The Council has turned down the application although the applicant still has a right of appeal
Category: Planning (Page 4 of 6)
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.
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.
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
The planning application to create a rear door for Sammy Dow’s, change the frontage and knock a new entrance gate through the boundary wall, has been given the green light by both planning officers and the Planning Committee. The window planned for the back has thankfully been dropped.
It has been a monumentally long wait – since April – but it was decided by councillors of the Planning Committee to grant the application on the 19th of August.
Prior to this, nobody on the planning team would even confirm whether it would go to committee. Then when it was recommended by planners and passed to the committee, none of the many objectors was informed of the date and time. This means that Strathbungo residents were denied the chance to go to witness the process. This is despite many requests to the department for notification of the date.
The Planning Portal on Glasgow City Council’s website still lists it as “pending decision” which is an unacceptable delay in letting people know about an important planning application. I only got access to the report which gives the details yesterday, the 8th of September.
The good news is the fact that councillors seem to have understood and shared our concern that this was really a new entrance/exit to the pub and that the deck was intended as a place for people to smoke. Therefore a stringent condition was attached, by councillors, to the permission :
“For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of clarity the fire exit to the rear shall be used as a fire exit only and a break glass system used at all times hereafter and shall not be used for any other purpose, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority”
This clause means unless there is a fire in the building (which we would sincerely hope there never is) the door at the back of the pub should never be open. If it ever is, we must report it to the Planning Department immediately.
Although there will be disappointment at the fact the plan has been granted approval, this condition is the result of strong co-ordinated objection from residents. It proves it’s worth the cost of a stamp or the click of a ‘send’ button.
I would like to thank everyone who lives in the area who helped with the objections. Thank you must also go to our MSP Nicola Sturgeon, Cllr MacLeod, Cllr Meikle and Cllr Raja who made their views known and supported residents.
You can read the report and judgment by following the links below.
If you want to object to the Spirit Pub Company creating a new way in and out of Sammy Dow’s, a new gate into the lanes, a raised outside deck and a large new window looking out over the back of Nithsdale Road, Moray Place and Regent Park Square , you need to do it soon…
The last date for objections to be in is Friday the 25th of April 2014 – unless you got a letter from the council about the application, in which case it is the 29th of April 2014.
The proposed deck and stairs leading to a new door into the back of the pub, will create noise and disturbance for anyone in the first block of Moray Place, the homes at the end of Regent Park Square and the homes nearby in Nithsdale Road. The music will be much louder with open doors and windows… It is also likely that footfall will increase in the lanes across much of Strathbungo, as people take shortcuts to and from this new entrance and exit.
It’s vital that as many people as possible object to the plans so, if you would like some ideas and pointers, please download the document below. Feel free to adapt, add, subtract and personalise it.
You can see the application on the city council website – link below.
Objections can be done via the council website if you create a login or you can simply email the planning department.
planning.representations@drs.glasgow.gov.uk
Last year many Bungo residents were relieved to hear that The Spirit Pub Company of Burton on Trent were refused planning permission to create an outdoor deck at the back of the building for smoking and drinking and to give access to the rear court and side lane. They were also refused permission and Listed Building Consent to change the frontage of the Sammy Dow.
Families living within meters of the pub were understandably very worried about the impact of people being on a raised deck, smoking, drinking and creating noise so close to bedrooms.
The company, which controls 750 pubs across the UK, has now put in another very similar application.
The deck is still in the plan but smaller. It is now being described as a fire escape. The worry is that the glass door out will be opened all the time by customers using it as an alternative entrance and exit and that people will stand on this deck to smoke. This will be a noise nuisance in it’s own right, but the noise from the venue will also be much louder if there is an open door.
New access to the lane is still to be created by removing part of the wall. They also want to create a large rear window which will look straight into the back of properties on Regent Park Square and Moray Place. It will also leak noise. Existing windows on the Moray Place side (which are currently filled with glass bricks) are to be clear glass causing an issue with overlooking and again with noise leak.
There is renewed concern that this new application for an exit at the back of the property will still cause the leaking of noise, will constantly be opened by customers to smoke outside and will cause a huge increase in footfall in the lane as people come and go all day and night at the private side of our houses.
There is nothing in the plans which would prevent these uses for the new deck, stairs and access gate. It is puzzling that something as basic and workaday as a fire escape (which we all would hope is never needed except in an emergency) is being created in costly materials like glass balustrading and has features like a privacy screen which would surely be redundant.
The date by which you must lodge any objection is Tuesday the 29th of April – so if you want to object please do it as soon as possible.
I intend to share more ideas and information on the relevant grounds for objecting as soon as possible so keep checking the Bungo Blog.
Details of plans are available by clicking the link below.
You still have time before Friday the 28th, to put in an objection to the plans by Spirit Pub Group to create a drinking and smoking area in the back garden of the tenement at 69 Nithsdale Road. They also want to completely change the frontage of this B-Listed building, losing traditional features and adding ugly metal roller shutters.
The intrusion of people on a 2 meter high deck looking into the homes and gardens of residents in Nithsdale Road, Regent Park Square and Moray Place is unacceptable. There will also be the noise and disturbance on the traditionally quiet side of residential homes – year round.
You can see the plans by visiting the Glasgow City Council Online Planning website :
If you would like some pointers on issues that the planners will consider to be ‘material’ or relevant have a look at this document :
Send your objection via email to the Planning Department at :
planning.representations@drs.glasgow.gov.uk
It is important that people in Strathbungo make their feelings about this development proposal clear. If one business gets permission then others could follow and the residential amenity, which makes this a great place to live and bring up a family, will be lost. The proposal for a hostel in Marywood Square was thankfully rejected and community objections were an important part of that process so please take a moment to respond to this equally disruptive plan.
The City Council’s planning review committee met this morning to decide on the appeal against the planning application refusal for the proposed hostel at 23 Marywood Square.
The committee voted unanimously to uphold the planning department’s decision to refuse planning consent, citing City Plan 2, RES 15 and the conservation area appraisal.
Four objectors managed to attend the review meeting, including the chair of the Society. The applicant was also present.
Glasgow City Council has noted that objections to the Spirit Pub Group’s application for Full Planning & Listed Building Consent for Sammy Dows, will be accepted up to Thursday 6 June. You can make an objection either online or by writing to Development & Regeneration Services, 231 George Street, Glasgow G1 1RX.
The proposals – which include a raised 2.2 m (7ft) decking area for drinking and smoking to the rear and adjacent to the private, residences and gardens of Nithsdale Road, Moray Place and Regent Park Square – are damaging to the area’s amentiy and contrary to several City Council planning policies.
It is important that neighbours use this opportunity to formally object to the proposal, not least as it could, if won, be used by other local establishments to pursue the same (ie intrusion into private, residential amenity of our back courts, gardens and homes).
FinalPlanObjections-Sammy Dows gives full details of key planning policies relevant to this application. Compotent objections must refer to key planning policies and be in your own words.
To object online, use this link here:
To see Spirit Pub Group’s proposals use this link here:
© 2026 The Strathbungo Society
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑
Recent Comments