Road will up­set lives of so many fam­i­lies

Rutherglen Reformer - - Reformer View -

A big thanks to the man who handed in our wee Bi­chon Daisy to Av­enues Vet in Wood­side Av­enue.

She es­caped out our gar­den and was found wan­der­ing around the streets at Lidl’s in Ruther­glen.

We are so glad to have her home, its only be­cause she was mi­crochipped that the vet knew where she was from. Rose­mary Wil­son, Bul­lion­slaw Drive. I would to say a spe­cial thank you to Rev Milton of Cam­bus­lang Parish Church, also David Thompson of Cam­bus­lang Com­mu­nity Coun­cil and coun­cil­lor Richard Tul­let who made it pos­si­ble for the ded­i­ca­tion of a plaque in mem­ory of my son Mark Hen­der­son.

We would also like to thank fam­ily and friends and the con­gre­ga­tion for their sup­port at what was a very mov­ing ser­vice.

To the ladies of the church for the tea cof­fee and sand­wiches they supplied for ev­ery­one thank you very much Mrs Anna Wis­ner, (Mark’s mum). I would like to re­spond to Ron­nie Cot­ter­ill’s email from last week about the Pro­posed Cathkin Re­lief Road.

As a res­i­dent whose prop­erty is di­rectly ad­ja­cent to this park, it would greatly af­fect my fam­ily and I in a neg­a­tive way if this road were to go ahead, there­fore I am ob­vi­ously strongly op­posed to this road.

I ap­pre­ci­ate that oth­ers read­ing this may share Mr Cot­ter­ill’s rather ill in­formed view, how­ever un­less this road di­rectly af­fects you, your fam­ily and your home, in a neg­a­tive way then I do not feel that you en­tirely un­der­stand where“we”the an­gry res­i­dents are com­ing from.

Firstly, I would like to point out to Mr Cot­ter­ill that this is not an“area of waste­land”as he so called it but that it is in fact a park. This is not just the view of us lo­cal res­i­dents, as the area was in fact of­fi­cially turned into a park by South La­nark­shire Coun­cil in 2001. And whilst it may not be a park in the sense that Over­toun Park is, and is not main­tained in the same way that Over­toun Park is, it is a park none the less.

Yes, it may be over­grown and yes it may have weeds, but to call it a waste­land is in­cor­rect and sug­gests that it is not a val­ued, much utilised greenspace which it is. This is our park and we don’t want to lose it! My young chil­dren do play there ac­tu­ally and we fre­quently use the park for bike rides and walks, and even sledg­ing in win­ter. To sug­gest that we“wouldn’t want (our) chil­dren play­ing there as there are drink­ing dens”is com­pletely ridicu­lous. I won­der how long it has been since Mr Cot­ter­ill has been in the park (if ever)?

Se­condly, I fail to see how the in­tro­duc­tion of a road through a cur­rently safe space is go­ing to save lives as Mr Cot­ter­ill states. A road does the com­plete op­po­site of sav­ing lives, it puts more lives at risk. And whilst I agree that the traf­fic lights on East Kil­bride Road is a def­i­nite im­prove­ment – no park­land was de­stroyed in mak­ing those small changes to the cur­rent in­fra­struc­ture. There is a huge dif­fer­ence be­tween traf­fic calm­ing mea­sures (such as the in­tro­duc­tion of traf­fic lights) and plough­ing down a park to cre­ate an un­nec­es­sary road. And Fern­hill Road has had traf­fic calm­ing mea­sures put in place at the shops, so as far as I am aware there are no chil­dren and pen­sion­ers be­ing killed there.

Thirdly, I am an­gered by Mr Cot­ter­ill’s com­ments about Blair­beth Road be­ing a school route and his im­plied in­fer­ence that this road is nec­es­sary to keep the pupils of Burn­side Pri­mary safe. What about the pupils of Cathkin Pri­mary and St Marks Pri­mary who walk to school and use the park as a safe route to school? Or do they not mat­ter as much as Burn­side Pri­mary? Blair­beth Road is one of the main thor­ough­fares in a lo­cal town – ev­ery town has them – I don’t un­der­stand why this pro­posed re­lief road is fo­cussing on tak­ing traf­fic away from a road which, in my opin­ion, does not have a con­ges­tion prob­lem any­way.

Yes there may well be a “con­stant stream of traf­fic”as Mr Cot­ter­ill states, but since when did a con­stant stream be­come un­man­age­able? And there may well be is­sues around school drop off time, but surely that’s a dif­fer­ent is­sue al­to­gether, and those same par­ents will still be do­ing the school drop off even if the road were to go ahead. Wher­ever there is a school there will al­ways be a build up of traf­fic due to par­ents drop­ping their kids off – no re­lief road will change that.

Lastly (although I could go on for quite a bit longer), I would like to point out to Mr Cot­ter­ill that“we”the lo­cal res­i­dents op­posed to this road, are not be­ing self­ish as he so lu­di­crously states. “Build for the fu­ture……”? Whose fu­ture are we talk­ing about here Mr Cot­ter­ill? Be­cause it cer­tainly isn’t for the fu­ture of any of the lo­cal res­i­dents di­rectly af­fected in High Burn­side, Blair­beth, Cathkin, Spring­hall or Fern­hill. Why ex­actly does this re­lief road“build for the fu­ture?”

Trees pro­vide oxy­gen, we need oxy­gen to live, there­fore pro­tect­ing this park builds for ev­ery­one’s fu­ture. This is the last re­main­ing green­belt space in the area and we want to pro­tect it. Bar­bara Hay, Via Face­book.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.