Waterside Community Council sent in its three representation forms before the deadline of 5pm on 27 May 2015. Very many thanks to everyone who contributed their ideas. And now we wait to see what happens.
FORM 1 [6.23]
YOUR REPRESENTATION/COMMENT
Waterside Community Council objects to the construction of housing at 6.23 (south of Waterside Road, Kirkintilloch) for the following reasons:
1) Site 6.23 is the start of one of the two green spaces on either side of Bankhead Road which frame the entrance to the village of Waterside and are important to the character, landscape setting and identity of the village and the impression it gives anyone entering it. Should 6.23 be developed, the natural symmetry of this green-belt gateway into the village would be destroyed and a natural green oasis enjoyed by those walking and travelling along both Bankhead Road and Waterside Road would be lost. Site 6.23 should not be developed.
2) Destroying this harmonious, tree-dotted green landscape at the start of the village could be detrimental to any future attempts at commercial/educational exploitation of Waterside's natural surroundings and Bankhead Road's scenic nature (e.g. tea rooms, guided nature walks along the river).
3) Waterside Community Council considers that building housing on this site is incompatible with the area’s existing usage: the site is next to a Carmelite monastery; silence, solitude and beautiful natural surroundings are a significant aid to this community’s contemplative life of prayer and celebration of God’s work. The quiet, natural surroundings provided by this undeveloped green field with its beautiful, mature trees help the Carmelite monastery offer a place of peace, healing and prayer to those who attend to share in worship and reflection with the Carmelite sisters.
4) Building on this site, which is part of a field that forms a boundary between Waterside and Kirkintilloch (preventing coalescence), might present an unfortunate precedent, ultimately leading to development of the rest of the field too and to the loss of Waterside's village status in the future. Waterside is a village with a strong feeling of community identity, cohesiveness and community pride as well as a sense of its own unique history. Waterside Community Council opposes any development that might put Waterside’s village status at risk now or in the future. We would therefore ask that none of this field be built upon, as agreed in the past.
5) Local residents have pointed out that Waterside and the surrounding area have very few amenities (apart from those that form part of our valued natural heritage – trees, green spaces, river, wildlife, some of which would be damaged by any development). Waterside and Duntiblae otherwise have only one small shop and the Miners’ Social Club. Any development at 6.23 would a) destroy existing natural amenities and b) oblige its new residents to be dependent on cars and public transport to reach the shops and other local amenities at Merkland (too far to walk for most), in Kirkintilloch centre and elsewhere, thus creating traffic pollution.
6) Waterside Community Council believes that the location of this site means that vehicular access would be too close to the junction between Waterside Road and Bankhead Road, potentially causing traffic congestion/risks. This would be the case no matter whether access from the site was onto Bankhead Road or onto the very busy Waterside Road.
7) Please note that Waterside residents have also expressed concern about possible traffic delays during construction of any housing units here. As there is only one road (Bankhead Road) into Waterside, construction vehicles and work at the edge of the site have the potential to cause great inconvenience to residents.
8) Doubts have been expressed as to whether Waterside Road has the capacity to support additional traffic from this site. Recent developments elsewhere have already greatly added to traffic along this road.
9) Please note that visitors attending religious services at the convent need to retain parking space (Bankhead Road and the verge beside Waterside Road are currently used for this); in the event that housing is built on this site despite strong local opposition, parking arrangements for the congregation would need to be considered.
HOW THE PROPOSED PLAN SHOULD BE MODIFIED
Site 6.23 should not be built upon. Please remove the housing allocation from this site and leave the whole of this field as green belt, allowing it to continue both to play its part in the character, landscape setting and identity of the village of Waterside and to form a (beautiful) part of the boundary between Waterside and the town of Kirkintilloch, to be enjoyed and appreciated by residents, visitors and worshippers alike.
FORM 2 [6.31]
YOUR REPRESENTATION/COMMENT
Waterside Community Council opposes development at site 6.31 (Fauldhead, Kirkintilloch) for the following reasons:
1.a) the disproportionate and unsustainable nature of further development in the Fauldhead area on top of ongoing large-scale development
1.b) insufficient amenities and infrastructure to support development
Looked at in the context of recent and ongoing large-scale developments at Fauldhead and Woodilee, this development (6.31) is a step too far. A disproportionate amount of East Dunbartonshire’s increase in housing stock is being added and proposed in the Waterside/Fauldhead/Duntiblae area (the largest proposed development site in East Dunbartonshire) without adequate infrastructure to sustain this increase in population (roads, schools, health access, etc.). There is a danger of throwing away valued natural spaces right in the middle of an important wildlife corridor while at the same time creating non-sustainable urban sprawl in what current residents have always known and appreciated as a rural/semi-rural area. Moreover, developing one area so massively and at such speed, instead of opting for smaller developments in more areas, means that there is no time for amenities and facilities to develop and grow organically where they are needed or for communities to develop naturally. Waterside Community Council believes that the Fauldhead area has already had more than its share of new development, that further development would be bad for the area and its people, and that this development should not go ahead.
2.a) the increased traffic pollution and predicted negative effects on the environment and on health that
further development would bring
2. b) the potential for both exacerbating an existing problem of excessive traffic/poor traffic flow on Market Road and for causing congestion on Waterside Road
Residents have pointed out that, as there are few amenities within the area, new residents would be likely to want to use cars for shopping, errands and school runs, causing traffic pollution. They stressed the known detrimental effects of traffic fumes on health.
Residents of Market Road have told us that, since the large Woodilee Village came into being, their road has become a ‘rat run’, with traffic delays and noticeably increased levels of exhaust fumes particularly at rush hour. They believe that, even without housing at 6.31, this problem can only get worse since not all the new housing going up or already up in Fauldhead is occupied. All this persuades us that having yet another 125 housing units with access onto this road (and Waterside Road) is unwise as well as unfair to existing residents. These residents would seem to be supported in their belief that development would be detrimental to the area by page 85 of your 'Strategic Environmental Assessment: Environmental Report', which acknowledges these negative factors:
'For this community group, the individual proposal assessments identified a number of negative environmental effects for the area as a whole. Potential development in both the built and natural environment of this setting could have adverse impacts to population and health, cultural heritage, biodiversity value, landscape setting, water quality and flooding potential, and the infrastructure provisions required. It should be noted that 4 of the 7 proposals (LDP 12, 27, 47 and 81) are either in semi-rural or rural locations. The distance of some sites from local services and amenities is likely to result in an increased reliance on car-based or unsustainable travel methods which is likely to have an adverse effect on air quality and increase greenhouse gas emissions.
'Mitigation measures have been suggested for each site through the individual site assessments that should be implemented in order to avoid, mitigate or offset any adverse environmental impacts.
'The overall cumulative effect of developments in this community group is negative predominantly due to the potential loss of valued open space, compromises to assets of cultural heritage importance, damage or loss of valued biodiversity particularly due to the presence of designated sites such as Local Nature Conservations Sites, Important Wildlife Corridors and a Local Nature Reserve and potential adverse effects regarding settlement patterns and visual amenity. Potential negative effects to each of the environmental factors increase the potential need for infrastructure improvements, for example to mitigate flooding, as well as an increased pressure on local services and amenities, transport infrastructure and travel, and combined noise, dust and visual effects specifically influenced by the proposal sites in residential areas.'
Waterside Community Council doubts whether improved public transport would stop new residents (or existing ones) using their cars, so believes that residents of this area would suffer as a consequence of the new housing. We do not believe that any local government body should knowingly implement policies that have such potentially negative consequences
3. ) reduction in size of an important wildlife corridor
This area is part of what has been designated until now an important wildlife corridor. Waterside Community Council would like to see the wildlife corridor given enhanced protection rather than being further reduced by yet more development. The pond and marshland in particular on this site provide important wildlife habitat for ducks, geese, frogs and toads among other species (many of them protected).
4.) the loss of landscape character involved in building housing in a meadow that has within it a much valued and aesthetically pleasing tree-crowned mound (a local landmark) and a pond frequented by wildlife
There is much distress locally that part of site 6.31 is the meadow with the pond and tree-crowned mound within it (i.e. the meadow bordered by Old Duntiblae Road and Market Road). Local people do not want to lose their appreciated views towards the mound and/or pond from Bankhead Road, Old Duntiblae Road and Market Road. And surely altering this meadow in such a way would be contrary to Policy 8, Protecting and enhancing landscape character and nature conservation? (see page 26 of the Local Development Plan)
HOW THE PROPOSED PLAN SHOULD BE MODIFIED
Housing allocation should be removed from this site because of the negative consequences of further development here on both the existing and the new population in terms of pollution and traffic congestion. 6.31 should be left as green belt. Instead of adding to an already enormous, community-changing, wildlife-disrupting development here, perhaps this latest allocation of housing could be scattered over smaller sites in other areas of East Dunbartonshire where it would do less damage
Should development go ahead despite strong local opposition, however, in order for any development here to do as little damage to the environment and wildlife as possible in the circumstances, we believe that a key requirement must be for the hedgerows and trees between the two meadows constituting 6.31 as well as beside the Waterside-Fauldhead (Dam Braes) footpath to be retained. Another key requirement must be for marshy areas around the pond to be left as they are now. As the council recognises, wildlife access to the pond must be protected. We would also ask the planning department to ensure that, should there be any development here despite local wishes, the mound, trees and pond are treated with great sensitivity, ensuring that these local landmarks are retained much as they are now, and that views towards the mound from historic and beautiful Bankhead Road, from Old Duntiblae Road and from Market Road are protected (thus making some attempt at protecting and enhancing landscape character, local distinctiveness and scenic value – Strategic Environmental Assessment Objective 5).
FORM 3
YOUR REPRESENTATION/COMMENT
Waterside Community Council welcomes the fact that the most wildlife-sensitive areas of the land referred to as LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report and Strategic Environmental Assessment are to be left as green belt. To protect this richy biodiverse area for future generations, we would like to make some recommendations concerning the green-belt land on either side of the Luggie upstream from site 6.31.
Waterside Community Council would like all the areas of LDP 12 that are shown on the map as green belt or green belt with flood risk to be given LNCS status.
This whole area currently serves as part of an important wildlife corridor, and local people value the natural surroundings and numbers of wild flowers and wild creatures (deer; otters; herons, kingfishers and other birds; amphibians; moths; butterflies…) to be found in the area, meadows and Luggie Water surrounds within LDP 12. They also appreciate the views across the Luggie Water from Chryston Road towards the Campsies.
We would strongly urge that those parts of the originally designated LDP 12 site that are coloured green on the current map, or green with blue flood risk dots be given Local Nature Conservation Site status and thus protected for the future. This area on either side of the Luggie Water has been a source of pleasure and inspiration to poets (e.g. David Gray), photographers, bird and wildlife watchers and ordinary people. It provides popular walks and so is important for physical health and mental well-being. We believe that it should be safeguarded against ever being sacrificed to future housing targets. ‘The Luggie Glen’ deserves Local Nature Conservation Status on account of its beautiful, entirely natural formations and its high level of wildlife (geodiversity and biodiversity). Such recognition would motivate even more people to walk in it, take pride in it, enjoy it and cherish it (thus both improving human health and community wellbeing – Strategic Environmental Assessment Objective 1 – and protecting wildlife habitats).
HOW THE PROPOSED PLAN SHOULD BE MODIFIED
Give Local Nature Conservation Site status to the richly biodiverse green-belt land within the area described as LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report and Strategic Environmental Assessment. This includes the flood plain alongside the Luggie Water. LNCS status will both protect this valuable and much-loved area and its wildlife for the future and have many incidental benefits (mental and physical health, bringing visitors to the area, etc.).
FORM 1 [6.23]
YOUR REPRESENTATION/COMMENT
Waterside Community Council objects to the construction of housing at 6.23 (south of Waterside Road, Kirkintilloch) for the following reasons:
1) Site 6.23 is the start of one of the two green spaces on either side of Bankhead Road which frame the entrance to the village of Waterside and are important to the character, landscape setting and identity of the village and the impression it gives anyone entering it. Should 6.23 be developed, the natural symmetry of this green-belt gateway into the village would be destroyed and a natural green oasis enjoyed by those walking and travelling along both Bankhead Road and Waterside Road would be lost. Site 6.23 should not be developed.
2) Destroying this harmonious, tree-dotted green landscape at the start of the village could be detrimental to any future attempts at commercial/educational exploitation of Waterside's natural surroundings and Bankhead Road's scenic nature (e.g. tea rooms, guided nature walks along the river).
3) Waterside Community Council considers that building housing on this site is incompatible with the area’s existing usage: the site is next to a Carmelite monastery; silence, solitude and beautiful natural surroundings are a significant aid to this community’s contemplative life of prayer and celebration of God’s work. The quiet, natural surroundings provided by this undeveloped green field with its beautiful, mature trees help the Carmelite monastery offer a place of peace, healing and prayer to those who attend to share in worship and reflection with the Carmelite sisters.
4) Building on this site, which is part of a field that forms a boundary between Waterside and Kirkintilloch (preventing coalescence), might present an unfortunate precedent, ultimately leading to development of the rest of the field too and to the loss of Waterside's village status in the future. Waterside is a village with a strong feeling of community identity, cohesiveness and community pride as well as a sense of its own unique history. Waterside Community Council opposes any development that might put Waterside’s village status at risk now or in the future. We would therefore ask that none of this field be built upon, as agreed in the past.
5) Local residents have pointed out that Waterside and the surrounding area have very few amenities (apart from those that form part of our valued natural heritage – trees, green spaces, river, wildlife, some of which would be damaged by any development). Waterside and Duntiblae otherwise have only one small shop and the Miners’ Social Club. Any development at 6.23 would a) destroy existing natural amenities and b) oblige its new residents to be dependent on cars and public transport to reach the shops and other local amenities at Merkland (too far to walk for most), in Kirkintilloch centre and elsewhere, thus creating traffic pollution.
6) Waterside Community Council believes that the location of this site means that vehicular access would be too close to the junction between Waterside Road and Bankhead Road, potentially causing traffic congestion/risks. This would be the case no matter whether access from the site was onto Bankhead Road or onto the very busy Waterside Road.
7) Please note that Waterside residents have also expressed concern about possible traffic delays during construction of any housing units here. As there is only one road (Bankhead Road) into Waterside, construction vehicles and work at the edge of the site have the potential to cause great inconvenience to residents.
8) Doubts have been expressed as to whether Waterside Road has the capacity to support additional traffic from this site. Recent developments elsewhere have already greatly added to traffic along this road.
9) Please note that visitors attending religious services at the convent need to retain parking space (Bankhead Road and the verge beside Waterside Road are currently used for this); in the event that housing is built on this site despite strong local opposition, parking arrangements for the congregation would need to be considered.
HOW THE PROPOSED PLAN SHOULD BE MODIFIED
Site 6.23 should not be built upon. Please remove the housing allocation from this site and leave the whole of this field as green belt, allowing it to continue both to play its part in the character, landscape setting and identity of the village of Waterside and to form a (beautiful) part of the boundary between Waterside and the town of Kirkintilloch, to be enjoyed and appreciated by residents, visitors and worshippers alike.
FORM 2 [6.31]
YOUR REPRESENTATION/COMMENT
Waterside Community Council opposes development at site 6.31 (Fauldhead, Kirkintilloch) for the following reasons:
1.a) the disproportionate and unsustainable nature of further development in the Fauldhead area on top of ongoing large-scale development
1.b) insufficient amenities and infrastructure to support development
Looked at in the context of recent and ongoing large-scale developments at Fauldhead and Woodilee, this development (6.31) is a step too far. A disproportionate amount of East Dunbartonshire’s increase in housing stock is being added and proposed in the Waterside/Fauldhead/Duntiblae area (the largest proposed development site in East Dunbartonshire) without adequate infrastructure to sustain this increase in population (roads, schools, health access, etc.). There is a danger of throwing away valued natural spaces right in the middle of an important wildlife corridor while at the same time creating non-sustainable urban sprawl in what current residents have always known and appreciated as a rural/semi-rural area. Moreover, developing one area so massively and at such speed, instead of opting for smaller developments in more areas, means that there is no time for amenities and facilities to develop and grow organically where they are needed or for communities to develop naturally. Waterside Community Council believes that the Fauldhead area has already had more than its share of new development, that further development would be bad for the area and its people, and that this development should not go ahead.
2.a) the increased traffic pollution and predicted negative effects on the environment and on health that
further development would bring
2. b) the potential for both exacerbating an existing problem of excessive traffic/poor traffic flow on Market Road and for causing congestion on Waterside Road
Residents have pointed out that, as there are few amenities within the area, new residents would be likely to want to use cars for shopping, errands and school runs, causing traffic pollution. They stressed the known detrimental effects of traffic fumes on health.
Residents of Market Road have told us that, since the large Woodilee Village came into being, their road has become a ‘rat run’, with traffic delays and noticeably increased levels of exhaust fumes particularly at rush hour. They believe that, even without housing at 6.31, this problem can only get worse since not all the new housing going up or already up in Fauldhead is occupied. All this persuades us that having yet another 125 housing units with access onto this road (and Waterside Road) is unwise as well as unfair to existing residents. These residents would seem to be supported in their belief that development would be detrimental to the area by page 85 of your 'Strategic Environmental Assessment: Environmental Report', which acknowledges these negative factors:
'For this community group, the individual proposal assessments identified a number of negative environmental effects for the area as a whole. Potential development in both the built and natural environment of this setting could have adverse impacts to population and health, cultural heritage, biodiversity value, landscape setting, water quality and flooding potential, and the infrastructure provisions required. It should be noted that 4 of the 7 proposals (LDP 12, 27, 47 and 81) are either in semi-rural or rural locations. The distance of some sites from local services and amenities is likely to result in an increased reliance on car-based or unsustainable travel methods which is likely to have an adverse effect on air quality and increase greenhouse gas emissions.
'Mitigation measures have been suggested for each site through the individual site assessments that should be implemented in order to avoid, mitigate or offset any adverse environmental impacts.
'The overall cumulative effect of developments in this community group is negative predominantly due to the potential loss of valued open space, compromises to assets of cultural heritage importance, damage or loss of valued biodiversity particularly due to the presence of designated sites such as Local Nature Conservations Sites, Important Wildlife Corridors and a Local Nature Reserve and potential adverse effects regarding settlement patterns and visual amenity. Potential negative effects to each of the environmental factors increase the potential need for infrastructure improvements, for example to mitigate flooding, as well as an increased pressure on local services and amenities, transport infrastructure and travel, and combined noise, dust and visual effects specifically influenced by the proposal sites in residential areas.'
Waterside Community Council doubts whether improved public transport would stop new residents (or existing ones) using their cars, so believes that residents of this area would suffer as a consequence of the new housing. We do not believe that any local government body should knowingly implement policies that have such potentially negative consequences
3. ) reduction in size of an important wildlife corridor
This area is part of what has been designated until now an important wildlife corridor. Waterside Community Council would like to see the wildlife corridor given enhanced protection rather than being further reduced by yet more development. The pond and marshland in particular on this site provide important wildlife habitat for ducks, geese, frogs and toads among other species (many of them protected).
4.) the loss of landscape character involved in building housing in a meadow that has within it a much valued and aesthetically pleasing tree-crowned mound (a local landmark) and a pond frequented by wildlife
There is much distress locally that part of site 6.31 is the meadow with the pond and tree-crowned mound within it (i.e. the meadow bordered by Old Duntiblae Road and Market Road). Local people do not want to lose their appreciated views towards the mound and/or pond from Bankhead Road, Old Duntiblae Road and Market Road. And surely altering this meadow in such a way would be contrary to Policy 8, Protecting and enhancing landscape character and nature conservation? (see page 26 of the Local Development Plan)
HOW THE PROPOSED PLAN SHOULD BE MODIFIED
Housing allocation should be removed from this site because of the negative consequences of further development here on both the existing and the new population in terms of pollution and traffic congestion. 6.31 should be left as green belt. Instead of adding to an already enormous, community-changing, wildlife-disrupting development here, perhaps this latest allocation of housing could be scattered over smaller sites in other areas of East Dunbartonshire where it would do less damage
Should development go ahead despite strong local opposition, however, in order for any development here to do as little damage to the environment and wildlife as possible in the circumstances, we believe that a key requirement must be for the hedgerows and trees between the two meadows constituting 6.31 as well as beside the Waterside-Fauldhead (Dam Braes) footpath to be retained. Another key requirement must be for marshy areas around the pond to be left as they are now. As the council recognises, wildlife access to the pond must be protected. We would also ask the planning department to ensure that, should there be any development here despite local wishes, the mound, trees and pond are treated with great sensitivity, ensuring that these local landmarks are retained much as they are now, and that views towards the mound from historic and beautiful Bankhead Road, from Old Duntiblae Road and from Market Road are protected (thus making some attempt at protecting and enhancing landscape character, local distinctiveness and scenic value – Strategic Environmental Assessment Objective 5).
FORM 3
YOUR REPRESENTATION/COMMENT
Waterside Community Council welcomes the fact that the most wildlife-sensitive areas of the land referred to as LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report and Strategic Environmental Assessment are to be left as green belt. To protect this richy biodiverse area for future generations, we would like to make some recommendations concerning the green-belt land on either side of the Luggie upstream from site 6.31.
Waterside Community Council would like all the areas of LDP 12 that are shown on the map as green belt or green belt with flood risk to be given LNCS status.
This whole area currently serves as part of an important wildlife corridor, and local people value the natural surroundings and numbers of wild flowers and wild creatures (deer; otters; herons, kingfishers and other birds; amphibians; moths; butterflies…) to be found in the area, meadows and Luggie Water surrounds within LDP 12. They also appreciate the views across the Luggie Water from Chryston Road towards the Campsies.
We would strongly urge that those parts of the originally designated LDP 12 site that are coloured green on the current map, or green with blue flood risk dots be given Local Nature Conservation Site status and thus protected for the future. This area on either side of the Luggie Water has been a source of pleasure and inspiration to poets (e.g. David Gray), photographers, bird and wildlife watchers and ordinary people. It provides popular walks and so is important for physical health and mental well-being. We believe that it should be safeguarded against ever being sacrificed to future housing targets. ‘The Luggie Glen’ deserves Local Nature Conservation Status on account of its beautiful, entirely natural formations and its high level of wildlife (geodiversity and biodiversity). Such recognition would motivate even more people to walk in it, take pride in it, enjoy it and cherish it (thus both improving human health and community wellbeing – Strategic Environmental Assessment Objective 1 – and protecting wildlife habitats).
HOW THE PROPOSED PLAN SHOULD BE MODIFIED
Give Local Nature Conservation Site status to the richly biodiverse green-belt land within the area described as LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report and Strategic Environmental Assessment. This includes the flood plain alongside the Luggie Water. LNCS status will both protect this valuable and much-loved area and its wildlife for the future and have many incidental benefits (mental and physical health, bringing visitors to the area, etc.).