AN appeal has been lodged over Glasgow City Council’s rejection of a plan for a major residential development beside the canal near Speirs Wharf.
The city’s planning committee voted in February to reject an application for 182 build-to-rent flats on a gap site between Sawmillfield Street and Farnell Street.
City planning officials had recommended approval for the development which was also to have had a commercial unit, gym and a rehearsal space as well as public realm improvements.
Councillors voted 11:4 against because of concerns overthe height, scale, density and layout, and the level of on-site amenity provision.
Applicant Hoxton Securities are now hoping the SCottish Government’s planning and environmental appeals division will overturn the decision.
Their appeal statement argues: “It is submitted that the application in terms of its approach to design, scale and open space is appropriate for the site, the development type and surrounding area.
“In coming to that conclusion, weight has been given to the wider townscape with its varying building heights, the rising topography towards Dundashill, the flexibility encouraged for build-to-rent developments by Scottish Government guidance and the accessibility of the site to the city centre, canal embankment and sustainable modes of transport.
“In terms of the other material considerations, the proposed development will reuse a longstanding vacant brownfield site, catalyse wider regeneration, deliver jobs and enhance pedestrian access to the canal towpath (including for wheelchair users).
“The north tower will also act as a landmark in a rejuvenated part of North Glasgow and the connections to the canal and surrounding spaces will transform the character of the streetscape. These material considerations are compelling and, it is submitted, outweigh the committee’s concerns.
“This is further supported by the weak, and in cases invalid, reasons for refusal contrary to the officer’s recommendation. The officer recommendation was arrived at based on extensive and positive co-operation and genuine engagement.”
It continues: “Should this development not proceed, at least £50 million (and potentially significantly more) of direct and indirect investment in the area and the resultant regeneration benefits will be lost; in such event the site is likely to remain vacant for the foreseeable future.”
Two buildings were proposed — one with 20 floors, the other with 12 — either side of a landscaped central access ramp giving level access to the canal towpath.
Both buildings were to have had roof gardens and would have contained a mixture of studio, one, two and three-bedroom flats.
A range of landscaped amenity spaces were to be provided including a street with shared surface and plaza at the building entrances.
Permission had previously been granted for student accommodation at the site but that was not implemented.