Community News, Views & Information

Finlay drive

Anon posted on the 1/09/2017 7:51:34 PM

Does anyone know what's happening at the gospel hall on corner of Finlay drive and Armadale street ? It doesn't seem to be getting used anymore , they were doing test bores on the grounds a couple of weeks ago with a surveyor .

32 Replies :

#1 - Alan replied on the 3/09/2017 10:24:30 AM

I still see people going in and out most nights.

#2 - anon replied on the 3/09/2017 10:02:58 PM

it was really nice when it was first built but the building and grounds have been looking a bit run down nowadays.

#3 - CV3V replied on the 29/10/2017 7:51:07 PM

There is a planning application on the council website for the site, 31 flats to be built on the site. If you thought parking on Finlay Drive was bad before, it will actually be even worse!

Planning application on council website, still time for comments / objections to be raised either directly, or via councillor.

#4 - W replied on the 30/10/2017 2:35:15 AM

Planning ref 17/02477/DC

Full set of info available via

Summary PDF (includes drawings and design statement) via

Deadline for comments is Friday 17th November 2017.

31 flats - 1x 1-bed, 28x 2-bed, 2x 3-bed - six floors - "On the elevations the block celebrates the corner with a cube-shaped element to the massing where the two streets meet."

Eight parking spaces - "Parking provision is 8no spaces. This number has been agreed with the Planning Department as the best balance between good urban design and form, provisions for shared amenity space, and provision for vehicle access. This notes that the railway station at Duke Street, along with bus routes and local shops and services are all within 5 minutes walk. As local transport connections provide regular services to the city centre from around 7 minutes, it is anticipated that residents’ car use should be low. Spaces will be assigned to individual flats as agreed when flats are sold.".

#5 - Amy replied on the 30/10/2017 10:35:10 AM

I live opposite and I’ve put my comment in already. I think anyone who lives in the area should put a comment in about the parking, let along how much it’s going to ruin people’s views.

#6 - anon replied on the 30/10/2017 11:31:37 AM

Everyone with an objection or comment should put it in individually, even if it is a repeat of other peoples objections, the planning committee do look at the number of comments to gauge the scale of the issue. I don't know where the council gets its number on car ownership, every tenement i have ever lived in has averaged at least one car per flat (some flats owned no cars, others have 2).

If the development goes ahead it is another reason for residents parking permits for the area - new developments dont necessarily qualify for a permit, which helps protect existing parking spaces for existing residents.

#7 - anon replied on the 30/10/2017 1:00:12 PM

i will be commenting also! i live in roslea and this is already a hazard with the school being so close,. this could potentially add 40 plus cars to the mix - most flats will have 1 car some 2.
in my close (8 flats) there are 11 cars

#8 - Pat replied on the 30/10/2017 1:01:26 PM

How does someone go about making an objection? Is it the 'make a comment' tab on the council page?
I can't see any comments...
My issue with this development is that aside from parking issues and blocking light, it is clearly not in keeping with the local architecture. The developers Design and Access statement makes ludicrous comparisons with existing victorian tenements and their proposed cereal box with obligatory metal clad penthouses at the top. This development seems to bear striking resemblance to all the awful student housing springing up in a city.

#9 - resident replied on the 30/10/2017 3:58:56 PM

Agreed. It looks like generic student accommodation, what a joke the description in the plan is. You can maybe get away with these types of buildings on main streets above rows of shops, but in the residential Victorian grid system they stick out like sore thumbs. Especially displeased with how dense the development is. 31 flats is way too many for that corner, they'll be pokey inside and overpriced.

#10 - Paul replied on the 31/10/2017 10:04:04 AM

I've just commented. Odd how it's saying no comments have been lodged still given how many above said they'll comment on the application.

#11 - CV3V replied on the 31/10/2017 2:32:28 PM

You can register your comment on council website, or you can also email it to the planning department. Failing that, you can ask one of the local councillors to submit it on your behalf. Takes a few days for it to be added to the planning website.

The development is presented as being lower in height than the surrounding tenements, but what they have done is build up in to the roof space to add more flats, and then used a lower pitch roof. So if you are in a top floor flat in the surrounding area you might actually find the top floor windows of this proposed development will look down on to you.

#12 - Amy replied on the 31/10/2017 2:33:50 PM

My comment was confirmed and forwarded on to the correct department? Weird!

#13 - Dennistounian replied on the 31/10/2017 3:33:26 PM

I have lived in Dennistoun for a significant part of my life. I have owned two properties in the area I have never owned a car. I work in Glasgow and use the good public transport options available to get to where I need to be. Dennistoun is a largely Victorian residential area that was never designed to accommodate cars. It is densely populated with limited green space. It does have several derelict areas that need developed. Any increase in housing provision is essentially a good thing. It gives existing Dennistoun residents places for their kids to live if they decide to stay in the area. I think the expectation of being able to park multiple cars outside your block is unreasonable. As a pedestrian and long time Dennistoun resident I hate seeing every available space covered in tarmac so people can park their cars. Seems that some people want to have their cake and eat it.

#14 - Akln replied on the 31/10/2017 5:12:02 PM

I agree with Dennistounian, parking provision shouldn't be the main preoccupation for a development 1.3 miles away from the city center, public transports are good enough.
On the other hand the quality could be improved, with sandstone instead of brick, like the new flats in the corner of St Vincent street and Elderslie street (in Anderston).

#15 - qfx replied on the 31/10/2017 5:15:35 PM

Dennistonian, you are entitled to your view, and you are fortunate that you work in Glasgow and can use public transport. However modern lifestyles no longer fit with being able to live close by to your place of work. I need a car for my work, likewise the dozens of builders and tradesmen who turn up to build these flats will be arriving in their cars and vans from all over central Scotland and not on the bus.

Also, rather than focus on the residents of Dennistoun, why not question all those commuters who park their cars in the area so they can attend City Park and the GRI? Why not ask why they are not using public transport? Then there is the issue of all the parked cars in the area around Bellgrove Station - city centre commuters who want to park for free in Dennistoun and then get the train for the last leg into town. With all this in mind, surely asking that a limited resource (residents parking) be protected is a reasonable request, rather than 'have their cake and eat it'?

An increase in housing provision is a good thing, but modern planning requirements suggest that where there is an increased burden to a local area (or detriment) then that should be offset with some form of community benefit - which this scheme does not provide. Also please consider the actual design, and the attempt to maximise developer profits by fitting in the maximum number of units with a design which is not in keeping with the area. When the developer walks off with his millions in profit it will be the local residents who then have to live with it.

#16 - Paul replied on the 31/10/2017 7:26:33 PM

I feel qfx has nailed it.

#17 - anon replied on the 1/11/2017 10:19:04 AM

some people need a car for work and taking kids out and about - the main issue is workers from the royal, city park and folk who live further out paring and jumping the train and bus into town. also the Celtic games. i dont see why parking permits cant be issued

#18 - Lasass replied on the 1/11/2017 1:23:32 PM

I agree that new developments are needed and think that more flats can be a positive thing but I do think this site is being overbuilt and 31 flats at what will essentially be 5 floors is too much for that area. I also think that the resulting traffic will be a nightmare while they are being built.
I also agree that as tenement dwellers we should not feel entitled to a parking space right outside our door but on the whole I think those with cars generally balance with those without.
I would agree that city commuters, Celtic games and City Park are responsible for a huge amount of the parking problems in Dennistoun and particularly the Drives.
I really would caution against parking permits in all areas as they have the potential to kill small businesses and local shops as people will just not pay for parking for local shops - this has been well documented in other areas of the town //.
However in terms of the Finlay Drive development I would like to see less flats on the site and more outdoor space allowed for.

#19 - CV3V replied on the 1/11/2017 6:26:17 PM

but in terms of the businesses on Duke Street, it already is metered parking.

#20 - W replied on the 3/11/2017 1:11:32 AM

PENTHOUSES. - I believe that the addition of fifth floor penthouses are inappropriate in the configuration/format proposed. Especially on the Finlay Drive elevation where the penthouses are not set back. They are set back slightly on the Armadale Street elevation, but in both cases the rooflines appear to extend beyond the precedent set by the existing surrounding tenements //.

The design statement focuses on ridge heights, but the protruding gutters are the key factor in the overshadowing that would not occur if the building envelope was truly in keeping with the existing tenements.

THE 'CORNER BLOCK' DESIGN. - I would argue that the 'protruding corner block' breaks with the prevailing tenement design, contrary to the design statement rationale as to how it's a reflection of the tenement bay windows on the surrounding buildings (seemingly ignoring, also, that the adjacent existing tenement block it actually connects to has no bays).

The design statement claims that "...the lines of both street elevations in the design have been aligned with the neighbouring properties on both Finlay Drive and Armadale Street. Within this pattern, tenements’ bay windows typically protrude forward of the line, and so the design reflects this by protruding slightly the corner feature block."

// The protrusion of tenement bay windows is incidental to the general massing of a tenement . That is to say that tenement bays do not occupy a majority of the width of an elevation. Furthermore, such bays they are distributed along an elevation. The 'corner feature block' protrusion of the proposed development is a fundamental element - indeed, in the case of the west elevation it makes up a majority of that elevation width. The protruding 'corner feature block' proposed design does not 'reflect' the existing tenements in any meaningful way. It is a significant deviation from it, and an addition to it. As noted, bays are not present on the Armadale Street elevation of the existing buliding to the south, which the proposal extends from, which introduces a further element of deviation in design.
PARKING. - A 25% provision of parking spaces is clearly on the low side. But it's more of a concern that "spaces will be assigned to individual flats as agreed when flats are sold" than the actual level of provision per se. This introduces an element of inflexibility. If spaces are assigned for the sole use of an individual flat, then there will be periods when the space is redundant if the occupier (either temporarily or permanently) does not require it (or if there is no occupier). And it is inevitable that the car ownership of the occupiers will not align with the assigning of parking spaces. Any over-subscription will occupy the Public Road rather than having the option of filling spaces on a needs basis. In order to mitigate the effect, and to alleviate problems elsewhere in Dennistoun I think the Dennistoun Residents Parking Zone should be prioritised ahead of the delayed Celtic Park scheme (which it currently sits behind). I also think there should be a commitment to reinstate Dennistoun's lost third Co-Wheels car club hire point - the one on Westercraigs has been withdrawn. Maybe a condition of approval could be that we have a new Co-wheels hire car located near to this development to emphasise how car ownership need not be the necessity that people convince themselves it is. Where's the basic level of urban planning?

The Minerva Street developement appears to be a template of sorts for this site. And the architect's website page - - states:
- "14 two bedroom flats on a site originally conceived for 12."
- "Additional apartments achieved with zero parking format."
- "Two penthouse levels and a visual aesthetic that compliments the neighbouring development."

All that is music to the ears of developers, no doubt. To everyone else, that sounds like they're cramming 'em in - note that NONE of these proposed flats have a kitchen. ALL of them have open plan kitchen-living spaces. Only two have an acknowledged area for dining. Two bedroom flats with en-suites are disproportionately prioritised. So very good for lettting. Yup, there appears to be a very particular type of buyer in mind here - abesent landlord buy-to-lets, bank of mum & dad uni flat investments, etc - that'll surely be the pitch in the sales literature that will get put out just as soon as planning permission is approved. None of the space or flexibility that the established tenements have.

The design of these penthouses is apparently an import from the design team's 69 Minerva Street development - not appropriate when you note the differences in the setting of these two developments. The context of the 69 Minerva Street development is markedly different from the 100 Finlay Drive location.

One more thing - factoring arrangements. An important consideration for a development of this nature. Nothing is mentioned in the design statement. //

That said, I believe that there has been some bits of reasonable design thought gone into some elements of it. And I'm not opposed to the principle of developing that site at a density in keeping with the the area But, overall, there are some major issues to address before this development should be given planning approval.

#21 - anon replied on the 5/11/2017 10:47:12 PM

This is a great piece of infill for Dennistoun. We live in one of the great urban/dense neighbourhoods of Glasgow. We are surrounded by everything we need in terms of train, bike and bus (well, as good as FirstGlasgow can manage). The more people we have, the more shops, cafe's, bars and services we have.

No other European cities build around the car like we do, and they are better for it.

Why not some compromise? Have lots of the GoCars on the street so people can rent them by the hour to go shopping or longer trips?

#22 - Dashed replied on the 6/11/2017 11:24:45 PM

Filling in the 'gap' with new flats is fine - just a shame they look like an office block. It's obviously not as huge as some student flats but the scale is part of it. The original smaller plan would be less dominating. The Gospel Hall isn't a great building but it's small enough that it doesn't offend too much. I don't mind losing it but I do wish the developers would commemorate the Dennistoun Picture House that used to stand there.

One important point about the car park - it already exists! The current car park could hold about 20 cars during a service. It's being reduced in size to eight. It's not a case of tarmacing over green space or anything. Yes, we have buses and Duke St station nearby. However, I still drive as my work was moved out past Wishaw - a train to Airdrie isn't much use. I sometimes cycle to Central Station and get the train but then my commute lasts over twice as long. If I worked in the city centre I'd ditch the car but no sign of that.

I don't agree that we're surrounded by everything we need in terms of cycling. There are no protected cycle lanes on Duke St or the Parade. Some of us cycle on those roads but many more are understandably scared off by the traffic. Protected lanes would make cycling much safer and more appealing. The new flats at Elderslie/St Vincent St, mentioned above, are on the West City Way protected bike lane between Kelvingrove Park and Central Station. I'd love to think the council's position was because a protected cycle route was about to arrive in Dennistoun. However, every other part of the city has plans except the East End (seriously - Byres Rd, Woodside, Sighthill, Victoria Rd). If we ever get a safe route I think it would bring some extra business. Most folk already walk to the shops anyway. I don't think permits would affect businesses that much.

#23 - CV3V replied on the 8/11/2017 2:03:22 PM

Council terms and conditions in parking permit areas always state that developments post 2000 do not qualify for parking permits. So if permits were introduced to Dennistoun the residents of these recent developments wouldn't qualify for a permit.

All the roads around Barack Street/Hunter Street were double yellow lined a few years ago, an empty quiet location which caused no issues. But the council wanted to force commuters into the new multi storey car park on Duke Street. Strangely, the car park is still quiet, those roads are empty of cars, and from reading on the council website they view that as a success. But cross Duke Street into Dennistoun and the area is rammed full of commuter parking (during office hours).

#24 - John DCC replied on the 9/11/2017 11:30:19 AM

We have this item on our agenda at our next meeting which is at Whitehill Secondary School at 7pm on Tue 14th Nov.
Please come along and air your views.

#25 - W replied on the 12/11/2017 9:41:44 PM

Dashed - You make some very good points regarding cycle provision and the West City Way, etc.

Proper infrastructure first, please, before we start building very low parking provision housing.

CV3V - According to it's not the case that "Council terms and conditions in parking permit areas always state that developments post 2000 do not qualify for parking permits.". The year 2000 applies to the Woodlands zone for example, but for Hillhead the cutoff date was 1975 and for the Dowanhill and Partick zones it's 2016 ("e.g. An eligible residential property is a dwelling house built or redeveloped, for residential use prior to 06 December 2016."). Which is when these zones came into being. So it looks to be the case that the eligibility cutoff date kicks in when the parking zone is implemented. Depending on when/if this development gets built, it might just sneak in as eligible before the Dennistoun parking zone is implemented.

#26 - DennistounCC replied on the 13/11/2017 1:10:12 AM

Dennistoun Community Council post about this here -

#27 - CV3V replied on the 13/11/2017 2:48:22 PM

W - There is a Glasgow council planning policy for new developments which makes a statement about the protection of existing parking spaces for existing residents, and uses a cut off date of 2000. Can i find the policy (in the thousands of pages of planning policy) to quote it? No i cant.

But there's an idea = if the development goes ahead, include a condition that the development shouldn't qualify for any future permit scheme (after all, according to the planning application, no one uses cars anyway).

Dennistoun parking permit zone will take at least 2 years to implement, after it has been agreed.

#28 - CV3V replied on the 13/11/2017 3:22:18 PM

btw - major credit to all those who have lodged objections/comments, there is a big list on the council planning portal!

#29 - James Mc replied on the 14/11/2017 1:37:18 PM

I see the parking story has made the Evening Times website, with the usual "why should people expect to park outside their close" vs "mothers with prams" argument that it often descends into.

#30 - Calum Ross replied on the 17/02/2018 10:25:13 AM

Planning Application 17/02477/DC for the development of 31 flats on site of Gospel Hall at 100 Finlay Drive has been REFUSED. Decision issued date 15th February 2018. Appeal status: UNKNOWN. No doubt the developers will appeal with revised plans and we await those with interest but, at the very least, this present decision is a vindication of the concerns raised in the community regarding this unwelcome project.

#31 - Anon replied on the 18/02/2018 1:12:06 AM

I live at that end of Finlay drive and I don’t find the development unwelcome, I would however like there to be parking issues sorted first but am very open to the development taking place .

#32 - James Mc replied on the 21/02/2018 9:24:29 AM

Congrats to you lot, you've made the papers today over this. In this day and age, it's good to see ordinary peopel can have an influence.

You can reply to the post 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.

Copyright © 1999- Dennistoun Online
All rights reserved | Admin