Consultation for the planning application for the replacement Monklands Hospital closes on the 9th September.
I’ve commented on the application, and it reads as follows:
Looking at the plan, it appears that a number of opportunities to build in good walking and cycle routes have been missed. There could have been better links built in to cross the North Calder Water, linking in with Core Paths and the Heritage Trail, to allow access on foot from the Moffat Mills side, reducing the need for people from communities in the Moffat Mills/Gartness/Petersburn area to rely on the long way round by car.
The construction route from Stanrigg Road should be maintained afterwards as an Active Travel Route, allowing foot/cycle access from Plains.
Clarification is also required as to the Active Travel Entrance from Towers Road. Can we have conformation that this route will not be a car access, and that it will be a true active travel route, linking in to NCN75?
In addition, the layout of some sections of the car parks is such that people getting out of their cars do not have immediate access to pathways: this is a poor design which puts people into conflict with vehicle traffic.
You can comment or object to the proposal HERE.
The Airdrie Rambler 
I tried something similar writing to our local council about building plans for a new estate near me. I said that, if they made a link from an existing public access road at the back of the site and continued it through the proposed site on a private existing road (which was going to become part of the new estate), that they could make it safe for cyclists to avoid the busy A595 when linking the two sets of quiet back roads either side of the main road. They completely ignored me. Unfortunately, they hadn’t set up a consultation page.
I see you’re making good use of your time while you’re laid up! 🙂
Thanks Carol. I doubt much notice will be paid to the consultation, but as Chair of the local authority Outdoor Access Forum I thought I should point out a few things which could be improved. It does annoy me to see how, by limiting access to only a few points, it deters people from the local area from walking to the site, and actively encourages them to travel by car instead.
I saw no reason to object as it’s pretty much a done deal, and I did in fact propose an alternative site a few years back, which protected this stretch of greenbelt.