134 Renfrew Street

Summary:

In 2011 the plan for student accommodation at 134 Renfrew was granted planning approval, however development on site did not take place. However the owner has submitted another planning application in June 2014 (taken from City Council Planning website):

“Erection of mixed use development comprising student accommodation and retail (Class 1 unit), including use of existing retail unit and basement level car parking associated with Fleming House as student accommodation – (amended drawings): resubmssion of application 10/01837/DC.”

 

History:

  • The site was originally used as a tram depot
  • Flemming House was developed on the site (~1960)
  • Oct 2003 – A planning application (Ref: 03/01668) for a 5 storey development was accepted, but eventually lapsed (due to financial reasons).
  • May 2010 – A planning application (Ref: 10/00840/DC) for an 8 story development of student accommodation was rejected at planning application committee stage.
  • Aug 2010 – A 2nd planning application (Ref: 10/01837/DC) mostly identical to the May 2010 plan is submitted.
  • Aug 2010 – The planning decision of the 1st proposal (Ref: 10/00840/DC) is appealed by the developer.
  • Nov 2010 – The appeal of the 1st application (Ref: 10/00840/DC) is dismissed
  • Feb 2011 – The 2nd application (Ref: 10/01837/DC) is revised (recessed top floor, design materials and layout)
  • June 2011 – The 2nd planning application (Ref: 10/01837/DC) is accepted after several delayed decisions and a site visit by the planning application committee
  • June 2014 – Another planning application (Ref: 14/01362/DC) is submitted for the same site
  • Sept 2014 – The planning application (Ref: 14/01362/DC) was considered by the Planning Applications Committee, which then approved the application by 9 votes to 2. No SNP councillors were in attendance.

Link to current and previous planning application on City Council website.

If this says ‘expired’ then go ahead and do a Simple Search for:
14/01362/DC
10/01837/DC

Captured here from the current planning application:

14_01362_DC-FULL_PLANNING_PERMISSION-3101957

14_01362_DC-LOCATION_PLAN-3102563

14_01362_DC-DESIGN_AND_ACCESS_STATEMENT-3103042

14_01362_DC-PLAN_-_NEIGHBOUR_NOTIFICATION-3106708

14_01362_DC-ARTISTIC_IMPRESSIONS_SHEET_1_OF_4-3102569

14_01362_DC-ARTISTIC_IMPRESSIONS_SHEET_2_OF_4-3102574

ARTISTIC_IMPRESSIONS_SHEET_3_OF_4-3102925 14_01362_DC-

ARTISTIC_IMPRESSIONS_SHEET_4_OF_4-3101946

 

Judith has very helpfully compiled a list of points for objection along with details of where to email or post your own objection:

points for objections

Objection letter lodged by Garnethill Community Council:

134 Renfrew Street – Garnethill Community Council Objections

Advertisements

5 Responses to 134 Renfrew Street

  1. Pingback: Planning Committee Visit to 134 Renfrew Street | Garnethill Community

  2. Pingback: Grim news for 134 Renfrew Street Development | Garnethill Community

  3. Pingback: Community Council Meeting – Tuesday 8th July 2014 | Garnethill Community

  4. spe69 says:

    I note that the documents said it “will lead to the permanent loss of parking spaces”, but it is not only the several on the surface that will go. Also, a number (several?) will be lost from the underground Fleming House garage, due to the needs of foundations, structural support, plant rooms, cycle storage, etc, for the new 134 Renfrew Street building.

    The image below & attached illustrates my concern over residents’ parking. I think we GhCC need to be eternally vigilant.

    For want of a better suggestion, perhaps we could propose road space rental by developers, contractors, etc., rather as on motorway maintenance & upgrading work, to discourage use of road space by such firms & to encourage its availability or equivalent for residents.

    As a starting price, I would suggest a rental price no less than the average of car parking charges in the area.
    That would be a lot for a developer removing 20 places for 100 years!
    Say 20 x £10 x 365 x 100 = £7.3 million.

    Inline images 1

    I note that the documents also quote a capital value of parking, £20,000 per place I think. It would be interesting to know the basis for this.

    Furthermore, if we knew the rates & council tax revenues to be produced by the development, we might then form an opinion as to whether this might be a factor having a tendency in favor of council approval.

  5. spe69 says:

    Long ago, it was Government practice to charge companies for the road space they took over in the course of building works, etc. The following extract, recently found, gives the idea:-
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring

    A Roads Policy for London
    Prepared by: Peter Brown, September 2009, Report Number 09/129

    Challenges and opportunities for maintaining and improving road transport operations in London
    ——————————————————————————————-
    The introduction of road space (lane) rental, whereby the utility companies pay a rate, differentiated by location and time of day, for the road space they occupy would certainly incentivise them to carefully plan when they will undertake works and how they expedite them. The charges levied should be constructed to reasonably reflect the value of the piece of ‘real-estate’ occupied and the cost to society of any delay imposed. The concept is no different to that of on-street paid parking – why should a private utility company enjoy free road space when the motorist has to pay to park in such space? Lane rental has parallels also with a differentiated road user charging regime.

    Government has been reluctant to progress such a road space rental option due to the potential inflationary effect on consumers utility bills. Trials a few years ago in Camden and Middlesborough, were argued to be inconclusive and the utilities lobbied extensively and successfully against any expansion of the trial. However, it was undoubtedly in the utility companies’ interests not to change their behaviour and accordingly to carry additional lane rental cost for the trial period and areas, so as to be in a position to argue that such a regime was both ineffective and inflationary!

    The regulatory environment would allow legitimate road space rental charges to be passed on to the consumer. A key issue currently is the difficulty of differentiating what would be legitimate costs to pass onto the consumer and what costs should be carried by the utility company for tardy or otherwise poor performance, as the regulators are not equipped to address this.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    It is recommended that the Mayor, through TfL, engages now with Government and the regulators to seriously explore:

    • A road space rental framework that would enable regulators to differentiate between the quality of utilities’ street works and to only pass on to the consumer the rental cost incurred where works have been properly planned and executed/expedited.
    ——————————————————————————————-

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s