On 16/02, Calton Community Council submitted a response of objection to application 23/00026/FUL, aka the erection of residential flatted dwellings (65 units) with access, parking, amenity space, landscaping and associated works at 58-72 Charlotte Street. You can read our response to the application below, which was informed by community reactions and conversations with local residents, as well as the discussion at our public meeting on 09/02. We struggled to fit all of our views into the 2000-character limit, and therefore unfortunately we could not represent those who feel that the application is not sensitive to the existing listed buildings.
Calton Community Council objects for the following reasons:
- The daylight report has inaccuracies that invalidate the stance that existing buildings won’t be affected by this development. These issues have been addressed by Dr Margaret Hawthorne, but to summarise, in Figure 3, flats 14-16 are shown as below BRE guidance, despite being unobstructed like the upper floors of 65 Greendyke St. Furthermore, Table 7 does not acknowledge the first-floor windows in 14-16 Lanark St., despite them being visible in Figure 9.
- The existing materiality of the site (page 20, Design Statement) is important when building in a conservation area, and we are grateful that the applicant acknowledged this. However, we fail to see how these materials have affected the design (page 58). Instead, the materiality seems to make reference to the other tenement reinterpretations across Glasgow.
- This application makes no reference to the type of housing that it creates. We feel that there is a high demand for housing in the area, and the site is appropriate for residential use, but we are keen to see affordable homes that encourage long-term residents, instead of short-term rentals.
- Finally, we feel that the building’s scale is still a little high. Though the Community Council appreciates the justification given, we feel that the applicant has taken their influence from the city centre. The applicant has failed to acknowledge residential areas such as Claythorn to the North East of the site. This is made up of 2-3 story homes, and we are concerned that tall buildings will continue to encroach into our border, and put existing buildings out of scale. Hence, we do not feel that the proposal is an appropriate “response to the emerging skyline of the wider urban context” as quoted from page 40 of the Design Statement.
If these points are answered we will reconsider, as we appreciate that this application increases residential footfall in the area and will encourage Calton’s regeneration.
