Practice staff are superb
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