Plan for 49 homes on grounds of former psychiatric hospital to be reconsidered

A plan for 49 homes on the grounds of a former Glasgow psychiatric hospital, which was rejected by the council, will be considered again after solicitors challenged the decision.

Last month, Glasgow councillors refused an appeal from Oak-NGate Ltd over the refusal of the planning application for the site of the Gartloch Hospital in the east end.

But now the case must be reopened as “new information has come to light”, a meeting heard this week.

The proposal to construct the homes was knocked back at the planning local review committee on January 20.

However, there was an unusual U-turn at the latest committee as the bid will be brought back for councillors to reconsider.

A Glasgow City Council official said after the meeting last month, “Unfortunately, it was realised we hadn’t taken into account additional information that the applicant had provided with the local review application”.

He added: “That information related to drainage impact and flood risk, biodiversity and trees and transport and active travel.

“We have now reviewed that information and we have sent it out to consultation with internal consultees. We are happy with the information that has been provided and we will get comment back on that.”

He added: “The applicant instructed solicitors to question the decision of the committee. We met with our legal services and we agreed it would be prudent to try and bring the case back to committee in light of the additional information we now have.”

Committee chair councillor Ken Andrew said a number of issues regarding flood risk and biodiversity were of concern during the meeting held a fortnight ago.

He said: “Clearly now we have the reports so it would seem to me to be churlish not to re-hear this.

“Certainly we want to support development of housing given where we are with lack of housing. Unfortunately we were in the position where we couldn’t approve a fortnight ago. “Perhaps this new information will help us make a better decision.”

Explaining more about the situation at January’s meeting, a council report reads: ” The case was presented by the planning advisor, and at the point where a decision was required to be taken, the committee was advised that as a result the proposal being limited to the site boundary, information relating to works proposed to be undertaken outwith the site boundary had not been provided by the applicant.

It adds: “Members of the committee had requested a continuation of the case, in order that these matters be resolved, and unfortunately, the advice given was that this would not be a valid reason for continuation. On this advice, the committee agreed to refuse planning permission.”

Solicitors challenged that advice – pointing out it was “incorrect” and that “the relevant information had been provided” according to the report.