Plans to build 6-storey block on Finlay Drive
Neighbour posted on the 22/04/2018 6:48:29 PM
Developers Nixon Blue are again seeking planning permission to build a six-storey block of 31 flats on the site of the old Gospel hall on Finlay Drive. Their slightly revised plans can be viewed on Glasgow City Council's online planning portal. The reference number of the application is 18/00920/FUL. As well as internal changes affecting the size and design of the various flats, and the numbers available in the 1, 2 and 3 bedroom categories, the exteriors of the north and west elevations now have additional features which are intended to reflect the traditional Dennistoun tenement bay-window.
Given the number of objections to the previous plans because they provided only eight car-parking spaces for 31 flats probably the most surprising feature of the new plans is that they STILL provide only eight car-parking spaces for 31 flats. Instead, spaces for parking 22 bikes have been incorporated into the new design -hence, probably, the need to alter the size and arrangement of the flats as each floor has been given bike spaces. Even the occupants in the penthouse flats, who will have to carry their bikes up five floors, have been provide with cycle space. Has this solved the car-parking problem? The developers again say that the decision to provide only eight spaces was arrived at "after extensive discussion at pre-planning stage". And also "the tenemental style which typically provides no dedicated parking is an essential aspect of Dennistoun's nature and look."
Some resident, but not all, affected by the proposed development have been informed of the plans by letter dated 17th April which states that any objections /representations must be submitted within 28 days of that date. It also points out that objections/representations made to the previous proposals will not be treated as representations to this current application. In other words, even if you objected before and still object to the development going ahead, you have to submit your objections all over again with this new application. You may wish to modify them in regard to the changes in the new plans but remember,- all objections have to be lodged by May 15th.
Once again, the plans and information are available at the Glasgow City Council online planning portal. The planning permission application number is 18/00920/FUL.
The previous ( rejected) plans, which can be viewed for comparison, are available on the same site. Their application number is 17/02477/DC
42 Replies :
#1 - The Mentalist replied on the 23/04/2018 8:34:34 PM
31 flats? Good grief.
#2 - James Mc replied on the 24/04/2018 8:01:32 PM
They're going to just keep re-submitting this until people get fed up objecting
#3 - Paul replied on the 24/04/2018 11:25:24 PM
I think you're right, James Mc. I've objected to it. Anyone else?
#4 - Pat replied on the 27/04/2018 4:15:47 AM
Just looked at the elevations... Still a hideous blonde brick cornflake box with a metal hat. Massively out of place with existing architecture. Might as well be an office in Ipswich...
#5 - Paul replied on the 27/04/2018 10:17:44 AM
Just 5 comments objecting. We need more to stop this - get to it folks.
#6 - The Mentalist replied on the 28/04/2018 12:44:13 AM
The whole deal does seem a bit of a mess. 6 storey is too high for the area. 8 spaces for 31 flats is unrealistic. It's also near a school. What Dennistoun needs in this area is a community hub, not more overpriced rabbit hutches.
#7 - Ollie replied on the 4/05/2018 10:31:34 AM
I noticed the other night that someone had put leaflets through the close doors of the surrounding properties, well done to whoever did this as it helps to highlight the issue and hopefully will result in more objections- 37 so far but not as many as received for their initial application.
#8 - Neighbour replied on the 4/05/2018 7:18:07 PM
Yes, well done to whoever distributed the leaflets. So far there's been a poor response in terms of objections, compared to the last time. Possibly a lot of the people who objected last time are unaware that the developers have re-applied for planning permission. Also. there has been very little public notification by the developers ,-even less than last time. . All a bit stealthy.
Also the process of registering an objection online is hardly user friendly. You have to go through a process,- which I've no doubt some people will find a little complicated and off-putting-, of becoming registered with the planning site before you can submit an objection.
If in doubt, submit your objection(s) instead, in a letter, by writing to: The Executive Director of Development and Regeneration, Glasgow City Council, 231 George Street, Glasgow G1 1RX, quoting Planning Reference No. 18/00920/FUL. Written objections carry the same weight as those registered online
Remember, even if you objected last time, you will have submit your objection(s) afresh, as this is a new application.
And note, all objections have to be in by 15th May. Any received after this date will not count.
Grounds for objection are: The building will be completely out of character with the surrounding area. The materials and cladding used are cheap-looking and inappropriate. A six storey building in an area of traditional four storey tenements is all wrong. The provision of only eight parking spaces for 31 flats in an area which is already seriously short of parking spaces, will create numerous and-possibly dangerous- parking problems. The flats will deprive people living opposite of natural light. People living in the opposite flats will lose the privacy which they presently enjoy.
You can use some or all.
Object while there is still time. After the 15th it'll be too late.
#9 - Anon replied on the 7/05/2018 9:30:25 PM
I dont see how lack of parking spaces can be a valid argument when so many people state that the victorian tenements weren't designed with cars in mind, and that parking permits aren't the answer. So with that logic the planned development is only in keeping with the area - high density and congested.
You dont need to write / post a letter to the council, you can also just email the planning department.
#10 - James replied on the 13/05/2018 10:49:35 AM
I agree the design is awful. If you look at some of the smart modem flats being built around the south side and currently in Lauriesttown, you can see that the planners are approving interesting and well designed accommodation. The ones proposed at Finlay drive look really awful and I am surprised there are not more objections. Whatever is built here will be an eyesore forever unless we object. Dennistoun is a fantastic place to live and we deserve a bit of thought and imagination about what is built in our area instead of developer led rabbit hutches. Please object ASAP.
#11 - Concerned Neighbour replied on the 15/05/2018 2:14:51 AM
I agree with most of the comments on here for reasons for objecting, and I myself will be objecting, however GCC planners (and all planners) will only consider material objections based on current Planning Policy. As a resident of Finlay Drive myself I am concerned that the parking woes will be exasperated, however I believe that this will have been one of the first things that the planner would have considered, and I would imagine there will have been plenty of dialogue between developer and GCC on this issue. For this reason, and the fact the D&AS keeps making reference to the site being with GCC's high accessibility zone, I anticipate this reason for objection will unfortunately not carry much weight with GCC. The same developer recently built a new flatted development on Minerva St with zero parking provision, how they managed that is beyond me, as the new development right next to them was forced to provide 100%.
There is no 'right to light' law in Scotland, as opposed to England, however an argument could be made that the 6 storey development could blight the amenity of adjacent properties. This should definitely be considered as a reasonable objection, however I can't imagine the flats on the opposite side of Finlay Drive will have a grounds of objection on this basis, such is the distance and the block typology of the Glasgow tenement.
I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit here. NIMBYism does tend to get planners backs up, therefore it is important the objections should have as solid a planning argument as possible.
Brief summary of some of my reasons for objecting/raising concerns..
- Statement of Energy - I understand that it is a compulsory requirement of GCC that all new applications should be accompanied by this. I don't see one.
- Elevations - Despite the fact that, contrary to the D&AS, the proposals are not sympathetic to their context, the elevations are wrong / misleading. The proposal shows lifts on plan, however the elevations do not show any lift overruns. Unless they are using some new lift invention without an overrun, you will definitely see a significant overrun above the flat roof, as is the case with their Minerva St development. I assume they have left this 'detail' out, as it flies in the face of their contextual elevation diagram.
- The fact they are proposing a flat roof and brick (not stone) at all is an argument that that design is not in keeping with its context. The elevations are extremely bland
- Overshadowing of the adjacent properties. I would expect to see a daylighting analysis study.
- The main street elevations are going to be peppered with vents, however I don't see any reference to this in their drawings.
- The cycle storage now provided at each core landing does not meet current Scottish Guidance
Finally, the fact that the architect hasn't even bothered to travel to site to take their own photographs for the D&AS says a lot in my opinion about the level of thought that has gone into the design!
#12 - DennistounCommunityCouncil replied on the 15/05/2018 2:16:27 AM
The Dennistoun Community Council objection to this revised submission is available for viewing at dennistouncc.org.uk
Specifically, here: dennistouncc.org.uk/2018/05/14/100-finlay-drive-objection-to-revised-planning-application
#13 - Chaz replied on the 16/05/2018 1:26:35 AM
I think the flats are a great idea. What's the alternative? A rotted building? Stick some flats for the ever growing housing shortage.
#14 - James Mc replied on the 16/05/2018 2:53:57 PM
Nobody is objecting to more flats, but they should be in keeping with the surroundings. The tenements in the area are 4 storey blocks with bay/oriel windows. This thing is 6 storeys with a lift extension on top with a blank facade.
#15 - Neighbour replied on the 16/05/2018 8:45:13 PM
Given that the closing date for objections to the planning application was May 15th, is it not strange that the the findings of the Site Investigation carried out by the developers were NOT MADE PUBLIC until MAY 16TH. The risk levels of hazardous materials, possible mine workings etc disclosed in the report were not made known to the public before the objections deadline had passed and consequently it is now (all too conveniently) too late for the public to raise concerns based on the disclosed information.
Why would someone wait until after the deadline had passed before disclosing vital information?
#16 - Neighbour replied on the 16/05/2018 8:46:32 PM
Has anyone put an objection in to planning and it hasn't showed up on line.
I put an objection in on 10/05/18 and got an automated reply from council saying it was received.
Strange that no other objections comments are showing after 10/05/18 ????
#17 - Anon replied on the 18/05/2018 1:53:01 PM
Yes, same thing happened to me. I emailed the Council and this was their response "I can confirm that your representation has been received before the deadline therefore it will be considered along with all other representations submitted. Your representation may not have appeared on the public system yet as there may be personal information which requires to be removed before it has been uploaded".
#18 - resident replied on the 18/05/2018 2:03:28 PM
Good comments from 'Concerned Neighbour'.
Chaz - the existing building may well be nothing special but it isn't rotting. And most people on here accept that new flats on that site would be acceptable, but, there are concerns about the application(s) submitted.
'Neighbour' - yes, there's a delay between submissions being received and them appearing online.
Another comment on the elevations - one of them has an elevation comparison with the existing buildings across the road, but they seemingly do not line up in the way they should, giving the impression that the proposal is set back further than the buildings across the road. Some innocent mistakes/ommissions, or intentionally 'creative' presentation?
I note also that the new application is made in the name of an individual rather than the name of the developer, as per the original submission.
Meanwhile, over in the West End, just along from their zero parking development that was clearly the basis for the Finlay Drive design, Nixon Blue and their architect Jewitt & Wilkkie have submitted an eight storey design for the bowling green site on St Vincent Crescent, opposite a row which is only three storeys high.
#19 - CV3V replied on the 18/06/2018 11:46:11 AM
The application is going to the planning committee on Tuesday, with a recommendation for approval.
#20 - Anon replied on the 19/06/2018 10:26:50 AM
Where did you hear that it is being recommended for approval?
#21 - CV3V replied on the 19/06/2018 12:05:31 PM
Search for Glasgow Council committee meetings, then look up the planning committee for 19 June, the report recommending is there. It goes through all the objections and discounts them, was actually quite surprised as to the manner in which they considered it i.e. it used to be a church, so the area is used to unusual traffic. Seems like a lack of detailed consideration was given.
It is also mentioned on reglasgow.com (which looks an interesting website to keep up on new developments).
#22 - Jen replied on the 20/06/2018 10:45:25 AM
So it appears all of the concerns of the local residents have been completely dismissed. Also works will be going on between 8am and 7pm monday through to saturday. What a delight for everyone trying to get a bit of rest at the weekend and having to dodge big construction lorries as we try to leave for work between 8-9am (added to the school traffic!). I'm guessing there is nothing more to be done at this point in terms of trying to block it or amend some of the conditions?
#23 - D12C replied on the 20/06/2018 11:27:26 AM
The planning applications committe yesterday did not pass this application. It went to a vote where 7 councillors voted to refuse the application and 8 voted to continue it to another meeting to give the developers the chance to address the serious concearns over parking.
#24 - CV3V replied on the 20/06/2018 1:38:48 PM
Glad to hear it is still being considered, but seriously concerned as how to how the council so easily dismissed what were a list of genuine concerns.
Jen - from experience, the restriction on hours relates to noise - the builders could work longer than those hours as long as it doesn't cause a nuisance.
Folks can still try and object (complain to councillors), I saw on the reglasgow site another gap site where development was refused as it was considered 'over development'.
#25 - Pat replied on the 21/06/2018 2:41:58 PM
Just had a look at the 'Revised' proposal. On first impression it looks exactly the same. Ugly blond brick and a silly metal hat on top of a penthouse. None of these features fit in with the local architecture. The 'bay window' concession is just a rectilinear form jutting out of the bland facade. These flats will be awful inside and out
#26 - Neighbour replied on the 22/06/2018 12:38:31 PM
The planning committee's decision to allow more time to the developers to address the concerns raised by their plans seems odd.
The developers were given plenty of time to address the various concerns raised by their original proposals after they were refused consent in February and their present plans are the result of their subsequent deliberations.
If their revised plans are still giving rise to those numerous concerns why have they too not been refused?
To give them additional time to come back with something new instead of refusing them planning permission is totally unjust as this gives the developers the opportunity to by-pass the public scrutiny stage of whatever new plans they choose to submit. How can this be fair and just?
Their present plans have obviously not addressed the numerous issues which they raised and for this reason they should clearly have been refused for a second time.
if the developers are now about to change their recent plans in the light of the planning committee's reluctance to accept them as they are, then instead of enjoying a curiously privileged extension period they should be obliged to follow the proper planning procedure which would be to re-apply once more to Glasgow City Council for planning permission and submit their new plans to public scrutiny.
#27 - rob resident replied on the 26/06/2018 12:17:33 AM
this is a disgrace that this proposal is being allowed concessions when the public cant comment on them , the developer was allowed to submit a report after closing date.it seems as if documentation relating to it have been held back. documents relating to a development in the south side also included in the public comments nothing to do with finlay drive proposal people must be held accountable.
#28 - resident replied on the 16/07/2018 3:31:50 PM
Completely agree with what 'Neighbour' and 'rob' say. The terms of the "further dialogue to take place regarding parking provision" are not set out in the planning committee minutes. Not even a timescale noted. Seems very 'behind closed doors'. Doesn't inspire confidence.
And what's this...? Another 'Neighbour Notification Notice' letter arrives this morning exaplaining that "material amendments may have been made to this application, such as new drawings may have been submitted or location plan may have been amended, which requires the Council to re-notify you about the application." But there appears to be nothing of that nature on the appliction webpage, just some more documents added on 10 July for a development in another part of the city that seemingly has nothing to with this one.
#29 - Neighbour replied on the 16/07/2018 4:29:17 PM
New "Neighbour Notification Notices" have been sent out to residents in the immediate area of the proposed development, advising that material amendments may have been made to the submitted plans and that the new drawings can be viewed at the Online Planning Site under planning application no. 18/00920/FUL.
Eight new documents, drawings etc, dated 10th July, have indeed been added for inspection but they ALL relate to a proposed development at 51 St Vincent Crescent. There's nothing new on Finlay Drive.
The Neighbour Notification letter also advises that any objections to the revised plans must be submitted within 28 days of the date on the letter, - 12th July. This means by the 9th of August.
Why would the council send out such a letter if changes had not been made?
How can anyone object to the proposed changes if the changes to the development are not made known?
And how many of the 28 days will be used up waiting for the changes to be disclosed?
#30 - Ann replied on the 18/07/2018 10:06:42 AM
They seem to have uploaded the right documents now! The number of flats reduced to 27, and 15 parking spaces now. Height still 5 floors.
#31 - Michelle replied on the 19/07/2018 10:09:01 AM
Have I read correctly that they plan to mark 8 on-street parking bays around the property to say that they are providing a further 8 spaces on top of the 15?! This part of the street is currently used as on-street parking for anyone. So now they are removing parts of the street which we can park on?
#32 - reporter replied on the 19/07/2018 4:42:22 PM
For anyone not wanting to dig through the council committee documents, the planning decision is recorded as follows:
There was submitted a report by the Executive Director of Regeneration and the Economy regarding an application by Mr Colin McIntyre for planning permission for the erection of a residential development (31 units) and associated works at 100 Finlay Drive (Ward 22) - 18/00920/FUL.
Councillor Cullen (Garscadden/Scotstounhill, SNP), seconded by Councillor Casey (Dennistoun, SNP), moved that planning permission be refused.
Bailie McTaggart (Drumchappel/Anniesland, Labour), seconded by Councillor Charles (Baillieston, Conservative), moved as an amendment that consideration of the application be continued to allow further dialogue to take place regarding parking provision.
On a vote being taken by a show of hands, 8 members voted for the amendment and 7 for the motion. The amendment was accordingly declared to be carried.
#33 - someguy replied on the 19/07/2018 5:04:51 PM
Thank you to Ivan McKee MSP for writing, unprompted, to nearby residents to notify that the issue with the wrong drawings being uploaded had been raised by his office and subsequently corrected by the Planning Department.
Regarding these "8 on-street parking bays"... the exact phrase in the Addendum to the Design and Access Statement is "On-street parking provision identified as 8no." Compare that to the phrase "on-site dedicated parking spaces increased from 8 to 15". There's a subtle difference.
In the subtlety, there are two or three // things going on.
The site plan drawing identifies this "provision" of 8 spaces by way of dashed lines which look very similar to what you might expect parking space road markings to look like. But there will be no marked out private bays on the road.
That would require a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and/or a change in the adopted status of the road. This is not going to happen. Especially not when all eyes are on a broader scheme to introduce permit parking in the near future. This location will stay as it is until such time as permit parking is introduced.
What's interesting is that all new developments will allegedly be ineligible for any future permit scheme, so these spaces will not be available to the residents when the permit scheme is introduced. So it seems a folly to be considering them as a part of the parking calculations in the way that the developer (and Planning Department?) have.
Note that the site plan does not show the existing double yellow lines. If it did, it would show that the 'spaces' on the site plan drawing encroach on the extent of the double yellow lines. Because, in reality, the double yellow lines extend approximately 10 metres back from the roadside kerb. A quick glance on Google Maps satellite view can confirm this. The drawing shows something closer to a 5 m offset.*
The developer has intimated that this area of road can reasonably be identified as "provision" in relation to these flats. It is can not. There are no individual spaces, and no "provision". And the road space identified by the developer is already fully (over-)utilized for by existing residents and road users.
This is not the only inaccuracy in the submission. See also: the North Elevation drawing - the road cross-section and mirror image road cross-sections do not line up, giving the impression that the proposed building sits farther back than it actually would, if built. Not corrected since the last submission.
"height of overall development maintained consistent with surrounding buildings". Nope. On the West Elevation Drawing, the roof of the top flat on the corner ('Flat 25') is compared to the profile of the adjacent existing tenement at 36 Armadale Street, just to the south of the site. The new ridge matches the existing one, yes. But because of the new flat roof the gutter line will clearly extend well beyond that, and therefore beyond the pitch of the existing roof at No. 36 - See Sections B-B and C-C on the West Elevation Drawing.
Speaking of which, the Addendum to the Design and Access Statement notes "South stair/lift core increased in height to top floor in order to access Flat 25 now that the centre stair/lift is removed." This is shown on Section C-C on the West Elevation drawing. But it is not shown on either the West or North Elevations.
These plans should be rejected by the Planning Department as inadmissible due to basic inaccuracies. Unlikely, though, if we are to believe the claim that "the revised proposal of 15no on-site spaces is the result of extensive discussions and agreement with the Planning Department."
If approval of this new design doesn't turn out to be a formality I'll be amazed.
Still worth lodging objections, though, and writing to your Councillors/MSP/MP if you think that your comments have been overlooked.
#34 - Neighbour replied on the 23/07/2018 7:59:44 PM
Very good points made by Someguy. Regarding his concerns re. the developers' statement: "the revised proposal of 15 no. on-site spaces is the result of extensive discussions and agreement with the Planning Department," it is perhaps worth remembering that the developers earlier proposals contained the wording: "vehicle parking provision of 8 no. spaces was agreed after extensive discussions at pre-application stage. "
Extensive discussions? Apparently. Contradictory discussions? Certainly. Effective discussions? Umm...no.
#35 - Frank Plowright replied on the 24/07/2018 9:58:31 AM
As these discussions were allegedly extensive, there must be some written notes explaining why the planning department would indicate a development that falls well short of their parking policies was led to believe they could get away with eight spaces. Perhaps one of our elected representatives could ask to see this documentation. FOI is another option, but my experience has been that Glasgow Council use any excuse to delay providing information, and it would be useful now.
#36 - anon replied on the 25/07/2018 10:08:34 AM
I just saw the new "public notice 2" that some concerned neighbour has put up on the railings of the gospel hall - thanks, without someone doing this then the developer would have sneaked the revised plan through.
personally I don't have a car so the parking problem doesn't affect me but the look of the new buildings would be detrimental to the area and affect house prices which could affect me in the future. //
#37 - muckletoon replied on the 25/07/2018 8:36:04 PM
been trying to get onto the link that i received via the letter from Ivan McKee all day today...seems the site isn't working. anyone else been able to get on there in the last few days?
#38 - rob replied on the 26/07/2018 10:07:10 AM
Glasgow online planning applications site appears to be down all day on 25/7 /2018 unable to register objections to proposed planning application are any others having same problem.
#39 - Neighbour replied on the 26/07/2018 10:08:15 AM
The Glasgow Online Planning site was up and running yesterday, but not today. I tried to access it around mid-day today but without success. Been the same since .
#40 - anon replied on the 28/07/2018 2:28:38 PM
My main concern - though I agree with everything said on parking/blocking views/the building not fitting in with the surroundings - is in fact the noise that will undoubtedly come from the construction. I accept that objections to construction noise won't affect the outcome of the application, but does anyone know if it's possible at this stage to fight for reasonable hours of construction, e.g. Monday to Friday from 8-5 or similar? My building is nearly 150 years old, as are many in this area, and it can't even withstand normal street noise such as car doors slamming, loud conversations on the street etc, and certainly not a block of flats being constructed! (I have double glazing). I already know it'll be impossible to work from home during the construction, and I can't imagine that anyone will be able to sleep through it. 6 months of that and we'll have about three streets' worth of residents on the brink of madness.
#41 - Frank Plowright replied on the 29/07/2018 12:59:35 PM
The best way to avoid the noise of the construction is to do everything you can to ensure the project doesn't receive planning permission.
#42 - CV3V replied on the 1/08/2018 9:49:12 AM
I dont think noise from construction is considered by planners as grounds for objection, but can be corrected on this. Reasonable hours for construction sites in residential areas is usually 8 - 6 Mon - Fri, and 8 - 1 on Saturdays. But the wording on this condition usually describes it as works with a noise impact (depends on council), so you can still end up with the builders working longer hours. But the construction impact will also include deliveries to site (which during the day will end up double parking or blocking the road), car parking for workers, noise and dust. You will find a lot of builders will turn up on site at 7 a.m. to avoid traffic and get the parking spaces etc.
You can reply to the post Plans to build 6-storey block on Finlay Drive 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.