The following letter has been sent from the Chairperson & Secretary of Jordanhill Community Council to the Herald letters editor, in response to the letter by Jim McIntyre, Managing Director, CALA Homes (West) in the Herald on October 30 (“Jordanhill Campus development plans aim to benefit the community”).
Jordanhill Community Council wishes to respond to the letter by Jim McIntyre, Managing Director, CALA Homes (West) in the Herald on October 30 (“Jordanhill Campus development plans aim to benefit the community”). This letter is mischievous, raising a number of serious misconceptions and inaccuracies that require clarification.
The University of Strathclyde generally fulfilled their statutory obligations between 29th October 2010 and 3rd March 2011 by undertaking pre-application consultation (PAC) with statutory consultees, key stakeholders and the community. Engagement findings were documented in a PAC Report that was validated by the planning authority on 6th April 2011.
This process added value by improving the quality of the emerging planning permission in principle proposal. It incorporated Community opinions that were reflected in the Jordanhill Campus Plan 2 that was approved, subject to Condition(s) and a Section 75 Agreement for protection of the sports pitches, by the Planning Applications Committee (PAC) on 15 January 2013.
Included were the retention of public spaces for community use within the David Stow Building, new developments to be more or less restricted to the footprints of the 60/70s buildings proposed for demolition, landscape character areas would be enhanced, the site would be kept free from on-street residents’ parking; in addition the award winning University House would be retained. Jordanhill School Educational Amenities Trust Fund was recognised as an appropriate charitable vehicle to safeguard the sports pitches for the benefit of the wider community.
On 21 December 2016 the University’s preferred developer, CALA, hosted a Public Information Event in the David Stow building to present Matters Specified in Conditions (MSC) proposals under development. This non-statutory event, giving a limited overview, created confusion as the MSC proposals were significantly different from the community-led principles of the approved Campus Plan 2. The sheer scale of this car-orientated development became evident along with the harmful impact on the environment and existing street infrastructure. These conditions shall never be mitigated by house sales incentives that include free bus passes.
Why had the density increased from a “potential maximum of 364 new units” to 420 new dwellings at detriment to open space and conservation provisions? Why was there no shared community facilities? No justification was given for adverse ‘development creep’ nor were there any sustainable proposals for public transportation enhancement, required for this outer urban area site with below base transport accessibility.
On 26 January 2017 the Planning Decision Notice granting Planning Permission in Principle subject to Conditions was published along with two Section 75 Agreements dated six days prior; one for Community Pitches, the other for Open Space. These agreements effectively obliterated the established framework of community opinions that were recognised to add value and improve the quality of Campus Plan 2 by the PAC on 15 January 2013.
In terms of setting the record straight the University of Strathclyde has allowed their preferred developer to dismantle the trust and legacy aspirations of the Community. What we see is breathtaking arrogance and contempt for local democracy in assuming that a partnership exists with the Jordanhill Community. No partnership can be founded on ‘broken promises’.