By John Winfield, chairman, and John Grierson, secretary, Jordanhill Community Council
IN this column last month, were were given an insight into the world according to CALA Homes, a world in which the Jordanhill community are seen as jeopardising the future intellectual and economic growth of Glasgow, a world that bemoans “more political involvement” and “unnecessary delays in the planning system”.
Yes, the prospects are good for Glasgow. Yes, Scotland has a housing shortage. And yes, Jordanhill could benefit with a developer which recognises that there is more to designing places than hard economics. Shamefully, the importance of Jordanhill Campus, a Site of Special Landscape Importance, containing ancient, long-established woodland boasting the listed David Stow building, has been forgotten by the University of Strathclyde’s principal and senate, and their preferred developer.
In 2010/11 the community honestly believed, through public participation and collaboration, we were shaping our legacy as part of the university’s Campus Plan 2. The university has reneged on statutory obligations as represented by spatial, economic and community coherence of its masterplan, which was approved by the planning applications committee subject to conditions in 2013. Subsequent “hidden agenda” legal agreements have permitted significant departures from that plan, including changes in conservation-led boundaries that define character landscape areas simply to accommodate an unacceptable increase in residential densities.
The planning decision notice of 2017 granting planning permission in principle ignores community opinions. At a time when climate change is high on sustainability agendas, the loss of open space along with the destruction of 72 protected mature trees is unacceptable.
There is a better way. That way is outlined in a Community Value Proposition produced by Jordanhill Community Council with support from Jordanhill Out of School Service Ltd, Jordanhill School Educational Amenities Trust Fund (Jseat) and neighbouring community councils. This invited constructive dialogue, but was dismissed by the university and has fallen on deaf ears from other stakeholders.
The rhetoric of the city’s new administration setting out an “agenda to revitalise Glasgow” based on “a planning system fit for purpose” already has a hollow ring. Where is our local place plan and how does it interface with the city development plan to combine in the delivery of places for the public good? At a time when there is a measured landscape skill loss from local authorities we must stop this special site becoming a sacrificial lamb to benefit future placemaking priorities. Major opportunities exist right here, right now by retaining University House and integrating a community village connecting to Jordanhill School’s South Campus, at its heart a community centre including shared spaces for nursery, pre-school education and after-school care to meet local needs.
Jseat, in partnership with local schools, sports clubs and community groups would deliver a transparent community pitches and sports pitches management plan. The current proposal, for education services to take over, offers no prospect of meaningful community design and access including sports changing provision.
Jordanhill Community Council believes that significant flaws have been exposed in the planning system worthy of serving a judicial review petition. We are not prepared to accept a bullish “business as usual” approach by the local authority that we feel undermines the legal process. We demand that community opinion be heard over profiteering. It’s time for intervention by the Scottish Government.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel