SDP requires priority to be given to the recycling of urban land by using brownfield in preference to greenfield sites”.
It should be noted that the Scottish Office appointed Reporter, A. G Bell who on 9th Sept 1996 rejected planning permission being given on this land.
Recreation – the land has always been used for recreation in one form or another and that should continue. Especially now as there is less land for this than previously. Many people enjoy having picnics, walking their dogs and simply spending time relaxing on the land.
Biodiversity – This land has a huge variety of species, as much as a country park we are told. A housing development would result in the loss of a 1.4 hectares green space containing at least 480 trees and countless other species for which compensation for the loss of green space and the horticultural and recreational activities can’t be made as no other land in the area is available.
Flood Protection – This natural green space has helped deliver flood protection in an area that has had many flooding problems. Building more flats on the land and especially with the recent other flat developments in the local area would increase the problem which can be felt as far away as the drainage system on the walk ways of the River Kelvin.
Green Network – the land should be a priority as it’s the last large green space that’s not a formal garden or park in the West End of Glasgow. It forms part of a network of green areas from Botanic Gardens to North Kelvin Meadow to Canal area to Ruchill Park. It therefore brings better linkages between these sites and acts as “stepping stones” for migratory species.
Natural and Historic – No one walking across the land could help but see just how much mother nature has made its mark. The tennis court that is now a Wood, the sports surface that is now a Meadow. It’s always had a history of serving the community and people would like that to continue. Building flats would destroy that link with its past.
Glasgow West Conservation area – Its been part of that conservation zone since Augusts 2011. All trees and open green space are protected within a conservation zone. The City Development Plan mapping says its in a conservation zone yet one of the supporting schedules isn’t updated to reflect that.
Delays – The local community have now been in suspension for 21 years whilst various schemes (from Miller Homes, Compendium Trust to New City Vision Ltd) have been proposed and either rejected or never formally put. This is surely unfair and unacceptable to the local community. Glasgow City Council executive stated it was surplus as a sport pitch back in 1993. However they never did a public consultation of what it should be used for, which is against their own X Blaes Sports Pitch Policy.
No consultation – There has never been any consultation on what the land should be used for. All that there has been are consultations on what kind of housing. This is against Glasgow City Council policy on having consultations when taking away from a community its sports pitches or green space. In page 6 of the City Development Plan it is claimed that “The Plan has taken into account the comments received from organizations, local communities and individuals in response to the Key Issues and Options set out in the Main Issues Report . .” .
In fact the present proposal to designate the site as a potential housing site flouts the views of the overwhelming majority in the area which have repeatedly requested the site to be given a permanent status as an Open Green Space, such as from:
North Kelvin Meadow Campaign
North Kelvin Community Council
The Children Wood Project
On line petition which has 3200+ signatures: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-scottish-government-stop-glasgow-city-council-building-on-north-kelvin-meadow-children-s-wood
Open letters of support from Alistair Grey and other distinguished people in Glasgow.
Motions of support tabled at The Scottish Government in Holyrood.
Finalist at the Evening Times Street Ahead awards in 2012. Given in conjunction with Glasgow City Council as the Best Environmental Initiative.
Certificate of Merit as part of Beautiful Scotland’s Neighbourhood Awards.
Resolutions from Kelvinside Allotments association and Glasgow Allotments Forum.
296 objections from individuals responding to the Main issues Report in 2011 which were “overwhelmingly in favour” of it not having it zoned for housing.
The site has never been allocated for housing development before – The site’s inclusion in the agreed 2012 private sector housing land supply is not an adequate justification for its allocation as a housing proposal in the Local Development Plan. The site was not allocated as a housing proposal in City Plan 2 so it cannot be carried forward as a housing proposal into the Proposed City Development Plan as a matter of course.
Glasgow City Council Sports Pitches Strategy – Section 8.5 of the Council Sports Pitch Strategy (Release of Blaes Pitches) states:
“It should be recognized however that sports pitches also act as informal recreational green spaces with value for amenity and informal outdoor use. Any proposals to dispose of sports pitches should be subject to consultation with local communities, and require a determination by Council that these pitch spaces are not required as part of any other open space function.” [our emphasis].
There was no community consultation apart from the style of potential buildings. The space is most definitely being used for another open space function and has been for a very long time.
Cannibalism of open space – North Kelvinside Football Pitches
One reason given for building on this site is that a small part of the receipts received from its sale (some 10% approx) will help finance the proposed development of an upgraded football pitch at Queen Margaret Drive. However, as mentioned above, there are also many Brownfield Sites which once sold could provide sufficient finance for the Queen Margaret Drive pitches. This issue was raised at the North Kelvin Community Council Meeting in February 2011. The representative of the developer, New City Vision Ltd (NCV) was asked why they were being directed to build on a greenfield site. No satisfactory answer was given. It’s not in the best interest of local children’s health and wellbeing that they must sacrifice one well-used Open Space in order to simply upgrade another open space that is also well-used i.e. it’s an overall reduction of open space resulting in an overall decrease in the range of activities young people can get involved in.
Its use as a Playing Field became limited following the destruction of the goalposts and Local Authority (LA) neglect. Council records state that from 1993 the land was surplus to their requirements and should be left unmanaged until a new function was found for it. There are now 30+ foot trees growing out of that ex-playing surface. It can clearly no longer be designated as a Playing Field.
Current specific uses of the North Kelvin Meadow, all of which would be destroyed if housing was built on it. Note none of which has been at the expense of the public purse.
1. The Children Wood Project
An awarding winning project that has successfully brought kids outdoors to experience learning in a natural environment which is part of the Woods for learning strategy policy. This site serves to fulfil this policy remit of having areas where kids can learn in woodland settings. Importantly it is also within easy walking distance of where many kids live and provides an area for unstructured play as well. The Children Wood project puts on a whole hosts of events for kids throughout the year. It also links in with many of the schools and nursery groups in the area who use this land too. More details can be found on their website http://www.thechildrenswood.com . Note it’s an ideal place for kids activities what with the Scout Hall across the road and car restricting measures on Clouston and Hotspur street.
Extract from the Woods for learning strategy document:
“…Traditional ideas about classroom teaching are giving way to new and exciting approaches, like the use of woods for learning. Woodlands provide a rich resource for a range of learning opportunities that can help deliver Curriculum for Excellence. They provide a unique environment for young people to learn about sustainable development and climate change….By walking to a woodland and being active once there, pupils gain health and wellbeing benefits. Woodland settings also provide a calming learning environment for those children with attention deficit issues or support for learning needs.
This Strategy – aptly entitled Woods for Learning – sets out the key role that trees, woods and forests can play in helping improve young people’s life chances. Along with its associated Action Plan, the Strategy guides the Forestry Commission’s work in Scotland with young people in pre-school establishments, primary and secondary schools and provides a platform for Forestry Commission Scotland to work in partnership with the rest of Scottish Government and education professionals. “
Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for the Environment and Adam Ingram Minister for Children and Early Learning.
A Scottish Pre-school Play Association registered outdoor playgroup runs on a Wednesday morning. There is also a Friday and Saturday morning group too. It is also used as part of the Forest Schools initiative, again under the Woods for Learning Strategy.
Independent research has shown a clear link of improved educational performances of children given outdoor teaching and contact with wildlife.
2. Community open green space
An open space of mainly wild flowering Meadow for general recreation, dog walking, picnics, jogging, off road pedal cycling, outdoor yoga, bird watching, bumblebee home making, general health and wellbeing and importantly an area for unstructured play for kids that takes them away from street corners. It’s an unlocked site which helps dog walkers especially. It can be unlocked as it’s looked after by local people. More details can be found on the website http://www.northkelvinmeadow.com
3. Raised Bed Allotments
There are currently 35 raised bed allotment. With an 8 year waiting list for an allotment in the area, demand is high for this healthy sustainable activity.
The allotment provision in the North and North West of the City actually decreased after 1990 due to the approval of house building on a section of Kirklee Allotments.
Both Glasgow Allotments Forum (GAF) and Kirklee Allotments Association (KAA) have passed near-unanimous resolutions on this matter. The resolution from GAF reads:
“In view of the huge shortage of allotments in Glasgow, especially in the Westend with an 8 year waiting time, GAF urges GCC to release Clouston Street Playing Fields (site 1703) for use for horticultural allotments and a community greenspace. This meeting notes the interest of New City Vision in building flats on this site. However the site is a greenfield site, (the only one in the North Kelvinside/Hillhead area) and therefore its use for building runs counter to City Plan 2 which strongly prefers brownfield sites for building, as well as supporting a Development Strategy ‘to improve residents health by providing access to facilities including green spaces, cultural and sporting facilities.’”
A similar resolution was passed by Kirklee Allotment Association (KAA).
It is also worth noting the opinion of John Swinney (16th November 2010) “…the approval of Scottish Ministers is required if a local authority wishes to dispose of land…which forms part of a common or open space or is held for use as allotments.
4. Community Allotments and Community Orchard.
Some members prefer to work communally, similar to the community gardens in Woodlands Community Garden (www.woodlandscommunitygarden.org.uk). There are two large community raised beds. There is an Orchard of 25+ fruit trees and bushes along the Kelbourne street fence line.
There are 7 compost bins which the local people give their left over vegetables and fruit to. Much better than it ending up in landfill. It’s also used to grow the vegetables and fruit in the raised beds and community Orchard. Which doves tails in with policy on sustainability.
The above needs official support rather than opposition.
Please amend the Local Development Plan within the City Development Plan to show this site as Green space and not labelled for Housing development.
What follows was written in 2012 and refers to the 1st Phase of the planning application objection process.
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.