This is old information and kept here for historical purposes to show the process that was gone through so that others going through something similar can learn from our experience.

It details the objections to having it classed as housing and the Government Reporter view (copied in directly below here) that the Housing Proposal should be deleted.  The City Development Plan has therefore been updated with North Kelvin Meadow new status.

Overall conclusions

“I recognise that the development of this site for housing would make a contribution

towards meeting the shortfall in the provision of land for new housing in the City, which we have identified as a deficiency in the Proposed Plan in Issue 17. However, the land at Clouston Street is a highly valued open space which is well used and maintained by the local community, and which should continue to be safeguarded for that purpose. Its development for housing would be in conflict with planning policies which seek to protect such areas. I have therefore decided to modify the Proposed Plan by deleting Housing Proposal H023.

Since the Proposed Plan does not designate open spaces I am unable to formally designate the site as an open space. It will be a matter for the council to reflect the outcome of this examination in its review of its Open Space Map, and in its Open Space Strategy (see Issue 6).

 Reporter’s recommendations:

Modify the Proposed Plan by deleting Housing Proposal H023. ”

 

 

 

The top

(this is the full 30 pages or so that detail out people objections to the Council view they want the land as housing and at the end the Government appointed Reporter comes up with their conclusion – brilliant news !!!!) 

PROPOSED GLASGOW CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Page 287

Issue 26      Housing Proposal H023 Sanda St / Kelbourne St / Clouston St

Development plan reference:

Policy CDP10 Meeting Housing Needs (Pages

53-55)

Reporter:

Martin Seddon

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including

reference number):

Neil Wallace (00002)

North Kelvin Meadow (00004)

North Kelvin Community Council (00005)

Merle Read (00007)

Blythe Tinker (00008)

Susie Abrahams (00009)

Rhian Williams (00010)

Alex Benchimol (00011)

Carol Webster (00012)

Stefan Ward (00013)

Remco De Blaaij (00014)

The Conservation Volunteers (00015)

Hugh Matthews (00017)

Peter Lorenz (00018)

Kenny Harvey (00019)

Glasgow West End (00021)

Hannah Baxter (00022)

Sarah McMillan (00023)

Fiona Rintoul (00029)

Jane Gordon (00042)

Margaret McKean (00044)

Ian McKean (00045)

Tobi Watson (00047)

Victoria Rushworth (00059)

William V Nicholson (00060)

John Philip Nicholson (00061)

Ann J Nicholson (00062)

Anthony Sayer (00065)

Brian Condon (00069)

Alex Lloyd Young (00094)

Kirsteen MacDonald (00095)

Gordon Fisher (00096)

Jane Williams (00101)

William J Robertson (00104)

Andre Boeckmann (00108)

Brenda Irons-Roberts (00110)

Martin Irons-Roberts (00111)

Calum Fisher (00112)

Joyce Macfarlane (00116)

Amy Ritchie (00117)

Leigh De Oliveira (00118)

Jessica Wolfson (00119)

Charlotte Gross (00120)

Paul Andrew Murphy (00121)

Fiona Murphy (00399)

Jennifer Roberts (00400)

Kate Black (00407)

D Donaldson (00414)

Nicola Smith (00416)

Liza Dimbleby (00421)

Brian Young (00423)

Duncan Taylor (00430)

A J Nairn & C S Nairn (00431)

Keith Macpherson (00434)

Elspeth Singleton (00435)

Erin Despard (00436)

Ali Jarvis (00447)

Dominic Gonzalez (00448)

Geoff Gallagher-Mackay (00454)

Elizabeth Rawes (00459)

Arran James (00461)

Riikka Gonzalez (00462)

Caroline Bingley (00464)

Allan Brown (00465)

Hector MacAlister (00466)

Sapna Agarwal (00467)

Emma Schad (00469)

Rosie Simpson (00470)

Quintin I Cutts (00471)

Emily Cutts (00472)

Alison MacGregor (00473)

Kristin Mojsiewicz (00480)

Nicolas White (00481)

Sam Rex-Edwards (00482)

Claire Slocombe (00487)

David Armstrong (00488)

Camille Young (00492)

Beth Liddle (00494)

Marilyn Young (00495)

Carole Milligan (00499)

Charlotta Gorski (00502)

Priya Logan (00504)

Jayson Byles (00505)

Alexander Kovalenkov and Ekaterina

Tsibarova (00506)

Julia MacPherson (00508)

Martin Vincent (00509)

Teresa Lowe (00510)

PROPOSED GLASGOW CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

288

Juliet S Duncan (00122)

Euan Duncan (00123)

Nahoum Anthony (00124)

Eithan Anthony (00125)

Stephanie Anthony (00126)

Joni Mackay (00127)

Marta Moskal (00128)

John Carruthers (00129)

Tanja Carruthers (00130)

Ariki Porteous (00131)

Kathryn Porteous (00132)

John Donaldson (00133)

Gemma Elise Gerber (00134)

Lindsay Bannerman (00135)

John Sutton (00136)

Kevin Dallas (00137)

Sheena Thompson (00138)

Axel Anthony (00140)

Kate Verrall (00141)

Ray Verrall (00142)

Fiona Douglas (00145)

Lynda Douglas (00146)

Gillian Keith (00147)

I Robertson (00148)

Beth Simpson (00156)

Hazel Fisher (00161)

Ross Downie (00162)

Christopher Bond (00325)

Stefanie Scott (00368)

Christine Salaun (00369)

Bridget Fowler (00370)

Keith Marshall (00372)

Julia Boswell (00373)

Bryony Murray (00374)

Anne Whitaker (00375)

Felicity Parsons (00376)

Jeannette Best (00377)

Neil McLaughlin (00383)

Eva Baillie (00387)

Rachel McAllister (00389)

Anna Fisk (00390)

Daisy Richardson (00393)

Ima Jackson (00394)

Margaret Despard (00395)

Kathryn Elmer (00398)

John James McGrory (00521)

Kirsteen Lee Scott (00524)

Catherine Forde (00525)

Gavin Crosby (00531)

Diana Morton (00532)

Jennifer Curran (00534)

Anthony Coia (00536)

Kathy Silver (00537)

Damian Jackman (00539)

Shona Cameron (00540)

Deborah Dewar (00542)

Christopher Booth (00543)

Paul Bassett (00548)

Gaynor Astbury (00551)

John Wynne (00552)

Annabel Wright (00553)

Lucy Black (00555)

Steve Greenland (00562)

Liam Watson (00569)

Jan Colquhoun (00572)

Marianne Paul (00582)

J Shearer (00583)

Anita Clark (00586)

Brett Collins (00591)

Danny Thallon (00596)

Christine Lee (00603)

Richard S Durk (00605)

Paula Fraser (00606)

Grant Campbell (00607)

Margaret Green (00612)

Ralph Green (00618)

Ian Black (00619)

Leslie Black (00624)

Robin Black (00625)

Angela Blair (00638)

Robert Ballantyne (00639)

Neil and Anna Paterson (00646)

Peter Barry (00653)

Christy Mearns (00657)

Don MacKeen (00658)

North Kelvin Meadow Campaign Group

(00659)

Richard Young (00660)

Michael Adamson (00670)

Lea Cramsie (00671)

Maureen McNeill (00672)

Provision of the development plan to which the issue relates:

H023 Sanda St/Kelbourne St/Clouston St is a site from the 2012

Housing Land Supply, which provides for the construction of

approximately 100 houses. It is proposed that all of these houses

will be for sale, and all are expected to contribute to the housing

land supply for the plan area.

Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):

General Representations to Proposal

Objecting

00132, 00140 – Object to the area identified as H023 being designated for housing

Supporting

00543 – Support for re-development of site as it has fallen into disrepair, there is a need

for housing in the area and there is adequate green space elsewhere. The capital receipt

from sale of site could be re-invested in creating a sports centre at Maryhill Road/Queen Margaret Drive

Scottish Planning Policy

 

Objecting

00002, 00004, 00007, 00008, 00009, 00010, 00011, 00014, 00015, 00017, 00019,

00021, 00023, 00045, 00047, 00059, 00069, 00094, 00095, 00101, 00110, 00111,

00112, 00116, 00120, 00121, 00122, 00123, 00127, 00129, 00130, 00131, 00133,

00135, 00137, 00138, 00142, 00145, 00147, 00161, 00162, 00325, 00369, 00372,

00373, 00374, 00375, 00377, 00387, 00389, 00393, 00398, 00400, 00407, 00414,

00416, 00421, 00430, 00434, 00435, 00436, 00447, 00448, 00454, 00459, 00461,

00462, 00464, 00465, 00466, 00467, 00470, 00473, 00480, 00481, 00482, 00487,

00494, 00502, 00504, 00505, 00506, 00508, 00509, 00510, 00521, 00524, 00525,

00532, 00534, 00536, 00539, 00540, 00542, 00548, 00551, 00552, 00553, 00555,

00572, 00583, 00586, 00596, 00605, 00606, 00607, 00612, 00618, 00619, 00624,

00625, 00638, 00639, 00646, 00658, 00659, 00660, 00670, 00671

Scottish Planning Policy recommends that sites which are identified in the open space

audit and strategy as valued and functional open space (or are capable of being brought

back into functional use to meet an identified need) should be identified on the open

space map and protected by the Local Development Plan. Approval from Scottish

Ministers would be required if the Council wished to dispose of land in use as a common or open space, or held for allotments.

Scottish Planning Policy on Consultation recommends that Planning should focus on

positive placemaking, fostering adaptability by integrating a mix of compatible uses and communities, and thereby improving community cohesion.

Strategic Development Plan/Housing Land Supply

Objecting

00002, 00004, 00008, 00009, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00014, 00015, 00017, 00019,

00021, 00023, 00045, 00047, 00060, 00061, 00095, 00101, 00110, 00111, 00112,

00116, 00120, 00121, 00122, 00123, 00127, 00129, 00130, 00133, 00135, 00137,

00138, 00142, 00145, 00147, 00148, 00161, 00162, 00325, 00369, 00373, 00374,

00375, 00377, 00387, 00389, 00393, 00398, 00407, 00414, 00416, 00421, 00430,

00434, 00435, 00436, 00447, 00448, 00459, 00461, 00462, 00464, 00465, 00466,

PROPOSED GLASGOW CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

290

00467, 00469, 00470, 00473, 00480, 00481, 00482, 00487, 00488, 00492, 00494,

00495, 00499, 00502, 00504, 00505, 00506, 00508, 00509, 00510, 00521, 00524,

00525, 00531, 00532, 00534, 00536, 00539, 00540, 00542, 00548, 00551, 00552,

00553, 00555, 00572, 00583, 00586, 00596, 00606, 00607, 00612, 00618, 00619,

00624, 00625, 00639, 00646, 00658, 00659, 00660

 

The Main Issues Report noted the SDP Proposed Plan conclusion that there was more than enough land supply to meet demand. The site has never been allocated for housing before. It was not included as a proposal in City Plan 2, so cannot be carried forward into the Local Development Plan. Inclusion in the 2012 land supply is not an adequate justification for its allocation as a proposal in the Local Development Plan. The Local Development Plan should accord with the Strategic Development Plan, which expresses a preference for the development of brownfield land.

Sustainable Spatial Strategy/Council Policy and Strategies

Objecting

00002, 00004, 00007, 00008, 00009, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00014, 00015, 00017,

00018, 00019, 00021, 00022, 00023, 00029, 00042, 00044, 00045, 00047, 00060,

00061, 00062, 00065, 00069, 00095, 00096, 00101, 00108, 00110, 00111, 00112,

00116, 00120, 00121, 00122, 00123, 00127, 00129, 00130, 00133, 00135, 00137,

00138, 00142, 00147, 00148, 00161, 00162, 00325, 00369, 00370, 00372, 00373,

00374, 00375, 00377, 00387, 00389, 00393, 00394, 00398, 00399, 00407, 00414,

00416, 00421, 00430, 00434, 00435, 00436, 00448, 00454, 00459, 00461, 00462,

00464, 00465, 00466, 00467, 00470, 00473, 00480, 00481, 00482, 00487, 00488,

00492, 00494, 00502, 00504, 00505, 00506, 00508, 00509, 00510, 00521, 00524,

00525, 00531, 00532, 00534, 00536, 00539, 00540, 00542, 00548, 00551, 00552,

00553, 00555, 00562, 00572, 00583, 00586, 00596, 00603, 00606, 00607, 00612,

00618, 00619, 00624, 00625, 00638, 00639, 00646, 00657, 00658, 00659, 00660, 00672

The site is greenfield, has never been built on, and development is therefore contrary to

the CDP Sustainable Spatial Strategy’s preference for brownfield sites. There is no

shortage of brownfield sites within the area. Although alternative pitch provision is

proposed at Queen Margaret Drive, there would be an overall loss of open space in the

area. Development would be contrary to open space policy, and the Council’s Sports

Pitch Strategy, which notes that pitches can also be used for informal recreation, and that

consultation is required before pitches can be disposed of.

Development of this site would be contrary to the Council’s green objectives, as

demonstrated in its designation of Green Year in 2015, and would be contrary to policy for the historic environment.

Affordability

Objecting

00004, 00010, 00011, 00325, 00370, 00373, 00389, 00488, 00606, 00658 – The

proposed housing is at the high end of affordability in this area. There is a greater need

for affordable housing.

PROPOSED GLASGOW CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

291

Road Traffic/Parking/Infrastructure

Objecting

00004, 00007, 00013, 00022, 00029, 00045, 00059, 00110, 00111, 00325, 00368,

00369, 00373, 00389, 00394, 00398, 00399, 00414, 00434, 00435, 00447, 00462,

00472, 00488, 00492, 00506, 00510, 00521, 00524, 00525, 00540, 00551, 00582,

00583, 00591, 00603, 00605, 00638, 00646, 00672 – Development would cause

increased traffic, pollution and parking problems, in an area already suffering from this

issue due to the density of the existing housing.

A lot of development (including conversion to residential and multiple occupancy) has

taken place in the area without additional investment in recreational and roads

infrastructure. Drainage infrastructure is also inadequate. There is no need for further

housing.

 

Previous Planning History

Objecting

00004, 00010, 00011, 00042, 00059, 00325, 00369, 00373, 00407, 00430, 00466,

00488, 00506, 00548, 00551, 00555, 00606, 00607, 00639, 00658, 00660 – Planning

permission was previously rejected by a Scottish Office Reporter in 1996.

Conservation Area

Objecting

00002, 00007, 00012, 00014, 00015, 00018, 00019, 00021, 00023, 00045, 00060,

00061, 00062, 00095, 00110, 00123, 00325, 00369, 00373, 00374, 00375, 00377,

00393, 00398, 00407, 00416, 00434, 00448, 00454, 00459, 00462, 00464, 00465,

00467, 00482, 00487, 00488, 00492, 00494, 00502, 00504, 00505, 00506, 00508,

00548, 00551, 00553, 00555, 00582, 00605, 00607, 00612, 00618, 00619, 00624,

00625, 00638, 00639, 00657, 00658, 00660

The site is within a Conservation Area, meaning that the quality of design will be an

important consideration. Tree preservation orders (including those protecting the lime trees along Clouston Street) would be violated. Development would change the

character of the area.

Impact on Listed Buildings

Objecting

00657 – The impact of the development on listed buildings bordering the site has not been assessed.

Use of Site

Objecting

00002, 00005, 00007, 00008, 00009, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00013, 00014, 00015,

PROPOSED GLASGOW CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

292

00017, 00018, 00019, 00021, 00022, 00023, 00029, 00042, 00044, 00045, 00047,

00059, 00060, 00061, 00062, 00065, 00069, 00095, 00101, 00104, 00108, 00110,

00111, 00112, 00116, 00117, 00118, 00119, 00121, 00122, 00123, 00124, 00125,

00126, 00127, 00128, 00130, 00136, 00138, 00141, 00142, 00145, 00146, 00147,

00148, 00156, 00161, 00325, 00368, 00369, 00373, 00374, 00375, 00376, 00377,

00383, 00387, 00389, 00390, 00393, 00395, 00398, 00399, 00400, 00407, 00416,

00421, 00430, 00434, 00435, 00436, 00447, 00448, 00454, 00459, 00461, 00462,

00464, 00465, 00466, 00467, 00469, 00470, 00472, 00473, 00480, 00481, 00482,

00487, 00488, 00492, 00494, 00495, 00499, 00502, 00504, 00505, 00506, 00508,

00509, 00510, 00521, 00524, 00525, 00532, 00534, 00536, 00537, 00539, 00540,

00542, 00548, 00551, 00552, 00553, 00555, 00562, 00569, 00572, 00582, 00583,

00586, 00591, 00596, 00603, 00605, 00606, 00607, 00612, 00618, 00619, 00624,

00625, 00638, 00639, 00646, 00653, 00657, 00658, 00659, 00660, 00670, 00671, 00672

Following a long period of neglect by the Council, the site has benefited from significant investment by the community, and is currently used for a range of community activities, including: nature education for children, allotments, jogging, dog walking, informal outdoor play, local events. Links with local schools and nurseries have also been developed through use of the site. The site is highly valued to visitors and people from other areas, contributes to a safer and more cohesive community, and could be a resource to the area in the long term. These activities are consistent with the Council’s objectives on access to open space, educational, cultural and leisure pursuits, and local food production, and contribute to addressing ill health, obesity and deprivation. Availability of allotments has reduced over time, leading to a waiting list of 8 years in the local area.

Biodiversity/Natural Environment

Objecting

00002, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00014, 00015, 00017, 00018, 00021, 00022, 00023,

00029, 00042, 00045, 00047, 00060, 00061, 00108, 00112, 00118, 00142, 00145,

00156, 00325, 00369, 00373, 00374, 00375, 00377, 00389, 00393, 00400, 00407,

00416, 00421, 00434, 00435, 00436, 00448, 00461, 00462, 00464, 00465, 00466,

00467, 00469, 00470, 00482, 00487, 00494, 00502, 00504, 00505, 00506, 00508,

00509, 00510, 00521, 00524, 00525, 00534, 00539, 00553, 00555, 00572, 00582,

00583, 00586, 00591, 00606, 00607, 00612, 00618, 00619, 00624, 00625, 00639,

00653, 00657, 00658, 00659, 00660

The site is a wild, natural, green place, and has won numerous environmental awards. It

is the last in this area that is not a formal park or garden, and connects logically to the

River Kelvin green corridor, which is of high environmental value. The site is home to 500

trees and various wildlife species. It is part of a green network of spaces in the West End

which provides stepping stones for migratory species. Development would result in the

loss of around 1.4 hectares of green space, impact on the biodiversity of the area, and

would therefore be contrary to the aims of the CDP in relation to the natural environment.

As this is a tenemental area, most people don’t have gardens.

Flooding

Objecting

00004, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00014, 00015, 00018, 00019, 00021, 00022, 00023,

PROPOSED GLASGOW CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

293

00111, 00325, 00369, 00373, 00374, 00375, 00393, 00400, 00407, 00414, 00421,

00430, 00434, 00435, 00464, 00467, 00470, 00472, 00482, 00487, 00494, 00502,

00504, 00505, 00506, 00508, 00509, 00534, 00536, 00553, 00555, 00605, 00607,

00612, 00618, 00619, 00624, 00625, 00639, 00658, 00660 – The site performs a flood

protection function for the area, which has suffered flooding issues in the past. When

added to other development that has taken place in the area, further housing would

exacerbate this problem.

Consultation

Objecting

00004, 00005, 00007, 00010, 00011, 00012, 00014, 00015, 00018, 00019, 00021,

00022, 00023, 00029, 00060, 00061, 00062, 00095, 00110, 00112, 00325, 00369,

00373, 00374, 00375, 00390, 00393, 00394, 00398, 00399, 00407, 00414, 00416,

00421, 00434, 00435, 00448, 00454, 00464, 00465, 00467, 00470, 00472, 00480,

00481, 00482, 00487, 00488, 00494, 00502, 00504, 00505, 00506, 00510, 00521,

00524, 00525, 00553, 00555, 00562, 00572, 00582, 00605, 00612, 00618, 00619,

00624, 00625, 00638, 00639, 00653, 00658, 00659, 00670, 00672

Consultation in relation to the proposed development has been limited to the design of the development, and has been inadequate. It has not taken account of the views of the local community and representative groups, who objected at Main Issues Report stage, and remain overwhelmingly opposed. The numerous schemes that have been proposed over the years mean that the ability of the community to move forward with the site has been put on hold for some time.

Inequality

Objecting

00012, 00014, 00015, 00019, 00021, 00112, 00370, 00374, 00387, 00393, 00398,

00416, 00434, 00464, 00467, 00469, 00470, 00472, 00487, 00494, 00502, 00504,

00505, 00508, 00509, 00510, 00521, 00524, 00525, 00534, 00542, 00553, 00612,

00618, 00619, 00624, 00625 – This is an area of deep inequality. The woods are used by

everyone. Development of the site would affect the poorest most.

Sustainability

Objecting

00012, 00014, 00015, 00019, 00021, 00022, 00111, 00112, 00373, 00374, 00375,

00390, 00393, 00398, 00414, 00434, 00464, 00467, 00469, 00470, 00482, 00487,

00492, 00494, 00502, 00504, 00505, 00508, 00509, 00553, 00612, 00618, 00619,

00624, 00625

The land is a sustainable resource for the community, though the food growing that it

encourages. The site is a green space within walking distance of the community, meeting

the objectives of the Good Places Better Health for Scottish Children strategy. Existing

services cannot support further development in this area. It is also a carbon sink.

PROPOSED GLASGOW CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

294

Education, Health and Well-being

Objecting

00095, 00124, 00142, 00372, 00373, 00374, 00375, 00389, 00390, 00393, 00398,

00407, 00414, 00416, 00421, 00434, 00435, 00436, 00448, 00454, 00459, 00461,

00462, 00464, 00465, 00466, 00467, 00470, 00472, 00480, 00481, 00482, 00487,

00492, 00494, 00502, 00504, 00505, 00506, 00508, 00509, 00510, 00521, 00524,

00525, 00534, 00536, 00539, 00542, 00552, 00553, 00572, 00582, 00583, 00591,

00606, 00612, 00618, 00619, 00624, 00625, 00639, 00653, 00657, 00658, 00659,

00660, 00672

The provision of parent-led activities on this space promotes education, and the

importance of exercise to health and well-being for the community and its children.

Legacy

Objecting

00111 – The community aims to protect this space for the benefit of future generations.

Profit Motive for Development

Objecting

00133, 00569 – The main justification for development of housing on this site is profit.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

All above objections:

1. Delete housing proposal H023 Sanda St/Kelbourne St/Clouston St from Policy and

Proposals Map.

2. Amend Glasgow Open Space map to show site as Natural/Semi-Natural Greenspace

or permanent Green Space

Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:

Objecting

All above objections:

The site is the former Garrioch Secondary School playing fields, and comprises red blaes

pitches. It was declared surplus by the former Strathclyde Regional Council in February

1995 and marketed later that year. Miller Homes (the successful bidder) submitted a

planning application for housing in 1996 (Ref 06/01610/DC) which was refused by

Committee due to the lack of provision of alternative sports facilities. This decision was upheld at a subsequent appeal. The reason for refusal has been addressed in

discussions with sportscotland in relation to subsequent proposals for the site.

The site was acquired by Glasgow City Council following local government rePROPOSED organisation in 1996, and re-marketed in 2002. Queens Cross Workspace entered into a

development agreement with the Council in 2002, and again in 2005. A planning

application was submitted by Queens Cross Workspace (Ref 06/01610/DC) for the

erection of 95 flats and new sports park facility comprising multi-purpose games courts, jogging track, sports pavilion and lighting columns. This application was withdrawn on the basis that the predicted noise levels breached recognised limits due to the proximity of the proposed sports facility to housing.

In April 2007, the Council’s Executive Committee approved the Sports Pitch Strategy

Policy and Implementation Plan. In November 2007, the first stage of implementing the Pitch Strategy was approved by the Executive Committee. The report recommended that the receipt from the sale of the Clouston Street site would be allocated to the upgrading of the existing North Kelvinside pitches. This decision was made after consultation and agreement with sportscotland, in compliance with the requirements of Scottish Planning

Policy.

As Queens Cross Workspace were not able to progress their proposal, the site was remarketed

in January 2008 in The Herald as a prime residential site for around 100 homes

for sale. The Stage 2 Development Brief issued in January 2008 (OC14) provides the relevant detail. New City Vision were appointed as the preferred developer, and

subsequently submitted a Pre Application Notice (Ref 10/02988/DC) in 2010, followed by an application for full planning permission in 2012 (Ref 12/00924/DC). The latter application will be taken to Committee in due course.

Statutory consultation on the various proposals that have been put forward has been

undertaken, and any comments have been taken into consideration in reaching any

decision.

The CDP Main Issues Report (CE8, paragraph 2.9) referred to the SDP conclusion that

there was more than enough land for housing to meet demand. It should be noted that

the CDP explains that this position has changed, and that there was therefore a

requirement to identify additional sites.

The site has been continuously included in the housing land supply since 1995, when it was first marketed, and has been continuously effective since 2007. This demonstrates the Council’s view that the site has been a housing opportunity for a significant period of time prior to its temporary occupation.

The site contributes towards the provision of an effective supply of land for housing, in compliance with Scottish Government policy.

The inclusion of the site in the City Development Plan is consistent with Circular 6/2013

(CE11, paragraph 78), which requires authorities to set out any opportunities for

development in the Proposed Plan. This was not a requirement for City Plan 2.

It is important to consider, therefore, that this site was included in the supply which fed

into the Housing Need and Demand Assessment undertaken for the SDP, and was

therefore taken into account in reaching the conclusion set out in the Main Issues Report.

PAN 65 (CE4) indicates that local authorities should undertake an audit of open space in

their area, and prepare an open space strategy. This site is identified as “Category 97:

Housing Land Supply containing possible protected open space”. All sites that are

included in the land supply are identified in this way to reflect their potential for housing.

PROPOSED GLASGOW CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

296

The requirement to protect open space remains, however, and means that proposals for

development must be considered against the relevant policies of the development plan.

It should be noted that the site is open space, not greenfield. The Strategic Development

Plan definition of greenfield land states “land which has never previously been developed,

or fully restored formerly derelict land which has been brought back into active or

beneficial use for agriculture, forestry, environmental purposes or outdoor recreation”

(CE6).

The land was previously in use for sports pitches, and cannot therefore be described as

“never previously been developed”. It has been on the Vacant and Derelict Land register

since 1995, when it was declared surplus. Although temporarily occupied, it has not been

fully restored, as it remains a housing opportunity for the Council.

The site is identified in City Plan 2 as being within a DEV 2: Residential Development

Policy Principle area. This designation encompasses the city’s residential areas, and

also includes local green spaces. It requires the assessment of proposals against the

terms of Policy ENV 1: Open Space Protection.

In summary, the Policy offers “a strong presumption in favour of the retention of all public

and private green/open space” and identifies the categories of open space that fall within

this designation. As this site was former playing fields, it would be categorised as a

sports area.

The policy also sets out a series of criteria that should be considered when exceptions to

this policy are considered. The first of these states

“Where exception is made for development on open space within categories 1 to 6, the

development should:

• Either be directly related to the current use(s) of the open space or better serve local

community needs by the provision, in the local area, of an area of equivalent, or

higher quality open space, to directly replace the type of open space that would be

lost (this will require the developer to consult with the local community using

consultation methods agreed by the Council.”

The applicant (New City Vision) undertook a pre-application consultation with community

groups and interested parties as part of the Pre Application Notification (PAN) process.

As noted previously, the commitment by the Council to allocate the receipt from the sale

of this site is acceptable to sportscotland, and is therefore considered to satisfy the

requirements of Policy ENV 1.

The Council’s Legal Services advise that the site was occupied by the North Kelvin

Meadow Green Space Initiative before June 2009. The group subsequently created a temporary community open space. This was without the permission of the Council.

Although discussions did take place regarding the temporary occupation of the site in

advance of development, no agreement was concluded between the group and the

Council. The Council obtained a court order in September 2009 to remove the group

from the site. Although this order has not been enforced to date, it remains the intention

of the Council to provide the developers access to the site to build housing at an

appropriate time.

The proposal is for housing for sale, rather than affordable housing. The tenure of any

proposed housing is not a matter for the City Development Plan.

Issues relating to parking, traffic, pollution, flooding, impact on trees, listed buildings and

the conservation area will be addressed through the planning application process.

The profit that would be made by any developer is not a planning matter.

No modifications recommended.

Supporting

00543 – Comment of support noted.

Reporter’s conclusions:

1. Proposed addition to the housing land supply site H023 is located near the River

Kelvin in the west end of the city. The surrounding development is mainly good quality

red stone tenement housing with a gridded street pattern. There is a primary school

nearby at Hotspur Street.

2. The site comprises the former Garrioch Secondary School playing fields and red

blaes pitches. It has generally re-vegetated with little sign of any former pitches or courts.

There is open scrubland in the centre with mainly immature tree cover round the edges, but the 17 mature lime trees alongside the Clouston Street boundary are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. There are well-defined footpath entry points and paths within the site. There is a small ‘orchard’ area where fruit trees have been planted. A children’s play space has been constructed in Birch woodland. Raised vegetable beds and half barrel planters have also been placed within the site and there are composting facilities.

Even in wet weather, when I conducted my site inspection, people were walking dogs and families were using the play space. The site is clearly an area that is valued and looked after by the local community. The majority of representations and a petition seek to retain the site as open greenspace for the community.History

3. The planning history of the site may be summarised as follows:

• declared surplus in February 1995 and marketed by Strathclyde Regional Council;
• Miller Homes successful bidder, housing application refused because of lack of

alternative sports facilities. Decision upheld on appeal;

• acquired by Glasgow City Council after 1996 and marketed in 2002;
• development agreement with Queens Cross Workspace. Application for 95 flats and

sports facilities withdrawn;

• November 2007 the council’s executive committee, after consultation with

sportscotland, determined that money from the sale of the site would go towards

upgrading the existing North Kelvinside pitches;

• stage 2 development brief for around 100 homes for sale issued in Jan 2008. New

City Vision appointed as preferred developer. Pre-application notice in 2010, then full

application in 2012 (12/00924/DC);

• site has been in housing land supply since 1995 and fed into the Strategic

Development Plan;

• application ref: 15/01223/DC lodged by The Childrens Wood c/o Emily Cutts on 21 May 2015.

4. From the above it is clear that it has been the council’s (and the former regional

council’s) intention since around 1995 that the former playing fields site be developed for housing. However, no planning permission was granted for residential development during that period – nor was the site allocated for housing purposes in the development plan (see paragraph 12 below). Indeed, the land at Clouston Street is shown as protected open space on the council’s Open Space Map, albeit it is shown as Category 97 ‘a housing site affecting protected open space’ on the key.

5. For the above reasons I do not consider that there is any planning commitment to the

proposed residential development of the site. Instead the proposal to allocate the land for

housing should be judged on its planning merits. The fact that the council has treated the

site as a potential housing site in its housing land audit and housing land supply

calculations does not change the planning status of the site.

 

6. It should be noted for completeness that there are two recent planning applications for

the site:

• reference 15/01223/DC – use of site as community woodland and park (sui generis),

granted subject to conditions on 26 January 2016;

• reference 12/00924/DC – residential development with associated car parking,

landscaping and vehicular access, subject to a direction on 9 March 2016 referring

the application for determination by Scottish Ministers.

Petition against housing development on the land

7. A petition has been submitted regarding the Childrens’ Wood. A statement with the

petition included the following points:

• the land has always been open space for educational and community use and should

remain so;

• no suitable replacement can be offered for this unique, re-purposed wild space;
• the council’s case is that, given the agreement on providing alternative sporting

provision for the loss of the site, the Miller Homes rejection (on appeal) cannot be

used in argument against housing on the land;

• the council claims consultation with sportscotland over the pitches but according to

the council’s own policy and strategy there should have been consultation with the

local community which nobody can remember;

• according to the Sports Pitches Strategy the council is required to determine that the

site is not required as part of any other open space function;

• refurbished pitches already available to the community cannot be considered to be a ike-for-like replacement for a unique wild green educational and community space;
• the Inquiry Reporter for the 1996 Miller appeal stated “with increasing population the current proposal will remove a valuable community resource”;
• since the inquiry additional building has taken place in the area with no open space

compensation;

• in considering the drafting of the Proposed Plan in 2013-14 it would be impossible to

consider the site as not being used for any open space function – awards won,

regular use and events;

• now no sign of previous pitches, call on Reporter to re-designate the site as

natural/semi-natural Green Space or Permanent Green Space;

• reject the view that some issues can be left to the planning process;
• council is still using argument of a proposed play area as compensation;
• PAN 65: Planning and Open Space emphasises that in preparing open space

strategies which inform development plans the open space needs and desires of the

local community must be established – but ignored in this case, and

• not random temporary efforts – continuous community engagement, self-funded,

resulting in registered charities and their own planning application.

Housing land supply/affordability

8. Representations submit that there is sufficient housing in the area and that alternative

brownfield sites are available as a preference to greenfield sites. However, at Issue 17 above we have concluded that there is a clear shortfall in the housing land supply for the Proposed Plan period. The land at Clouston Street has been identified by the council as being an effective housing site. Omitting the site as a housing allocation in the Proposed Plan would add further to the shortfall. This is a significant argument in favour of the proposed allocation.

9. Representations submit that there is a greater need for affordable housing. However, in the event that the land was allocated for housing, the housing mix for the site would be a matter to be determined when a planning application is under consideration and informed by housing need in the area. On a separate matter, whether or not a profit is made from a development is not a material planning consideration

Open/green space policy

10. I accept that the site is open space, not greenfield which is defined as “land which

has never been previously developed, or fully restored derelict land which has been

brought back into active or beneficial use for agriculture, forestry, environmental purposes

or recreation.”

11. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) issued in 2014 indicates at paragraph 224 that: “local

development plans should identify and protect open space identified in the open space

audit and strategy as valued and functional or capable of being brought into use to meet

local needs”. The site at Clouston Street is identified as open space on the Open Space

Map, and as outlined in paragraphs 2 and 7 above it is plainly well used and highly valued

as a facility meeting local needs.

12. In City Plan 2 the site is within a DEV 2: Residential and Supporting Uses Policy

Principle Area. However, City Plan 2 Policy DEV2 is a general policy encompassing the main housing districts of the City, and not a specific policy applying to this particular site. Policy DEV2 of City Plan 2 is explicit that proposals impacting on green/open space should be assessed against the relevant policies (DEV11 and ENV1) which contain a strong presumption that all such public and private green/open space should be retained.

 

13. Similarly, (whilst the Proposed Plan proposes to allocate the land for housing

development) Policy CDP6: Green Belt and Green Network of the Proposed Plan

supports the retention, as open space, of the categories of open space specified and

shown on Figure 14 (and identified on the council’s Open Space Map). Those categories include public parks and gardens, amenity space, playspace for children and teenagers, allotments and other functional greenspace – all of which are provided in the protected open space at Clouston Street.

14. The council attaches great importance to open spaces in the City as part of the

wider Green Network (page 43 of the Proposed Plan), and one of the key objectives of

the Proposed Plan is to “ensure that people in existing communities have access to the

open spaces they need” (page 23).

The value of the existing open space

15. I accept that the site at Clouston Street provides an important open space resource

for the surrounding residents. It also performs a wider social and educational role

resulting from community action, including the involvement of local schools and nature

conservation education, allotments and food production, playspace and recreational

activities, public health and community safety. I note that the activities, community

projects and strategies have received support and awards.

16. The land forms a green space which contains numerous trees, many of which

appear to be the result of natural regeneration, and provides a habitat which connects with the green corridor of the River Kelvin and is part of a network of green areas in this area of the City. It is likely that mature trees and a large amount of the emerging tree cover would have to be removed to accommodate a housing proposal of any significance.

The loss of mature trees in this location could have an adverse effect on the established character and appearance of the Glasgow West Conservation Area where the site is situated.

17. Representations advise that the site is within an area of deep inequalities, with the meadow and wood used by everyone, and that many residents live in flats with little or no access to a garden. That indicates that the upgrade of sports pitches at North Kelvinside would not be satisfactory compensation for the potential loss of the community open space at Clouston Street; nor would it be possible to recreate the existing facility within a new housing development on the land.

Other issues

18. Whilst there are evidently car parking issues in the surrounding streets and the West

End in general, I would expect that any new development on the site would require to

cater within the site for its own parking needs.

19. Also I acknowledge that, in view of the size of the site, it should be possible to

design a development of an appropriate layout, scale and massing that would preserve or enhance the setting of any surrounding listed buildings.

20. I agree with the council that any flooding issues could be addressed through the

planning application process. SPP advises that the flood risk framework should be

applied to development management decisions and that drainage assessments will be required for areas where drainage is already constrained or otherwise problematic, or if there would be off-site effects.

Overall conclusions

I recognise that the development of this site for housing would make a contribution

towards meeting the shortfall in the provision of land for new housing in the City, which we have identified as a deficiency in the Proposed Plan in Issue 17. However, the land at Clouston Street is a highly valued open space which is well used and maintained by the local community, and which should continue to be safeguarded for that purpose. Its development for housing would be in conflict with planning policies which seek to protect such areas. I have therefore decided to modify the Proposed Plan by deleting Housing Proposal H023.

Since the Proposed Plan does not designate open spaces I am unable to formally designate the site as an open space. It will be a matter for the council to reflect the outcome of this examination in its review of its Open Space Map, and in its Open Space Strategy (see Issue 6).

 Reporter’s recommendations:

Modify the Proposed Plan by deleting Housing Proposal H023.

 

 

==================================================

Glasgow City Council (GCC) has a document called the City Plan that lasts 5 years which details what land is zoned for within Glasgow. We’re currently in City Plan 2 and have given are views on what should be contained in the forthcoming City Plan 3 for the North Kelvin Meadow and the Children Wood.

Its policy that the Council ask people’s views on this zoning as it could directly affect them and better decisions are made when asking the people that live in an area what they think.

Unfortunately what the Council have done is stuck to the same zoning as they had for this land as before i.e. housing. Many hundreds of people wrote in and explained in detail (see below for many of the points) why this land be zoned as an open green space. So far their views haven’t been taken account of, nor have they been told why the points they have made weren’t valid.

The Scottish Government has now stepped in and appointed a person (Timothy Brian) to review what has happened here and report back to the Scottish Government.

This is important as the Council owns the land, owns the planning dept, and will benefit by the sale proceeds. We need someone independent that can review this. They also don’t have any policy stating they should be selling of this land if its being used by local people for any open space activities. In other words they are simply selling it off for the money. And while there is nothing wrong in the council selling of city assets for money , there is for this type of land. As their policies actually state they should be supporting the land and the people managing it , not wanting to destory it.

To help show the Scottish Government appointed person (Timonthy Brian) the strength of feeling that people would like this land kept as it is and not sold off for housing we have started a petition. Please sign it below and forward to your friends and famly.

UPDATE Feb 2016: Please sign the other petition on the front page as things have moved on from this one. Having said that this report Mr Brian will have done would make very interesting reading if we could see it. 

https://www.change.org/p/timothy-brian-reporter-for-glasgow-city-local-development-plan-designate-north-kelvin-meadow-and-children-s-wood-as-green-space-not-housing-2

Thank You!

—————————————————–

What follows was the process on how we gave feedback into the next 5 year City Plan (Number 3) directly into the Council:

The reasons stated below are just examples so feel free to come up with your own words if you like.

The reference Number used: 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):
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=19282&p=0

The form can be submitted electronically or downloaded and returned by email to
developmentplan@glasgow.gov.uk. 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 developmentplan@glasgow.gov.uk

On-line the Council gives more details here:
http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=11752

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.” “

Representation:

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.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/woodsforlearning09.pdf/$FILE/woodsforlearning09.pdf

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.

5. Composting
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.

Thank You.

=============================================

Historic information:

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

Images of proposed development

Planning Application Documents

Useful Links

---

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 planning.representations@drs.glasgow.gov.uk 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.

A Word version (.doc) of the letter is available to download here

—–

To: Ian Briggs, Planning Officer
Development and Regeneration Services
Glasgow City Council
231 George Street
Glasgow G1 1RX

To: planning.representations@drs.glasgow.gov.uk

Planning Reference Number 12/00924/DC

Dear Sir

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.

Signed: ____________________________________________

Name:  ____________________________________________

Address (optional): ____________________________________________

Date: ____________________________________________

---

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
Application Form-436072
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)

---

Useful Links

Some other sources of information that might help in forming an objection.

Glasgow City Council’s official planning portal

Glasgow City Council’s City Plan

New City Vision’s consultation web site for the development