With the deadline for representations to the council now very close (5pm on Wednesday 27 May 2015), Waterside Community Council has been asking for your views on the local development plan. Below is a summary of the points you have made to us for possible inclusion on the Waterside Community Council representation. As the previous version of this document has been edited following further feedback from you in the week beginning 18 May, we have highlighted changes by showing additions in blue.
A] We object to the construction of housing at 6.23 (south of Waterside Road, Kirkintilloch) – site beside convent
1) We consider 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 trees also 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. The same field also provides a natural green oasis for those who walk or drive up and down Bankhead Road and along Waterside Road.
2) Local people have pointed out that the two green spaces on either side of Bankhead Road at the entrance to the village of Waterside (one of which contains site 6.23) are important to the character, landscape setting and identity of the village and the impression it gives to anyone entering it; these green spaces in their entirety play an important role as green belt. If 6.23 is developed, this will destroy the symmetry of this gateway into the village. Please note that, should the village seek to exploit its natural surroundings and the scenic nature of Bankhead Road commercially/educationally in the future (e.g. tea rooms, guided nature walks along the river, local crafts), as some villagers recommend, a development at 6.31 will not improve its chances of success. This is not an appropriate location for housing development.
3) 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. We oppose 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.
4) 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 – and which any development will damage). Waterside and Duntiblae otherwise have only one tiny shop and the Miners’ Social Club. Our post office closed some time ago. As it is quite a long walk from this site to the shops at Merkland and in Kirkintilloch centre, residents of any new dwellings on this site are likely to want to use cars for shopping and errands, thus increasing pollution.
5) 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.
6) We believe 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. Please note that attendees to religious services need to retain parking space (Bankhead Road and the verge beside Waterside Road are currently used by visitors); should housing be built on this site, parking arrangements for the congregation would need to be considered.
7) Doubts have been expressed as to whether Waterside Road has the capacity to support additional traffic from this site (as well as from 6.31 on top of other, ongoing, development).
B] 6.31 (Fauldhead) as well as the adjoining/nearby green-belt land on either side of the Luggie Water (these two sites taken together are designated as LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report and Strategic Environmental Assessment)
We accept the need for housing development in East Dunbartonshire and welcome the fact that some particularly wildlife-sensitive areas bordering the Luggie upstream from 6.31 (areas included in LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report) are to be left as green belt.
Following feedback from residents directly affected, we cannot but oppose development on site 6.31 because of the following: insufficient amenities/infrastructure; the existing problem of excessive traffic/poor traffic flow on Market Road (brought about by recent housing development at Fauldhead and Woodilee) that would worsen with yet more housing; the potential for more traffic pollution and consequent damage to health; the disproportionate and unsustainable nature of further development in this area
In spite of our acceptance of the need for housing development, we oppose this latest proposed development at Fauldhead in the light of feedback from some residents of Market Road, who 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.
Residents 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, adding to the problem. They stressed the known detrimental effects of traffic fumes on health.
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.
We doubt whether improved public transport would stop new residents (or existing ones) using their cars, so believe 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.
Looked at in the context of recent and ongoing large 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 planned for in the Waterside/Fauldhead/Duntiblae area, without adequate infrastructure to sustain this increase in population (roads, schools, health access). There is a danger of throwing away valued natural spaces while creating non-sustainable urban sprawl. 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.
Regardless of what happens over 6.31, we would like to make some recommendations concerning the green-belt land on either side of the Luggie upstream from this site (i.e. the rest of what was referred to as LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report and in the Strategic Environmental Assessment). And, if the 6.31 development should receive the go-ahead despite its anticipated negative impact on existing residents and their health and well-being, we would like to make some requests and suggestions relating to it too.
1) We would like to see the rest of what was LDP 12 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.
Regardless of whether or not the part now identified as 6.31 becomes a housing development site, we would strongly urge that the remaining areas of the originally designated LDP 12 site (coloured green on the current map, or green with blue flood risk dots) be given Local Nature Conservation Site status (Policy 8) and thus protected for the future. This area around 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 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).
2) Should housing go ahead at 6.31, we would like to see the pond and mound within 6.31 and the views towards them treated sensitively; we would like to see hedgerows and trees retained
There is much distress locally that the site identified for housing development (6.31) includes the meadow with the pond and tree-crowned mound within it (i.e. the meadow bordered by Old Duntiblae Road and Market Road). We would ask the planning department to ensure that, should there be any development here, 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, if possible, from Market Road are protected (thus protecting and enhancing landscape character, local distinctiveness and scenic value – Strategic Environmental Assessment Objective 5). As the council recognises, wildlife access to the pond must also be protected. This relatively compact site is an important wildlife habitat for ducks, geese, frogs and toads among other species (many of them protected).
In order that any development here remains as environmentally and wildlife-friendly as possible, we believe that hedgerows and trees between the two meadows proposed for development as well as adjoining the Waterside-Fauldhead (Dam Braes) footpath should be retained, as well as marshy areas around the pond.
Waterside Community Council is currently taking advice about whether the points we intend to include in our representation are valid material planning considerations.
A] We object to the construction of housing at 6.23 (south of Waterside Road, Kirkintilloch) – site beside convent
1) We consider 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 trees also 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. The same field also provides a natural green oasis for those who walk or drive up and down Bankhead Road and along Waterside Road.
2) Local people have pointed out that the two green spaces on either side of Bankhead Road at the entrance to the village of Waterside (one of which contains site 6.23) are important to the character, landscape setting and identity of the village and the impression it gives to anyone entering it; these green spaces in their entirety play an important role as green belt. If 6.23 is developed, this will destroy the symmetry of this gateway into the village. Please note that, should the village seek to exploit its natural surroundings and the scenic nature of Bankhead Road commercially/educationally in the future (e.g. tea rooms, guided nature walks along the river, local crafts), as some villagers recommend, a development at 6.31 will not improve its chances of success. This is not an appropriate location for housing development.
3) 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. We oppose 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.
4) 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 – and which any development will damage). Waterside and Duntiblae otherwise have only one tiny shop and the Miners’ Social Club. Our post office closed some time ago. As it is quite a long walk from this site to the shops at Merkland and in Kirkintilloch centre, residents of any new dwellings on this site are likely to want to use cars for shopping and errands, thus increasing pollution.
5) 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.
6) We believe 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. Please note that attendees to religious services need to retain parking space (Bankhead Road and the verge beside Waterside Road are currently used by visitors); should housing be built on this site, parking arrangements for the congregation would need to be considered.
7) Doubts have been expressed as to whether Waterside Road has the capacity to support additional traffic from this site (as well as from 6.31 on top of other, ongoing, development).
B] 6.31 (Fauldhead) as well as the adjoining/nearby green-belt land on either side of the Luggie Water (these two sites taken together are designated as LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report and Strategic Environmental Assessment)
We accept the need for housing development in East Dunbartonshire and welcome the fact that some particularly wildlife-sensitive areas bordering the Luggie upstream from 6.31 (areas included in LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report) are to be left as green belt.
Following feedback from residents directly affected, we cannot but oppose development on site 6.31 because of the following: insufficient amenities/infrastructure; the existing problem of excessive traffic/poor traffic flow on Market Road (brought about by recent housing development at Fauldhead and Woodilee) that would worsen with yet more housing; the potential for more traffic pollution and consequent damage to health; the disproportionate and unsustainable nature of further development in this area
In spite of our acceptance of the need for housing development, we oppose this latest proposed development at Fauldhead in the light of feedback from some residents of Market Road, who 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.
Residents 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, adding to the problem. They stressed the known detrimental effects of traffic fumes on health.
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.
We doubt whether improved public transport would stop new residents (or existing ones) using their cars, so believe 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.
Looked at in the context of recent and ongoing large 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 planned for in the Waterside/Fauldhead/Duntiblae area, without adequate infrastructure to sustain this increase in population (roads, schools, health access). There is a danger of throwing away valued natural spaces while creating non-sustainable urban sprawl. 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.
Regardless of what happens over 6.31, we would like to make some recommendations concerning the green-belt land on either side of the Luggie upstream from this site (i.e. the rest of what was referred to as LDP 12 in the Main Issues Report and in the Strategic Environmental Assessment). And, if the 6.31 development should receive the go-ahead despite its anticipated negative impact on existing residents and their health and well-being, we would like to make some requests and suggestions relating to it too.
1) We would like to see the rest of what was LDP 12 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.
Regardless of whether or not the part now identified as 6.31 becomes a housing development site, we would strongly urge that the remaining areas of the originally designated LDP 12 site (coloured green on the current map, or green with blue flood risk dots) be given Local Nature Conservation Site status (Policy 8) and thus protected for the future. This area around 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 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).
2) Should housing go ahead at 6.31, we would like to see the pond and mound within 6.31 and the views towards them treated sensitively; we would like to see hedgerows and trees retained
There is much distress locally that the site identified for housing development (6.31) includes the meadow with the pond and tree-crowned mound within it (i.e. the meadow bordered by Old Duntiblae Road and Market Road). We would ask the planning department to ensure that, should there be any development here, 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, if possible, from Market Road are protected (thus protecting and enhancing landscape character, local distinctiveness and scenic value – Strategic Environmental Assessment Objective 5). As the council recognises, wildlife access to the pond must also be protected. This relatively compact site is an important wildlife habitat for ducks, geese, frogs and toads among other species (many of them protected).
In order that any development here remains as environmentally and wildlife-friendly as possible, we believe that hedgerows and trees between the two meadows proposed for development as well as adjoining the Waterside-Fauldhead (Dam Braes) footpath should be retained, as well as marshy areas around the pond.
Waterside Community Council is currently taking advice about whether the points we intend to include in our representation are valid material planning considerations.