[ad_1]
A BID to knock down a bowling club and build a care home has been refused by Glasgow City Council.
A planning application was submitted asking to erect the 66-bed facility at Helensburgh Drive, the former home of Anniesland Bowling and Tennis Club.
However, planning officials rejected the proposals.
They ruled that “the plan would not protect the integrity or character of the city’s natural environment” and that it would “result in the loss of demand-led open space”.
Applicant Northcare (Scotland) Ltd is a family-run business and already run six care homes in South Lanarkshire, Glasgow, and East Renfrewshire.
They hoped to demolish the bowling club building. The club agreed to cease operation at the end of the 2021 season.
In planning documents, it was stated there was a need for a care home in the area.
The three-storey facility, if granted, would have had 14 parking spaces, six bike spaces, and garden areas.
Residents would have had access to quiet rooms, day rooms, dining rooms, a spa, and a cinema.
A total of 47 members of the public objected to the plans, meanwhile, no comments of support were put forward.
One person wrote: “The size of the proposed building is in complete contrast to the buildings that would surround it.
“It will overlook all the gardens it surrounds with the loss of privacy and light. It would dominate the skyline.”
Another neighbour added: “I strongly object to this application. My south-facing garden would back onto this development and would be cast in shade from October through to March. This would impact light levels and heating bills for six months of the year. I have had planning permission granted for a large glass extension this year which not only would be obscured by this development but now be overlooked by the resident’s windows. This is completely unacceptable.”
And one local resident said: “The single-lane access road to the site is too narrow. Despite plans to widen the access road, there will still be issues if cars attempt to drive in opposite directions. Many children live near here and there is a nursery nearby.”
Planning bosses agreed. In their list of reasons for refusal, they wrote: “The single point of access is of a sub-standard width and gradient and is not fit for purpose for a development of this size and scale. The access would therefore result in a hazard to pedestrian, cycle and vehicle traffic accessing the site.”
[ad_2]
Source link
