Category: Planning (Page 3 of 6)

(posted on behalf of Fiona Mackinnon and some other local residents)

Another year, another planning application for Sammy Dow…or Lebowski’s as it is planned for the future.

People living close by may have got a Neighbour Notification of the plans a month ago but this process was suspended as the wrong plans were uploaded to the Planning website meaning residents were unable to judge the proposals.

The Planning Department has re-issued the notification and the new date for final comments on the full planning permission is Friday 18 March 2016. For the Listed Building Consent plan the date was Wednesday 9 March 2016 (sorry this has been posted after the deadline).

The main proposal is to create a commercial kitchen at the rear of the extension. This means having to have a very low level kitchen venting system which has the potential to be very noisy and to create unpleasant odours from cooking burgers for neighbours. Some residents will know of the problems with the vent from The Bungo installed a few years ago. The Bungo vent is a high level one, so cooking smells are discharged above the roofline (though there is I believe still a problem with noise); these will vent into the back court gardens and near ground level!

There are also issues of overlooking and noise leakage with their desire to replaced solid glass brick light wells with new windows that will overlook homes in Nithsdale Road and Moray Place.

Please take a look at the plans online at the Glasgow City Council website – there are two applications but only one is still open  https://publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=O1KJSBEX0L800

Attached is an objection written by local residents which should offer inspiration if you want to object. You can cut and paste from it or re-write as you like. Make sure that if you want to object, you put the word ‘object’ near the start of your response   69NithsdaleRdObjection2016

The Strathbungo Society will consider this at the meeting on Tuesday

In 2013 Domenico Del Priore’s (ex-owner / developer of Cookie and architect) proposed some ideas for the Nithsdale Road cul de sac which are pertinent to the Make your Mark community planning consultation.      Its not all rhubarb, have a look!   Nithsdale Road – Domenico Del Priore 2013

On Sunday afternoon a small group braved the rain showers and walked round the Nithsdale area and over to Kildrostan Street to share ideas for the Make your Mark consultation.   As we walked around we also talked about the ideas that had been suggested on the facebook page.    We have written this up for the Make your Mark Team  Charrette Walkabout proposals 160224    This is the first word, not the last and we would welcome comments and other ideas.    For any of the ideas to be progressed, there would need to be consultation with local residents and businesses and we know there will be other views but its a start.

The first of the Make your Mark public workshops start tomorrow, Housing and Community 11.30-3.30 and Facilities and Amenities 4pm-8pm both at 553 Shields Rd – both sessions are open to all on a drop-in basis

Programme of workshops 25th-27th February.

MYM_Public Programme

What is being proposed

The word charrette is French for “cart”. In the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris in the 19th century, it was not unusual for student architects to continue working furiously in teams at the end of the allotted term, up until a deadline, when a charrette would be wheeled among the students to pick up their scale models and other work for review while they, each working furiously to apply the finishing touches, were said to be working en charrette, in the cart. The term evolved into the current design-related usage in conjunction with working right up until a deadline and through support from the Scottish Government is now linked to intensive community planning events.

Pollokshields Community Council (PCC) have now obtained most of the funding needed to work with the community and stakeholders to produce a revised community based plan for east Pollokshields and surrounding areas. This includes part of Strathbungo, encompassing Nithsdale Rd, Street and Drive (see map). PCC are planning to hold an intensive event, the charrette, over four days at the end of February out of which a detailed set of proposals and designs will be produced.

The Strathbungo Society, which discussed this at its Committee meeting yesterday, sees this as a great opportunity to progress some proposals that have been circulating for some time, but never developed, as well as developing new ideas with residents. Past proposals have included re-design of the Nithsdale roundabout, landscaping of the Nithsdale Rd cul de sac and removal of litter bins from pavements and improving cycle lane connections.

The charrette is also important because what happens around Strathbungo affects the quality of life here. So it’s a chance to influence what goes on in East Pollokshields, which many Strathbungo residents visit regularly, if not daily – including the other side of the railway line along Moray Place! The charrette  includes the area around Eglinton toll that lies between Strathbungo and the City Centre and has plenty of potential for improvement.

Pollokshields Community Council want to work with the community and stakeholders to complete the East Pollokshields and Port Eglinton Planning Study as a masterplan document that, as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the new City Development Plan, can help guide the next two decades of development in the area. The Strathbungo Society also see this as an opportunity to embed the Strathbungo Conservation area appraisal into planning documents. Glasgow City Council have agreed to support the proposal with officer time.

The Strathbungo Society will post more information about the charrette in the New Year including how to get involved.

Further explanation and detail provided by Pollokshields Community Council

The need for the study was previously outlined in Glasgow City Council’s City Plan 2 Part 2 – Development Strategy Priorities & Proposals: The Rest of the City: Areas Requiring Targeted Planning Action 8.23 East Pollokshields/Port Eglinton Planning Study. Preparatory work proceeded with the East Pollokshields/ Port Eglinton Planning Study – Resident Survey published in August 2008. The need for the Planning Study was agreed with officers as part of the autumn 2008 Public Local Inquiry into the draft City Plan 2 hence its inclusion in the final document. However, work on the study stalled thereafter. Reference was again made to the need for the East Pollokshields and Port Eglinton planning study in the Main Issues Report (re: Map 3 – the Spatial Planning Activity Framework, Other Studies, Item 34), but there was no reference in the draft City Development Plan published in Spring 2014. The PCC raised concerns with GCC as part of the LDP consultation process requesting that the area be included in the Local Development Framework for the Southside.

However, at a meeting in December 2014 with Nicola Sturgeon MSP, a representative for Anas Sarwar MP, and the three local Councillors, GCC Planning officers confirmed that financial pressures were such they would not be able to conclude the study for at least another decade i.e. 17 years after the need for the study was first highlighted. Recognising the reality of resourcing issues for GCC DRS producing it, the PCC is therefore seeking a community led charrette as a way to drive this forward in order to tackle the multiple deprivations from which the area suffers, and improve the lives and economic outcomes for the people who live in East Pollokshields.

The PCC believe a charrette to be the best forum in which to assemble the community and stakeholders in one place and rapidly work through the issues, draft out, agree and conclude the contents, aims and outcomes of the study

The PCC wants to complete the planning study and have it adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance by GCC DRS so the study must be couched in terms of the policies outlined in the proposed City Development Plan in particular Policy CDP 1 The Placemaking Principle. The planning study will also align with the aims of all relevant Scottish Government policies and principles for development, regeneration and community empowerment so that our neighbourhood achieves its full potential to be:

· distinctive;
· safe and pleasant;
· easy to move around and beyond;
· welcoming;
· adaptable; and
· resource efficient.
· economically vibrant

East Pollokshields is a planned tenemental suburb with a population of 8,206 located on the Southside of Glasgow approximately 2km from George Square. It is the most multi-cultural area in both Glasgow and Scotland with a BME population share of 52%. This figure is far higher than those for Glasgow at 11.6% and for Scotland at 4.0%. Between 2001 and 2013 East Pollokshields’ population rose by 16% – one the highest rates of increase in Glasgow. More than a quarter of households in East Pollokshields are overcrowded, 33% of children live in poverty, 93.5% of people live within 500m of vacant or derelict land while SIMD Data Zone: S01003256 – the north of East Pollokshields – has an SIMD 2012 rank of 195 out of 6505 data zones in Scotland. Centred on Albert Drive (a Tier 3 Town Centre in Glasgow)

East Pollokshields dates from 1848 becoming a conservation area in 1973. The Victorian tenements are now aging and difficult to heat. There are rubbish and recycling issues with numerous incidences of fly tipping. Neighbouring Port Eglinton; however, is a derelict industrial zone with large tracts of brownfield land that offer significant regeneration opportunities.

The charrette is currently programmed for the week commencing 21st February 2016.

Key issues the charrette will deal with:

The PCC strongly feel that the planning study is required to address several local issues including:

· Severance between East Pollokshields / Port Eglinton and Glasgow city centre
· An undersupply of Green and Amenity space within East Pollokshields
· Environmental Improvements such as upgraded public realm, reinstatement of
historic shop fronts of Albert Drive and improved maintenance of historic built
fabric as part of a potential Townscape Heritage scheme or Conservation Area
Regeneration Scheme
· Local concerns about stalled development spaces
· Contaminated land issues
· A strategy for Recreation space
· Refuse and Recycling issues + fire raising issues in tenement closes
· How to maximise the energy efficiency of aging built fabric so as to create
warm homes
· An examination of tenure and type with a focus on conditions in the private
rental sector
· Tailoring housing supply to the needs of large families
· Local health issues
· Local employment issues
· Generation of local power and CHP
· Transport Strategy including alternatives to inner city car use
· Retrofitting tenemental streets to meet Designing Streets, Homezone
standards and 20MPH zones
· The designation under the City Development Plan of sites H073 (60 Maxwell
Road with a lapsed planning consent for 261 housing units) and H081 (55
Maxwell Road with a lapsed consent for 200 units) and how these can comply
with Policy CDP 1 The Placemaking Principle and good urban design
· The setting aside under Policy CDP 11 Sustainable Transport land for an
interchange station at West Street that would link the high level lines and the
subway.
· The growing population in East Pollokshields and the needs of its unique
multicultural population – by far the most multicultural in Scotland.

Key Charrette outputs:

· Completion of the East Pollokshields and Port Eglinton Planning Study as
SPG to new City Development Plan.
· Establishment of Development Trust
· Environmental Improvements
· Promotion of alternate modes of transport
· Townscape Heritage scheme and Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme
submissions
· Design proposals + codes for City Development Plan sites H073 and H081
· Cycle and pedestrian route to West Street subway station
· Specialist study on regeneration potential

The Council has turned down the application although the applicant still has a right of appeal

The Strathbungo Society objected to this planning applications both on the grounds that the proposals were detrimental to what is a B-listed building and due to the loss of amenity for Local Residents. Our objection has been forwarded to local councillors and they have all also objected to the proposal.

PlanningObjection20151027Sammydowlebowski

I have been asked by a resident on Moray Place to post their objection to Sammy Dow’s latest planning application (the Strathbungo Society is looking for a new web administrator who could add people to the system – an opportunity at the AGM!). They are leafleting other local residents around the pub and suggest that people who wish to object to the proposal could adapt or use extracts from their objection which I have added as a link below. Their advice is if you want to do this: 1. Include your name and address; 2. Include the planning reference and property address; 3. Do personalise the objection to emphasise the impact the proposed development will have on you.

The current application from Sammy Dow’s is very similar to previous applications which have been objected to by the Strathbungo Society which intends to submit its own objection before the deadline on Tuesday.

SDowPlanningObjection2015

Earlier this year at the Pollokshields Area Partnership, where community organisations meet with ward councillors and other public authorities meet, issues were raised about planning matters and it was agreed to invited planning staff to a future meeting to discuss this. The Strathbungo Society offered to prepare a list of questions and issues affecting the Conservation Area in conjunction with Pollokshields Heritage and Community Council. Arising out of this we produced a joint paper (attached) which was presented to the Area Partnership at the end of May. The focus of the paper is very much on planning enforcement issues (e.g there are a number of commercial premises that have done works, applied for planning permission retrospectively and then been refused). Our thanks to Fiona Mackinnon in particular who collated all the Strathbungo information from the Council data base that support this – its quite long so not pasted here but I can send a copy to anyone interested (nickkempe@tinyworld.co.uk).

This was the first time the Partnership had considered a paper produced by community organisations. It resulted in an hour long discussion about the extent to which the Council is able and willing to help promote the character of conservation areas whether by way of enforcing planning requirements or ensuring better co-ordination across Council departments (e.g the quality of the pavements on Nithsdale Road and environs) or the quality of litter clearance. There was no clear conclusion to the discussion but the planning department committed to responding to our questions in writing and also that they will be updating the conservation area appraisal for Strathbungo. Watch this space!

Meantime if you have any comments on the paper do get in contact with the Society or come along to a meeting. While the paper focussed on the conservation area, we are keen to extend its scope to cover other streets within Strathbungo.

Questions for Planning for the Pollokshields Area Partnership Meeting

Introduction and background
The built form and quality of much of the Pollokshields Area Partnership area is formally and statutorily recognised by Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government by way of planning policy, and specifically heritage, conservation area and other related policies.
Pollokshields Partnership area has among the highest levels of Conservation Area status of any Council ward and the implementation and enforcement of these policies contribute directly to maintaining and enhancing the area and retaining its unique, Scotland / UK-wide status as a superlative example of early Victorian garden suburb (Pollokshields) and an early railway suburb (Strathbungo). Taken together, Pollokshields ward contributes positively to Glasgow’s heritage as the UK’s most complete Victorian city – an asset that is regularly cited as a key reason for people to visit the city.
It is in this context – a predominantly Conservation Area ward – that Strathbungo Society, Pollokshields Heritage and Pollokshields Community Council have come together to review the existing application and enforcement of the Council’s own specified planning policies for the ward.

Pollokshields Area Partnership and Planning
At the last meeting of the Pollokshields Area Partnership Planning staff were invited to speak but gave their apologies stating they were unsure of what issues members wanted to address. To help inform the Partnership and Planning officials, the Strathbungo Society, Pollokshields Heritage and Pollokshields Community Council have looked at a number of planning issues within the area and have jointly identified a number of questions (below) they would like the meeting to address.
We have also provided some supporting evidence. The collection of this data has been complicated due to changes to the planning database over the past few weeks (there appears to have been an upgrade but for a time much of the functionality disappeared). This has meant that we have only been able to provide full background data for Strathbungo (where the data was extracted prior to the current changes) and the evidence for Pollokshields is more selective. All the evidence presented is in the public domain and in included at Appendix 1.
General Planning Questions
1) What is the current status of the Strathbungo and Pollokshields Conservation Area Appraisals and what parts if any of it have been replaced by developments in Council policy since they were approved? What plans are there to update the appraisals? Our understanding was following the approval of appraisals, a conservation area management plan should have been developed but there is no mention of these in the draft Local Development Plan. Can we have assurances that the conservation appraisals will be carried forward into the draft Local Development Plan?
2) What is the current status of the Design Guidance which is linked to conservation area appraisals? The Pollokshields Heritage cases show there is an inconsistent application of the design guidance. Why is this?
3) More specifically, is the aim of the Council’s planning policy still to improve streetscapes in conservation areas through the use of traditional materials? If so, what liaison mechanisms are in place, if any, with the roads section in Land and Environmental Services to ensure policy is “joined up” in this regard?
The background to these questions is that last year representatives of the Strathbungo Society met with representatives from the roads section of Land and Environment Services about new slurry seals which had been used to resurface pavements along Nithsdale Road and Nithsdale Street. The Strathbungo Society representatives were informed by LES staff that they pays no regard to conservation area appraisals when resurfacing streets and pavements, and that they operate on budgets which do not allow for pavement improvements as opposed to maintenance to take place and that any financing for pavement improvements was the responsibility of DRS. The Strathbungo Conservation Area Appraisal lists the traditional materials used in the area, which include granite slabs, whin setts and cobbles; and notes the existence of other more modern materials, including tarmac, but notes: “this does not mean their use is acceptable”. It goes on to state:
• “…use of high quality traditional building materials contributes to the character of the Conservation Area”
• “The use of materials in any conservation area is another element of its character and appearance”
• “The quality and upkeep of the public realm within the conservation area is important”.

Then under Development Policies and Design Guidance the Appraisal states that: “The re-introduction of quality surfacing should be encouraged”; and makes a specific reference to the policies at the time on footpaths and carriageways.
Planning Enforcement Questions
The Strathbungo Society, Pollokshields Heritage and Pollokshields Community Council have concerns regarding the vigour, consistency and application of planning enforcement in the Pollokshields Partnership area and seeks to engage positively and directly with Planning officials and the Council to help clarify and answer the following questions.
1) How is planning enforcement action initiated? We have received advice over the phone that for the Council to take enforcement action a formal complaint requires to be submitted via an online complaint form. This requires the complainer to lodge their name and address. However, on the GCC enforcement database for the Strathbungo area two enforcement actions are listed as “Internal referrals”. While we can understand the need for openness, sometimes the requirement to lodge a name and address can have implications for the person complaining and we would like to know whether or if the Planning Officer is made aware of a breach, and evidence provided about this, whether they can initiate enforcement without someone outside the department (eg member of the public, elected official etc.) making a formal complaint?
2) Related to this, what is the duty of Planning Officers to act if, in the course of their duties, they come across obvious breaches of planning requirements? (An example is where a planning officer while out on visits spots uPVC windows or satellite dishes on the front elevation of houses in conservation areas).
3) What arrangements are there for Building Control to alert Planning where they become aware of breaches of planning requirements in Conservation Areas?
4) What resources are available for planning enforcement now compared to five years ago in the Pollokshields Area Partnership area?
5) What are the procedures, rules and criteria for deciding to pursue planning enforcement action in cases where there has been a clear breach of planning requirements? (In other words what are the rules that have determined in the cases we have provided about whether action has been pursued or not?).
More specifically:
a) It appears from our analysis that certain breaches (eg satellite dishes) are more likely to be remedied than others (eg installation of uPVC windows where in our area 9 cases have been closed without follow up action) – why is this? We also have evidence that the remedy in respect of satellite is not applied consistently – why is this?
b) Does the Council have any criteria for referring planning breaches on to the Procurator Fiscal and if so what are they and how is this working? What percentage of planning breaches that have not been remedied are passed on to the Procurator Fiscal? Were any of the 9 cases involving uPVC windows in Strathbungo that have been closed without remedy ever referred to the Procurator Fiscal?
c) When the Council services an enforcement notice and the owner then applies for planning permission, we understand the enforcement action is suspended. We would request clarification of what then happens if planning permission is refused – are there any criteria which determine whether or not the planning officer reactivates the enforcement action?
6) We would welcome clarification of the meaning of terminology used in the data base and the criteria used for different decisions and more specifically:
a) Under Decision Reason, there appears “Justification from Manager” and “Justification from Planner”. What constitutes justification and what procedures are there to determine when such cases need to be decided by the Manager rather than the Planner?
b) What are the criteria in use to determine the “not expedient” reason for taking no further action?
c) Why under status is the database showing so many cases as “Unknown” when previous status was recorded as “granted”, “refused” or “pending”?
d) Why are so many reasons for closure given as “Not available”?
7) What factors determine the length of time it takes in cases where planning permission has been applied for retrospectively and then refused to initiate enforcement action? Is there a procedure which determines what actions are taken after what length of time?
8) Where a property subject to enforcement action is sold, does the change in ownership have any effect on the enforcement action? More specifically how many enforcement actions have proceeded after a change of ownership?
9) Our understanding is that enforcement action against breaches of planning permission in conservation areas that concern unlisted buildings cannot be pursued if four years or more has elapsed since the breach but there is no time limit for listed buildings. Is this correct?
10) Does failure to take enforcement action set any legal precedents in terms of the Council’s ability to take actions against similar breaches in the future? (See Pollokshields example of uPVC windows on Melville Street and the Reporter’s decision in Appendix 1). If so, what degree of non-action would set a precedent? (We can understand the Council might be unaware of a specific breach and that might explain a lack of action but are concerned that if for example a certain number of properties in a street have uPVC windows, it might become much harder for the Council to take action against similar breaches in future, not just on moral grounds of fairness but legal grounds too).
11) Have there ever been any cases of breach of planning requirements in the Pollokshields and Strathbungo Conservation Areas which have been prosecuted?
12) Has any enforcement action ever been taken in respect of felling or pruning of trees that has taken place without appropriate reasons in the conservation areas?

Strathbungo Society
Pollokshields Heritage
Pollokshields Community Council

8 May 2015