A revised planning application (Ref 18/00920/FUL, available here for viewing and comments) has been submitted for the erection of a residential development of 31 flats (six storeys, eight parking spaces) at 100 Finlay Drive, Dennistoun, Glasgow G31 2RQ (‘Dennistoun Gospel Hall’, previously ‘Dennistoun Picture House‘).
The previous application for this site (submitted in November 2017) was refused in February 2018. The letter of objection submitted by Dennistoun Community Council can be viewed here.
The last date for comments on this revised April 2018 submission is Tuesday 15th May 2018. DCC has submitted the below objection:
Please record this correspondence as a an objection to the planning application reference 18/00920/FUL for 100 Finlay Drive for the reasons stated below, which are to be considered a reflection of the extensive discussion with and between members of the public in attendance at the Dennistoun Community Council meeting held on 8th May 2018.
- The building design is not in keeping with neighbouring buildings.
Although some changes have been made to the elevations in comparison to refused application ref 17/02477/DC, these are minor amendments in the context of the design taken as a whole and with the surrounding locality. They do not address the issue of the overall proposed design and material usage not being in keeping with the look, design and heritage of neighbouring buildings and the local area.
- The building will significantly restrict the light into existing tenements.
The elevations and design & access statement show a 6 storey building with the full extent of the roof construction protruding beyond the extents established by the surrounding buildings. This will cause overshadowing that will significantly reduce the natural light to existing neighbouring dwellings.
- Parking allocation
Parking is an especially contentious issue in Dennistoun. The proposed provision of 8 parking spaces for 31 dwellings is not considered acceptable as it will, without any doubt, have a knock-on effect in an already congested area for parking.
While there are local transport options in place, current provision falls short of what could be considered reasonable in order to sanction the proposed parking provision. For example, the active travel facilities that would help alleviate parking space pressures, such as dedicated cycle infrastructure to and along Duke Street and Alexandra Parade, higher quality local pedestrian provision, and accessible facilities at Bellgrove Station for users unable to take the stairs.
With reference to the City Development Plan (‘CDP’), Supplementary Guidance SG11 (‘SG11’), and Design Guide for New Residential Areas (‘Design Guide’), the SG11 states that
“Where off-road parking provision is wholly unallocated or is less than 1 space per dwelling, a management plan should be submitted by the developer and agreed by the Council.”
and that the variation in parking provision below 1 space per dwelling and 0.25 visitor spaces per dwelling must be justified, taking into account
“existing pressure on on-street parking in the surrounding area.”
It is unacceptable that neither the management plan, a justification, or an approval of it by the Council have been published as part of this planning application.
It is noted that the proposal is to allocate the parking spaces to specific individual flats, which is a highly inefficient option and likely to result in lengthy periods where spaces are left vacant. As an absolute minimum requirement, off-street unallocated parking spaces should be a requirement for this development (i.e. all spaces should be made available for the use of all of the proposed flats, or visitors to them) to allow maximum utility of the available spaces.
The City Development Plan states
“The Council will expect parking in residential developments to minimise routine on-street parking of residents’ cars”.
and the SG11 requires that
“In determining development applications, the Council will consider whether restrained parking provision is likely to lead to problems of overspill parking. Where this is projected, the Council will seek to introduce a CPZ around the development site. The developer will be expected to contribute towards the costs of the promotion of the associated Traffic Regulation Order.”
Similarly, the Design Guide states that
“if a proposed scheme includes less than the minimum level of allocated parking, a Traffic Regulation Order may require to be promoted at the developer’s expense”
but that
“good design should not be dependent on a Traffic Regulation Order.”
and
“The way parking is handled is a major factor in determining the quality of a residential development. Parked vehicles can dominate the environment, affecting both how areas look and residents’ and visitors’ perception of safety. Good design should accommodate the requirements of car users, while locating parking appropriately to minimise its visual and physical impact in the street.”
This application, therefore, should either be accompanied by the requirement for a TRO/RPZ/CPZ, or acknowledged as bad design.
In addition to the foregoing comments, GCC have confirmed Dennistoun as a high priority for the introduction of an RPZ/CPZ. It is therefore suggested that an advisory note be attached to the decision notice stating that residents will be ineligible for residents’ parking permits in any future RPZ/CPZ.
- Overdevelopment of the site
The application and design & access statement show an L shaped building with the footprint being a large part of the site itself. While some provision is made for refuse and parking we feel that to incorporate 31 units in this design is over development and would object on that basis. No mention is made as to the future siting (or indeed, the expansion) of the recycling facilities currently situated on the corner of Finlay Drive and Armadale Street. There would be an opportunity for the inclusion of a Co-wheels car space should this development go ahead which we would like to see taken into consideration before a decision is made on this application.
