For those who read about the idea of a walking and cycling path behind the Crossmyloof Resource Centre, to provide a direct route from Moray Place to Crossmyloof Station, here is the response from the relevant Council department.
The original proposal and comments from the community are in the earlier post, Active Travel in Strathbungo – The Crossmyloof Resource Centre path
MESSAGE SENT ON BEHALF OF
PROPERTY & LAND SERVICES
I refer to the enquiry received regarding the creation of an active travel path along the route of the rail line at Crossmyloof and traversing across the north of the site of the former care home (please refer to the attached plans).
On the face of it, the proposal would appear to have some merit. While there is existing access for pedestrian and cycles from Moray Place to the intersection of Titwood Road and Minard Road by means of turning left into Carswell Gardens and then turning right into Titwood Road, a path across the back of the care home site would be more direct and would shorten the journey. It would also be in line with Council policy on promoting Active Travel. However it would also inevitably mean a reduction in the likely capital receipt for the sale of the former care home and the investigation into the planning and viability of the path would also likely cause delay in securing a sale. While it is not possible to quantify how much the reduction might be, or what delay may occur, I think it fair to say that there would undoubtedly be some reduction in the capital receipt.
In addition, the proposed route of the path uses the lane to the north of 45 Carswell Gardens. This lane is in private ownership and is not adopted. Therefore in order to use the section of lane to the north of 45 Carswell Gardens for the Active Travel Route we would need to obtain permission of the owner of the land including permission to remove the section of wall. It is also very likely that the owners of the houses on the western side of Carswell Gardens that back on to the lane will have vehicular access rights to use the lane including the section to the north of 45 Carswell Gardens. If we were looking to restrict cars from using that section of the lane then agreement would need to be reached with each of the individual house owners on that point. Such a restriction would make it awkward for vehicles to get in and out and would likely lead to cars reversing onto Titwood Road. If a restriction on cars wasn’t required we would need to consider a path design that would accommodate both pedestrian and car users.
Clearly there are a number of issues that would need to be addressed in order to make the proposed Active Travel Route a reality. In addressing those issues there are no guarantees that agreement could be reached with either the landowner of the lane or the individual house owners, or that the terms, if offered, by the different parties would be acceptable to the Council. I would also add that the Council is committed to the development of a city-wide Active Travel Strategy which will deliver a strategic plan for Glasgow. A recruitment process is currently underway to undertake the development of this plan over the next 12 months. In advance of this, it may be premature to deliver stand-alone projects which may not necessarily fit with this city-wide strategy.
In conclusion, while recognising that the proposal has some merit, on balance we do not feel that this option should be pursued given the reduced capital receipt for the sale of the former care home; the cost of reaching agreement with the lane owner and possibly the housed holders; the amount of officers time required to negotiate and reach agreement with the various parties; the possibility that such work would be abortive should no agreement be reached; and also the development of the city-wide Active Travel Strategy may identify an alternative or more strategic active travel proposal for this locality which could negate the need for this proposed intervention.
The response included these maps. The blue line is an exact reproduction from my sketch, and was apparently initially taken literally by the officers, who objected to it bisecting the site.
Cllr Jon Molyneux plans to go back to the council officer for clarification of some of the points raised. He, like I, feels this reads like a contrived excuse to do nothing.
What do you think? Feel free to add your comments on the council response, and in favour or against the idea of a path.