Community News, Views & Information

Old Golfhill School site redevelopment

Frank Plowright posted on the 15/03/2017 8:22:38 PM

There is to be a consultation at Milnbank Housing's premises on April 5th from noon about plans to develop housing on the site of the old Golfhill Primary School on Circus Drive, and along Firpark St. Current plans are that only the south facing school entrance facade will be maintained and 145 flats are planned.

58 Replies :

#1 - The Mentalist replied on the 16/03/2017 3:00:08 PM

145 flats in an overcrowded area.

#2 - anon replied on the 16/03/2017 9:56:37 PM

thats will be good for parking

#3 - Amy replied on the 16/03/2017 9:57:50 PM

Not to mention more cars in an already overcrowded area.

#4 - Malarki replied on the 18/03/2017 11:05:14 PM

Biggest scandal about this is that a grade B listed building has been allowed to deteriorate to the point of only a facade being saved. Not that that is something unique - seems to be a recurrent issue in Glasgow ...
... and that such a large site with development potential has been sold for a reported mere £550,000. Do the sums on 145 2-bed flats and that's a fat profit. Although will potentially create a fair amount of extra income via council tax.
On parking, the conditions for granting permission will stipulate that adequate parking will need to be made available on site - that's been standard for a long time.
Otherwise, while I'd have preferred the original building to have been preserved and a park or gardens created on the 'brownfield site', the land being used rather than derelict is a good thing but would better to have a few larger 'family size' units included in the development. That bit of Firpark St. has been the scene of a few sexual assaults over the last few years probably because it is a bit deserted due to the lack of residential properties, so this will mean more people in the area and properties that overlook the street so should improve safety on one of the main routes into the city centre from Dennistoun. Hope proper consideration will also be given to any impact on the Necropolis.

#5 - James replied on the 23/03/2017 8:03:58 PM

it would be good to see planning for green spaces to be part of the plan. The development along firpark street has a lot of nice communal green space and is nicely landscaped. Hopefully whatever is developed on the site will incorporate some decent planting to enhance the housing.

#6 - CV3V replied on the 24/03/2017 1:35:42 PM

Parking - current plans show 1 space per flat, but the spaces are all up at one end and not properly spread across the development.

Visitors parking - none shown on plans

Loss of current street parking due to all the new road junctions shown. Also one block shows off street parking accessed from Firpark Street, so even more street parking lost.

Loss of existing amenity space where locals walk their dogs on the old school pitch.

Height of new buildings - all are higher than surrounding buildings. Also will cause a shadow over the care home (literally speaking), shame they had those solar panels installed.

Also at peak hours there will be a big increase in vehicles using the junction onto Wishart Street and the Parade, its bad enough as it is at hospital visiting time.

The existing plan is a bit of a joke, doesn't comply with GCC Design Guide for residential areas.

Also, issue with paying just £500k for the site, easily worth triple that. For some reason site is referred to as 'brownfield', is this due to the derelict school building? or the school pitches?

When sold it was also mentioned that if less that 150 units are built there will be a reduction in the sale price! Given the height of the proposed development, that may happen. Is there a government body this can be reported to?!

#7 - Mal replied on the 24/03/2017 8:31:16 PM

The layout will be the following:

A first building along firpark street, next to the firpark court development. This building will have a corner "tower" of 6/7 storeys, with the rest of the building at 4 storeys (like firpark court). This building will have 70/73 flats and 46 parking spaces around it.

Next building along firpark street, a bit set back to have some parking space between the street and the building. Again 4 storeys, with 16 flats and 37 parking spaces around it.

Third building still along firpark street almost reaching the junction with circus drive (at the same level as the old school). Still 4 storeys with 24 flats. Parking spaces shared with the old school renovation.

The old School, retention of the façade and some new build behind, 31 flats and 62 parking spaces.

The janitor's house, 2 bedroom single house.

The new 4 storeys build will have approximately the same height as the old school building, firpark court and hanson park developments.

total 142/145 units and 145 parking spaces.

#8 - CV3V replied on the 24/03/2017 10:42:27 PM

Mal - i have seen the draft plan, i call it draft because it doesn't comply with GCC Design Guide, and should fail a design audit.

First building, 73 flats, 46 parking spaces.
Second building, 16 flats, 37 spaces. Set back parking all requires access off Firpark Street resulting in a loss of existing parking space, replaced with private parking spaces.
third building, 24 flats, 62 spaces

Interesting to see how the layout works given the drop in height from Firpark Street to the football pitch.

The access from Circus Place would, i reckon, result in the loss of about 8 existing parking spaces to provide safe access/egress. A loss of space for existing residents (detriment).

Parking layout doesn't practically work, its unbalanced towards the school end requiring a long walk to building one which is short of spaces.

GCC have on certain recent developments insisted on more than 1 parking space per unit. Looking at parking issues at Hanson Park and Firpark Court this makes sense.

No visitors parking provided, against GCC design guide.

Loss of existing car parking on Firpark Street is detriment to area, again DCC design guide.

Tower is 7 storeys, adjacent to Firpark Ct 4 storeys.

#9 - Frank Plowright replied on the 30/03/2017 10:29:46 AM

According to Councillor Docherty at a community council meeting a few years ago, Glasgow Council are now insisting on 1.5 parking spaces per flat for any new development.

#10 - James replied on the 30/03/2017 7:49:59 PM

Where are the plans available to see

#11 - CV3V replied on the 31/03/2017 6:25:02 PM

Frank - thats good to hear, in which case the current layout is not compliant. I had heard of another development where council insisted on 1.5 spaces. So hopefully it is policy in locations such as this.

James - there is a developer meeting on Tuesday 4th at Milnbank Housing Association offices where the plans will be on display. You will also find them on Facebook page for Firpark Regeneration Group

#12 - Dennistonian! replied on the 31/03/2017 11:11:24 PM

You all need to get over this parking fixation.

Any European city seems to get by without horrible surface parking. Dennistoun is a great dense district that could become even more dense. More density = more cafes, bars, transport, facilities.

Bring it on.

#13 - DarthVader replied on the 1/04/2017 10:37:07 AM

I have some sympathy with the point put forward by Dennistonian! - the more reliance there is on car ownership by design, the more we undermine the case for maintaining and improving our public transport provision.

And is there really nothing more than 2 bed flats being proposed? If so, is say that's a disappointing recipe for homogenisation rather than diversity of populace.

#14 - cv3v replied on the 1/04/2017 7:52:03 PM

its all 2 bed flats, with the potential for a few 1 bed units, but not confirmed.

I have no problem with the development, i welcome it. But any development should be well considered for the local environment for a whole host of design parameters. I also like cafes, bars etc. However no future development should be to the detriment of existing residents.

European cities include proper segregated cycleways, good quality subsidised public transport and they don't have the widespread high density of the Glasgow tenements.

It is a planning priority for the council that parking for developments built prior to 2000 is not impacted by any future developments. Based on the above, i would hardly consider it a fixation, rather a genuine concern.

#15 - anon replied on the 5/04/2017 6:25:25 PM

There was a mix up in the consultation date - it is happening now, Wed 5th April until 7pm at Milnbank Housing Community Hall. Just been along & the architect from Jewitt & Wilkie is there along with plans and a handout to take away. There will be 142/145 units along with just 145 parking spots in an already congested area, so this is a concern. Also one block, the one they hope to build first could be potentially 6/7 storey's high and so blocking views for many people on Hanson Park/Street, Circus Drive, Firpark. Planning has not been approved yet but from the people who visited & comments I read, most of those are positive so if you have any objections or concerns, I would pop along to the consultation and keep a look out for further consultation and the planning application.

#16 - Frank Plowright replied on the 6/04/2017 7:31:44 PM

After visiting the consultation I'm really quite concerned about what may happen. It was stressed that details haven't been finalised, and comments from the consultation are taken into account when making the official planning application, probably sometime in May. A scan of the handout supplied is available on the Dennistoun Community Council website and further information can be solicited from architects Jewitt & Wilkie on info at
My concerns are due to almost every point I raised getting a response about not being finalised yet. This includes the manner in which the school facade will be integrated into the new building, a 6 or 7 storey building next to 4 storey properties, and the information that permitted the demolition of a listed building. Regarding the parking, the person present when I visited was of the opinion the planning department can overlook the requirement for 1.5 parking spaces per flat if public transport facilities are good. Whether she's right about that I don't know, but would be concerned as I can't see why there would be a connection.
One interesting aspect is that as the new buildings will occupy a playing field there must be some investment in "an appropriate local alternative". When I asked what that might be and how much would be invested, I was again told it was something that would be worked out later. For me, alarm bells are ringing.

#17 - Dennistonian replied on the 6/04/2017 11:17:54 PM

Just think how beautiful central Dennistoun is. Nice tightly packed dense streets with no surface car parks, gaps between buildings or fencing anywhere. I live on Garthland and I've never not managed to get parked on my street or somewhere on Whitehill. People manage.

Modern developments that don't respect tenement lines, or have ugly surface car parks are a total blight.

The Victorians had it right the way they constructed urban environments.

#18 - CV3V replied on the 7/04/2017 10:52:43 AM

I think the subject of parking was skirted over, architect inferred that planners prefer less parking not more as it results in less traffic. I dont think it quite works out that way in reality. Also no visitors parking allowed for, which doesn't fit with GCC Design Guide.

Also there is a GCC requirement that parking provision for new developments must not be to the detriment of parking for developments pre 2000 i.e. the tenements.

Architect did say that the new flats adjacent to the school wont be higher than existing school roofline. But that wont be the case with the 6/7 storey high building at the northern end.

I discuss the above not as a criticism but to provide a balance to what was presented on Wed night.

Dennistonian - you are lucky with parking, at 0645 every morning there is a queue of cars waiting for my space as i leave, as they are hospital staff they are then there for 12 hours, and this happens 6 days per week. Also have to contend with cars parking bumper to bumper, on the grass verge, and the litter they throw out of their cars.
If I come home early from work i usually have to park about 200m from flat, or have the great option of using the pay and display.

#19 - Dennistonian replied on the 7/04/2017 10:02:02 PM

CV3V - fair enough. I'm probably far enough away from the hospital to be sheltered from this. I can understand how frustrating this must be.

Surely there is an onus on the council or NHS to provide adequate multi-storey parking for hospital staff. Must be some room in Townhead.

#20 - The Mentalist replied on the 9/04/2017 3:35:12 AM

Permits are not the solution. They just move the problem further out. The Royal has no parking solution for ordinary workers. Permits are £25 month for high earning staff, ie consultants and management, £160 for everyone else.

#21 - CV3V replied on the 9/04/2017 3:36:20 AM

Thanks Dennistonian, as i look out my window on a great sunny Saturday morning i still see the area rammed with cars ;-).

Although hospital car park charges were abolished, there are 3 PFI car parks in Scotland where charges still remain. One being the GRI. I read yesterday that the PFI operator for the Edinburgh Royal tried to increase the parking charge from 5 to 12 pounds per day!

But to compound the problem, the council put pay and display on Firpark Street, Wishart Street etc. a few years ago, pushing all the staff further into Dennistoun.

Have a look at the google street view for Firpark Terrace to see how bad the parking got.

#22 - CV3V replied on the 10/04/2017 11:09:36 AM

Mentalist - permits give priority to residents attempting to find a parking space. They don't guarantee a space, but make it easier. I lived in Edinburgh for a number of years without any complaints about getting parked - a permit scheme that issues more permits than actual parking spaces. Parking in Dennistoun is worse than Edinburgh.

If you want to see the approach to parking of GRI staff have a drive through the internal road through the hos[pital; double yellows, traffic cones and concrete blocks, and yet cars are all parked on the yellows.

As mentioned before the parking problems have been compounded by the council making a number of streets pay and display, with no return allowed, meaning staff cant use them even if they wanted to. Pay and display can only work when matched with residents permits. all in or all out.

But an open mind if a good thing, any practical alternatives must be considered.

#23 - DennistounCC replied on the 11/04/2017 1:19:23 AM

Updates regarding the former Golfhill Primary School can be viewed on the Community Council site via the following link:

Drawings and information made available at the public meeting held on 5th April 2017 have just been added.

#24 - Frank Plowright replied on the 14/06/2017 1:21:25 PM

At last night's community council meeting architect John Jewitt addressed the meeting regarding plans for the Golfhill redevelopment. He stressed all comments from the public consultation have been taken on board, but from the plans brought along and his comments, very little appears to have changed from the plans shown at the consultaton. Most of the old Golfhill School building is still planned to be demolished, a seven storey block is planned for an area where the highest other building is four storeys, and the planned parking spaces have been reduced to less than one per flat.

The reasoning for this as explained is that Glasgow Council's planning department relax parking conditions where one bedroom flats are concerned (37 of these are planned) and for city centre housing projects. They are apparently prepared to consider this development as being city centre. It was pointed out that instead of contributing further to the parking problems in the area, fewer flats could be built therefore allowing more parking space. The response was that if the initial flat build fails to raise the necessary capital to fund the redevelopment of the school building then the whole building might have to be demolished.

The planning application was submitted on May 31st, but has yet to appear on website listings due to administrative complications.

#25 - CV3V replied on the 23/06/2017 3:44:23 PM

Frank - thanks for the update. If the application is now lodged with GCC does than mean the application period has begun? Concerned that no one can inspect the application online to then make comment.

GCC considering the development to be city centre is interesting, would be keen to see their justification for this based on the council ward not being city centre, not being in an area subject to city centre parking restrictions and the conflict with GCCs own planning priorities of ensuring no detriment to existing old developments.

// I am keen for the development to go ahead but not at any cost to the local environment and heritage.

#26 - Frank Plowright replied on the 24/06/2017 8:46:59 PM

As far as I'm aware the period for objections to an application only begin once the application has been validated. I'm not an expert on this, and would be grateful for correction if I'm wrong. As yet the Golfhill development hasn't been listed on the Glasgow planning applications site.

The designation as city centre could have all kinds of ramifications for the area, and perhaps an FOI request may clarify. Further information was passed to Dennistoun Community Council earlier this month and should appear on their website.

#27 - Akln replied on the 28/06/2017 11:28:16 AM

The planning application is now online.

#28 - CV3V replied on the 28/06/2017 11:57:38 AM

Interesting. The parking layout has been completely changed, and with a mix of 3 bed flats added, isnt as bad as the original plans. However, still no visitors parking allowed for.

#29 - Akln replied on the 28/06/2017 12:28:53 PM

I like how they managed to keep just 2 entrances and remove the parking in front of the school.

#30 - Cv3V replied on the 28/06/2017 12:55:24 PM

The front of school layout, along with the Nextbike hire point on the corner seems like a positive for the area. The only real issues i have left are the amount of parking spaces (although they do seem to have fitted in as much as they can) and the height of Block 1.

Also the plans show the addition of a playpark in Fir Park, not actually part of the development, but another benefit to the immediate area.

#31 - Akln replied on the 29/06/2017 5:34:21 PM

From what I could see from the drawings, the height of Block 1 will be around 3m higher than the adjacent firpark court block.

#32 - Jacq replied on the 2/07/2017 9:16:15 PM

Dennistoun Community Council have a set of plans and information book from the architects if anyone would like to see it please just get in touch via email or check out the details online at our website under planning in the news categories.

Jacq - DCC Chair

#33 - CV3V replied on the 4/07/2017 9:52:06 AM

Jacq - the plans on DCC website are now, in part, superseded. The submitted planning layout shows a different layout for the road, parking and flats (Block 2).

#34 - Jacq replied on the 5/07/2017 9:40:33 PM

Hi CV3V thanks for that - we are discussing this at the upcoming community council meeting next Tuesday so will make sure I have both sets of info to take with me.

Anyone who wants and input into this matter please do come along and have your say.

Tuesday 11th July, 7-9pm, Milnbank Community Flat, 1 Culloden Street.

#35 - Iain Robertson replied on the 6/07/2017 9:54:49 AM

Has there been arrangements to photograph the school inside and out before the demolition begins?

#36 - Frank Plowright replied on the 6/07/2017 11:17:30 AM

The actual planning application incorporates photographs inside the building as it is now, a testament to years of neglect. Photographs of the building as it was on the last day pupils were actually in the school also exist.

#37 - Jay replied on the 9/07/2017 4:46:01 PM

Is the area behind the school which was a running track/playing field being incorporated in these plans. Its a huge area which would give plenty space for houses and parking, or has that area been filled. Years since I've been up in that area

#38 - anon replied on the 11/07/2017 5:04:12 PM

Isn't that where they built Hanson St college? Then when they got rid of that they built the Hanson St Care Home? There's still a bit of space at the back I think but not as much as there was in the early 60s

#39 - Claire replied on the 11/07/2017 5:05:34 PM

I see there are 2 applications on GCC website - 17/01360/DC and 17/01361/DC - are both pending or does 17/01361 supersede the other?

#40 - Frank Plowright replied on the 19/07/2017 12:00:15 AM

As far as I can tell the application is submitted in two stages, and the first refers to the area adjacent to the current development on Firpark St, while the second deals with the demolition of old Golfhill school building.

#41 - CV3V replied on the 11/09/2017 12:37:37 PM

A load of revised drawings, and 3D visualisations have been added to the planning application. Can be viewed on the planning website.

#42 - Dennistoun Community Council replied on the 12/09/2017 11:41:58 AM


The drawings and info submitted to the planning portal on this development has been sent to DCC for further comments. There is an agenda item on this at tonights meeting at 7pm, Milnbank Community Flat, Culloden Street although the architects will not be in attendance.

They have asked DCC for feedback on the new documents/information so please do come along or send comments to for passing on

Jacq Munro - Chair

#43 - CV3V replied on the 12/09/2017 3:35:22 PM


The revised plans has the same number of units, but has changed a number of the 1 bed units into 2 bed units. Previous comments that 1 bed flats do not require a parking allocation therefore are not as relevant, and with more 2 bed units the need for sufficient parking is even stronger.

However, if GCC implement parking permits for existing tenement residents then the development can have as few spaces as the developer wants. Parking permits are not issued to residences built after 2001 (without checking exact date).

#44 - Dennistoun Community Council replied on the 26/09/2017 6:12:49 PM


Dennistoun Community Council would like to take this opportunity to clarify their position in relation to the proposed development at Golfhill School, Dennistoun by Barony Homes.

In the recent amendments to the planning application, the architects Jewitt & Wilkie state in their DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT REV A PART 1 (page 12) that Dennistoun Community Council are supportive of the development. At the current time we feel this is an overstatement of our position.

While we are keen to remain in communications with Jewitt & Wilkie in relation to the development, we have submitted our objection in relation to

• Insufficient parking spaces allocated for the number of flats being built.
• There is no clear plan for control of vehicular access to and from the site.
• The planning application has been completed stating there are no trees on the site.

In the most recent amendment to the planning application it is noted that there is a reduction in the one bedroom flats from 37 to 21 and an increase in two bedroom flats from 88 to 104 without any additional parking allocated. The current requirement from GCC is for 1.25 spaces per flat. This would raise further concerns about car parking allocation on site and on street adjacent to the site.

We welcome new development in Dennistoun but will continue to represent the opinions of local residents to ensure that any development is of benefit to the community.

Please follow our facebook, twitter and website for future updates on this and other local matters. Please send feedback or comments to

Jacqueline Munro – Chair on behalf of Dennistoun Community Council

**Our AGM will take place on Tuesday 10th October 2017 at 7pm, Whitevale High School, Dennistoun.

#45 - CV3V replied on the 10/11/2017 1:39:46 PM

Just to keep this current, there is an updated letter/correspondence on the planning portal - more studies required.

#46 - Akln replied on the 14/12/2017 4:38:36 PM

New documents on the planning portal, with some design changes.

#47 - CV3V replied on the 15/12/2017 1:30:50 PM

Thanks, well spotted Akln, there is a LOT of new drawings!

#48 - Akln replied on the 4/04/2018 12:22:48 PM

New documents on the planning portal, with very little change mainly to the bin area.

#49 - Bill replied on the 13/04/2018 10:11:47 PM

Yet more bad news for our parking nightmare.

Why can't we get residents permits like they have in the West End for a small annual fee??

#50 - CV3V replied on the 27/04/2018 4:30:42 PM

I would imagine this planning application is 'almost there' and will be off to planning committee in next month or two. Were the council to issue permits (please) they can include a condition that only buildings built before a certain date will qualify, so they could exclude the Golfhill development to maintain current parking provision for existing residents.

#51 - Akln replied on the 13/09/2018 11:30:50 AM

Anyone has any news on this?

#52 - CV3V replied on the 18/09/2018 11:09:03 AM

Planning application withdrawn, but from reading the withdrawal letter it looks like a new application will be submitted.

#53 - Akln replied on the 18/09/2018 11:10:09 AM

The planning application has been withdrawn yesterday and apparently an other one will be submitted

#54 - Akln replied on the 2/10/2018 11:48:08 AM

New planning application out - 18/02800/LBA

#55 - CV3V replied on the 4/10/2018 6:25:35 PM

No neighbour notification has been issued for this new application.

#56 - Akln replied on the 5/10/2018 10:16:29 AM

Received one yesterday!

#57 - James replied on the 5/10/2018 11:26:58 AM

I sincerely hope this plan is approved. As much as I loved the school when it was still in a reasonable state of repair, the rate of deterioration is currently so serious that unless the work begins to save the facade, the building will otherwise be completely lost. I am saddened that city property have done nothing to maintain the remaining structure and especially that the perimeter wall and railings are ruined. I am glad there is a plan for repair and reinstatement and hope that with planning consent we will see at least a reminder of this lovely old building. I live in Circus Drive and walk past this awful mess every day.

#58 - CV3V replied on the 5/10/2018 8:14:58 PM

I got my notification. If you look at the drawings on planning portal they don't match up, drawings show different road layouts and slightly different shapes to the blocks.

@James - allowing a building to deteriorate the way City Property has done with the school is a common approach. They can argue its safe, lack of budget etc. but in the end the awful state of the building means that when a developer comes along we are willing to accept almost any proposal. So, I'll be glad to see something done - but note that although the developer will probably make the building water tight, and perhaps less of an eyesore, the demolition and restoration works are planned for the final phase, which could be 3 years after work starts on site.

You can reply to the post Old Golfhill School site redevelopment by completing the form. No registration required. The forum is moderated in order that messages adhere to the editorial integrity of Dennistoun Online. Please read the guidelines before you submit to the forum. If you believe that we have missed a message that contravenes these guidelines then please contact us and we will either edit or remove it.

Copyright © 1999- Dennistoun Online
All rights reserved | Admin