StewartfieldWayduallingdescribedas‘unachievable’BEFOREconsultation
NICOLA FINDLAY
The cabinet committee in charge of the dualling of Stewartfield Way dismissed the project as “unachievable” before it was opened up for consultation.
And the News can reveal it was the only one of over 100 projects red flagged by the Glasgow City Region Deal committee in October.
The “staggering” report showed successful delivery of the proposed £62m project was ‘unlikely’ in its current state, with its “overall viability needing to be reassessed”.
Yet despite being ‘red flagged’ by the committee, South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) put the plans to the public for consultation in November, leading to claims they ploughed on without “coming clean”.
East Kilbride Green campaigner Kirsten Robb said: “SLC knew this project was doomed – why have they ploughed on for so long promoting it?
“It’s time to scrap it and for this to be the start of an open and honest conversation with the public about what the replacement project for Stewartfield Way will be.”
A key part of Central Scotland’s road network, plans have been put forward to dual the road with financial experts KPMG saying it could be worth around £570m to the East Kilbride area.
However, there are a number of opponents to those claims, which are modelled as a ‘programme of projects’.
Shocked Tory MSP Graham Simpson, who has been vocal in his opposition, said the council should have acknowledged the project was “dead” and “not ploughed on with a consultation” following October’s report.
He told the News: “This is a staggering revelation, but typical of the secrecy that has surrounded City Deal projects in general.
“SLC should have come clean to the public as soon as they knew there were problems with delivering this flawed scheme. Councillors must be given the chance to ditch it once and for all as soon as possible.
“It’s why they were panned by Audit Scotland last week.”
Last week Audit Scotland issued a report saying there was ‘no way’ to measure the success of city deals and targets may be being missed as a result of this.
But SLC insist the red flag highlighted a potential change in the project completion date and doesn’t put a halt to plans.
They also claim a report due to go before the City Deal Cabinet in February – not yet publicly available – sees the risk surrounding Stewartfield Way reduced to an ‘amber flag’.
That denotes the business case “appears feasible” but “significant issues already exist”.
Head of roads and transportation, Gordon Mackay, said: “The recent consultation exercise we have held resulted in more than 1300 responses.
“We are currently analysing all the feedback and following that will present a report to the relevant council committee. It is expected this will be in the spring.
“We have been clear from the outset that the consultation was being progressed in advance of any more detailed work, including environmental assessments, taking place.
“We wanted to hear the views of the public on the proposals prior to committing any significant expenditure.
“However, whatever form the project takes going forward all appropriate assessments will be undertaken including Environmental Impact Assessments.”
East Kilbride MSP Linda Fabiani met with officers at SLC last week to discuss the plans and consultation.
She said the project “should have been reassessed well before now” pointing out it was “many years” since it was agreed by the council.
Ms Fabiani added: “I’ve been writing to both SLC and the City Deal Cabinet about this for a long time – changes are required.
“The lack of clarity over this whole matter is regrettable and when I meet with the new council chief executive, I’ll be stressing the need to keep everyone informed – especially the Stewartfield residents who would be most affected.”
The Greens are also calling on City Deals to “develop projects to lower emissions,” saying dualling will only “increase traffic, destroy greenspaces and damage the climate”.
Meanwhile, Independent East Kilbride West councillor David Watson said the Audit Scotland report “highlights lack of visibility in measuring projects” and “local communities have felt very little involvement”.