JORDANHILL SCHOOL Registered Company No. 108265 Registered Charity No. SC004463 45 Chamberlain Road, , , G13 1SP www.jordanhill.glasgow.sch.uk.

Rector: Dr P W Thomson BSc, PhD, Dip Ed Telephone: 0141 576 2500 Fax: 0141 576 2555 Ms Sarah Shaw Principal Delegated and Performance Development and Regeneration Services Exchange House 231 George Street Glasgow G1 1RX

28th April 2017

Dear Ms Shaw,

Application Reference: 17/00531/DC

Proposal Erection of residential development and associated infrastructure including conversion of listed and non-listed buildings, formation of car parking and provision of landscaping. Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 02, 06, 07 and 09 of Planning Permission in Principle consent 11/00794/DC.

Applicant: Cala Management

The Board of Managers of hereby makes representations against the above application as specified in the attached document.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Alexander Convenor of the Board of Managers Jordanhill School Neighbourhood Notification Notice

Reference: 17/00531/DC

Proposal Erection of residential development and associated infrastructure including conversion of listed and non-listed buildings, formation of car parking and provision of landscaping. Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 02, 06, 07 and 09 of Planning Permission in Principle consent 11/00794/DC.

Applicant: Cala Management

Respondent: Board of Managers Jordanhill School 45 Chamberlain Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow, G13 1SP

Introduction

The University of Strathclyde has acquired Minded to Grant Planning Permission in Principle (PPiP) Consent for a residential development on its Jordanhill campus and CALA now wishes to convert this consent into a deliverable scheme providing new homes through submission of this Matters Specified in Conditions (MSC) application.

In December 2016 Cala Homes held an information event designed “to allow the local community to familiarise with the existing PPP consent which establishes the acceptability of the proposed residential land uses and background to the site planning application history, and share information on the proposals”.

Cala note that “Given a PPP application for the site has been approved there is no requirement for formal Pre-Application Consultation, however, before submitting this planning application, CALA are undertaking this voluntary information event”.

The masterplan shared through the information event and the detailed proposals now submitted differ substantially from the proposals set out in Campus Plan 2 which forms the basis of the Planning Permission in Principle granted by Glasgow City Council in January 2013. It also diverges in the same respects from the requirements set out in the Report by the Executive Director of Development and Regeneration Services as approved by the Planning Application Committee.

Relevant excerpts from Campus Plan 2 and the report approved by the Planning Application Committee are provided in appendices 1 and 2 respectively for reference.

The proposals for the Jordanhill Campus are founded on a Section 75 Agreement 11/00794/DC. Jordanhill School received notification of the decision to grant in a letter dated 27 January 2017. However, the School did not receive any prior notification of the application and was not provided with any opportunity to comment on the application prior to decision.

Page | 1

The Board of Managers contends that significant material change has taken place between the initial granting of Planning Permission in Principle in January 2013 and the signing of the Section 75 Agreements 4 years later in January 2017.

This application should therefore be refused and the applicant should be required to resubmit the application taking proper cognisance of the conditions set out in the PPiP and the undertakings given in Campus Plan 2 and following full and meaningful consultation with the community including Jordanhill School.

The remainder of this submission sets out objections to specific aspects of the proposals.

Key Principles

The key principles for the development of the campus which form the basis of PPiP are set out in section 1.2 of Campus Plan 2. These are

 The protection of the strategic view of the David Stow building  A conservation plan for the B listed David Stow building  Proposals for the retention of University House  A building condition audit for all other buildings  A sustainable landscape and strategy and biodiversity plan  A sports pitch management plan  A comprehensive tree survey  A transport assessment and green travel plan

The proposals submitted do not protect the strategic view of the David Stow building and do not retain University House. The proposed number of dwellings exceeds the maximum stipulated and is some 17-21% above the figures suggested in Campus Plan 2. As such the plans fall outwith the parameters set in the Transport Assessment.

Objections

Plot 1 Area D: Walled Garden It is unclear from the master plan whether or not the remains of the 18th century wall to the east of the site have been incorporated or the pond to the west retained as stipulated in Campus Plan 2.

In the supporting documentation the committee report states that the general approach does not deviate from the Campus Plan 2 in that the intention would only be for residential development to take place on the land already designated residential with open space being left undeveloped.

However, the master plan shows a block of flats and 3 detached houses to be constructed outwith the confines of this area and adjacent to the playing fields (Figure 1).

Page | 2

Flats and houses on Green Space

Figure 1

The scale of the block of flats is in conflict with Campus Plan 2. It requires the felling of large numbers of trees (understood to be no. 73) contrary to the tree survey. In general, it is in conflict with the requirement to maintain the amenity of the area and an encroachment on green space contrary to Development Policy Principle DEV11 Greenspace of City Plan 2. Figure 2 shows the extent of green space to be maintained in Campus Plan 2 and which forms the basis of the PPiP granted in 2013.

Figure 2

Figure 3 shows the extent of green space designated for protection under the Section 75 agreement. The differences are significant and were not reported by officers.

Page | 3

The drawings provided by the developer are also inaccurate in that they include a strip of land owned by Jordanhill School. The correct boundary in the south-east corner is marked in red on figure 3. The boundary moved to the top of the slope when the school purchased land from the University in 2005. A new boundary fence was constructed at that time.

Maintenance route

School rugby pitch

Figure 3

Area leased by school

Correct boundary

An access road provides a route for maintenance vehicles to the north-eastern section of the playing fields leased by Jordanhill School from the University of Strathclyde and thereby to the rugby pitch to the rear of Jordanhill School (Figure 3). This route runs directly through the site of the proposed block of flats and the 3 detached dwellings. There is no vehicular access to these areas from the school campus.

The necessity to maintain this access route has been made clear to the University and their advisers JLL on numerous occasions. JLL are now advising Cala Homes. It is not acceptable that a development should impact on the maintenance of green space in this way. This issue was again brought to the attention of the developer prior to submissions of the MSC application. No alternative solution for the maintenance of the green space has been offered.

This route is also the principal path by which walkers move round the periphery of the playing fields. Closing this route is therefore contrary to the requirements set out in the PPiP 2013. Further, it would force walkers down onto the playing fields themselves creating a range of management issues relating to the separation of adults and children (pupils age 5-18), health and safety (dog fouling, littering and conflict with maintenance) and the potential need to limit public access.

In several meetings DRG has previously been unqualified in its requirement that there be no restrictions on public access to the existing green space. The proposals for the construction of flats and 3 houses in this area are in direct conflict with these requirements.

The 3 detached houses proposed are at the top of the slope immediately behind the try area of the rugby pitch. Inevitably balls will be kicked into the gardens of these houses on a routine basis.

Page | 4

David Stow Building

The plan does not retain either the Francis Tombs Hall or the former Council Chamber to provide civic or community amenities as stipulated.

The plan does not contain any alternative proposals to provide such community amenities or to otherwise leave a lasting legacy to the community which was the publicly expressed intent of the University.

Plot 12 Area C: University House The master plan proposes to demolish University House and construct 2 blocks of flats. This is entirely at odds with the PPiP

 It removes the strategic view of the David Stow building  The scale is hugely out of proportion to the indicative 2 detached dwellings.

The proximity of these flats to the adjacent school is inappropriate. The school has previously been given categorical assurance by the University of Strathclyde that and new buildings on this site would be no more than 2 detached dwellings.

If the provision of civic amenity within the David Stow building is to be lost, then the site of University House offers a suitable alternative area which is detached from the remainder of the campus.

Transport

The proposal utilises the road in front of the David Stow building and adjacent to the playing fields as a primary route contradicting Campus Plan 2 which states that its “qualities would be considerably compromised were it to act as a primary transport route through a new residential area”. The Transport Assessment prepared by JMP does not address this issue and offers no rationale for the change.

Access routes into and out of the area need to considered alongside the Sports Pitch Management Plan (see Green Space below). In the current absence of a coherent SPMP the circulation strategy would either create potential chaos at peak usage times (for the playing fields) or require a substantial (unidentified) area to be set aside for parking. The assessment by JMP does not consider traffic generated by use of the playing fields. This is a significant omission.

While the Transport Assessment considers the number of vehicle movements at the north and south entrances to the site, it does not consider movements along Chamberlain Road and the potential impact on the School and the safety of young people. This is likewise a significant failing.

The key determinant of vehicle movement and displacement activity in the area is the flow of traffic down Crow Road from Cross towards the . The flow of traffic through the junction of Crow Road and Southbrae Drive is the rate determining factor.

JMP has not consulted Jordanhill School in preparing any of its assessments.

Page | 5

Green Space

The PPiP assumes that the applicants “do not propose any development upon the existing Greenspace within the site”.

Overall, the master plan would see a diminution in the extent and quality of green space from that set out in Campus Plan 2. The open parkland is not being “extended through the site in a way which ‘stitches’ the development area to the established green space” as envisaged in Campus Plan 2.

The proposals for the walled garden site intrude on existing green space as detailed above. Those for University House would substantially reduce the amount of green space in this location and are at odds with the landscaping proposals set out in Campus Plan 2.

The PPiP identifies the future use and management of the playing fields as “One of the critical elements of the future development of the campus site”.

“Campus Plan 2 is also a material consideration and sets out that the pitches need to be used for the benefit of the local community, Jordanhill School, surrounding residents and local sports groups. These aims can be met through a management plan which can be controlled by the legal agreement. Accordingly, the agreement must require the preparation of a management plan which will ensure that formal and informal access to the pitches is retained and that any management body must be representative of the local community while not excluding other potential users or operators. The management plan must also outline ongoing maintenance obligations.”

“It is recognised that it would beneficial to all parties if the management body and plan is established in the short term and that it is not made a suspensive requirement to the submission of applications for MSC which may not take place until the site has been successfully marketed. Therefore the legal agreement shall require the establishment of a management body and submission of a management plan within a year of the grant of planning permission in principle unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council. The plan will ensure that the aims retaining the pitches and enabling beneficial community use are achieved.” (Our emphasis.)

The University of Strathclyde and Glasgow City Council have signed a Section 75 Agreement that would see that part of the playing fields not currently leased and operated by Jordanhill School being managed by Glasgow City Council Education Department and/or Glasgow Life. However, there has been no consultation with the local community, Jordanhill School, surrounding residents or local sports groups. Such a lease does not satisfy the commitments given by the University in Campus Plan 2 or the terms set out in the PPiP.

The key issue in relation to this application is that the use and management of the playing fields cannot be disassociated from the residential development proposals for the remainder of the site.

Bringing the playing fields back into active use (other than the area already leased by Jordanhill School) will require the provision of extensive car parking along with changing facilities. No meaningful consideration has been given to this.

There would, for example, be upwards of 60 cars seeking to park within the campus grounds on the main throughway every Saturday afternoon and on Sunday mornings and afternoons. There is Page | 6 no capacity for this and the transport assessment has not considered the impact of active use of the playing fields.

There is no capacity to create the essential changing facilities other than by building on green space. DRG has also explicitly rejected such solutions in previous discussions.

As described above, the proposals cut-off the main access route for maintenance vehicles for the leased area of the playing fields and also to the school grounds.

The key requirements of a coherent Sports Pitch Management Plan (SPMP) were set out in 2008 following dialogue involving the University of Strathclyde, DRG and community groups including Jordanhill School. It is unacceptable that no progress has been made on this over 8 years. The MSC application as it now stands is in contradiction to the previously stated requirements for the future management of the playing fields and must therefore be rejected.

Page | 7

Appendix 1: University of Strathclyde Jordanhill Campus Plan 2

Section Page Key Theme Scope and Purpose of Plan Report to Development and Regeneration Services 2007: “The council will expect Campus Plan (phase 2) to safeguard the quality of the important environmental policy designators within the site and to promote a quality urban design approach to enhance the amenity of Jordanhill as a select residential location.” Key principles for this are set out in 1.2.11 and 1.2.12 including 1.2.7 –  The protection of the strategic view of the David Stow building 6-7 1.2.12  A conservation plan for the B listed David Stow building  Proposals for the retention of University House  A building condition audit for all other buildings  A sustainable landscape and strategy and biodiversity plan  A sports pitch management plan  A comprehensive tree survey  A transport assessment and green travel plan

Open Space and Landscape 2.4 14 Key landscape character types  Extensive areas of mature trees around the perimeter enhance setting and create attractive areas for walks and wildlife.  Large open lawn directly in front of the David Stow building  Sports pitches providing valuable amenity for the school and the adjacent local community

Development of the sports pitch area would be contrary to national and local planning policy and would not be acceptable. It is necessary to retain and enhance the existing open space.

6.3 33 The University has undertaken a study into the potential options and mechanisms for transfer of the pitches to alternative ownership. Critical to this process is the requirement that the pitches are retained for community use in perpetuity, and that the pitches are appropriately managed and maintained. The University while disposing of their land interest at Jordanhill wish to ensure that the character and legacy of the pitches is retained.

Close consultation have been undertaken between the University, the Council and Jordanhill School with regard to the preparation of a Sport Pitch Management Plan. It is proposed that the land on which the sports pitches are located would be transferred to a Charitable Trust. The principle terms for the transfer of the existing playing fields have been drafted. Jordanhill School would be the main user of the pitches and meet the cost of maintenance and operation however there will be a specific requirement for the Trust membership to include representation from the local community and access by the local community.

The vision for the Charitable Trust is suggested as follows

“To safeguard the integrity of an unique grass sports pitches facility in Jordanhill for the benefit of future generations including Jordanhill School, the local community, surrounding residents and local sports groups.”

Page | 8

9.2.5 45 “It is essential that the open parkland in front of the David Stow building is not 9.2.11 developed – rather it should be extended through the site in a way which ‘stitches’ 9.2.16 the development area to the established green space ...” (Fig. 9.8)

Planning Policy “The expectation should be that all future applications proposing development with the cumulative floor space of 500 sq. or more should incorporate on site zero and 3.2.9 17 low carbon equipment contributing at least an extra 15% reduction in CO2 emissions beyond the 2007 building regulations regarding carbon dioxide emissions standard.”

Dev 11 – Green Space “There is a strong presumption in favour of the retention of all public and private 3.3.7 19 green/open space (see policy ENV 1: Open Space Protection).”

Transport 5.2.1 28 The main point of development access would be provided directly from Southbrae Drive, utilising the existing priority junction located to the immediate west of Westbrae Drive.

5.3.5- 29 Transport Assessment assumes a maximum provision of 400 dwellings and 5.3.6 acknowledges “the proposed development is likely to further exacerbate operational problems”.

9.2.4 44 “The road which runs in front of the David Stow building is an attractive and historic Fig. 9.8 route, however, its qualities would be considerably compromised were it to act as a primary transport route through a new residential area.” 9.2.7 45 “The primary access route can be consolidated around the periphery of the site. By following this principle, traffic can be directed away from the extended landscape. The south-east entrance would be the primary means of access to the site, with the north-east entrance as a secondary access, serving a smaller development area to the north.”

Plot 1 Area D: Walled Garden 9.3.3 52 The remains of the 18th century wall to the east of the site should be incorporated into any new proposals, and a reinterpretation of the idea of a walled garden would be a desirable way of engaging with this history.

9.3.5 53 A mixture of two and three storey accommodation is desirable. The height of the new development should reflect the existing housing stock to the east (Munro Drive) and in the surrounding area.

9.3.7 53 It is essential that the pond to the west is retained.

David Stow Building 9.3.94 74 It is desirable that the two most significant rooms in the David Stow building – Francis Tombs Hall on the second floor and the former Council Chamber on the ground floor – are not converted to apartments but remain intact as civic or community amenities.

Plot 12 Area C: University House 9.3.98 75 It is essential that the scale of the dwellings reflect that of University House. Detached dwellings would be appropriate. The massing should reflect, but not dominate, University House. Indicative units - 2

Page | 9

Appendix 2: Planning Permission in Principle

Extracts from the report by Executive Director of Development and Regeneration Services as approved by the Planning Application Committee on 15th January 2013

B. Summary of the terms of any Section 75 planning agreement

A legal agreement is required in relation to preventing any future development on the greenspace as defined in City Plan 2 (subject to detailed analysis of the designation boundaries) along with the protection of the sports pitches. This will require that the pitches are retained and maintained in perpetuity and that an appropriate management body shall be formed and management plan prepared and agreed in writing by the Council and then implemented within one year of the of the grant of planning permission in principle under reference 11/00794/DC unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council.

Assessment and Conclusions

DPP DEV 11 Greenspace outlines that all green/open space areas (regardless of their size or purpose) are functionally important elements of Glasgow’s green infrastructure and that there is a strong presumption in favour of the retention of all public and private green/open space. The applicants have made it clear through Campus Plan 2, the illustrative masterplan submitted with the application and their supporting documents that they do not propose any development upon the existing Greenspace within the site. Given this position it is considered that any future application for MSC could be adequately controlled by conditions and or agreements attached to any grant of planning permission in principle to prevent any development on the Greenspace. On this basis it is considered that, subject to such restrictions, the proposal would not be contrary to the Greenspace DPP. (Page 7)

(Pages 9-10) Policy ENV 1 Open Space Protection reinforces the Greenspace Development Policy Principle in protecting areas of formal and informal open space from inappropriate development. It also outlines that there is a strong presumption in favour of the retention of all public and private open/green space. From the details submitted, including the illustrative masterplan, the applicant’s intention is clear in that they do not propose to develop any of the greenspace within the site. Given that this application is merely covering the principle of development (as well as access) there is no detailed layout which can be used to control the extent of development. However, a condition attached to any approval can ensure that future applications for MSC do not show any development on greenspace.

One of the critical elements of the future development of the campus site is how the three sports pitches and associated training area contained within the Greenspace designation are dealt with. Campus Plan 2, as required by the Council, outlined the preparation of a Sports Pitch Management Plan which would see the land containing the pitches transferred to a charitable trust with the broad aim of ensuring the retention and safeguard of the pitches for the benefit of the wider community in perpetuity. At that time the Campus Plan identified Jordanhill School’s Educational Amenities Trust as a potential body to own and operate the pitches.

Since the submission of the current application, the school have made representations outlining their case that the Educational Amenities Trust would be the best vehicle for managing the pitches. They state that they already lease approximately 40% of the open space from the University (one pitch and one training area) under a long term agreement. They also explain that the Trust constitution could be amended to ensure appropriate community representation, while it is outlined that they have a proven track record in sustaining high levels of community use and that they are in a position to meet their estimate of annual running costs of £50,000.

At the same time, the University have outlined that it is now their intention to retain ownership of the pitches as they see this is the best means of ensuring they are safeguarded from development and retained for future use.

Page | 10

The University has explained that they would not rule out management being transferred to the Educational Amenities Trust, however, they wish to retain flexibility to investigate all avenues for a management body and are therefore have been reluctant to commit to a single approach. The SPMP, which was expected to be agreed during the sale of the site has not materialised. This may primarily be due to the fact that the anticipated sale of the site did not take place due the collapse of the housing market.

Ultimately, the ownership of the pitches is not a material planning matter and it would be inappropriate for the Council to seek to control this. Furthermore, it would not be appropriate for the Council to seek to promote one body over another in agreeing the future management of the pitches. That said it is recognised that the Campus Plan identified an aspiration that the pitches are retained and safeguarded for the benefit of the wider community. In light of this, it is considered appropriate for the Council to request that the management body does reflect wider community interest in the land.

It is expected that the management plan which will be prepared by the management body shall include details of how the long term funding of the pitches shall be delivered and the submission of these details can be controlled via the Sec 75 legal agreement.

In terms of Policy ENV1 and the Greenspace DPP designation, the key criterion is the retention of the pitches and resisting any pressure to see them developed. It is considered that in order to deliver adequate control to achieve this, a legal agreement must be attached to any grant of Planning Permission in Principle. Such an agreement would contain wording ensuring that the pitches shall be retained, in accordance with agreed details, in perpetuity.

Campus Plan 2 is also a material consideration and sets out that the pitches need to be used for the benefit of the local community, Jordanhill School, surrounding residents and local sports groups. These aims can be met through a management plan which can be controlled by the legal agreement. Accordingly, the agreement must require the preparation of a management plan which will ensure that formal and informal access to the pitches is retained and that any management body must be representative of the local community while not excluding other potential users or operators. The management plan must also outline ongoing maintenance obligations.

The school, under their lease, has an obligation to maintain the pitches they use while the University has advised that they continue to maintain the other pitches. This maintenance regime can be accommodated within the legal agreement at least until such time as a formal management body and plan is established.

It is recognised that it would beneficial to all parties if the management body and plan is established in the short term and that it is not made a suspensive requirement to the submission of applications for MSC which may not take place until the site has been successfully marketed. Therefore the legal agreement shall require the establishment of a management body and submission of a management plan within a year of the grant of planning permission in principle unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council. The plan will ensure that the aims retaining the pitches and enabling beneficial community use are achieved.

Subject to the completion of such an agreement the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy ENV1.

Page | 11