FRESH plans to demolish the former Marks & Spencer store on Sauchiehall Street and build student flats have been revealed.
Glasgow’s planning committee rejected Fusion Student’s initial bid in November, but the firm has returned with a revised application.
Changes include reducing the height of the proposed building, after councillors believed the first scheme would have “an over-dominant impact”.
Fusion’s plan, which would retain the 1930s Marks & Spencer façade, would provide student accommodation for over 600 people as well as five commercial units in a “reinstated Wellington Arcade”.
The earlier application was refused as the city’s planning committee believed it would be “harmful” to the surrounding conservation area and would “contribute to an over-provision of student accommodation in the vicinity relative to mainstream residential accommodation”.
Planning officials had recommended the scheme be approved but the committee was split 50/50 on whether to give the green light. The chair, Councillor Elaine Gallagher, Greens, used her deciding vote to reject the application.
She said: “I would like the developers to look harder at the possibility of mainstream accommodation on this site so I am going to reject it and ask them to look further at this.”
Fusion’s latest plans state the project would provide “conveniently situated” student housing, offering “various living options”. The firm believes the proposals would address “the pressing demand-supply gap in Glasgow’s purpose-built student accommodation sector”.
“Students currently face significant barriers when searching for suitable accommodation in the city, and this project aims to alleviate that problem,” the application adds.
Under the scheme, the original Marks & Spencer façade would be retained while an arcade linking Sauchiehall Street to Renfrew Street would be reintroduced.
Plans state the building would be suitable for a “comparatively ‘light touch’ redevelopment” to an alternative use, rather than student flats, if “future social or market conditions necessitate”. They suggest it could become build-to-rent homes or a hotel.
The developers have met with council officials since the original plans were refused. Fusion believes the previous form was “an acceptable mass for this site”, but the proposals have been adjusted.
Initially, the building would have been five to eight storeys facing Sauchiehall Street and 11 to 18 storeys on Renfrew Street.
The new plans state: “The Renfrew Street block incorporates a reduction in mass of four storeys to the Renfrew Street side, now including an open-framed section with a further roof terrace, and is now proposed to be a storey shorter in its entirety.
“The remaining floors from level eight to 16 have been extended by one bay (one room) to the south.”
They continue: “Facing onto Sauchiehall Street the building is five and eight storeys in height, whilst facing Renfrew Street the building is 11 and 17 storeys in height, with open-framed sections to both sides of the site to decrease the impact of its mass and provide roof terraces for residents.”
The application also adds the “proposed height and mass is comparable to neighbouring buildings and significantly lower” than an approved aparthotel plan at Cambridge Street.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article