Prac­tice staff are su­perb

Rutherglen Reformer - - Reformer View -

Please be re­spon­si­ble when park­ing your car I’d like to say that the cars that are parked out­side the mosque on Green­hill Road each week on the pave­ment is un­ac­cept­able.

They are block­ing the pave­ment which means that any­body in a wheel­chair or scooter or with a pram have to go onto the road to get past which is very dan­ger­ous.

I would ask that any­body that reads this that at­tends the mosque to park in the ap­pro­pri­ate car parks ei­ther­ijn the ar­cade or down at Green­hill Court car park.

This is to help keep the pave­ment free from ob­struc­tion of cars.

I would like to clar­ify that it is not a car park­ing space, it is a public high­way.

Please bear it in mind and think of the el­derly peo­ple that use that pave­ment ev­ery­day. Barry Cathie via email

Dear Editor I dis­agree that there are huge prob­lems with GP pro­vi­sion in Ruther­glen.

The Stonelaw Prac­tice at Ruther­glen Health Cen­tre is ex­cel­lent and op­er­ates a same day ap­point­ment ser­vice. They also of­fer pre-book­able early morn­ing ap­point­ments for those who are work­ing.

The doc­tors, nurses and other staff are all su­perb. Dorothy Con­nor via email

No case for re­lief road Hav­ing seen a copy of the Coun­cil’s busi­ness case for the Cathkin Re­lief Road, I would like to com­ment as fol­lows.

I can­not see how this road would have any ef­fect in eas­ing con­ges­tion in the cen­tre of Ruther­glen. I would sug­gest that if the road is built and the traf­fic along Cathkin By­pass in­creases, as pre­dicted by SLC, by 164 per cent, then that will have the ef­fect of in­creas­ing traf­fic at the junction of Main Street and Mill Street in the cen­tre of Ruther­glen, thus in­creas­ing con­ges­tion.

The ex­ist­ing road struc­ture in the area is per­fectly ad­e­quate and I am at a loss to see how the new road would im­prove ac­ces­si­bil­ity for ar­eas of high de­pri­va­tion.

The com­ment about a long stand­ing prob­lem of con­ges­tion in the town cen­tre which has led to air qual­ity prob­lems and the is­sues over re­li­a­bil­ity of busses, poor links be­tween busses and trains, ac­cess prob­lems for non-car own­ers, higher than av­er­age un­em­ploy­ment with a lower pro­por­tion of work­ing age pop­u­la­tion and the state­ment that the new Re­lief Road will im­prove ac­cess to ar­eas of new de­vel­op­ment, as­sist with job cre­at­ing and pro­vid­ing im­proved ac­cess to the wider road and trans­port net­work is in it­self an in­ter­est­ing se­ries of words, with­out any ex­pla­na­tion of how this will be achieved by the new road.

There may well be a likely in­crease in traf­fic from fu­ture de­vel­op­ments, which the ex­ist­ing roads can easily ac­com­mo­date.

I dis­agree that there is a high vol­ume of traf­fic be­tween Glas­gow and East Kil­bride and our re­cent cam­paign of pho­tograph­ing lo­cal roads at the morn­ing and evening “rush hour” has con­firmed this.

Gor­don Mackay’s state­ment that “the road will re­duce traf­fic on lo­cal residential roads, re­duce con­ges­tion at peak times and cut car­bon emis­sions”, is not backed up by the de­tail in the 2007 STAG Re­port which states that traf­fic on the ex­ist­ing Cathkin By­pass will in­crease by 164 per cent and air pol­lu­tion will be a ma­jor neg­a­tive for the area if the Re­lief Road is built. He goes on to say that, “there would also be sig­nif­i­cant eco­nomic ben­e­fits of this .......with fur­ther eco­nomic growth and new jobs.” It is un­clear what these are and how the build­ing of the Cathkin Re­lief will achieve this.

The ex­ist­ing in­fra­struc­ture in the area is per­fectly ad­e­quate for the traf­fic pass­ing through it. For the coun­cil to rely on a now out­dated 2007 STAG re­port, pre­pared prior to the open­ing of the M74 ex­ten­sion, is quite sim­ply bad man­age­ment. Up­dated traf­fic fig­ures have not been ob­tained by sur­vey, but by “re-mod­el­ling” the 2007 sta­tis­tics, which are eight years and a mo­tor­way out of date.

Once the Raith In­ter­change is com­plete, that will be the main route for traf­fic from East Kil­bride to Glas­gow via the M74, not via Cathkin, Burn­side, Fern­hill, Blair­beth, Ruther­glen the Gor­bals and Trade­ston.

We have asked SLC and Gor­don Mackay for an­swers to our ques­tions, but none have been forth­com­ing. We have asked for a meet­ing with him, but have not had a re­sponse to our re­quest. It seems that SLC are de­ter­mined that this pro­ject will pro­ceed no mat­ter what. A SLC pro­ject, sub­mit­ted to SLC Plan­ning Depart­ment to be de­cided by SLC Plan­ning Com­mit­tee. So much for the demo­cratic process.

It is not only the view of the Op­po­si­tion Group that this pro­posed Re­lief Road is not re­quired and would be a poor use of £21.6m of public money, it is also the view of our MP, our MSP and our list MSP.

The Board Mem­bers of the City Deal should look very care­fully at this pro­posal, be­fore com­mit­ting any public money to­wards it.

The road is not needed, it is not wanted and if built will prove to be a waste of £21.6m and will de­stroy a much used and val­ued lim­ited greenspace re­source in the area.

I would how­ever add that the pro­posed re-align­ment of the Croft­foot Road/Fern­hill Road/Mill Street/ Blair­beth Road, which was added to the pro­pos­als fol­low­ing feed­back and sug­ges­tions from the com­mu­nity con­sul­ta­tion in Novem­ber 2014, is an ex­cel­lent sug­ges­tion and would I’m sure be sup­ported by the wider com­mu­nity.

That sec­tion of the pro­posal, if im­ple­mented, would in it­self al­le­vi­ate much of the peak hour con­ges­tion at the end of Croft­foot Road, which is a sin­gle car­riage­way with no left hand fil­ter.

It is the Re­lief Road part and the as­so­ci­ated de­struc­tion of the park which the com­mu­nity is against. Alan McLen­nan Op­pose the Cathkin Re­lief Road Group

Anger at school bus axe I have just sent my thoughts on the ex­ec­u­tive meet­ing held on Wed­nes­day to dis­cuss school bus changes to the mem­bers and coun­cil­lors con­cerned.

I ex­pect very few, if any re­sponses, they don’t seem in­ter­ested when you tell them what they don’t want to hear.

I know a pho­tog­ra­pher was present and I hope a large ar­ti­cle re­gard­ing this ridicu­lous de­ci­sion is printed.

A suit­able head­ing would be “shame on them.”

I’m to­tally dis­gusted that they think it’s right a po­lit­i­cal bat­tle was the way to make a de­ci­sion that af­fects fam­i­lies and the safety of chil­dren.

Ideas to look at an IT bud­get of £7.4mil­lion or a taxi bud­get of £14mil­lion was to­tally dis­missed, why?

Ev­ery­one I spoke to who sat in the meet­ing were dis­gusted and em­bar­rassed at how the meet­ing was con­ducted.

I’m not for nam­ing names or po­lit­i­cal par­ties and never have been as they are more than aware of who they are when I say “good luck for your fu­ture for those who voted for these cuts, the peo­ple you’ve made your de­ci­sion for will be the ones vot­ing.”

Sorry for rant­ing but I’m so an­gry these peo­ple are in the po­si­tions they are in. Sharon McGoldrick vi­ae­mail

Safety is­sue ig­nored My main is­sues with the meet­ing and in­deed the whole bus stop­page pro­posal and Con­sul­ta­tion are as fol­lows:

1. The safety of the chil­dren has been dis­re­garded by SLC Ed­u­ca­tion Depart­ment and the coun­cil­lors who voted for this.

No Safe Walk­ing Route Assess­ments have been car­ried out by SLC to date even though I and many oth­ers have con­tin­u­ously re­quested these. Mr Gil­hooly, Ms Sherry and Mr Hin­shel­wood all stated that a public meet­ings would be avail­able if re­quested.

2. SLC threw in changes to the pro­posal at the last minute - Min­utes posted online Fri­day, Au­gust 22, 2015, that they had de­cided to pro­pose and in­tro­duce Free Bus Trans­port to those fam­i­lies in re­ceipt of Free School Meals.

This was never con­sulted on or dis­cussed dur­ing the pro­posal and con­sul­ta­tion.

3. This pro­posal is un­fair and is di­vid­ing com­mu­ni­ties.

Whilst no-one would grudge another child from get­ting free trans­port, this was thrown in at last minute with most par­ents not be­ing aware of this change in plan.

This pro­posal means that work­ing fam­i­lies, many of whom are also liv­ing on the bread­line, are be­ing pe­nalised for work­ing to pro­vide a bet­ter life for their chil­dren.

This will also cause stigma for those chil­dren who will now get free school trans­port as they are also be­ing sin­gled out with a stigma ap­plied to them as ev­ery­one will know whose fam­i­lies are ei­ther not work­ing or are on very low in­comes and re­ceiv­ing ben­e­fits.

4. SLC Ed­u­ca­tion Depart­ment and the Ex­ec­u­tive Com­mit­tee have re­fused to look into other meth­ods of trans­port - public ser­vices which is not avail­able in some routes or paid for trans­port fa­cil­i­tated by the coun­cil to al­low chil­dren to travel safely to school.

Whilst this is not what par­ents had hoped for, how­ever, if worst comes to worst most I be­lieve would agree to it as all we re­ally want is a safe route of travel for our chil­dren.

I have sent these min­utes to all ex­ec­u­tive mem­bers in at­ten­dance at the meet­ing last Wed­nes­day and as ex­pected I have re­ceived very lit­tle re­turn com­mu­ni­ca­tion to date.

I re­ally be­lieve that these Labour coun­cil­lors are show­ing very lit­tle if any re­gard for their con­stituents who have ac­tu­ally voted them into coun­cil and feel to­tally dis­il­lu­sioned with the Labour lead­ers and coun­cil­lors at SLC. Shame on them for the to­tal dis­re­gard for the over­whelm­ing ma­jor­ity of those con­sulted.

The meet­ing re­ally was an eye opener for me as a mem­ber of the public and at times bor­dered on sham­bolic with Labour and SNP turn­ing this into po­lit­i­cal ping pong, points scor­ing and at times just plain tit for tat against each other. Jackie Sul­li­van via email

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.