Letter and Response.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
JORDANHILL SCHOOL Registered Company No. 108265 Registered Charity No. SC004463 45 Chamberlain Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow, 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 Glasgow City Council 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 Jordanhill School 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”.