Decision on plans to demolish a former Glasgow convent delayed

Planning officials revealed a draft report shows planned flats on the site at 32 Mansionhouse Road could cause a “significant loss” of daylight for neighbouring homes.

It was submitted on Friday afternoon, giving council planners “limited time” to respond ahead of a meeting today (Tuesday).

Councillors, who had previously postponed a decision to allow for a site visit and hearing, voted to continue the application again.

Almost 80 people have objected to Surplus Property Investments’ bid to demolish the two-storey sandstone villa — previously part of the Bon Secours Hospital site — and build 16 flats.

Opponents want to save the building and are also concerned about overshadowing, the impact on traffic and drainage and the lack of amenity space proposed on the site.

But planning officials had recommended the scheme could go ahead as the building isn’t listed or within a conservation area and restoration isn’t “financially viable”.

Surplus Property Investments has said it is “unviable to retain and develop the existing building”. It wants to build a five-storey development with 14 two-bed and two three-bed apartments for private sale.

A hearing and site visit was scheduled following a request from Cllr Holly Bruce, who represents the Langside ward and opposed the plans. Objectors and the developers had been set to address the council’s planning committee on Tuesday morning.

However, a council official said the draft report, from consultants LightSIM, assessed the impact on flats at 35 and 36A Mansionhouse Road, and the planning department had had “limited time” to assess the findings.

He said the draft identifies that 18 windows on the building “would fall below the recommended criteria” for loss of daylighting. Nine windows would have minor loss, five “moderate” and four “substantial”.

The official said: “It is considered the proposal complies with many aspects of the development plan and demonstrates a sustainable development strategy.  “Nevertheless the recently submitted draft technical report confirms the proposed building would have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjacent residential properties at 35 and 36A Mansionhouse Road in terms of significant loss of diffused daylighting to habitable rooms.”

In response to questions from the committee, the official said: “We didn’t have an opportunity to react to this information, I feel it is appropriate for the planning committee to consider the information.

“The question as to whether it would change the officer’s recommendation, I think we would have looked at ways of trying to resolve the tension.”

Cllr Kenny McLean said officials and councillors hadn’t “had time to digest” the information. He apologised to those who attended the meeting but suggested a continuation.

However, Cllr Thomas Kerr, seconded by Cllr Maureen Burke, proposed making a decision at the meeting. “I’m not convinced the changes we have been discussing would make a material change to the full application,” Cllr Kerr said.

There were five votes for each proposal. Planning chairman Cllr Ken Andrew’s casting vote went in favour of postponing the decision.