Representation on Planning application 24/02728/FUL
Erection of mixed-use development, including retail (Class 1A), food and drink (Class 3 and Sui Generis), business and commercial uses (Class 4), non-residential institutions (Class 10), assembly and leisure (Class 11), residential (Build to Rent, Co-Living and Sui Generis), purpose built student accommodation, alterations to arches, and associated landscaping, public realm, access and infrastructure works.
Site At Former College Street Goods Yard Adjacent To No 4 Parsonage Square Glasgow
Calton Community Council met on 12 December and discussed the above planning application. On balance the community council objects to the current proposal. There were a mix of positive and negative views and concerns expressed at the meeting and the Chair thought the only positive view of this proposal was that the land has lain empty for a long time.
After the 12 December meeting, the community council was contacted by email by one resident seeking support for their grounds of objection. It is understood from that resident that they have already submitted their objection to this application. The resident attended a previous community council meeting at which the pre-application consultation proposals were discussed in respect of this application.
1. Support for and objection to the principle of development
The site is long-term vacant and some views were that the principle of its redevelopment would be beneficial and should therefore be supported subject to significant concerns about the details.
A member of the community council raised an objection to the principle of development commenting that the application site is required for alternative development (railway formation). Concerns were raised that the site should not be developed as proposed but should be safeguarded from development to ensure it remains available should the Crossrail scheme (including the High Street Railway Chord, also known as the St John’s Link connecting the City Union Railway Line to the Queen Street Low Level Line) be revived as a funded project.
2. Objection to the detail of development: insufficient car parking spaces
Concerns were raised by some members of the community council and members of the public that the future residents would not have enough on-site parking spaces, and that would lead to unwelcome pressure on nearby private car parks. Car users living in the proposed development would be likely to leave vehicles in nearby private car parks without being entitled to park there because their own development lacks sufficient car parking spaces.
While recognising that capacity may exist at for example the Duke Street multi-storey car park, some members of the community council and members of the public expressed concerns that this car park is not safe to use because it has been reported that there have been issues there that have caused Police to be called.
3. Objection to the detail of development: public transport and infrastructure does not support development at this location
Concerns were raised by members of the community council and by members of the public that development at that location should not take place until better public transport services are put in place, to compensate for the lack of a private car until passing bus services are in place, and until the proposed upgrade of High Street railway station has taken place (there is no disabled access to the station).
While recognising that the developer is not responsible for wholly delivering these essential improvements, it was felt that they would be necessary should planning permission be granted for the proposed development.
Concerns were also raised by members of the community council and members of the public that a City Deal project to fund Transport Scotland to deliver a bridge over High Street station at the north boundary of the site has been shelved. This bridge is a necessary piece of infrastructure for the proposed development because the lack of north-south connectivity has previously been highlighted in City Deal papers and by the application as a particular barrier to movement.
4. Objection to the detail of development: height and capacity
Concerns were raised by members of the community council and members of the public that the proposed height of development is too great. Separately, some views were expressed that the site does not have capacity for the level of development proposed.
