2nd rejection for Scott Arfield bid to open a pub on Copland Road

PerthRanger said:
I wouldn't want a pub underneath my flat, even if it wasn't a football/sports pub tbh
Click to expand...

Neither would I, but what you or I want is not the question here. Plus there are pubs everywhere that are under tenements.

Some think it's a deliberate act by an already transparent and blatantly anti Rangers/Protestant GCC to thwart the opening of a Rangers pub.

Others are countering by saying it goes against plans for the area.

Now unless I'm mistaken, Scott Arfield is planning on developing the Ladbrokes bookies into a pub. Now I've went by there literally hundreds of times, there is simply nothing the GCC can plan for there. It's a walkway up to the stadium.

The people who live there can't argue about people thronging the place. Just like it was when the bookiess was open, it'll be mobbed on a matchday and basically empty the rest of the week.

As for this grandplan; it's a hundred yards from the subway, they are not bringing down the tenement block, so what are they going to do, plant some daffodils?

I'll say again, I think he's been ill advised on the choice of venue.

To my mind, football fans are creatures of habit. They have their favourite watering holes before and after a game. They might go into a pub owned by an ex Rangers player out of curiousity, chances are they'll be back to their favourite haunts for the following game.

If I'm not entirely on the fence with this one, I get the argument from people talking about plans for the area, but the day I trust the motives of the likes of that boot Susan Aitken and Co it will be a cold day in hell.
 
PerthRanger said:
Is there a market for a Rangers/celtic pub in Glasgow City Centre?

I've heard ancedotally from celtic fans that St Vincents pub was a shithole and shut down pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
well they have about a dozen or so others to choose from in our city centre, so they are very well catered for, it would appear that's not the case on our own side for whatever reasons, our own lot seem happy enough just to frequent generic non football bars that attract supporters of both clubs at different times
 
yosser hughes said:
well they have about a dozen or so others to choose from in our city centre, so they are very well catered for, it would appear that's not the case on our own side for whatever reasons, our own lot seem happy enough just to frequent generic non football bars that attract supporters of both clubs at different times
Click to expand...
Auctioneers is more or less a rangers bar as is Oswalds I can’t think of many others I wish there was more
 
Great white tadpole said:
Auctioneers is more or less a rangers bar as is Oswalds I can’t think of many others I wish there was more
Click to expand...
had this before on here, go in auctioneers when the enablers are playing at the piggery or when their away game is on telly , and there's plenty of them in there, same goes to a lesser extent with the toby jug and the horseshoe, Oswalds is the only Rangers bar in our city centre
 
senefelder said:
I think SA is badly advised here regarding this as a business plan. An extremely busy pub across the road, Lodge Corkerhill doing decent business on match also, and a Sports Bar opening in the Stadium.
Click to expand...

all we here from folk who go to these pubs is that they are getting more and more crowded and service is suffering
 
JC85 said:
It's not "excuses" mate. It's planning policy reasons.

Look at post #35 which quotes directly from the city plan guidance. Then tell me, if you're employed by the Council to uphold that guidance, what you'd put in your report about why you've just ignored what it says and approved the application anyway?
Click to expand...

If nearby residents concerns regarding noise pollution, etc, were adhered to, then there would rarely be a pub or bar open anywhere near Glasgow. If you wish to believe the weak and selective excuses made by GCC regarding Arfield's plans, then fair enough.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
I'm not expecting to you to know exactly, but is it a recent thing?

Because The Granary pub/diner was a tram depot until the trams stopped in 1962.

The Italian restaurant; 'The Batttlefield Rest' just below where the Victoria Infirmary used to be and now across from the new building, was once I'm sure a bus depot, and that transformation would have came about in the mid to late 1990s.

For the record the one and only time I was in it, the food was excellent.
Click to expand...

I don’t know when it was changed to stop permitting new pubs to open under existing residential, but I’m pretty certain it’s been that way ever since I’ve been in architecture. So thats at least 25 years.
 
yosser hughes said:
had this before on here, go in auctioneers when the enablers are playing at the piggery or when their away game is on telly , and there's plenty of them in there, same goes to a lesser extent with the toby jug and the horseshoe, Oswalds is the only Rangers bar in our city centre
Click to expand...
Was last in Auctioneers years ago when i was studying at COGC. 2016 time. Was like a Friday afternoon so no football or anything on. As i said previously, it's only really Brewdog when i'm in Glasgow City Centre. I do remember Auctioneers doing a good pint of Peroni however.
 
muttley said:
If nearby residents concerns regarding noise pollution, etc, were adhered to, then there would rarely be a pub or bar open anywhere near Glasgow. If you wish to believe the weak and selective excuses made by GCC regarding Arfield's plans, then fair enough.
Click to expand...
Its not about nearby residents concerns or complaints though. It's the policy. The actual written down, adopted, agreed, set in stone, rule that they're following which clearly says no new pub uses in existing residential buildings. End of. Fucking hell man.
 
muttley said:
If nearby residents concerns regarding noise pollution, etc, were adhered to, then there would rarely be a pub or bar open anywhere near Glasgow. If you wish to believe the weak and selective excuses made by GCC regarding Arfield's plans, then fair enough.
Click to expand...
It isn’t just about residents concerns. It fundamentally goes against the principles that the planners have to adhere to when giving or denying an application. They aren’t allowed to change the use of unit below residential from what it is currently to a licenced premises. It’s in black and fcking white.

If you can’t grasp that you’re a lost cause.

It’s honestly like arguing with one of them, a total denial of actual facts and a witless persistence with conspiracy bullshit in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
 
Barry Slimfit said:
I don’t know when it was changed to stop permitting new pubs to open under existing residential, but I’m pretty certain it’s been that way ever since I’ve been in architecture. So thats at least 25 years.
Click to expand...

So The Granary or The Battlefield Rest wouldn't have been judged on the present criteria. Fair enough. You know much more than me on the subject.

But from your perspective is there a reason behind this more recent leglistation? Because, the whole of the country, certainly in the WoS, is littered with pubs under tenements?
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
So The Granary or The Battlefield Rest wouldn't have been judged on the present criteria. Fair enough. You know much more than me on the subject.

But from your perspective is there a reason behind this more recent leglistation? Because, the whole of the country, certainly in the WoS, is littered with pubs under tenements?
Click to expand...
I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that it's partly because of the number of objections the planners get to proposed pubs under flats, or even proposed pubs in general, so it may have become policy due to that.

It's probably not an ideal situation (living above a pub), I guess they just don't want more.
 
Barry Slimfit said:
I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that it's partly because of the number of objections the planners get to proposed pubs under flats, or even proposed pubs in general, so it may have become policy due to that.

It's probably not an ideal situation (living above a pub), I guess they just don't want more.
Click to expand...

I'd hate living above a pub, so I get that.

It'll be interesting to see if the GCC enforce this rule consistently across the board?

I'm not convinced that will be the case.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
I'd hate living above a pub, so I get that.

It'll be interesting to see if the GCC enforce this rule consistently across the board?

I'm not convinced that will be the case.
Click to expand...
I doubt many people will even try - that’s what I don’t get about Arfields application. Most architects or planning consultants would have told him theres no point in even putting in an application.
 
Saki said:
Over the course of a year there might be say 25 match days

Yes it will be rammed on those days but there is only so much you can sell

What about the other 340 days a year

I would not be looking to set up a new pub in the current climate
Click to expand...
The same applies to the Louden? It seems to do ok?
 
senefelder said:
I think SA is badly advised here regarding this as a business plan. An extremely busy pub across the road, Lodge Corkerhill doing decent business on match also, and a Sports Bar opening in the Stadium.
Click to expand...
I disagree re the idea of competition, these pubs are often rammed out the door and if the pub is good enough then plenty of these potential patrons will look to drink in Arfield’s establishment
 
JC85 said:
Its not about nearby residents concerns or complaints though. It's the policy. The actual written down, adopted, agreed, set in stone, rule that they're following which clearly says no new pub uses in existing residential buildings. End of. Fucking hell man.
Click to expand...

Just thinking about this set in fucking stone stuff.

Is it not the case that listed buildings can't be demolished?

I might be wrong and the memory might be playing tricks but I'm sure the school next to the cesspit was a listed buiding.

If I'm correct, it seems the GCC had no problems smashing their own set in stone rules to help the filth.
 
GovanFrontLoyal said:
A boozer next a football stadium owned a popular ex player of the club - nada wrong with the business plan.

Louden is rammed and so is NEH.

The crux of the issue here is they’ve seen it’s something good for Rangers fans and went “%^*& that”.
Click to expand...
I tried to get a pint in NEH prior to the Hibs game and binned it, i was getting nowhere near the bar.
 
A few folk have said 'they wouldn't be happy if they bought a flat then a pub opened underneath'

Totally agree but those flats look awful has anyone actually bought them?
 
muttley said:
There are no valid reasons for Scott's application being refused. Occam's Razor suggests the obvious reasons why it was rejected. Its incredible that nobody knows how GCC operates.
Click to expand...
The City introduced a Policy decades ago banning any new licenses granted below Tenement buildings. I spoke to Scott before he put in for it the first time and advised him of that
Nothing to do with Old Firm Bias
 
Would been good just as a further development of the area, but having not been in, isn’t it a really small footprint?
 
jimbear said:
The Louden is nearby and we also have NEH for anybody who wants a pint. I genuinely don't think anothe pub is needed on that location.
Click to expand...
Maybe but surely using a vacant property to give people jobs is good? Same with housing lots of “brown field” sites in every city especially Glasgow and the council agree to building on green field areas.
 
Barry Slimfit said:
Yes. It is the reason. There is no anti-Rangers conspiracy in the planning department. Ffs.

Basically what you are saying is we should listen to the merchant city residents because they don’t want a restaurant to show football, but we shouldn’t listen to the residents of Copland Road when an ex Rangers player wants to open a pub below flats in direct contravention of the development plan.

You are incapable of viewing the issue outside of a Rangers/Celtic lens. It’s absolutely mental.
Click to expand...
I agree there's no anti-Rangers conspiracy in the planning department though I know it's full of mentally challengeds.
If there was an anti-Rangers agenda they would have refused the illuminated adverts at NEH.
 
Last edited:
The only people who should be getting questioned here are Scott's planning consultants/architects. Not the council. It was always a non-starter.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
Just thinking about this set in fucking stone stuff.

Is it not the case that listed buildings can't be demolished?

I might be wrong and the memory might be playing tricks but I'm sure the school next to the cesspit was a listed buiding.

If I'm correct, it seems the GCC had no problems smashing their own set in stone rules to help the filth.
Click to expand...
I think its this you are thinking about and GCC did indeed demolish a listed building and wouldnt listen to arguments from Historic Scotland either who stated there was no case to demolish the school and according to them, it seems that GCC was giving Celtic what they wanted and no other arguments were being listened too.


CELTIC'S bid to demolish an Edwardian school and build a club superstore, museum and other facilities has been given the go-ahead.

The proposals were approved after civic planners decided the arguments for retaining the B-listed building near the football club's ground in the east end of Glasgow were outweighed by economic spin-offs generated by the new development.

Glasgow City Council's planning committee agreed to the plans without dissent, despite one councillor calling for Celtic to include a roof garden in the scheme.
It will now be sent to Historic Scotland to approve or refuse the demolition. It is theoretically possible, although highly unlikely, that the Scottish Government could block the bid. Usually only structures of national or regional importance fall under the remit of Government ministers.
Further applications for the site are expected in the coming weeks.

It emerged during the meeting that the timetable for the scheme was already behind schedule and it will not be completed in time for the 2014 Commonwealth Games, which will see the Queen attend the opening ceremony at Celtic Park.

The proposals will see the London Road Primary School sold by Glasgow City Council to Celtic for around £300,000. It will be demolished and replaced with a superstore, museum, cafe, theatre and ticket offices.

The proposals also include the formation of a landscaped walkway from a revamped Dalmarnock railway station, past several key 2014 venues, to Celtic Park.
The building itself will be two-storey, metal and glass. Part of the old school wall will be retained as a "historic link" and anything of architectural worth recycled in other developments.
Historic Scotland had reservations that not enough was done to market the building and assess all options. It said the structural report did not support the case for demolition.

But the committee was told the authority accepted that the wider area would benefit economically from the demolition. Planning officer Blair Greenock said: "The council believes the case for demolition is necessary for economic growth and the good of the wider community."

Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell said: "This really is fantastic news for the club and is something which will allow us to completely transform Celtic Park, providing a stunning new public realm area for the benefit of our supporters."

www.heraldscotland.com

Celtic's plan to replace B-listed school with superstore and museum gets a green light

The proposals were approved after civic planners decided the arguments for retaining the B-listed building near the football club's ground in the…
www.heraldscotland.com www.heraldscotland.com


Letter from Historic Scotland attacking GCC
footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com

London Road Primary School: Historic Scotland’s condemnation of Glasgow City Council

The letter above from Historic Scotland to Glasgow City Council’s Development and Regeneration Services, developers of Celtic’s application for demolition of the London Road Primary Sch…
footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com
 
Last edited:
captcaveman said:
I think its this you are thinking about and GCC did indeed demolish a listed building and wouldnt listen to arguments from Historic Scotland either who stated there was no case to demolish the school and according to them, it seems that GCC was giving Celtic what they wanted and no other arguments were being listened too.


CELTIC'S bid to demolish an Edwardian school and build a club superstore, museum and other facilities has been given the go-ahead.

The proposals were approved after civic planners decided the arguments for retaining the B-listed building near the football club's ground in the east end of Glasgow were outweighed by economic spin-offs generated by the new development.

Glasgow City Council's planning committee agreed to the plans without dissent, despite one councillor calling for Celtic to include a roof garden in the scheme.
It will now be sent to Historic Scotland to approve or refuse the demolition. It is theoretically possible, although highly unlikely, that the Scottish Government could block the bid. Usually only structures of national or regional importance fall under the remit of Government ministers.
Further applications for the site are expected in the coming weeks.

It emerged during the meeting that the timetable for the scheme was already behind schedule and it will not be completed in time for the 2014 Commonwealth Games, which will see the Queen attend the opening ceremony at Celtic Park.

The proposals will see the London Road Primary School sold by Glasgow City Council to Celtic for around £300,000. It will be demolished and replaced with a superstore, museum, cafe, theatre and ticket offices.

The proposals also include the formation of a landscaped walkway from a revamped Dalmarnock railway station, past several key 2014 venues, to Celtic Park.
The building itself will be two-storey, metal and glass. Part of the old school wall will be retained as a "historic link" and anything of architectural worth recycled in other developments.
Historic Scotland had reservations that not enough was done to market the building and assess all options. It said the structural report did not support the case for demolition.

But the committee was told the authority accepted that the wider area would benefit economically from the demolition. Planning officer Blair Greenock said: "The council believes the case for demolition is necessary for economic growth and the good of the wider community."

Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell said: "This really is fantastic news for the club and is something which will allow us to completely transform Celtic Park, providing a stunning new public realm area for the benefit of our supporters."
Click to expand...
captcaveman said:
I think its this you are thinking about and GCC did indeed demolish a listed building and wouldnt listen to arguments from Historic Scotland either who stated there was no case to demolish the school and according to them, it seems that GCC was giving Celtic what they wanted and no other arguments were being listened too.


CELTIC'S bid to demolish an Edwardian school and build a club superstore, museum and other facilities has been given the go-ahead.

The proposals were approved after civic planners decided the arguments for retaining the B-listed building near the football club's ground in the east end of Glasgow were outweighed by economic spin-offs generated by the new development.

Glasgow City Council's planning committee agreed to the plans without dissent, despite one councillor calling for Celtic to include a roof garden in the scheme.
It will now be sent to Historic Scotland to approve or refuse the demolition. It is theoretically possible, although highly unlikely, that the Scottish Government could block the bid. Usually only structures of national or regional importance fall under the remit of Government ministers.
Further applications for the site are expected in the coming weeks.

It emerged during the meeting that the timetable for the scheme was already behind schedule and it will not be completed in time for the 2014 Commonwealth Games, which will see the Queen attend the opening ceremony at Celtic Park.

The proposals will see the London Road Primary School sold by Glasgow City Council to Celtic for around £300,000. It will be demolished and replaced with a superstore, museum, cafe, theatre and ticket offices.

The proposals also include the formation of a landscaped walkway from a revamped Dalmarnock railway station, past several key 2014 venues, to Celtic Park.
The building itself will be two-storey, metal and glass. Part of the old school wall will be retained as a "historic link" and anything of architectural worth recycled in other developments.
Historic Scotland had reservations that not enough was done to market the building and assess all options. It said the structural report did not support the case for demolition.

But the committee was told the authority accepted that the wider area would benefit economically from the demolition. Planning officer Blair Greenock said: "The council believes the case for demolition is necessary for economic growth and the good of the wider community."

Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell said: "This really is fantastic news for the club and is something which will allow us to completely transform Celtic Park, providing a stunning new public realm area for the benefit of our supporters."
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, a brilliant find and blows the arguments of a couple of posters on here who talk about change of business or whatever, and rules set in stone, out of the water.

It also proves some of us cynics on this thread are right to be distrusful of the motives of the yahoos running the GCC.

They'll demolish something that should be allowed to survive and ride roughshod over Historic Scotland to help the filth. But won't allow an ex Ranger to convert a bookies into a pub? They'll then hide behind excuses about tenants and their complaints when all across Glasgow you could say the majority of pubs will be under tenements.

It would appear rules are only set in stone to thwart anything Rangers related, with this shower of natsi filth. It's high time our people awakened from their stupor.
 
JC85 said:

Supplementary Guidance SG4:

"Outwith the City Centre:
(i) Public houses, Class 11 and Sui Generis uses must not be located within, or immediately adjacent to, existing residential buildings."
Click to expand...
How much does it cost to submit a planning application?

It's pretty clear with the above, that it would be rejected and to do it for a 2nd. time...

Someone is ripping the pish out of Scotty for a financial gain, by the looks of it.
 
blueismycolour said:
How much does it cost to submit a planning application?

It's pretty clear with the above, that it would be rejected and to do it for a 2nd. time...

Someone is ripping the pish out of Scotty for a financial gain, by the looks of it.
Click to expand...

That's a good point.

But as Captaincaveman's post tells us, rules can be broken if it helps the filth.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
That's a good point.

But as Captaincaveman's post tells us, rules can be broken if it helps the filth.
Click to expand...
Just read his post. And yes the rules can be broken when it suits a Scum redevelopment, regardless of the historical interest.

And again, rules are only rules in the hands of the approver. So I agree, it's very easy for them to reject his application.
 
bud_light said:
Exactly.it would be a pop up pub like the Louden.Only used on matchdays when the patrons would be in the area anyway.
Hardly going to ruin their Monday night watching Emmerdale
Click to expand...
Apart from the fact that it would devalue their properties as it is much harder to get a mortgage on a property above a public house.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
Thanks for that, a brilliant find and blows the arguments of a couple of posters on here who talk about change of business or whatever, and rules set in stone, out of the water.

It also proves some of us cynics on this thread are right to be distrusful of the motives of the yahoos running the GCC.

They'll demolish something that should be allowed to survive and ride roughshod over Historic Scotland to help the filth. But won't allow an ex Ranger to convert a bookies into a pub? They'll then hide behind excuses about tenants and their complaints when all across Glasgow you could say the majority of pubs will be under tenements.

It would appear rules are only set in stone to thwart anything Rangers related, with this shower of natsi filth. It's high time our people awakened fr
Click to expand...

blueismycolour said:
Just read his post. And yes the rules can be broken when it suits a Scum redevelopment, regardless of the historical interest.

And again, rules are only rules in the hands of the approver. So I agree, it's very easy for them to reject his application.
Click to expand...
An awful lot of paranoia on this thread
 
Robert Marshall said:
An awful lot of paranoia on this thread
Click to expand...

Paranoia?

The GCC can demolish listed buildings to help the filth but won't let an ex Ranger convert a bookies into a pub.

As has been proved the GCC will hide behind rules 'set in stone' when it suits and ignore them when it helps out that lot. Corruption is what it is, mixed in with a big dash of sectarianism.

You're in the trade, so I'll bow to your superior knowledge, but surely you can't be scared of a drop in custom? The Louden is always going to get a full house on any given match day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top