‘Monstrosity’ on St Vincent Crescent

A building proposed to be sited on St Vincent Crescent has been described as a ‘disjointed architectural monstrosity’. Plans have been submitted by architects Archial company to extend the building at 26a St Vincent Crescent upwards from its existing one storey to a second level. Local people have formed Save the Crescent Action Group to register their objections, claiming the plans do not fit the historic character of the area. They also claim that the architects have tried to mislead the planning department at Glasgow City Council by submitting false images. They contend that the pictures show the proposed building as smaller than it will be in relation to existing buildings. John Hinton is a member of the group, he told Local News: ‘I have written confirmation that the council’s planning department are consulting on design changes. This is typical of the council, the decision has been made without the consent of the planning committee, its not democratic.’St Vincent Crescent was built in the 1850s by architect Alexander Kirkland. The neighbourhood was designated as a conservation area in 1975 by the then Glasgow District Council. That area encompasses the Crescent, Corunna Street, the south of Argyle Street and part of Kelvinhaugh Street. Planning authorities and the Scottish Government are required by law to protect conservation areas from development which would be detrimental to their character. Another building, 23b St Vincent Crescent, currently a car showroom, was granted planning permission in September 2007 to extend upwards to two storeys and out towards the pavement. Permission was given to create two flats and a car showroom. Archial currently has 3 offices in Glasgow and plans to amalgamate them under one roof at the expanded St Vincent Crescent site. The company is responsible for the Matrix development at Cowcaddens.  A spokesman from Glasgow City Council said: ‘The application is currently being processed and will be considered in due course. Neighbour notification has been carried out by the applicant and a number of representations / objections to the proposal have been received and registered against the application. The application is current and may be revised, and the Council has yet to reach a decision on the matter.’