Planning Response: Ideas you might include

This page is a work in progress - check back to find out more as we worK through All 56 pages to give a thorough response to pertinent points of the Planning Application

Open Space

Open space is defined in Planning Advice Note 65 and referenced in the Glasgow City Council Open Space Strategy (points 1.6 and 1.8) as “greenspace consisting of any vegetated land or structure, water, path or geological feature within and on the edges of settlements, and civic space consisting of squares, market places and other paved or hard landscaped areas with a civic function”, and that “all spaces, regardless of ownership and accessibility (i.e. public and private spaces) contribute to the amenity and character of an area and can be taken into account by councils”. The latter point is important when considering Noah’s dismissive approach to the value of the existing greenspace because it was privately owned. It is still considered open space.

The site lies within an area identified in Glasgow City Council’s Open Space analysis as deficient in open space.

All open space in this area should be protected unless absolutely unavoidable. This proposal is not essential, and is in fact detrimental to the supply of open space in the area.

Open Space: Area and Quality of replacement

Noah have put forward a proposal which offers an area of open space that just barely scrapes 0.3ha (achieved with a most peculiar shaping), INCLUDING the footprint of the Pavilion/Clubhouse (albeit reduced in size as they propose to demolish the expansion areas to the front and side, thereby also significantly reducing the size and usefulness of the interior - but that’s another matter).

Under Planning Advice Note 65, structures are not identified as open space. Noah seem to have persuaded someone that this can be argued as a functional feature of the open space and therefore acceptable under the planning guidelines.

While it may be reasonable to consider structures as part of the infrastructure of large open spaces (such as the bandstand in Queens Park) when they compose a tiny fraction of the whole, it is very different to a building which takes up a large proportion of the overall space available.

As it stands, the proposal does not meet the basic minimum requirement of 0.3ha open space.

Additionally, the quality of the open space as detailed does not allow for an adequate replacement of the functionality of the existing site. The new space is oddly shaped in order to scrape to the minimum requirement and does not give space or shape for any formal games space.

Community Consultation

One of the reasons for the refusal of the first planning application was the lack of adequate community consultation.

Noah claim to have carried out community consultation for this renewed application at all stages of the process. However according to their Planning Statement, they only contacted the local community after they had already developed the design in collaboration with the Glasgow City Council Planning Officers. No discernible amendment in design (in scale/quantity of building, area taken up,

The ‘consultation event’ which took place in February 2022 did not offer the option of comparing the current situation with the proposed designs. Instead it offered participants the choice between two nearly-complete designs. In the Trust’s opinion, this does not meet the intention of the

Noah lists a series of out-of-area facilities in point 5.115 and claims in 5.116 ‘It is evident that Mount Florida area is well served in terms of demand led outdoor open space. Moreover we are not aware of these existing facilities experiencing any capacity issues, an indicator of there not being a need for additional facilities to satisfy demand’. There is no evidence that Noah have consulted the community or the named facilities regarding availability, capacity or waiting lists (for allotments). It is evident from the fact that Queens Park Tennis Courts are fully booked daily that there IS need for additional tennis, for example.