clyde gateway - bridgeton environmental improvements final report

Bridgeton Environmental ImprovementsFinal Report

Part 8 APPENDICES ............................................................................................... .....498.1 APPENDIX 1 – LIGHTING STRATEGY ...................................................... 498.2 APPENDIX 2 – REVIEW OF TRAFFIC ISSUES, SUDS + CYCLE PROVISION..518.3 APPENDIX 3 – ABERCROMBY STREET CEMETERY – HISTORICAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 538.4 APPENDIX 4 – SERVICES INFORMATION ................................................ 558.5 APPENDIX 5 – TYPICAL PARKING BAY DETAILS FOR JAMES STREET + MAIN STREET ..................................................................................... 578.6 APPENDIX 6 – FULL SIZE DRAWINGS: .................................................... 59

Abercromby Street Cemetery – Plan .......................................... in plastic pouchTullis Street Park – Plan ............................................................. in plastic pouchTullis Street Park – Aerial Sketch ................................................ in plastic pouchBCLC Park - Option 1 – Plan ...................................................... in plastic pouchBCLC Park - Option 2 – Plan ...................................................... in plastic pouchBCLC Park – Option 3 – Plan ..................................................... in plastic pouchBCLC Park – Option 4 – Plan ..................................................... in plastic pouchBCLC Park – Option 1 – Aerial Sketch ........................................ in plastic pouchBCLC Park – Option 2 – Aerial Sketch ........................................ in plastic pouchJames Street + Main Street – Option 1 – Plan ............................ in plastic pouchJames Street + Main Street – Option 2 - Plan ............................. in plastic pouch

All maps reproduced from / based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.Glasgow City Council. 100023379 (August 2008).

Contents

Part 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 41.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 4

Part 2 CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... 52.1 Project Context ...................................................................................... 52.2 Clyde Gateway Green Network Strategy ................................................ 62.3 Context of the five sites ......................................................................... 6

Part 3 SITE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 93.1 The Study Area ....................................................................................... 9

Part 4 PROPOSALS FOR THE FIVE SITES ....................................................................... 11

4.1 Overarching Themes and Strategies ....................................................... 11

4.2 Abercromby Street Cemetery ................................................................ 12

4.3 Tullis Street Park .................................................................................... 16

4.4 BCLC Park ............................................................................................. 21

4.5 James Street .......................................................................................... 32

4.6 Main Street ........................................................................................... 38

4.7 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems ..................................................... 44

Part 5 COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ......................................... 45

Part 6 COSTING ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 46

Part 7 NEXT STEPS ..................................................................................................... 477.1 Next Steps ............................................................................................. 477.2 Further Recommendations .................................................................... 487.3 Prioritisation .......................................................................................... 48

Part 1: Introduction | Part 2: Context | Part 3: Site Analysis | Part 4: Proposals for the Five Sites | Part 4.2: Abercromby Street Cemetery | Part 4.3: Tullis Street Park | Part 4.4: BCLC Park | Part 4.5: James Street | Part 4.6: Main Street | Part 5: Community Consultation | Part 6: Costing Analysis | Part 7: Next Steps | Part 8: Appendices




1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1. This study has been commissioned by Clyde Gateway URC and Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership. Additional co-ordination has been carried out by Glasgow City Council and Scottish Enterprise.

1.1.2. Bridgeton is a key area of the Clyde Gateway Regeneration Initiative (CGRI) and several studies are being undertaken concurrently in the area to prepare proposals for environmental improvements. The aim of this particular study is to prepare proposals for environmental improvements for five sites consisting of three open spaces and two linear on-road routes in Bridgeton, namely:

• Abercromby Street Cemetery (Weaver’s Cemetery)• Tullis Street Park• Open space around the Bridgeton Community Learning Centre• James Street• Main Street

Figure 1.1 - Location of the 5 sites in Bridgeton

Part 1: Introduction



2.0 CONTEXT

2.1 Project Context

2.1.1. This study builds on the output from three previous pieces of work undertaken by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership:

• The Clyde Waterfront Green Network Strategy • The Clyde Gateway Green Network Strategy• The River Clyde Access Project

2.1.2. The objective of the Clyde Gateway Regeneration Initiative is to address the decline in the area’s physical, economic, social and environmental performance. The Initiative is a major national regeneration project relating to an area of 2070 acres in the East End of Glasgow, and extending into Rutherglen in South Lanarkshire. The project area is defined by eight districts comprising Shawfield; Dalmarnock; Bridgeton; London Road; Farme Cross; Toryglen; Arena and Cuningar Park.

2.1.3. Several publications set the context for the Bridgeton improvements:

• Clyde Gateway, “A Vision for the East End”, prepared by Gensler in March 2004.• Clyde Gateway Green Network Strategy, prepared by Land Use Consultants in July 2007.• Bridgeton Urban Design Study, produced by Austin-Smith:Lord in December 2007.• East End Local Development Strategy, produced by Glasgow City Council in January 2008.• Glasgow City Plan• East End Access and Greenspace Study and Core Path Plan

2.1.4. The purpose of the study is to provide sketch scheme proposals, consider the feasibility of the proposed options, provide outline costs for options, provide recommendations for future works, with the view to the proposals being implemented, subject to funding availability. Where necessary, the study is to provide recommendations for any other improvements which may enhance the function of the identified areas, and ultimately help to deliver the Clyde Gateway Green Network.

2.1.5. The study has been undertaken using desktop analysis, site visits, discussion with interested parties, obtaining information on previous and current work which has been undertaken by others within and around several of the sites, consultation through discussion and informal drop-in sessions with stakeholders and the community.

2.1.6. The study has been undertaken by a project team consisting of Austin-Smith:Lord; Neilson Partnership; Cundall Lighting and Faber Maunsell.

Part 2: Context

Figure 2.1 - Relationship of the five Bridgeton sites (outlined in red) to some of the neighbouring proposals and studies

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

© Crown copyright and database right 2012. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence Number 1000332510



2.2 Clyde Gateway Green Network Strategy

2.2.1. The Clyde Gateway Green Network Strategy was prepared in July 2007, and described ways in which the Green Network will contribute to the Clyde Gateway’s future environmental quality, community vitality and economic success. It highlighted the opportunity to create a unique, distinctive and high quality urban environment. The report recommended a series of early action projects and this study was commissioned as a result of these recommendations.

2.2.2. The Green Network Strategy defines those key components of the Green Network which should be prioritised to realise the Structure Plan’s aspirations for the Gateway area and to connect the area to the surrounding communities and green spaces, which comprises a combination of the Clyde Corridor, a series of retained and enhanced green spaces, and new Green Network resources.

2.2.3. The term Clyde Gateway refers to an area stretching from Polmadie and Bridgeton in the west, to Braidfauld in the east, Parkhead in the north and Rutherglen in the south, with the River Clyde running through the middle of the area. Projects recommended specifically for the Bridgeton area were outlined in Section 5.6 of the Strategy Report, with the mention of the creation of a high quality civic space at Bridgeton Cross, improvements to the Weaver’s Cemetery; the creation of a green link along James Street incorporating street trees and improved pedestrian and cycle space; the enhancement of existing green spaces such as cemeteries or sports pitches.

2.2.4. The proposals developed for the five sites, as part of this study, will assist in achieving the objectives set out in the Clyde Gateway Green Network Strategy, such as:

• The Green Network will create an attractive environment within which new development will be located, encouraging investment as houses become more marketable and commercial investors area attracted by a distinctive new urban character;

• The Green Network will support the 2014 Commonwealth Games by transforming the quality of the urban environment of east Glasgow;

• The Green Network will create a network of walking and cycling routes which promote healthy and sustainable travel within the area;

• The Green Network will contribute to improved physical and mental health by creating opportunities for active recreation and relaxation;

• The Green Network will realise the potential of the River Clyde corridor as a key feature in the urban landscape of east Glasgow and South Lanarkshire. It will create a safe and attractive corridor, connecting with surrounding areas and with new greenspaces at strategic locations. It will reconnect the area with Glasgow Green, the city centre and the Clyde Valley;

• The Green Network will bring biodiversity back into the city, providing new opportunities for local people to experience and enjoy the natural heritage;

• The Green Network will contribute to the rejuvenation of existing communities in and around the Gateway area and to the creation of vibrant new communities by providing opportunities for relaxation, interaction and local involvement;

• The Green Network will provide a means of interpreting and enjoying the area’s industrial and social heritage as well as a means of expressing contemporary culture in the form of art, sculpture and community events.

2.3 Context of the five sites

2.3.1. The five sites are located to the north, south, east, west and in close proximity to Bridgeton Cross, which is one of the most significant urban nodes within Glasgow’s East End. The area has suffered from population decline, lack of investment and increases in vacant land and derelict property. Social, economic and health issues have a further negative impact on the community. There are excellent opportunities for the area due to the delivery of the Clyde Gateway URC, as well as the opportunities arising from the forthcoming Commonwealth Games.

2.3.2. Each of the five sites are distinct and disparate from each other with the exception of James Street and Main Street, which meet at the junction with Bridgeton Cross. As the sites are distributed throughout the area, they vary in character and land use, and some are significant in highlighting Bridgeton’s former industries.

2.3.3. Although Bridgeton Cross has not been included within the five sites, this study and the development of proposals for each space build in and take cognisance of the aspirations set out in the Bridgeton Urban Design Study, with the areas close to this historic core treated appropriately. The proposals outlined in this Study could be implemented independently of any proposals for Bridgeton Cross itself, but would aim to complement any future development of the area.

2.3.4. Historic maps, see Figures 2.3 to 2.4, illustrate the former uses of the area, such as the many weaving factories, the gas works located on the present day site of the BCLC, the cemeteries at Tullis Street and Abercromby Street, as well as the original strong grid pattern of the area. Over time, several roads in the area have been stopped up, or new development has changed road circulation patterns, resulting in links across the area being lost . The names of several streets in the area have also changed over the years, for example, Tullis Street was once known as John Street, and Finnart Street was previously known as Howard Street.

2.3.5. This study needs to consider the purpose and current uses of each of the spaces within the modern day context and consider the possibility of creating physical or perceived links and connectivity to the spaces. The spaces are potentially gateways, entrance points, routes, parks or memorable places in themselves. Creating connectivity and legible links to some of Bridgeton’s key amenities should be considered such as Bridgeton Cross, Glasgow Green, redevelopment of Dalmarnock, NISA and the Commonwealth Games developments.

2.3.6. The legacy of the industrial uses of the area is the potential presence of contamination. The scope of this study has not covered geotechnical research therefore prior to the development of any proposals to a more detailed level, further geotechnical and site investigation would be advised to ascertain ground conditions. With regard to the BCLC site, it is very likely that there is a risk of contamination due to the former landuse.



Figure 2.2 – OS Map of the Bridgeton area in 1858 Figure 2.3 – OS Map of the Bridgeton area in 1914

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


rmckeown

Typewritten Text




Figure 2.4 – OS Map of the Bridgeton area in 1933



3.0 SITE ANALYSIS

3.1 The Study Area

3.1.1. On the basis that the study considers the purpose and use of each of the spaces, the five sites have been analysed within the context of the Bridgeton area. This analysis of the existing situation will help to inform how the proposals may be developed. The analysis has also taken cognisance of the objectives set out by the Clyde Gateway Green Network Strategy: creating a network of walking and cycling routes and a series of attractive green spaces and destinations within this network, thereby promoting improved physical and mental health.

3.1.2. In support of improving connectivity and legibility within Bridgeton, and to surrounding amenities, key developments and destinations, the following themes have been reviewed:

• Hierarchy of Urban Form• Links• Distribution of Green Spaces• Key Junctions• Key Entrances and Features

3.1.3. The Bridgeton area has a clear existing hierarchy of spaces with Bridgeton Cross at the core of this. It is a key space and a destination both historically and in terms of spatial context and function.

3.1.4. Key Junctions and Entrances: Each of the five sites have entrances which are extremely important to how the site is perceived and subsequently how the space is used. The existing entrances to the open spaces at Abercromby Street Cemetery, Tullis Street Park and approaches to the BCLC are poor quality and do not encourage people to enter and use the spaces.

3.1.5. Character and Edge Treatments: The existing urban form around the Bridgeton Cross core area is strong. Moving away from the core area the urban form weakens as the strong edges are eroded. Built form begins to be set back from the street and street junctions become less legible. Within this hierarchy the northern parts of James Street and Main Street are within what is recognised as the Core Zone, the majority of James Street and Main Street reading as Intermediate Zone, and the most southerly section of Main Street as an Outer Zone.

3.1.6. Key Links: There are links possible through the area connecting the various open spaces, but are generally illegible, poorly used and often hidden away amongst the grid of streets, or undermined by new housing developments. There are several National Cycle Network routes, as well as other cycle routes, running alongside the River Clyde and across Glasgow Green, and Bridgeton is ideally located to link into these routes.

3.1.7. The following Figures 3.1 to 3.3 generally illustrate how each of these themes impact on the five sites. The proposals for each of the sites aim to respond to and enhance the current key assets.

Part 3: Site Analysis

Figure 3.1 - Core Area, Key Junctions and Entrances

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


rmckeown

Typewritten Text



Figure 3.2 - Existing character / edge treatments Figure 3.3 - Key Links

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text




4.0 PROPOSALS FOR THE FIVE SITES

4.1 Overarching Themes and Strategy

4.1.1. The proposals developed for each of the five sites respond to the unique issues presented by each of them, whilst aiming to develop a vision which ties them all together within the Bridgeton context and future development. The proposals aim to enhance the following key assets which apply to all five spaces:

• Each site is important in telling a story about the past glories, wealth of history and the development of Bridgeton.

• Each space has developed in form, land use, shape and size due to past layers of interventions.• A journey through the spaces could provide a glimpse of past, present and future Bridgeton.

4.1.2. The proposals aim to create spaces which respond to modern day Bridgeton and contribute to the community, local residents and businesses whilst highlighting and enhancing its rich context to visitors.

4.1.3. The proposals for each site aim to take cognisance of all possible future developments and proposals currently being considered, such as the NISA developments for the Commonwealth Games; Thenew Housing Association developments; Proposed Games Hall Extension at the BCLC; research and proposals undertaken previously for Abercromby Street Cemetery and Tullis Street Park by Glasgow City Council Land Services Department; research and ongoing work by Friends of the Weavers.

4.1.4. The overarching themes for the sites and the Bridgeton area are:

• to create a network of attractive, green spaces which are “destinations” within the wider network of walking and cycling routes;

• to enhance linear routes and links between the green spaces, highlighting key junctions and entrances to encourage use of the network of routes;

• to create spaces which respond to the context and enhance the legibility of Bridgeton.

4.1.5. Within this network of routes linking the spaces, the linear street areas of James Street and Main Street can be divided into core areas and non-core areas. The core area relates to Bridgeton Cross which is central to the redevelopment of Bridgeton and will be treated accordingly to highlight its importance. The whole length of James Street (approx. 350m) is recognised as being a core area as it connects the Cross to Glasgow Green. Similarly, the northern third of Main Street between Bridgeton Cross and the Tullis Street/Muslin Street junction is recognised as core due to the strong urban form along this section. The remaining length of Main Street is outwith the core area. Main Street is 650m long and there are 6 junctions along its length with the strategy and overarching proposals aiming to highlight and enhance these junctions.

4.1.6. The proposals and overarching themes are supplemented by a lighting strategy which will create an identity unique to Bridgeton:

• The proposed lighting will introduce some of the historical elements of the weaving industry into the design of the street and park lighting. At night the lighting will create distinctive spaces using different light intensities and colour temperatures to emphasise the function and importance of specific areas;

• The aim is to upgrade the existing lighting of James Street and Main Street and to provide feature lighting at the entrances to the cemetery and parks. The lighting scheme will aim to be energy efficient, using a minimum number of lantern types to create the desired lighting effect for the different public spaces, which will give the appearance of a more open and spacious environment;

• The lighting scheme for the streets proposes a lantern type that will enhance the streets and provide continuity, helping to accentuate the link between the Cross and Glasgow Green along James Street, and the link between the Cross and the River Clyde along Main Street. A different lantern type would be proposed to highlight the core area closer to Bridgeton Cross, which would provide a more localised level of light at pedestrian level along the footways;

• The lighting strategy will reduce light pollution, provide appropriate levels of illumination for safety and function, and highlight Bridgeton’s special architectural features in order to attract and create interest in the area.

Part 4: Proposals for the Five Sites

Figure 4.1 - Location of the 5 sites in Bridgeton


4.2 Abercromby Street Cemetery

4.2.1. Summary Information:

Strengths • Great historic importance established 1786, Listed Category B, close to Glasgow Green and Peoples Palace

• Potentially a very attractive space• A large amount of research and outline proposals have

already been undertaken by the Friends of the Weavers and Glasgow City Council Land Services

Weaknesses • Safety and security due to misuse of the space• Lack of care being taken in maintaining the cemetery • Difficult to interpret the history of the place• Passing pedestrians or vehicles would not easily

appreciate what is behind the stone wallIssues to be addressed • Historic and potentially very pleasant space in poor

state of repair• Suffers from anti-social behaviour• Lack of information and interpretation about historic

contextLighting Issues • It would be aspirational to incorporate lighting which

would allow the space to be used in the evening as well as the daytime but the reality is that if lighting was introduced into the cemetery it would attract antisocial behaviour. Lighting should instead be used minimally along the frontage of the space to create interest at night but not give enough light to encourage gathering and misuse.

Development aspirations • Improve quality, preserve and carefully repair and restore high quality elements of the cemetery

• Highlight importance of site providing appropriate and sensitive interpretation

• Highlight the appeal of the space from Abercromby Street

Proposed uses • Tourist destination alongside Glasgow Green and Peoples Palace

• Source of local history for community and school groups

• Open space for local communityLand Ownership • Glasgow City CouncilCurrent Management • Glasgow City Council Land ServicesFuture Management • To be confirmedCost Estimate for Works

(also refer to breakdown of costs)

• Approx. £285,000

Stakeholders + Associated Interested Bodies

• Friends of the Weavers• Glasgow City Council Land Services• Historic Scotland

4.2.2. The proposals have been developed on the basis of previous work undertaken by Friends of the Weavers and Glasgow City Council Land Services and in consultation with these groups. The proposals generally consist of careful restoration and enhancement of key assets and qualities. It is also proposed that an additional ‘layer’ of intervention is added to the carefully restored space providing sensitive interpretation to this key space.

4.2.3. Historical Maps and Images:

Part 4.2: Abercromby Street Cemetery

1857 1892

1900 1970



4.2.4. Current conditions inside the cemetery:

Various cultural references to the Weavers of Bridgeton

Cemetery Entrance Area on Abercromby Street

Inside the Cemetery



4.2.5. The proposals for Abercromby Street Cemetery entail:

• New gates at both entrances. This will help highlight the existence of the cemetery to passers by on the street.• Lighting outside the cemetery will help make a feature of the gates and the boundary wall and further highlight

the presence of the cemetery.• Improved, high quality surfacing around the cemetery entrance will help announce the cemetery when passing it

on Abercromby Street. Use of inscribed stone or steel panels set in the paving will provide an additional point of interest.

• An interpretation point inside the entrance to the cemetery, consisting of inscribed stone or steel panels listing the numbered graves and the names of the people buried there, will provide much easier understanding of the history of the cemetery.

• Sensitive management and maintenance of the existing trees and grass areas to provide an appropriate setting for the cemetery.

• Maintenance and cleaning of the selected boundary walls and headstones where necessary to improve the interpretation of the cemetery.

• Improvements to the existing footpath, with edging, surfacing and inscribed panels inset providing interpretation of songs and poetry of local significance.

Figure 4.2 - Section through proposals for Abercromby Street Cemetery Figure 4.3 - Proposals for Abercromby Street Cemetery


rmckeown

Typewritten Text



4.2.6. Typical palette of materials suggested for Abercromby Street Cemetery:

Natural Stone with inset panel could be used at the entrance area on Abercromby Street, to highlight the existence of the space from Abercromby Street

Stone or steel inscribed with lettering could provide sensitive interpretation both inside and outside the cemetery

Reclaimed setts, bound gravel and stainless steel edging may be used at the entrance area and along the pathway

Feature lighting of the boundary wall to emphasise the presence of the cemetery to passers by on Abercromby Street

4.2.7. There is further information on Abercromby Cemetery (historic photos, historic research, arboricultural survey) available in the Appendices.

4.2.8. A breakdown of the costs associated with the proposals for Abercromby Street Cemetery is outlined below. Note this does not include Preliminaries or Contingencies which are outlined in the Summary in Part 6 along with the Total Cost for each site.


BRIDGETON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS

ABERCROMBY STREET CEMETERY

Estimated Costs prepared by GCC Land & Environmental Services

Restoration and cleaning of headstones Item 17,000

Heritage style signage cabinet Item 4,900

Replacement trees Item 9,000

Benches Item 1,000

Remedial work to grass areas Item 3,000

Path and edging Item 28,000

Heritage gates Item 25,000

Additional ItemsAdditional arboricultural work Item 3,000

Entrance surfacing Item 15,000

Work to line of previous wall Item 1,500

Work to walls Item 25,000

Lighting installation Item 22,000

CCTV installation Item 44,000

Builders work in connection with services Item 5,000

Additional items of interpretation Item 15,000

Calton Weavers memorial Item 7,500

Sub-Total (excluding Preliminaries & Contingencies) £225,900Refer to Summary in Part 6 for Total Costs


4.3 Tullis Street Park

4.3.1. Summary Information

Strengths • Small-medium sized park in residential area, with historic associations as a cemetery

• Existing selection of potentially attractive, mature tree and shrub planting

• Two entrances, one entrance on Tullis Street, one on Landressy Street

• Remnants of former boundary walls of quality materials, remnants of the former cemetery such as headstones

Weaknesses • Lack of local interest in the park• No natural surveillance of the park• Safety and security due to misuse of the space• Overgrown vegetation and unattractive entrances

create an unwelcoming spaceIssues to be addressed • Hidden space within network of streets with no

surveillance from neighbouring spaces and dense vegetation

• Suffers from anti-social behaviour• Lack of information and interpretation about context• Encourage passers by to use the park as both a link

between Bridgeton and Glasgow Green, as well as a destination for use as an amenity space

Lighting Issues • Similarly to Abercromby Street Cemetery it would be aspirational to incorporate lighting into Tullis Street Park to encourage use of the space in the evening as well as the daytime, however the likelihood is that it would attract antisocial behaviour. We would propose to make use of lighting at the entrances to the park rather than through the whole of the park.

Development aspirations • Open up accesses to the space to provide an inviting green space and green link to the wider network of streets, increased use and increased passive surveillance

• Provide appropriate and sensitive interpretation about the site’s former uses

• Highlight the entrances and the existence of the park• Create space which is relatively easy to maintain

Proposed uses • Open space for local community and green network facilities

Land Ownership • Glasgow City CouncilCurrent Management • Glasgow City Council Land ServicesFuture Management • To be confirmedCost Estimate for Works • Approx. £450,000Stakeholders + Associated Interested Bodies

• Glasgow City Council Land Services

4.3.2. Current conditions inside and outside Tullis Street Park:

Part 4.3: Tullis Street Park


Tullis Street Entrance

Landressy Place Entrance

Inside the Park


4.3.3. The proposals for Tullis Street Park entail:

• Lighting columns or sculptural pillars at entrances to create permeable edges, as well as attractive street frontage, providing information and interpretation of Tullis Street Park and Tullis Street.

• Retain selected specimen trees to maintain an element of mature vegetation in the park.• Remove the majority of the established vegetation to open up the entrances to the park, improve the visibility

across and around the park, and allow more natural surveillance of the spaces from the housing on all sides of the park.

• Retain the existing stone walls and headstones within the park and provide interpretation elements such as inscribed stone or metal plates set into the walls or surfacing.

• Linear beds of shrubs or perennials to add seasonal interest and modernise the appearance of the park.• Feature lighting at the entrances to the park to provide a point of interest and raise awareness of the existence of

the park, in conjunction with Abercromby Street Cemetery and the BCLC Park.• Encourage greater use of the park as a destination and part of the network between Tullis Street and James

Street.


Figure 4.4 - Tullis Street Proposals

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text




Figure 4.5 - Tullis Street Park - Aerial Sketch Figure 4.6 - Section through Tullis Street Proposals (Section 4)


4.3.4. Typical palette of materials suggested for Tullis Street Park:

Self-Binding Gravel or Resin Bound Gravel Pathway with distinctive edging

In-situ concrete raised planters / seating walls

Trees, low shrub planting with grass surfacing

Metal sculptural columns or pillars creating permeable entrance and potential interpretation

Feature lighting at entrance: The ‘Urban Belt’ luminaire is a robust steel structure and has been selected as the preferred bollard type fitting for the park and cemetery entrances. The bollard has resembles the spindle used in weaving. The ‘Belt’ is lit from the base using LEDs.

Meadow grass provides seasonal colour

Shrub / perennial planting provides seasonal interest



4.3.5. A breakdown of the costs associated with the proposals for Tullis Street Park is outlined below. Note this does not include Preliminaries or Contingencies which are outlined in the Summary in Part 6 along with the Total Cost for each site:



TULLIS STREET PARK

Estimated Costs prepared by GCC Land & Environmental Services

Restoration and cleaning of headstones Item 20,000

Repairs and restoration of perimeter walls Item 25,000

Gated entrance Item 10,000

New feature entrance Item 25,000

Repairs to internal walls Item 20,000

Restoration of railings Item 10,000

Bicentenary plaque Item 5,000

Map boards Item 5,000

Victorian cabinet Item 5,000

CCTV installation Item 44,000

Arboricultural work Item 20,000

Remove shrubs Item 10,000

Tree and shrub planting Item 30,000

Street furniture Item 10,000

Upgrade footpaths Item 80,000

Conservation/biodiversity planting Item 6,000

Additional ItemsConcrete planter/seating Item 10,000

Lighting installation Item 15,000

Builders work in connection with services Item 5,000



4.4 BCLC Park


Strengths • Large open green space• Selected quality specimens within existing mature tree

and shrub planting could be retained and utilised• Historic association with gas works• Great community facilities available at BCLC, with

future possibility of a games hall extension• Location and proximity to adjacent play and sports

facilities and school• Proximity to development and links associated with

East End Regeneration Route and NISA siteWeaknesses • Overgrown vegetation creates an unwelcoming,

intimidating space• Little natural surveillance of the park• Safety and security due to misuse of the space• Minimal through traffic or pedestrians as located on

Old Dalmarnock Road which is dead-end street• Little appreciation of the BCLC from pedestrians and

vehicles passing on Dunn Street and Dalmarnock Road, possibly due to orientation of buildings

Issues to be addressed • Open space does not relate to or complement the adjacent BCLC and facilities

• Suffers from anti-social behaviour and appears as “left-over” space

• Dense planting around the edge discourages access into and use of the space

• Possible contamination on site due to former site uses• Excessively wide Old Dalmarnock Road, unmarked

parking bays and over supply of car parking leads to confusion over where to park

• Location of the entrance door is not obvious from the existing approaches to the centre

Lighting Issues • The BCLC Park covers a large area with a network of routes through the space from all directions. Given that the centre is open in the evening and the proposed facilities such as the football pitch is likely to be used at night, we would propose that new lighting should be used along the northern and eastern edges of the park, and lighting upgraded on Dunn Street, which are the areas most likely to be used by pedestrians at night. Option 1 also introduces a lighting installation at the eastern edge of the park. It is possible this could become a gathering point and encourage misuse of the area but the removal of the existing vegetation will allow better surveillance of the area from Dunn Street and Old Dalmarnock Road.

Development aspirations • Provide open spaces and facilities which will complement the BCLC community centre resource and nearby school and play facilities, creating a community hub

• Introduce features and interventions which highlight and build upon the site’s former uses, creating a landmark and feature

• Increase the network of links, accesses to the surrounding areas

Proposed uses • Open space for local community and green network to adjacent spaces

Land Ownership • Glasgow City Council (To be confirmed)Current Management • Glasgow City Council, BCLC (To be confirmed)Future Management • To be agreedCost Estimate for Works • Ranging from £1,135,000 to £2,325,000 for the whole

site, or £550,000 for the area to the north of the BCLC Stakeholders + Associated Interested Bodies

• BCLC Management• Glasgow City Council• Local schools and church• Thenew Housing Association

4.4.2. Several proposals and initiatives are currently being prepared for the area which may impact on any future development of the open space. This study has researched and collated the information prepared to date and summarises them below.

4.4.3. Proposals have been prepared by MAST Architects to add a sports hall extension to the southern side of the BCLC. The status of this proposal is uncertain as it is dependant on funding.

Figure 4.7 – BCLC Extension Proposals

Part 4.4: BCLC Park



4.4.4. Christopher Palmer Associates developed a proposal for the area in front of the BCLC entrance area, incorporating an events space, improved path links, tree planting and car parking spaces. These outline proposals have been discussed with the staff at the BCLC and in response incorporated into the various BCLC proposals outlined in this study.

Figure 4.8 –Proposals for the entrance area at BCLC by Christopher Palmer Associates in conjunction with MAST Architects

4.4.5. Thenew Housing Association have commissioned a regeneration masterplan study for Bridgeton. Any development in the BCLC area would be subject to a detailed review and site investigation of all possible geotechnical constraints. (Inclusion of the details of the Thenew proposals, including images from their study, require to be given approval by Thenew prior to the finalisation of this report).

4.4.6. The East End Regeneration Route passes in close proximity to the BCLC site. Mitigation proposals were developed as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment by Glasgow City Council. The proposals are shown in Figure 4.9 and generally consist of avenues of 18-20cm girth specimen trees alongside the route. We propose to continue this tree planting approach alongside the southern edge of the BCLC park to introduce an element of continuity to the landscape treatment of the area.

Figure 4.9 - East End Regeneration Route with Planting Mitigation Proposals


rmckeown

Typewritten Text


rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text



4.4.7. Historic Maps and existing aerial view of the BCLC Park:


1858

1933

1914

1938

Aerial photograph of the BCLC site


4.4.8. Current conditions at the BCLC park:

4.4.9. On the basis that there are the possibility of other developments taking place on the site, several options for the BCLC space have been proposed:

• Option 1 – assumes the extension is added to the BCLC and the community green space is developed.

• Option 2 – assumes the extension is added to the BCLC and the sports and play facilities are developed

• Option 3 – assumes the extension is added to the BCLC and the south-western corner of the site is developed for housing or an additional community building

• Option 4 – assumes the extension is added to the BCLC and the southern half of the site is developed for housing or an additional community building

4.4.10. The proposals for the BCLC Park Option 1 are shown on Figures 4.10 and 4.11 and entail:

• Increased entrance area to provide an outdoor seating area / events space and provide a more obvious route to the entrance door.

• Parking on Old Dalmarnock Road rationalised, realigned and marked out to provide a clear understanding of where to park and where the centre entrance is.

• Improved footpath running parallel with Old Dalmarnock Road, with contemporary lighting columns, to improve the pedestrian and cycle route connecting Dunn Street and Bridgeton Cross.

• Network of footpaths around the park to provide better links from all directions past the BCLC, and encourage use of paths as cycle links to connect into the National Cycle Network route alongside the River Clyde and other cycle routes through Glasgow Green.

• Retain the gas work columns and create a feature lighting installation which connects with the past use of the site in a contemporary way.

• Community allotments and garden areas, including access for disabled, special needs and school children.• Removal of the overgrown, dense vegetation around the edges of the park which will help increase natural

surveillance of the park, and decrease misuse of the space.• Retain selected specimen trees to maintain an element of mature vegetation in the park.• Introduction of tree avenues alongside Dunn Street to tie into the planting proposed for the EERR.• Introduction of different sizes of trees throughout the park to introduce seasonal interest and green space.• Use of low cost, easily maintainable surfacing throughout the park to maximise the variety and number of

different routes and spaces.


Vast area of unmarked car parking and tarmac surface at east side of BCLC

Existing fenced garden area at back of BCLC

Existing footpath and mature vegetation along eastern edge of park

Dense vegetation separating the park from Dunn Street

Gas tank sculpture located in the middle of the park Minimal usable outside space in front of the BCLC entrance and cafe



Figure 4.10 - BCLC Proposal - Option 1

Figure 4.11 - BCLC Proposal - Option 1 - Aerial Sketch

rmckeown

Typewritten Text




Figure 4.12 - Sections through BCLC Option 1 Proposals


4.4.11. The proposals for the BCLC Park Option 2 are shown on Figures 4.13 and 4.14 and entail:

• Increased entrance area to provide an outdoor seating area / events space and provide a more obvious route to the entrance door.

• Parking on Old Dalmarnock Road rationalised, realigned and marked out to provide a clear understanding of where to park and where the centre entrance is.

• Improved footpath running parallel with Old Dalmarnock Road, with contemporary lighting columns, to improve the pedestrian and cycle route connecting Dunn Street and Bridgeton Cross.

• Network of footpaths around the park to provide better links from all directions past the BCLC, and encourage use of paths as cycle links to connect into the National Cycle Network route alongside the River Clyde and other cycle routes through Glasgow Green.

• Introduction of a football pitch area to provide an additional sport opportunity for the community centre• Community allotments and garden areas, including access for disabled, special needs and school children.• Removal of the overgrown, dense vegetation around the edges of the park which will help increase natural

surveillance of the park, and decrease misuse of the space.• Retain selected specimen trees to maintain an element of mature vegetation in the park.• Introduction of tree avenues alongside Dunn Street to tie into the planting proposed for the EERR.• Introduction of different sizes of trees throughout the park to introduce seasonal interest and green space.• Use of low cost, easily maintainable surfacing throughout the park to maximise the variety and number of

different routes and spaces.

Figure XX – BCLC Proposal – Option 2


Figure 4.13 - BCLC Proposal - Option 2 - Aerial Sketch

Figure 4.14 - BCLC Proposal - Option 2

rmckeown

Typewritten Text



4.4.12. The proposals for the BCLC Park Options 3 and 4 are the same as Option 2 except that due to the location of the potential built development areas, the amount of space available for the park would be limited leading to the exclusion of the Community Orchard in Option 3 and the exclusion of the Football Pitch, Community Orchard and the Seating and Planted Mounds in Option 4.


Figure 4.15 - BCLC Proposal - Option 3Figure 4.16 - BCLC Proposal - Option 4

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


rmckeown

Typewritten Text



4.4.13. Typical palette of materials suggested for BCLC Park:

Self-Binding Gravel or Resin Bound Gravel Pathway

In-situ concrete planters / seating walls, depicting remnants of former gas works and creation of play spaces

Robust street furniture

Meadow grass and planting adding seasonal colour

Bold, colourful surfacing adding feature to park and play spaces

Paths to be marked for use by cyclists as well as pedestrians, to link into the National Cycle Network along the River Clyde

Extra Heavy Standard or Semi-Mature Trees with low, groundcover shrubs



High quality precast concrete paving to pedestrian link along Old Dalmarnock Road and entrance area to Community Centre

Lighting columns along Old Dalmarnock Road

Conceptual proposals for the feature lighting within BCLC open space: The steel columns of the former gas tower in the BCLC park could become part of a light installation. A piece of light art would integrate and modernise the historical past of Bridgeton. The steel columns have the same quality and appearance as that of the ‘Belt’ luminaire which has been proposed at the various park entrances.

4.4.14. A breakdown of the costs associated with the 4 option proposals for the BCLC Park are outlined below. Note this does not include Preliminaries or Contingencies which are outlined in the Summary in Part 6 along with the Total Cost for each site.



BCLC PARK OPTION 1

1 Site Clearance & Earthworks

Allow m2 23,500 12 282,000

To Summary £282,000

2 Hard Landscaping

High quality concrete slabs/setts m2 2,371 100 237,100

Self-binding gravel m2 4,494 25 112,350

Kerbs m 671 30 20,130

Metal edging m 1,006 15 15,090


3 Soft Landscaping

Meadow grass m2 3,270 8 26,160

Amenity grass m2 7,265 8 58,120

Semi-mature trees Nr 39 1,000 39,000

EHS trees Nr 74 750 55,500

Orchard trees Nr 23 500 11,500

Allow for allotments/garden area Item 10,000

Maintenance Item 15,000


4 Drainage

Allow Item 100,000


5 Lighting Installation

iGuzzini Citywoody columns, including wiring Nr 13 2,000 26,000

Sculpture fittings, including wiring Nr 2 2,750 5,500

Allow for feature lighting Item 75,000

Allow for controls Item 3,500

Allow for builders work Item 25,000


6 Metalwork & Street Furniture

Allow Item 250,000


7 Sundries

Play equipment Item 50,000

Raised seating/walls Item 50,000

Public art/gas tower feature Item 50,000

Allow for other landscape features Item 25,000


Sub-Total (excluding Preliminaries & Contingencies) £1,541,950Refer to Summary in Part 6 for Total Costs


BCLC PARK OPTION 2


Allow m2 23,500 12 282,000


2 Hard Landscaping


Self-binding gravel m2 1,853 25 46,325

Kerbs m 208 30 6,240

Metal edging m 1,254 15 18,810

Edging to allotments m 335 35 11,725


3 Soft Landscaping


Allotments m2 814 25 20,350


EHS trees Nr 44 750 33,000

Orchard trees Nr 43 500 21,500



4 Drainage

Allow Item 100,000








To Summary £85,000


Allow Item 250,000


7 Sundries

Natural play area Item 50,000

Under 5s play area Item 50,000


Public art Item 35,000


All-weather pitch, including drainage, fencing and lighting Item 350,000



Light Installation ‘Belt’ Luminaire



4.4.15. The costs below separate out the area to the north of the BCLC centre which incorporates play areas, surfacing, footpaths, tree planting, grass seeding, lights and seating etc (see Figure 4.17).

Figure 4.17 - Proposals to the north of BCLC


BCLC PARK OPTION 3


Allow m2 18,000 12 216,000


2 Hard Landscaping


Self-binding gravel m2 723 25 18,075

Kerbs m 208 30 6,240

Metal edging m 864 15 12,960



3 Soft Landscaping




EHS trees Nr 40 750 30,000



4 Drainage

Allow Item 80,000

To Summary £80,000







To Summary £85,000


Allow Item 225,000


7 Sundries






All-weather pitch, including drainage, fencing and lighting Item 350,000




BCLC PARK OPTION 4


Allow m2 10,000 12 120,000


2 Hard Landscaping



Kerbs m 208 30 6,240




3 Soft Landscaping

Amenity grass m2 908 8 7,264




To Summary £62,614

4 Drainage

Allow Item 50,000

To Summary £50,000







To Summary £85,000


Allow Item 125,000


7 Sundries








BCLC PARK: AREA NORTH OF BUILDING


Allow m2 2,900 12 34,800

To Summary £34,800

2 Hard Landscaping



Kerbs m 142 30 4,260



3 Soft Landscaping




To Summary £28,360

4 Drainage

Allow Item 25,000

To Summary £25,000


Allow 25,000

To Summary £25,000


Allow Item 50,000

To Summary £50,000

7 Sundries








4.5 James Street


Strengths • Proximity to Bridgeton Cross• Direct link between Glasgow Green and Bridgeton

Cross visually and physically• Public transport corridor• Relatively low levels of traffic• Potential to become a boulevard

Weaknesses • Loss of spatial enclosure particularly towards the Cross• Lack of coherence along street in relation to building

facades, massing and boundary treatment• Disorientating traffic management at McKeith Street

Issues to be addressed • Spatial enclosure lacking consistency and uniformity• Poor termination and relationship to Bridgeton Cross• Unexplored opportunity to highlight the short distance

between Bridgeton and Glasgow GreenLighting Issues • Lighting on James Street to encourage the use of the

street at night therefore we would propose a white light which increases visibility and perceived safety. Use of good quality, contemporary components will create a positive impact with respect to safety, security and visual appearance.

Development aspirations • Creation of a “green link” between the Cross and Glasgow Green

• Create a sense of arrival at the Cross• Create uniformity within the public realm, which is

lacking in the surrounding built form• Create hierarchy along the street and enhance

relationship to Bridgeton CrossProposed uses • Direct street link between the Cross and the GreenLand Ownership • Glasgow City CouncilCurrent Management • Glasgow City CouncilFuture Management • To be agreedCost Estimate for Works • Ranging from £1,145,000 to £1,215,000Stakeholders + Associated Interested Bodies

• Glasgow City Council

4.5.2. Current Conditions on James Street:

Part 4.5: James Street


Aerial photograph of James Street

Photographs on James Street


4.5.3. As part of the site analysis and through the development of the proposals, the traffic circulation and movement was considered and possible improvements developed. The proposals are not dependant on the traffic circulation changes being implemented.

4.5.4. We have looked at the existing traffic circulation at the northern end of James Street and Main Street (referred to as the Core Area), and explored different circulation options for this area. The existing traffic circulation through the Core Area is shown in Figure 4.17. The current situation makes the James Street – Mackeith Street – Main Street axis the main traffic route, which has resulted in the by-passing of the Cross area, greatly reducing the numbers of cars passing by or stopping.

4.5.5. A detailed review of traffic related issues is contained in the Appendices but the general points to be considered in relation to any proposals being developed for both James Street and Main Street are outlined below:

• James Street and Main Street are on a bus route, therefore the minimum width of the carriageway is 6 metres, which is stipulated in the Glasgow City Council Roads Development Guide. This guide is written largely for two-way roads and does not include specific recommendations for the width of one-way roads. Therefore, when assessing one-way roads a minimum width of 6.0 metres has been used as the minimum allowed width. It is thought likely that a reduced width for one-way roads would be acceptable to Glasgow City Council however they have not been approached for comment at this stage.

• Although none of the Statutory Undertakers service location plans inspected show any apparatus that would preclude the proposals there is a potential problem with road drainage. It is believed that the existing road drainage discharges via the surface water drainage network which is known to have limited capacity. Recent changes to the design standards for drainage have effectively increased the volume of water to be dealt with in any single rainfall event. Although this change is not retrospective, it is possible that the proposed improvements could be deemed to be significant enough for James Street and Main Street to be considered as new roads and therefore subject to the new drainage standards. It is considered that the provision of additional surface water storage would resolve this issue. For the present, the review of the design has assumed that the existing drainage standard is acceptable. The design standard and any mitigation will need to be agreed with the local authority, Scottish Water and SEPA who all have responsibility for surface water drainage.

• The proposed improvements have been reviewed against the Glasgow City Council Roads Development Guidelines to ensure they are practical. During this process it was necessary to consider items that fall below the required standard. In these cases a view has been taken as to the suitability of the proposal taking into consideration factors such as safety of the users and any restrictions it imposes on the operation of the road network. The proposed improvements include a number of items that can be implemented either individually or in combination. The individual items include:

- narrowing of James Street; - narrowing of Main Street; - changes to the one-way system near Bridgeton Cross; - changing junction priorities.


Figure 4.17 - Existing Circulation through the Core Area of James Street and Main Street

rmckeown

Typewritten Text



4.5.6. Figure 4.18 illustrates a one way circulation option for consideration. It is a reversal of the current one way situation, and would allow the traffic coming from Glasgow Green to easily access the Core Area. It would require a road island at the James Street / Mackeith Street junction and at Bridgeton Cross.

4.5.7. Figure 4.19 illustrates a two-way option for consideration which would restore two way access to the full length of both James Street and Main Street and would require changes to the junction priorities and a T-junction at the James Street / Mackeith Street junction.


Figure 4.18 - Proposed one-way circulation through the Core Area of James Street and Main Street Figure 4.19 - Proposed two-way circulation through the Core Area of James Street and Main Street

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


rmckeown

Typewritten Text



4.5.8. The issues involved with altering the circulation through the Core Area of James Street and Main Street are outlined below:

• One of the aims of these environmental improvements is to bring people back to the centre of Bridgeton and more particularly to Bridgeton Cross and the local shops and services. But the current road layout acts against this because junction priorities make the James Street – MacKeith Street – Main Street axis the main route. This leaves Bridgeton Cross at the end of the stubs of James Street and Main Street. Therefore consideration has been given to the reversal of the one-way system, or restoring the whole lengths of James Street and Main Street to two-way operation and changing junction priorities.

• The proposed improvements have adopted a minimum road width of 6.0 metres to satisfy the requirements of Glasgow City Council’s Road Development Guide regardless of whether the road is one-way or two-way. Therefore it may be possible to change the direction of the one-way system or restore two-way operation without significant impact on the proposed layouts.

• Changing the priorities of the James Street and Main Street junctions with MacKeith Street and the James Street/Main Street/Dalmarnock Road junction have been considered. Depending on the combination of junction priorities and one-way or two-way systems evaluated, there is likely to be an increase in the number of vehicles passing Bridgeton Cross. The suitability of the various combinations should be reviewed against the anticipated redistribution of vehicle journeys caused by the East End Regeneration Route rather than as an isolated improvement.

• It is envisaged that the altered junctions would form simple T-junctions and would not include ghost islands for right turning traffic. The main physical change to these junctions would be the realignment of kerb lines. Typically, it is possible to accommodate 10.5 metre corner radii at all the above junctions. However, at the Main Street/MacKeith Street junction the radius to the north is restricted by existing development to 6.0 metres. Whilst this would not preclude HGV’s turning left out of MacKeith Street onto Main Street it would require them to use the full width of Main Street giving rise to potential conflict with other road users. Similarly, the radius between Dalmarnock Road and Main Street is restricted by existing development to approximately 6.5 metres. Although any restriction to vehicle movements can be problematic, it is considered that these may be acceptable constraints as the number of large or heavy goods vehicles using the roads in question is anticipated to be relatively small.

• Rat-running on James Street, Main Street and Dalmarnock Road, is inevitable, particularly at peak times due to the layout of the road network in the area around Bridgeton and within the study area. Reversing the one-way system may lead to rat-running in the opposite direction and restoring two-way operation may lead to rat-running in both directions.

• With the exception of the bus only link between London Road and Main Street at Bridgeton Cross all traffic enters the study area via the signalled controlled junctions at James Street/The Green, Main Street/Newhall Street and Dalmarnock Road/Dunn Street. It may be possible to phase these signals in order to reduce the potential for rat-running, possibly in combination with the introduction of traffic signals at Bridgeton Cross or at the junctions with MacKeith Street. However, it is considered that the only way to prevent rat-running is to stop-up a number of streets to remove the through routes. Both these actions, particularly the latter, are likely to be counter productive.

• The proposed improvements alter the character of James Street and Main Street as they converge on Bridgeton Cross by the use of different paving materials. As these roads are used mainly by local traffic it is considered possible to change the character to a shopping street as found today in many towns. Introduction of a shared surface may not be appropriate due to the volume of through traffic and the importance of the junction at Bridgeton Cross within the local road network. Clearly defined carriageways and footways, vehicle and pedestrian routes, in combination with gateways to mark the change in use are considered more appropriate.

4.5.9. In addition to looking at the alternative circulation arrangements, a redistribution of the existing width of James Street was considered, involving changing the widths of carriageway, footway and parking bay. James Street is approximately 14 metres wide, comprising two 2.0 metre wide footways and a 10.0 metre wide carriageway. The existing space could be redistributed to provide a 6.0 metre wide carriageway with parking bays, 2.4m wide on the north side. The remaining space could then be given over to widened footways. This would leave adequate space for individual trees to be planted along James Street in either the widened footways or between parking spaces.

The trees should be of an appropriate size that they will not hinder the free passage of vehicles in the carriageway, particularly at junctions where the overhang of turning vehicles could be an issue.

4.5.10. It would be desirable to continue this same proposed cross section through to the junction with Glasgow Green, however on the approach to the junction there are currently two lanes available for traffic queuing at the traffic signals. Continuing the 6.0 metre wide carriageway to the junction will reduce the capacity of the James Street arm which may adversely affect its operation. To demonstrate this reduction in capacity is acceptable it would be necessary to undertake a modelling exercise.

4.5.11. As a result of looking at the circulation options and a redistribution of surfacing widths, the proposals for the whole length of James Street are shown in Figure 4.20 and entail:

• Reducing the carriageway width to 6 metres to allow widening of the footways• Creation of parking bays surfaced with high quality concrete setts to reduce the extent of the street surfaced

with asphalt• Resurfacing the footways in high quality pcc paving slabs to enhance the appearance of the street• Creation of an intermittent boulevard of tree planting at appropriate intervals with parking bays accommodated

in specific sections to provide a green link between Bridgeton Cross and Glasgow Green• Introduction of new lighting and street furniture to enhance the identity and image of the Bridgeton Cross area• Resurfacing the carriageway between McKeith Street and Bridgeton Cross in natural stone setts with the

option of including natural stone paving on the footways in lieu of high quality pcc slabs within core zone, to emphasise the importance of this Core Area within the hierarchy of streets


Figure 4.20 - Proposals for James Street (grey building = residential; blue building = business)

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text



4.5.13. Typical palette of materials suggested for James Street:

Granite setts to carriageway from MacKeith Street to Bridgeton Cross

High quality concrete paving to footways

Lighting

Natural stone slabs on footways from MacKeith Street to Bridgeton Cross

4.5.12. The proposals shown for James Street could be implemented with or without the suggested traffic circulation changes, and would be subject to agreement with Glasgow City Council.


Figure 4.21 - Sections through the James Street Proposals


Street Trees to create green link along James Street

4.5.14. A breakdown of the costs associated with the proposals for James Street is outlined below. Note this does not include Preliminaries or Contingencies which are outlined in the Summary in Part 6 along with the Total Cost for each site.



JAMES STREET


Allow m2 5,811 20 116,220


2 Hard Landscaping

Granite setts (carriageway) m2 816 105 85,680

Granite setts (parking bays) m2 133 105 13,965

Planing/hot rolled asphalt to carriageway m2 1,589 16 25,424

Granite slabs (footways) m2 1,992 120 239,040

High quality concrete slabs (footways) m2 1,281 90 115,290

Granite kerbs m 842 80 67,360


Saving in respect of high quality concrete slabs, in lieu ofgranite, to footways on approach to Bridgeton Cross £70,000

3 Soft Landscaping

Semi-mature trees in tree pits Nr 60 1,200 72,000

To Summary £72,000

4 Drainage

Allow for modifications to existing Item 40,000

To Summary £40,000



iGuzzini Lavinia columns, including wiring Nr 16 1,800 28,800



To Summary £75,300


Allow Item 100,000


7 Sundries

Allow for road markings and road signs Item 10,000

To Summary £10,000



4.6 Main Street


Strengths • Proximity to Bridgeton Cross at the northern end• Clear views north to Bridgeton Cross• Clear views south to distant hills• Free on street parking provides access to shopping• Busy pedestrian thoroughfare with shopping amenities

and public transport corridor• Opportunities for junctions and links into surrounding

street network and potential surrounding new development

Weaknesses • Generous carriageway width creates sense of a major road corridor rather than a residential street

• Lack of spatial enclosure at southern end• Variety of boundary treatment, building types, scales,

materials• Illegible network of streets either side of Main Street

Issues to be addressed • Spatial enclosure which lacks consistency and uniformity

• Poor termination and relationship with Bridgeton Cross• Illegible as a core link with unexplored opportunities

to provide important series of connections throughout the neighbourhood and to key facilities

Lighting Issues • Lighting on Main Street should encourage the use of the street at night therefore we would propose a white light which increases visibility and perceived safety. Use of good quality components will create a positive impact with respect to safety, security and orientation.

Development aspirations • Create a legible corridor, highlighting links to wider network of spaces and facilities

• Create uniformity and a sequence of spaces along the route

• Create hierarchy along the street and enhance relationship to Bridgeton Cross

Proposed uses • Link between Bridgeton Cross and future developments at NISA and Clyde Gateway

• Attractive pedestrian thoroughfare with successful businesses and shops

Land Ownership • Glasgow City CouncilCurrent Management • Glasgow City CouncilFuture Management • To be agreedCost Estimate for Works • Ranging from £1,845,000 to £1,955,000Stakeholders + Associated Interested Bodies

• Glasgow City Council

Part 4.6: Main Street

Core Zone

Intermediate Zone

Outer Zone

4.6.2. Current Conditions on Main Street:



4.6.3. There are traffic issues which are common to both Main Street and James Street, such as the circulation of the Core Area at the northern end of Main Street, and this is outlined in the James Street Part 4.5.

4.6.4. In addition to looking at the circulation at the northern end of Main Street, we have explored the possibility of redistributing the widths of carriageway, footway and parking bay. Main Street can be divided into three sections based on width of road corridor: 1. Bridgeton Cross to the MacKeith Street junction; 2. MacKeith Street to Tullis Street; 3. Tullis Street to Newhall Street.

4.6.5. The first section is approximately 11.5 metres wide and operates as a one-way street with vehicles heading south. Although potential redevelopment of the site to the east of Main Street may allow a wider corridor, it is considered prudent to restrict proposals to the existing corridor. The available width is not sufficient to allow for a parking bay, however it is considered desirable to allow on street parking to service the local shops. Therefore, it is proposed to retain the existing on-street arrangement. Depending on the minimum allowable width for a one-way street, which has yet to be agreed with Glasgow City Council, there may be scope to widen the footways into the carriageway to improve the pedestrian environment.

4.6.6. The second section between the MacKeith Street and Tullis Street junctions is approximately 15.3 metres wide and is a two-way street. The existing carriageway is approximately 9.8 metres wide with a 2.6 metre wide footway to the east and a 2.9 metre wide footway to the west. Parallel parking bays 2.2 metres wide are marked on both sides of the carriageway which restrict the through lane width to 5.4 metres. The Glasgow City Council Roads Development Guide requires parking bays of this type to be 2.4 metres wide and a carriageway width of 6.0 metres for bus routes in order to allow 2 buses to pass. Although these widths could be accommodated by widening the carriageway into the footway it is considered that this change, however minor, would be to the detriment of pedestrians. An alternative would be to remove the parking bays from one side of the road (as shown in the Option 1 proposal). However, the parking in this area is well used and removal of the bays would likely require the promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order and vigorous enforcement to prevent parking here. It is considered that a more practical solution would be to seek a reduction to the standard widths for this section to allow the existing widths to remain in the proposed design (as shown in the Option 2 proposal). This would be subject to the approval of Glasgow City Council.

4.6.7. The final section of Main Street is typically 16.5 metres wide, although there is a localised section approximately 20 metres in width. The existing layout is similar to the previous section with parking bays marked on both sides of the carriageway. The proposals could be on either one side of the carriageway (as shown in the Option 1 proposal), or on both sides of the carriageway (as shown in the Option 2 proposal). The additional width available allows two 2.4 metre parking bays and a 6.0 metre wide running carriageway to be constructed, which would meet the required Road Development Guide standard.

4.6.8. As a result of looking at the circulation options and a redistribution of surfacing widths in the three sections of Main Street, the proposals for the whole length of Main Street are shown in Figures 4.22 and 4.23, and described below:

4.6.9. The proposals for Main Street Option 1 are shown in Figure 4.22 and entail:

• Increasing the width of footways to reduce the carriageway to a 6 metre wide road corridor• Creating of formal car parking bays on eastern side of the street, surfaced with high quality concrete setts to

reduce the extent of the street surfaced in asphalt• Resurfacing the footways in high quality concrete slabs to enhance the appearance of the street• Creating focal points to highlight each junction, accommodating pedestrian crossing points, introducing tree

planting and feature lighting, to enhance the identity and image of this important link through Bridgeton• Introducing new street lighting columns to create a distinct suite of street furniture for Bridgeton• Resurfacing the carriageway between McKeith Street and Bridgeton Cross in natural stone setts with the



Figure 4.22 - Main Street Option 1 Proposal

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


4.6.10. The proposals for Main Street Option 2 are shown in Figure 4.23 and entail:

• Retaining the existing kerblines and parking bays to accommodate the existing car parking bays on the eastern and western sides of the street

• Resurfacing footways in high quality concrete slabs• Resurfacing the existing parking bays in high quality concrete setts• Creating focal points to highlight each junction, accommodating pedestrian crossing points, introducing tree

planting and feature lighting• Resurfacing junction areas with high quality concrete setts• Introducing new street lighting columns creating a distinct suite of street furniture for Bridgeton• Resurfacing the carriageway between McKeith Street and Bridgeton Cross in natural stone setts with the


4.6.11. We have also costed for an Option 3 for Main Street which replaces the concrete sett paving on the parking bays with a tar spray and chip finish.


Figure 4.23 - Main Street Option 2 Proposal

rmckeown

Typewritten Text




Figure 4.24 - Section through Main Street Option 1 (Section 5 - Bridgeton Cross to MacKeith Street)

Figure 4.25 - Section through Main Street Option 1 (Section 6)

Figure 4.26 - Section through Main Street Option 1 (Section 7)


4.6.12. Typical palette of materials suggested for Main Street:

Natural Stone Paving: Granite Setts for road carriageway between MacKeith Street and Bridgeton Cross

(colour and mix to be reviewed)

High quality concrete paving slabs to footways

Semi-mature Street Trees

High quality concrete setts to parking bays

High quality natural stone slabs to footways between MacKeith Street and Bridgeton Cross

Lighting

4.6.13. A breakdown of the costs associated with the proposals for Main Street is outlined below. Note this does not include Preliminaries or Contingencies which are outlined in the Summary in Part 6 along with the Total Cost for each site.





MAIN STREET OPTION 1


Allow m2 12,092 20 241,840


2 Hard Landscaping


Concrete setts (parking bays) m2 975 75 73,125



Granite channels m 1,421 75 106,575

Kerbs m 1,478 40 59,120


3 Soft Landscaping


To Summary £40,800

4 Drainage


To Summary £50,000








Allow Item 100,000


7 Sundries


To Summary £20,000


1




Allow m2 12,092 20 241,840


2 Hard Landscaping


Concrete setts (junctions and parking bays) m2 3,653 75 273,975




Kerbs m 1,478 40 59,120


3 Soft Landscaping


To Summary £40,800

4 Drainage


To Summary £50,000








Allow Item 100,000


7 Sundries


To Summary £20,000





Allow m2 12,092 20 241,840


2 Hard Landscaping


Concrete setts (junctions) m2 1,838 75 137,850


Extra for tar spray & chip finish to parking bays m2 1,815 10 18,150



Kerbs m 1,478 40 59,120


3 Soft Landscaping


To Summary £40,800

4 Drainage


To Summary £50,000








Allow Item 100,000


7 Sundries


To Summary £20,000




4.7 Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

4.7.1. It is a requirement that Sustainable Drainage Systems, or SUDS, are used as part of a development in order to manage the collection and disposal of rain water. Typically SUDS introduce additional storage capacity into the surface water drainage network and release the stored water in a controlled manner, thereby reducing the demand on the surface water drainage network by discharging the water over an extended period. Depending on the methods used, a secondary benefit of SUDS can be the removal of some pollutants such as oils or silts. It is good practice to consider the inclusion of SUDS as part of any improvement works of this nature, therefore, whilst not a new development, the suitability of including SUDS in the proposed environmental improvements to James Street and Main Street has been considered.

4.7.2. There are a number of different SUDS available. Typically SUDS use open landscaped areas or ponds to collect water. However, within the James Street and Main Street corridors there is no significant open space available to accommodate this type of SUDS. Therefore, the systems that can be employed are limited to Pervious Pavements and Subsurface Storage.

4.7.3. Pervious Pavements: A pervious pavement is a paved surface that allows water to pass through the surface into the underlying materials. Although these systems can be constructed to allow the water to pass through into the underlying ground it is considered likely that, to minimise the risk of pollution, it would be necessary to discharge these areas through the surface water network. The construction of pervious pavements means that whilst it is used extensively in car parks it is generally only considered suitable for roads with a low volume of light traffic and with speeds less than 30 mph. Although both James Street and Main Street are lightly trafficked they are important distributor links within the local road network and are used by a regular bus service. Consequently it is considered that there is a risk that if used in the carriageway that a pervious pavement may not be suitable. However, it is considered that the proposed parallel parking bays meet the above criteria and are therefore suitable for the use of pervious pavements. If bus lay-bys are included within the proposed improvements, consideration should be given to the suitability of pervious pavements because these lay-bys are likely to be subject to greater loads than the parking bays. As the proposed footways will not be subjected to the same loads as the carriageways it is considered that pervious pavements are suitable for use in footways. However, the type and shape of the proposed paving block or flag should be carefully chosen to ensure the finished surface is suitable for all users.

4.7.4. Subsurface Storage: Subsurface storage in basic terms comprises a buried tank to provide additional storage capacity. The surface water is typically collected by gullies and fed through a pipe network to the subsurface storage. However, it would be possible to collect the surface water with a pervious pavement before feeding it into the subsurface storage. The stored water is then discharged from the tank to the surface water drainage network in a controlled manner. Subsurface storage systems are available in a number of forms to suit the available space. The main constraint to including subsurface storage within the James Street and Main Street corridors is the number of existing services. A previous investigation into the services identified that there is a water main and a number of gas pipes and combined drains within these streets. Additionally within Main Street a surface water drain has been identified. Whilst it is not known exactly where these services are within the carriageways and footways they may limit the size, location or type of subsurface storage solution available. Whilst subsurface storage could be included in the proposed environmental improvements it would be necessary to obtain more accurate details regarding the position and depth of services before designing a subsurface storage solution. Due to the accuracy of the records available it may be necessary to undertake trial pits to prove the storage tank can be accommodated.

4.7.5. Both pervious pavements and subsurface storage are considered to be potentially viable and are worthy of further consideration as the proposed environmental improvements are developed further. However, before subsurface storage can be considered in more detail it would be necessary to obtain more accurate details regarding the position and depth of services within James Street and Main Street. Although it would depend on the specific situation, in theory it would be feasible to combine pervious pavements and subsurface storage.



Part 5: Community Consultation5.0 COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

5.1.1. The following community consultation was carried out as part of this study:

• Stakeholder Consultation on 13 June at Clyde Gateway URC office on Bridgeton Cross• Community Consultation on 25 June at the Bridgeton Community Learning Centre

5.1.2. At each consultation session, full size drawings and a powerpoint presentation of the proposals were on display. An A3 sized report was then left at each location to allow people to look at the proposals and make comments for the following couple of weeks.

5.1.3. The stakeholder consultation was attended by around 20 people.

5.1.4. The community consultation was attended by around 25 people, including a group of 7 children from the local school.

5.1.5. The proposals were generally well received, and additional ideas were given by those attending which we have endeavoured to include in the various site proposals. Most suggestions were relating to the area around the BCLC and included:

• Football Pitch• Toddlers Play Area• Play Area incorporating more natural play ideas• Space to allow events or markets in front of BCLC• More seating around the BCLC• Community garden areas• Removal of the dense vegetation in the BCLC area to improve safety• More lighting• Feature lighting, such as at the nearby flats which light up at night• Maze• Colourful surfaces• Pond / water area• Allow for room to accommodate any potential new housing in the area to the south of the BCLC.

Photos of the Community Consultation at the BCLC



6.0 COSTING ANALYSIS

6.1.1. Budget costs have been estimated for each of the site proposals. The summary costs are outlined below with a detailed breakdown of costs for each site proposal outlined in the relevant section:

Part 4.2 - Abercromby Street Cemetery

Part 4.3 - Tullis Street Park

Part 4.4 - BCLC Park

Part 4.5 - James Street

Part 4.6 - Main Street

Part 6: Costing Analysis


BUDGET COSTS

SUMMARY 04-Aug-08

James Street Main Street Option 1

Main Street Option 2

Main Street Option 3

AbercrombyStreet

Cemetery

Tullis Street Park

BCLC Park Option 1

BCLC Park Option 2

BCLC Park Option 3

BCLC Park Option 4

BCLC Park North Area

1 Site Clearance & Earthworks 116,220 241,840 241,840 241,840 ) ) 282,000 282,000 216,000 120,000 34,800

2 Hard Landscaping 546,759 909,285 959,543 870,608 ) ) 384,670 341,700 307,600 293,040 126,555

3 Soft Landscaping 72,000 40,800 40,800 40,800 ) included ) included 215,280 232,626 130,350 62,614 28,360

4 Drainage 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 ) below ) below 100,000 100,000 80,000 50,000 25,000

5 Lighting Installation 75,300 135,100 135,100 135,100 ) ) 135,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 25,000

6 Metalwork & Street Furniture 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 ) ) 250,000 250,000 225,000 125,000 50,000

7 Sundries 10,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 ) ) 175,000 550,000 550,000 160,000 145,000

960,279 1,497,025 1,547,283 1,458,348 225,900 355,000 1,541,950 1,841,326 1,593,950 895,654 434,715

8 Preliminaries 17.50% 168,049 261,979 270,775 255,211 39,533 62,125 269,841 322,232 278,941 156,739 76,075

Sub-Total 1,128,328 1,759,004 1,818,058 1,713,559 265,433 417,125 1,811,791 2,163,558 1,872,891 1,052,393 510,790

9 Contingencies 7.50% 84,625 131,925 136,354 128,517 19,907 31,284 135,884 162,267 140,467 78,930 38,309

1,212,952 1,890,930 1,954,412 1,842,076 285,340 448,409 1,947,676 2,325,825 2,013,358 1,131,323 549,099

TOTAL (say) £1,215,000 £1,890,000 £1,955,000 £1,845,000 £285,000 £450,000 £1,950,000 £2,325,000 £2,015,000 £1,135,000 £550,000

James Street: Saving in respect of high quality concrete slabs, in lieu of granite, to footways on approach to Bridgeton Cross: £70k

Budget Cost for typical dropped pavement crossing on pedestrian routes between the above work areas: £1,500

Basis of Budget Costsa) Drawings prepared by Austin-Smith:Lord.b) Tender levels current in the third quarter of 2008, obtained by competitive tendering.c) Excluding:

decontaminationfull road re-constructionservices diversionswork to adjoining buildings, walls or fencestender price inflation beyond 3Q08professional feesstatutory feesVAT



7.0 NEXT STEPS

7.1 Next Steps

7.1.1. To take the proposals forward from this outline study to implementation there are a number of exercises which would require to be carried out:

• Continual review of any future developments and potential environmental improvements within surrounding area which may impact on proposals;

• Detailed topographic survey of all the sites;• Detailed search and review of services information via a ‘moleseye’ search or trial pits;• Detailed review of current drainage system and possible CCTV survey to ascertain current condition;• Geotechnical and detailed site investigation of the BCLC site to ascertain existing ground conditions;• Detailed arboricultural survey of existing trees and vegetation in Abercromby Cemetery, Tullis Street Park and

around the BCLC;• Detailed review of traffic flows and traffic modelling exercise for areas affected by changes to Main Street and

James Street, including a traffic survey and consideration of the effect on traffic flows caused by the opening of the East End Regeneration Route;

• Confirmation of land ownership;• Detailed consultation with the Local Authority and other relevant stakeholders prior to development of a Traffic

Road Order;• Review of any further research and development undertaken by Friends of the Weavers;• Detailed discussion with interested stakeholders regarding the future management of the areas and associated

proposals;• Detailed discussion with the local authority regarding development of lighting proposals;• Further consultation with community and stakeholders to inform detailed development of proposals.• Detail design of the electrical load and capacity necessary for the street lighting.• Physical survey of the existing lighting scheme.• Review of the electrical and control drawings associated with the road and sign lighting.• Detailed study of the Local Authority guidelines and recommendations set out for Bridgeton.• Provide detail lighting calculations to determine the number and spacing of lanterns required for the proposed

lighting scheme.• Provide a luminaire schedule outlining in detail the lantern types, lamp types, wattage, light output ratio, etc.• Provide cable sizing and containment specification

Part 7: Next Steps



7.2 Further Recommendations

7.2.1. In addition to the technical development and consultation process outlined above to assist in the development of taking the projects forward, the following sets out a recommended review of the site boundaries in order to enhance their contribution to the Green Network and link to the wider network of facilities.

7.2.2. The recommended extensions to some of the sites are identified in Figure 7.1, with the purpose of increasing the benefit of the potential environmental improvements and adding value to the overall strategy; connecting to the National Cycle Network, Glasgow Green, destinations and everyday facilities within Bridgeton. Figure 7.1 also highlights links recommended for further improvements to complement the improvements to any of the sites forming part of this study, and assist in achieving the objectives set out in the Clyde Gateway Green Network Strategy. The link identified include: Landressy Street; Landressy Place; Tullis Street; Dale Street; Mill Street and Rumford Street.

7.2.3. Improvements to these routes would help create an attractive environment suitable for walking and cycling; would promote healthy, sustainable travel and healthy living; and would realise the potential of the Bridgeton location, which is in close proximity to the River Clyde corridor, Glasgow Green, and the City Centre, with good links to the Clyde Valley.

7.2.4. Improvements to these routes should be developed within the hierarchy of spaces forming the focus of this study. Improvements should be minimal or extensive depending on funding available. Simple interventions such as increased crossing points and improved pedestrian priority, way marking, additional dropped kerbs, signing or lighting. The routes selected offer alternative and direct routes between the green spaces, avoiding the busier, trafficked areas.

7.2.5. The overarching theme identified as part of the study and the suggested improvements to links between the spaces may be suitable for walking and cycling. A commentary on provision for cycling within the area has been provided in the Appendix and provides a useful point of reference when considering any future or extended proposals, beyond the five sites.

7.3 Prioritisation

7.3.1. Prioritisation of the improvements to the spaces has also been considered as part of this study. It is difficult to quantify which space is the priority within Bridgeton and this could be gauged on importance to Bridgeton Cross, the level of benefit to local areas, the current popularity of the space or the timescale and relative ease within which the project could be delivered. Taking cognisance of this, the projects have been set out on a priority basis relative to the probability and ease of delivery and current public support.

1. Abercromby Street Cemetery / Weaver’s Cemetery: This is a self-contained space which has already been the subject of research and improvements by Friends of the Weavers and Glasgow City Council Land Services.

2. Tullis Street Park: This is a self-contained space which has already been the subject of research and improvements by Glasgow City Council Land Services.

3. James Street: This is a relatively short, linear route in comparison to Main Street and would provide the James Street/Bridgeton Cross link towards Glasgow Green and the River Clyde corridor.

4. Main Street: This is a long section of street and it would be of most benefit to focus primarily on the section between Bridgeton Cross and MacKeith Street which would tie into the James Street improvements, thus providing a much improved Core Area. The remaining length of the street could be improved at a later stage, working south from MacKeith Street to Dunn Street, and also west to east to provide the additional links outlined in Figure 7.1.

5. BCLC Park: As shown in Part 4.4, this area is subject to various potential developments, therefore its future status is unclear. In addition, due to unknown geotechnical constraints the viability of any development or remediation may be cost prohibitive.

Figure 7.1 - Further Recommendations

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text




Part 8: Appendices

8.0 APPENDICES

8.1 Appendix 1 - Lighting Strategy

1

Bridgeton Lighting Strategy Report Contents

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 2

POLICY CONTENT.................................................................................................................... 2

Local Policy .............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Other Policy Guidelines........................................................................................................................................... 2

ASSESSMENT APPROACH ..................................................................................................... 2

BASELINE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................... 2

PROPOSED LIGHTING STRATEGY ........................................................................................ 3

Bridgeton Cross ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

James Street & Main Street..................................................................................................................................... 4

Tullis Park, BCLC Park & Abercromby Street Cemetery...................................................................................... 4

NEXT STEPS............................................................................................................................. 5

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 6

2

Introduction Bridgeton has been included in the regeneration for Glasgow City’s East End called the Clyde Gateway Regeneration Initiative (CGRI). Bridgeton’s regeneration is to redefine its role within Glasgow and the city regions. The vision for the East End is to create a vibrant, new city district through a process based on reinvention and reconnection of Bridgeton to the city, the River Clyde and Glasgow Green therefore highlighting Bridgeton as one of the key player in the regeneration of the 21st Century Glasgow. The new proposed lighting design of the streets and parks will play an integral part in the regeneration programme for Bridgeton with the objective to promote the revival of the townscape and the park areas.

Policy Content Many of the existing lighting schemes will have been designed in accordance with the relevant regulations available at the time of the original design such as the CIBSE Outdoor Lighting and the BS EN Code of Practice for Design of Road Lighting. However these policies have been updated and therefore the age of the luminaries and changes in the regulations means that the existing lighting design schemes may not meet the current regulations. For the new lighting design strategy the following policies and guidelines will be referred to:

Local Policy Nuala Morris, Lighting Designer (Cundall), spoke to Malcolm McDonald from the Glasgow City Council Land and Environmental Services and Fiona McDermott from the Development and Regeneration Services with regards to a Lighting Strategy for Glasgow City. The documents that are made available for Glasgow City Lighting are as follows:

• The Addendum to Roads Development Guide on Street Lighting document which sets out the required lighting design strategy for the Glasgow area.

• Architectural Lighting Guidelines – details the mounting of and the lighting of buildings, monuments and structures of architectural or historic interest.

Other Policy Guidelines Other relevant documents and guidelines for exterior lighting will be referred to where appropriate and include, but are not limited to: -

• CIBSE LG6 Outdoor Lighting • ILE Guidance Notes on Light. • The BS EN 13201-2:2003 ‘Code of Practice for Design of Road Lighting and the Lighting of Roads and

Public Amenity Areas’. The opportunity for feature lighting in the area will be encouraged, particularly for key buildings, although this will be part of an overall strategy for the area.

Assessment Approach The approach was based on a visual assessment during a site survey of the existing street lighting to gain a sense of how Bridgeton functioned and to gain insight into the way people used and orientated themselves in the public spaces and streets. Additionally we reviewed the spaces to assess the existing level of safety within them. The assessment of the existing lighting scheme shows a mix of pole mounted lanterns of different styles and heights, this also included column mounted cameras which gave the appearance of a cluttered streetscape.

Baseline Conditions The site boundary as shown on the site plan Figure 1 identifies the areas to be considered as part of the redevelopment.

Figure 1 Site Plan showing the Core Areas

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


3

The existing lighting scheme within the site boundary is typical of any scheme throughout the UK. As Bridgeton developed over time a mixture of lamps, columns and designs have been used incorporating building mounted safety/feature lighting along with pole mounted surveillance cameras, which results in a mix of urban lighting as shown in images Figures 2 to 5. A number of the lantern styles were of the half bowl type which can introduce a degree of light pollution. At present the parks and cemetery do not have any exterior lighting.

Proposed Lighting Strategy The Camlachie Burn was the key crossing point on the route into medieval Glasgow, which then became known as Bridgeton. It continued to have strong links to Glasgow during the textile and steel industrial era, when people worked in weaving mills and steel construction. The new proposed lighting will introduce historic elements of the weaving and steel industry into the design of the street and park lighting. At night the lighting will create distinctive spaces using different light intensities and colour temperatures to emphasise the function and importance of specific areas. The aim of the proposed lighting design strategy is to upgrade the existing lighting of James Street and Main Street and to provide feature lighting at the entrances to the cemetery and parks. The aim is to provide an energy efficient lighting scheme using a minimum number of lantern types to create the desired lighting effect for the different public spaces, as this will give the appearance of a more open and spacious environment. The proposed lighting scheme incorporates a lantern type that will help to enhance and provide continuity to these key areas, create hierarchy for streets, key junctions and entrances, as well as help to identify a direct link between Glasgow Green and Bridgeton Cross. A different lantern type would be proposed to highlight the core areas related to Bridgeton Cross. These lanterns will provide a more localised level of light at pedestrian level along the footpaths and proposed boulevard areas. The lighting strategy will reduce light pollution, provide appropriate levels of illumination for safety and function, and highlight Bridgeton’s special architectural features in order to attract and create interest in the area. The key areas for the introduction of new lighting are as follows and as shown in the site plan Figure 1:

• James Street: the key link between Bridgeton Cross and Glasgow Green • Main Street: a key link from Bridgeton Cross to Dunn Street and beyond. • Tullis Street Park: pocket park close to James Street • Abercromby Street Cemetery: historic space of importance to Bridgeton • BCLC Park: key community gathering space

Figure 2 Existing Lighting Figure 3 Existing Lighting

Figure 4 Bridgeton Figure 5 Bridgeton

4

Bridgeton Cross James Street and Main Street provide the main infrastructure in Bridgeton, intersecting at Bridgeton Cross. The Cross has been defined as the ‘hub’ of Bridgeton; from here the street network radiates out in all directions and acts as a place of arrival and a meeting place within the heart of Bridgeton. The lighting strategy for the Cross will need to offer an incentive for people to meet, interact and encourage social events in the evening and at night. A low level of ‘pedestrian’ lighting will need to be considered for this area to create an ambient feel and increase the feeling of safety, but also accentuate the ‘hub’ as the focal point of Bridgeton.

James Street & Main Street James Street and Main Street are the key roads which provide a link between Bridgeton Cross and Glasgow Green. James Street provides access to Tullis Park, whilst Main Street provides access to the BCLC Park via Dunn Street or Muslin Street. Main Street has several junctions which provide access to secondary streets and residential developments. The new lighting design strategy will distinguish James Street and Main Street. The selection of lamps and luminaries will be based on the context of how the streets will be used. White light will be used to increase the perception of safety. The lighting will also provide functional and directional lighting for the residents of the area. The lanterns will be equipped with flat glass such as the iGuzzini Lavinia illustrated on the lighting layout drawing M8036(63)8001 located in Appendix A at the end of this report. The luminaries should be mounted on 6m poles in accordance with Glasgow City Council requirements. The columns should be erected along the footpath at approximately 16m spacing which is a representation of an urban street lighting layout. The spacing to height ratio of the columns will depend on the numerical calculations of the final detail lighting design in order to provide the exact number of columns and lanterns required for the lighting scheme. Feature lighting such as the iGuzzini Framewoody will be used in the boulevard area at the top of James Street as illustrated on the lighting layout drawing M8036(63)8003 located in Appendix A. Through the use of good quality components the lighting will create a positive impact with respect to safety, security and orientation, and enliven the spaces. Glasgow City Council also permits the mounting of luminaires on buildings therefore the components proposed could be building or column mounted. The junctions on Main Street will be highlighted with additional column lighting to identify the access roads into the various residential developments.

Tullis Park, BCLC Park & Abercromby Street Cemetery Parks are not only being used during the daytime but are becoming frequently used in the evenings and at night. It has been acknowledged that lighting plays a major role in making parks attractive and creating high quality environments for the local people. With the growing awareness of the environmental issues of Bridgeton and its associations with the regeneration work taking place within Glasgow City, the parks and cemetery in Bridgeton as shown in Figures 6 & 7 will undergo an improvement program. The lighting will be used to integrate the parks’ existence and to emphasise their significance within the wider Bridgeton area.

The design for the parks and cemetery will provide low level feature lighting. The entrances will be accentuated thus drawing attention to the parks. The Urban ‘Belt’ luminaire is a robust steel structure and has been selected as the preferred bollard type fitting for the park and cemetery entrances. The bollard has a rustic appearance and resembles the spindle used in weaving. The steel structure gives the ‘Belt’ its durable quality and makes it a suitable fitting from a historical point of view. The ‘Belt’ is lit from the base, using LED’s to create focal points as shown in Figures 8, 9 & 10.

Figure 6 Tullis Street Park Figure 7 Abercromby St Cemetery

Figures 8, 9 & 10 Proposed Urban ‘Belt’ Luminaire

5

The steel columns of the former gas tower in the BCLC Park as shown in Figure 11 could become part of a light installation. A piece of light art would modernize and integrate the history of Bridgeton with the proposed park design. These steel columns have the same quality and appearance as that of the ‘Belt’ luminaire, which has been proposed for the park entrances. LED’s installed at the base of the columns would wash each steel column with coloured light as illustrated in Sketch Option 1 shown in Figure 12. During the daytime the 12 columns lend themselves to becoming a giant sundial. A piece of prismatic glass would be placed and secured into slots cut out at the top of each column facing East, South and West. When the sun strikes the prismatic glass at full hours, a beam of coloured light would be transmitted into the centre of the circle as illustrated on the Sketch Option 2 shown in Figure 13.

The supporting concrete bases could be redesigned for each of the columns so they are raised to form circular seating areas and thus replicate the sitting walls in the proposed landscape design. The proposed LED lights could be incorporated into the design of the concrete circular seating as shown in Figure 7. The raised sitting wall would be lit from beneath the perimeter edging to provide pools of light, adding to the ambience of the space as shown in drawing M8036(63)8002 located in Appendix A. The lighting design of these public spaces will not only enhance them, but will provide good visual conditions and increase the perception of safety. The lighting of the parks will be kept to a minimum focusing the light at pedestrian and lower ground level.

Next Steps To take the proposed lighting scheme forward to implementation stage the following actions would be required:

• Detail design of the electrical load and capacity necessary for the street lighting. • Physical survey of the existing lighting scheme. • Review of the electrical and control drawings associated with the road and sign lighting. • Detailed study of the Local Authority guidelines and recommendations set out for Bridgeton. • Provide detail lighting calculations to determine the number and spacing of lanterns required for the

proposed lighting scheme. • Provide a luminaire schedule outlining in detail the lantern types, lamp types, wattage, light output ratio,

etc. • Provide cable sizing and containment specification. • Provide control strategy.

Figure 12. Sketch Option 1 Figure 13. Sketch Option 2

Figure 11. BCLC Park existing columns

6

Appendix A

JAMES STREET

COURT

LAN

DR

ES

SY

PLA

CE

E-mail Address: (initial).(surname)@cundall.comWebsite: www.cundall.com

Portland Street, Manchester. MI 3AHTelephone: 0161 244 5660 Fax: 0161 200 1210

10th Floor, Portland Tower,

Consulting Engineers

Offices across the U.K and Australia

light4

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


MA

IN S

TRE

ET

AI N

ST R

EE

T

MA

I

MA

IN S

TRE

ET






light4

rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


rmckeown

Typewritten Text


FIN

NA

RT

STR

EET

FINNART SQUARE

ROAD

OLD DALM ARNOCK

FINNART

FIN

NA

RT

S TR

EET

SQUARE






light4

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


LAND

RES

SY S

TREE

T

STREET

MACKEITH






light4

rmckeown

Typewritten Text







light4


Page 51


8.2 Appendix 2 - Review of Traffic Issues, SUDS and Cycle Provision


Page 52


File Note

Page: 1 of 2

Direct Tel: 0141 222 6400 T +44 (0)141 222 6400 F +44 (0)141 222 6499 E [email protected] www.fabermaunsell.com

225 Bath Street Glasgow G2 4GZ

R:\208113 Bridgeton Environmental Improvements\Graphics\Reports\Appendices\2 - Traffic, SUDS, Cycling\File Note - Summary of Work__A3.doc

Project: Bridgeton Environmental Improvements Job No: 60045734

Subject: Summary of Work Date: 07 July 2008 Background Information & Constraints: Prior to assessing the suitability of the proposals a search was made of the available information to identify possible constraints. The main point of reference was the Bridgeton Urban Design Study – Final Report prepared for Glasgow City Council by Austin-Smith:Lord dated January 2008. Other information consulted included Statutory Undertakers service location plans and the Glasgow City Council Roads Development Guide. Although the search identified a number of potential, but relatively minor, constraints nothing was identified that would preclude any of the proposed improvements in this report. James Street and Main Street are on a bus route; therefore the minimum width of the carriageway is 6.0 metres, which is stipulated in the Roads Development Guide. This guide is written largely for two-way roads and does not include specific recommendations for the width of one-way roads. Therefore, when assessing one-way roads a minimum width of 6.0 metres has been used as the minimum allowed width. It is thought likely that a reduced width for one-way roads would be acceptable to Glasgow City Council however they have not been approached for comment at this stage. Although none of the Statutory Undertakers service location plans inspected show any apparatus that would preclude the proposals there is a potential problem with road drainage. It is believed that the existing road drainage discharges via the surface water drainage network which is known to have limited capacity. Recent changes to the design standards for drainage have effectively increased the volume of water to be dealt with in any single rainfall event. Although this change is not retrospective, it is possible that the proposed improvements could be deemed to be significant enough for James Street and Main Street to be considered as new roads and therefore subject to the new drainage standards. It is considered that the provision of additional surface water storage would resolve this issue. For the present, the review of the design has assumed that the existing drainage standard is acceptable. The design standard and any mitigation will need to be agreed with the local authority, Scottish Water and SEPA who all have responsibility for surface water drainage. Review of the Proposed Improvements: The proposed improvements have been reviewed against the Glasgow City Council Roads Development Guidelines to ensure they are practical. During this process it was necessary to consider items that fall below the required standard. In these cases a view has been taken as to the suitability of the proposal taking into consideration factors such as safety of the users and any restrictions it imposes on the operation of the road network. The proposed improvements include a number of items that can be implemented either individually or in combination. The individual items include:

• narrowing of James Street; • narrowing of Main Street; • changes to the one-way system near Bridgeton Cross; • changing junction priorities.

James Street James Street is approximately 14 metres wide, comprising two 2.0 metre wide footways and a 10.0 metre wide carriageway. The proposed layout redistributes the existing space to provide a 6.0 metre wide carriageway with parking bays to the north side. The remaining space is given over to widened footways. Individual trees are to be planted along James Street in either the widened footways or between parking spaces. It is assumed the trees will be of an appropriate size and that they will not hinder the free passage of vehicles in the carriageway, particularly at junctions where the overhang of turning vehicles could be an issue. It would be desirable to continue the proposed cross section through to the junction with The Green, however on the approach to the junction there are currently two lanes available for traffic queuing at the traffic signals. Continuing the 6.0 metre wide carriageway to the junction will reduce the capacity of the James Street arm which may adversely affect its operation. To demonstrate this reduction in capacity is acceptable it may be prudent to undertake a modelling exercise. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed narrowing of James Street is practical in the most part but requires further study to determine the extent of the proposed work required to the junction with The Green. Main Street In contrast to the relatively constant cross-section of James Street Main Street can be divided into three sections based on width of the road corridor:

1. Bridgeton Cross to the MacKeith Street junction; 2. MacKeith Street to Tullis Street and 3. Tullis Street to Newhall Street.

The first section is approximately 11.5 metres wide and operates as a one-way street with vehicles heading south. Although potential redevelopment of the site to the east of Main Street may allow a wider corridor, it is considered prudent at this stage to restrict proposals to the existing corridor. The available width is not sufficient to allow for a parking bay, however it is considered desirable to allow on street parking to service the local shops to the west of Main Street. Therefore, it is proposed to retain the existing on-street arrangement. Depending on the minimum allowable width for a one-way street, which has yet to be agreed with Glasgow City Council, there may be scope to widen the footways into the carriageway to improve the pedestrian environment. Between the MacKeith Street and Tullis Street junctions Main Street is approximately 15.3 metres wide and is a two-way street. The existing carriageway is approximately 9.8 metres wide with a 2.6 metre wide footway to the east and a 2.9 metre wide footway to the west. Parallel parking bays 2.2 metres wide are marked on both sides of the carriageway which restrict the through lane width to 5.4 metres. The Glasgow City Council Roads Development Guide requires parking bays of this type to be 2.4 metres wide and a carriageway width of 6.0 metres for bus routes in order to allow 2 buses to pass. Although these widths could be accommodated by widening the carriageway into the footway it is considered that this change, however minor, would be to the detriment of pedestrians. An alternative would be to remove the parking bays from one side of the road. However, the parking in this area is well used and removal of the bays would likely require the promotion of a Traffic Regulation Order and vigorous enforcement to prevent parking here. It is considered that a more practical solution would be to seek a reduction to the standard widths for this section to allow the existing widths to remain in the proposed design. This would be subject to the approval of Glasgow City Council. The final section of Main Street is typically 16.5 metres wide, although there is a localised section approximately 20 metres in width. The existing layout is similar to the previous section with parking bays marked on both sides of the carriageway. The proposed improvements are again similar to the previous

File Note

Page: 2 of 2 Doc. 368

R:\208113 Bridgeton Environmental Improvements\Graphics\Reports\Appendices\2 - Traffic, SUDS, Cycling\File Note - Summary of Work__A3.doc

section. However, the additional width available allows two 2.4 metre parking bays and a 6.0 metre wide running carriageway to be constructed. Although some of the proposed widths require the agreement of Glasgow City Council it is considered that, in the interest of all users, these are reasonable reductions to the required standard. Therefore it is considered that the proposed improvements to Main Street are practical and are worthy of further development. One-Way system and Junction Priorities Although the road cross-section has been considered in this and previous studies, traffic circulation has not. One of the aims of these environmental improvements is to bring people back to the centre of Bridgeton and more particularly to Bridgeton Cross and the local shops and services. But the current road layout acts against this because junction priorities make the James Street – MacKeith Street – Main Street axis the main route. This leaves Bridgeton Cross at the end of the stubs of James Street and Main Street. Therefore consideration has been given to reversal of the one-way system, restoring James Street and Main Street to two-way operation and changing junction priorities. As explained previously, the proposed improvements have adopted a minimum road with of 6.0 metres to satisfy the requirements of Glasgow City Council’s Road Development Guide regardless of whether the road is one-way or two-way. Therefore it may be possible to change the direction of the one-way system or restore two-way operation without significant impact on the proposed layouts. In addition, changing the priorities of the James Street and Main Street junctions with MacKeith Street and the James Street/Main Street/Dalmarnock Road junction have been considered. Depending on the combination of junction priorities and one-way or two-way systems evaluated, there is likely to be an increase in the number of vehicles passing Bridgeton Cross. The suitability of the various combinations should be reviewed against the anticipated redistribution of vehicle journeys caused by the East End Regeneration Route rather than as an isolated improvement. It is envisaged that the altered junctions would form simple T-junctions and would not include ghost islands for right turning traffic. The main physical change to these junctions would be the realignment of kerb lines. Typically, it is possible to accommodate 10.5 metre corner radii at all the above junctions. However, at the Main Street/MacKeith Street junction the radius to the north is restricted by existing development to 6.0 metres. Whilst this would not preclude HGV’s turning left out of MacKeith Street onto Main Street it would require them to use the full width of Main Street giving rise to potential conflict with other road users. Similarly, the radius between Dalmarnock Road and Main Street is restricted by existing development to approximately 6.5 metres. Although any restriction to vehicle movements can be problematic, it is considered that these may be acceptable constraints as the number of large or heavy goods vehicles using the roads in question is anticipated to be relatively small. Rat-running on James Street, Main Street and Dalmarnock Road, is inevitable, particularly at peak times due to the layout of the road network in the area around Bridgeton and within the study area. Reversing the one-way system may lead to rat-running in the opposite direction and restoring two-way operation may lead to rat-running in both directions. With the exception of the bus only link between London Road and Main Street at Bridgeton Cross all traffic enters the study area via the signalled controlled junctions at James Street/The Green, Main Street/Newhall Street and Dalmarnock Road/Dunn Street. It may be possible to phase these signals in order to reduce the potential for rat-running, possibly in combination with the introduction of traffic signals at Bridgeton Cross or at the junctions with MacKeith Street. However, it is considered that the only way to prevent rat-running is to stop-up a number of streets to remove the through routes. Both these actions, particularly the latter, are likely to be counter productive.

The proposed improvements alter the character of James Street and Main Street as they converge on Bridgeton Cross by the use of different paving materials. As these roads are used mainly by local traffic it is considered possible to change the character to a shopping street as found today in many towns. Introduction of a shared surface may not be appropriate due to the volume of through traffic and the importance of the junction at Bridgeton Cross within the local road network. Clearly defined carriageways and footways, vehicle and pedestrian routes, in combination with gateways to mark the change in use are considered more appropriate. Further Work Required: The proposed improvements were assessed against the available information. This process was informed by observations made during site visits. Although no obstacles to the proposed improvements have been identified to date further work is required before the proposals can be developed in more detail. Although there are a number of items to be agreed in consultation with the local authority and other interested bodies the main element of work required is to undertake a traffic modelling exercise of the proposed improvements. This would help to identify potential problems with traffic movements through the proposed layouts. To produce a model it would be necessary to undertake a traffic survey of the Bridgeton area. For any proposed scheme to be robust consideration should be given to the effect on traffic flows caused by the opening of the East End Regeneration Route.

File Note

Page: 1 of 2



R:\208113 Bridgeton Environmental Improvements\Graphics\Reports\Appendices\2 - Traffic, SUDS, Cycling\File Note - SUDS Options__A3.doc

Project: Bridgeton Urban Renewal Job No: 60045734

Subject: Sustainable Drainage Systems Date: 31 July 2008 Sustainable Drainage Systems It is a requirement that Sustainable Drainage Systems, or SUDS, are used as part of a development in order to manage the collection and disposal of rain water. Typically SUDS introduce additional storage capacity into the surface water drainage network and release the stored water in a controlled manner, thereby reducing the demand on the surface water drainage network by discharging the water over an extended period. Depending on the methods used, a secondary benefit of SUDS can be the removal of some pollutants such as oils or silts. It is good practice to consider the inclusion of SUDS as part of any improvement works of this nature, therefore, whilst not a new development, the suitability of including SUDS in the proposed environmental improvements to James Street and Main Street has been considered. Options There are a number of different SUDS available. Typically SUDS use open landscaped areas or ponds to collect water. However, within the James Street and Main Street corridors there is no significant open space available to accommodate this type of SUDS. Therefore, the systems that can be employed are limited to:

• Pervious pavements • Subsurface storage

Pervious Pavements A pervious pavement is a paved surface that allows water to pass through the surface into the underlying materials. Although these systems can be constructed to allow the water to pass through into the underlying ground it is considered likely that, to minimise the risk of pollution, it would be necessary to discharge these areas through the surface water network. The construction of pervious pavements means that whilst it is used extensively in car parks it is generally only considered suitable for roads with a low volume of light traffic and with speeds less than 30 mph. Although both James Street and Main Street are lightly trafficked they are important distributor links within the local road network and are used by a regular bus service. Consequently it is considered that there is a risk that if used in the carriageway that a pervious pavement may not be suitable for use within the carriageway. However, it is considered that the proposed parallel parking bays meet the above criteria and are therefore suitable for the use of pervious pavements. If bus lay-bys are included within the proposed improvements consideration should be given to the suitability of pervious pavements because these lay-bys are likely to be subject to greater loads than the parking bays. As the proposed footways will not be subjected to the same loads as the carriageways it is considered that pervious pavements are suitable for use in footways. However, the type and shape of the proposed paving block or flag should be carefully chosen to ensure the finished surface is suitable for all users.

Subsurface Storage Subsurface storage in basic terms comprises a buried tank to provide additional storage capacity. The surface water is typically collected by gullies and fed through a pipe network to the subsurface storage. However, it would be possible to collect the surface water with a pervious pavement before feeding it into the subsurface storage. The stored water is then discharged from the tank to the surface water drainage network in a controlled manner. Subsurface storage systems are available in a number of forms to suit the available space. The main constraint to including subsurface storage within the James Street and Main Street corridors is the number of existing services. A previous investigation into the services identified that there are a water main and a number of gas pipes and combined drains within these streets. Additionally within Main Street a surface water drain has been identified. Whilst it is not known exactly where these services are within the carriageways and footways they may limit the size, location or type of subsurface storage solution available. Whilst subsurface storage could be included in the proposed environmental improvements it would be necessary to obtain more accurate details regarding the position and depth of services before designing a subsurface storage solution. Due to the accuracy of the records available it may be necessary to undertake trial pits to prove the storage tank can be accommodated. Conclusion Both pervious pavements and subsurface storage are considered to be potentially viable and are worthy of further consideration as the proposed environmental improvements are developed further. However, before subsurface storage can be considered in more detail it would be necessary to obtain more accurate details regarding the position and depth of services within James Street and Main Street. Although it would depend on the specific situation in theory it would be feasible to combine pervious pavements and subsurface storage.

File Note

Page: 1 of 2



R:\208113 Bridgeton Environmental Improvements\Graphics\Reports\Appendices\2 - Traffic, SUDS, Cycling\File Note - Cycle Provision__A3.doc

Project: Bridgeton Urban Renewal Job No: 60045734

Subject: Cycle Provision Date: 01 August 2008 Provision for Cyclists Immediately north of the study area London Road has been identified by Glasgow City Council as a core cycle route. Within the study area James Street is signed as a cycle route from Bridgeton Cross to Glasgow Green, Polmadie and Queens Park. Although James Street is the only signed route within the study area it is considered that Main Street has the potential to be an important route for cyclists to and from the south side of Glasgow. Therefore consideration has been given to providing for cyclists on both James Street and Main Street. Whilst these routes would act as main routes for cyclists to destinations outside of Bridgeton cycling within Bridgeton is hindered by the road layout. Consequently consideration has also been given to improving access for cyclists. The following text has been prepared with reference to the Scottish Executive publication ‘Cycling by Design’. Available Options There are a number of options available for providing for cyclists within the James Street and Main Street corridors:

• Share the carriageway with motorists; • Mandatory or advisory cycle lanes in the carriageway; • Unsegregated cycle track; • Segregated cycle track.

Shared Carriageways Within the existing James Street and Main Street there is no specific provision for cyclists so it is assumed that they share the carriageway with motorists. The proposed environmental improvements redistribute the existing road space to include parking bays and wider footways. The narrower carriageway could cause a problem for cyclists as motorists may not give the cyclists enough space when passing. Typically this problem is exacerbated when higher traffic volumes reduce the opportunity for motorists to pass. In addition cyclists may be forced to cycle closer to the kerb and may be subject to a more uncomfortable ride if gullies or other iron work is in their path. Current vehicle flows on both James Street and Main Street are believed to be relatively light, and it is possible that the proposed improvements and the effect of strategic road improvements in the areas around Bridgeton such as the East End Regeneration Route could reduce this further. In addition the proposed improvements could be engineered to reduce the number of gullies if not remove them altogether by the use of pervious pavements or side entry gullies.

Cycle Lanes An alternative to sharing the road space with motorists is to provide cycle lanes. It is possible to use either mandatory lanes, in which motorists are excluded, or advisory lanes which can be entered by motorists. Both types of lane require similar widths with the decision on which type to employ dependant on how specific elements of the road operate. The desirable width of a cycle lane is 2.0 metres. This can be reduced to 1.0 metres in certain circumstances but it is considered that a width of 1.5 metres would be more appropriate over the length of James Street or Main Street. In combination with the minimum carriageway width of 6.0 metres the proposed carriageway would need to be 9.0 metres wide to accommodate cycle lanes. Where a cycle lane runs parallel to parking bays a dividing strip a minimum of 0.5 metres wide is required between the cycle lane and the parking bay. The proposed improvements reduce the carriageway width to around 6.0 metres. To alter the proposals to include cycle lanes would mean removing the proposed parking bays from at least one side of the street resulting in a significant reduction in the available parking. Along much of James Street there appears to be little demand for on-street parking. Parking bays are however provided on both sides of the street between the MacKeith Street Junction and Bridgeton Cross. During site visits it was observed that there was only limited demand for these bays with it is estimated 60 % to 70 % of the spaces empty. It is therefore not clear what effect reducing the available parking on James Street could have. Conversely, there would appear to be insufficient parking on Main Street, particularly to the north of the junction with Tullis Street, as it was observed that the bays were full and there were several cars parked on the footway and in the bus lay-by. The apparent high demand for parking on Main Street could result in motorists parking in the cycle lanes unless the parking restrictions are rigorously enforced. It is considered that this would occur even if the cycle lanes were mandatory. A loss of parking in this area could have a negative impact to the commercial properties in this area, particularly those that front on to Main Street. It is therefore considered that providing cycle lanes on Main Street is not likely to be a viable option. Cycle Tracks Cycle tracks are paved areas free from motorised traffic and are therefore considered to be safer for cyclists. A segregated cycle track is free of other types of user but would typically parallel a footway whereas an unsegregated cycle track is a surface shared by cyclists, pedestrians and other users. In the context of James Street and Main Street either type of cycle track would occupy the proposed footways. Segregation of cyclists typically requires a wider surface than unsegregated to ensure that both the pedestrian and cycle routes are wide enough for their intended purpose. A segregated cycle track is required to be a minimum of 3.25 metres wide, comprising a footway 1.75 metres wide and a cycle track 1.5 metres wide. Where possible this should be increased to provide a cycle track of 2.0 metres width. An unsegregated cycle track should ideally be 3.0 metres wide to allow cyclists and other users to pass freely, however this can be reduced to 2.0 metres when there is a low volume of users. Due to potential problems caused by the mix of users in an urban situation such as Bridgeton unsegregated facilities can be unpopular and can result in certain groups of users becoming more isolated as they do not feel comfortable using the cycle track. Both James Street and Main Street are fronted for part of there lengths by residential accommodation and commercial properties that open out directly onto the streets. A possible risk of using an unsegregated cycle track is that someone could step out of these premises into the path of a cyclist. A segregated cycle track would avoid this problem because the footway section would be up against the buildings with the cycle track between the footway and carriageway. The risk would also be reduced where the house fronts are set back because all users have good visibility. Although it would be possible to switch between segregated and unsegregated cycle tracks as required along the streets it is not considered to be good practice to change the type of track regularly in order to minimise the risk of confusion between the various users. Therefore it is considered that an unsegregated cycle track is unsuitable for use on both James Street and Main Street.

File Note

Page: 2 of 2 Doc. 368

R:\208113 Bridgeton Environmental Improvements\Graphics\Reports\Appendices\2 - Traffic, SUDS, Cycling\File Note - Cycle Provision__A3.doc

The proposed environmental improvements include footways of varying width. On James Street these are typically 2.5 metres wide to the south side and 3.2 metres wide to the north side. Where a cycle track is provided it is considered unnecessary to provide one on both sides of a road assuming suitable road crossings are provided to allow cyclists to join the track at appropriate places. A footway should be a minimum of 2.0 metres wide. Therefore it would appear to be possible to provide a segregated cycle track on one side of James Street and a footway on the other. Further study would be required to identify which side of the street would be most appropriate for the segregated cycle track. The proposed footway width varies over Main Street with typically 2.5 metre footways at the north end but 3.0 metres or more south of the Tullis Street junction. It is considered that a segregated cycle track may be appropriate for use in Main Street but further study would be required to demonstrate that it would not have a detrimental effect on access to the local shops near to Bridgeton Cross. Cycle Access within Bridgeton In addition to the James Street and Main Street corridors there is a requirement for other movements within Bridgeton. Typically these would be between residential areas and schools, shops or other facilities. Inspection of a map of the study area shows that development has resulted in a loss of the original regular grid street layout in two areas: that bounded by Main Street/Muslin Street/Reid Street/Franklin Street and that bounded by Main Street/Mill Street/Greenhead Street/Tullis Street. Although there are pedestrian routes through these areas they are not generally signed and therefore create a potential obstruction to free movement within Bridgeton. Whilst these areas block movements in all directions it is thought that movements on an east-west axis are more restricted. It is considered that further study is required to identify desire lines and potential routes through the area. Conclusion It is considered that it may be acceptable for cyclists to share the carriageway with motorists. However, further study is required to conclude if it is acceptable for cyclists to use the proposed narrower carriageways. Amongst other items, this would need to look at the mix of traffic and traffic speeds. Providing cycle lanes on Main Street is considered to result in a loss of parking which could have a detrimental effect on local businesses. Unless the loss of parking is compensated for elsewhere locally, it is concluded that cycle lanes are not suitable for Main Street. However, it is possible that they could be provided on James Street but this would require further study to ascertain if the loss of parking is acceptable. Unsegregated cycle tracks are not considered to be suitable for use in the study area due to the potential conflicts between the requirements of the various users. Segregated cycle tracks are considered to provide a possible option for both James Street and Main Street but further study would be required to demonstrate they are suitable.


Page 53


8.3 Appendix 3 - Abercromby Street Cemetery - Historical Information


Page 54


Graveyards and Gravestones Electronic Leaflet 1Working in a scheduled or listed graveyard or burial groundA graveyard or burial ground may be covered by a range of cultural and natural heritage designations. All or part of it may bea scheduled ancient monument, listed building, conservation area or designed landscape. This leaflet describes the legal andpractical implications of the cultural heritage designations for anyone wishing to undertake work on such a site.

The following Graveyards and Gravestones Electronic Leaflets are free and can be downloaded from Historic Scotland’swebsite: www.historic-scotland.gov.uk

1. Working in a scheduled or listed graveyard or burial ground2. Good practice in maintaining a historic graveyard3. Looking after gravestones4. Health and safety in historic graveyards: guidance for visitors and owners5. Health and safety in historic graveyards: guidance for works teams and volunteer workers, including volunteer surveyors6. Short guide for cemetery managers: emergency measures for historic memorials7. Historic Scotland grants in relation to graveyards or burial grounds8. Abandoned structures within graveyards

To obtain copies of all Historic Scotland publications referred to in this leaflet, including free leaflets, [email protected] or telephone 0131 668 8638. Useful publications include Conservation ofHistoric Graveyards: Guide for Practitioners 2 (£19.50) and The Conservation of Architectural Ancient Monuments in Scotland:Guidance on Principles (£5.50).

1. Scheduled Ancient Monument legislation as it applies to graveyardsA free leaflet, Scheduled Ancient Monuments: A guide for owners, occupiers and land managers, is available on the HistoricScotland website. This provides general advice; it is not specific to graveyards.

1.1 To find out if you are working in a scheduled graveyardUntil maps of scheduled areas are available on the web (and this is in progress), the only reliable and up-to-date way to find outwhat is scheduled, and what its boundaries are, is to ask Historic Scotland (Telephone 0131 668 8777; [email protected]). Not all of a graveyard and its contents may be scheduled, so it is important that you findout the precise boundaries of the protected area.

1.2 Working in a scheduled graveyardCheck with Historic Scotland whether the wording of the scheduling includes the gravestones. This varies from site to site. Thenormal rule of thumb is that gravestones are included unless the wording of the scheduling description specifically excludesthem.

Under Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, you must have prior written permission fromthe Scottish Ministers (called Scheduled Monument Consent) to carry out any works that will lead to damage, demolition ordestruction of the monument, any works of repair, removal or alteration or addition, and any flooding or tipping. You requirespecial consent under Section 42 of the Act to use a metal detector or some other kinds of geophysical equipment.

Application forms for Scheduled Monument or Section 42 Consent are available from Historic Scotland at the address given atthe end of this leaflet, or telephone 0131 668 8777, or e-mail [email protected]

Consent applies to routine graveyard management as follows:• Grass cutting – you do not require consent.• Works to a gravestone – if a gravestone is not scheduled (see above), the only works for which you require consent

are those involving ground disturbance. If a gravestone is scheduled, you require consent for any works affecting thebody or surface of the stone/structure, such as cleaning or lifting.

• Excavation of a new grave – most scheduled graveyards explicitly exclude active lairs, but you should check this ona case-by-case basis. If active lairs are not excluded, you require consent to excavate a new grave. You also requireconsent for auguring to check for burial space in scheduled areas.

• Gardening – you do not require consent for management of existing areas of garden providing that the ground is notdisturbed to a depth of more than 30 cm. Any new plants in such areas should therefore be shallow rooting.

• Planting of trees – you require consent.• Pruning of trees – consult Historic Scotland about any significant pruning (branches around 10 cm in diameter and

over) to check whether you require consent.• Felling of trees – you require consent and must ensure that felling is done in a manner that will not damage the

archaeological interests of the site. Remember that trees may also be protected by Tree Preservation Orders (seesection 4).

• Path maintenance – most scheduled areas explicitly exclude modern path surfaces, but you should check on a case-by-case basis. If modern paths are excluded, you do not require consent for path maintenance provided there is noground disturbance beyond or below the modern surfaces of the existing path. You require prior consent for invasivework.

• New paths – you require consent in order to ensure that new paths will not damage sensitive archaeology or have anadverse impact on the setting of the monument.

• Drains, services and floodlighting – you require consent in order to ensure that these do not cause unnecessarydamage to sensitive archaeology or, in the case of floodlighting, adversely affect the appearance of the monument.

• Repairs to walls and other structures, including abandoned buildings – you require consent in order to ensurethat these works are done in the appropriate manner (see Graveyards and Gravestones Electronic Leaflet 8).

• Erection of structures, such as sheds or notice boards – you require consent in order to ensure that these will notdamage sensitive archaeology or have an adverse impact on the setting of the monument.

• Works required for health and safety – you do not require consent for works which are urgently necessary in theinterests of health and safety, providing that you limit the works to the minimum measures necessary, and that you givenotice in writing justifying the need for the works to the Scottish Ministers (through Historic Scotland) as soon aspracticable.

• Surveys – you do not require consent providing the ground is not penetrated or any turf or soil removed. Even whengravestones are unscheduled, you should avoid the temptation to dig to uncover hidden or hidden parts of gravestonesfor health and safety reasons, since digging equipment can damage stonework, and earth provides good protection forcarved surfaces.

• Use of a metal detector or some other kinds of geophysical equipment – you require special consent, underSection 42 rather than Section 2 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, to use equipment ofthis type because of the potential to detect (and remove) metal objects (see free leaflet Metal Detecting – Yes or No?Metal detecting, scheduled monuments and the law).

• Works funded by a Historic Scotland Ancient Monuments Grant or through a Management Agreement withHistoric Scotland – you do not require separate consent provided the works being done are exactly as specified bythe terms of the grant/agreement, i.e. no additional work should be carried out.

If you discover anything in the course of works you are carrying out, report your find to Historic Scotland.

The planning authority must consult Historic Scotland about any planning application that involves works that might affect thesetting of a scheduled ancient monument.

If in doubt, always ask. Although you may not require formal written consent for certain works, this does not mean that youcan ignore best conservation practices. For advice on the implications of any works you are planning please ring 0131 6688600 and ask to speak to the Ancient Monument Standing Building Inspector for your local authority area.

Remember that scheduling takes precedence over listing. Parts or all of some burial grounds, however, may be listed andscheduled. In cases of dual designation your point of contact is the Ancient Monuments Division of Historic Scotland(telephone 0131 668 8777 or e-mail [email protected]).

2. Listed building legislation as it applies to burial groundsFor general information see Historic Scotland Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, theessential reference document, available free on Historic Scotland’s website or in hard copy from Historic Scotland (telephone0131 668 8638). A free leaflet, Scotland’s Listed Buildings: A Guide for Owners and Occupiers, is also available.

2.1 To find out if you are working in a listed burial groundThere are currently about 800 entries in the list of listed buildings compiled by the Scottish Ministers which make reference toplaces used for burial (including churchyards, kirkyards, cemeteries and necropolises). The list entry may refer to the place ofburial only but will often cover other items, such as a church, as well. The entry may refer specifically to certain parts of theburial ground such as the walls, gates and gatepiers marking the boundary or to an individual monument or group ofmonuments within. You can consult the list for a particular area in the offices of the local authority. You can also obtaininformation on list entries for a particular area from Historic Scotland (Telephone 0131 668 8719 or 8720).

2.2 Working in a listed burial groundItems mentioned in the list entry are deemed to be ‘listed’ and are subject to the listed building control procedures set out inthe Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. It is therefore important if you are consideringworks within a burial ground that you check whether it is listed and, if it is, that you find out whether the work you propose tocarry out requires Listed Building Consent (Note: burial grounds are not covered by ecclesiastical exemption). Structures withinthe curtilage of a listed burial ground are also protected under the Act. This means that you may also require consent forworks to items not mentioned in the list entry for the burial ground but lying within its boundary.

It is clearly important that you make early contact with the planning authority to determine what might and what might notneed consent. In the case of works promoted by the local authority, the planning authority is the Scottish Ministers and not thelocal authority. Historic Scotland is responsible to the Ministers for operational matters affecting the built heritage. The HistoricBuildings Inspectorate within Historic Scotland will be pleased to discuss local authority proposals and offer guidance andadvice.

You should not begin work which is deemed to require Listed Building Consent before consent is given. Work can only beundertaken in advance of consent in cases where there is a direct threat to public safety. In such instances, you must ensurethat emergency works are restricted to the minimum needed to avert the immediate danger. If you are considering suchaction, you should contact the Historic Buildings Inspectorate within Historic Scotland so that they can comment on what youare proposing.

If you are proposing to erect a new structure within a listed burial ground or within a burial ground which is unlisted itself butcontains a listed structure, possibly a church, session house or mausoleum, you may have to advertise your proposal asaffecting the setting of a listed building. In addition, planning authorities must consult the Scottish Ministers about any planningapplication involving works that might affect a category A listed building or its setting. This means that early contact with theHistoric Buildings Inspectorate is always useful in the case of proposed works to an A listed burial ground or any item whichforms part of it and is similarly listed.

Trees within a burial ground may be the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. You can find out from the local authority whetherthis is the case. If it is, you must obtain local authority permission for the felling or lopping of any tree before surgery takesplace. Trees which grow within a burial ground which lies within a conservation area will also be protected. Again, check anywork you are proposing with the local authority before taking action.

3. Inventory landscapesCemeteries that are considered to be nationally important examples of designed landscapes may be included in the Inventoryof Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland (1988) and its supplementary volumes (in preparation). The Inventoryincludes The Necropolis in Glasgow, where a pleasure ground (a form of designed landscape aimed at providing ornamentedgrounds for amenity and recreation) came to be used as a 'garden cemetery'. The idea of the garden cemetery was developedduring the 19th century, with the Glasgow Necropolis being one of the earliest and most significant examples. To date, afurther two sites have been added – Dean Cemetery, Edinburgh, and Tomnahurich Cemetery, Inverness.

Cemeteries included in the Inventory are subject to the statutory consultation provisions of the Town and Country Planning(General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992. This means that local authorities must consult the Scottish Ministers,through Historic Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, regarding any proposal which involves, or may affect, Inventory sites.Again, you should consult with the Historic Buildings Inspectorate (and Scottish Natural Heritage) well in advance of anyproposed work in order to check what may be necessary.

4. Natural heritage designationsGraveyards may also be protected by natural heritage designations, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, oracknowledged for particular natural heritage values, e.g. through listing in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapesin Scotland. Check with your local Scottish Natural Heritage office. You can obtain contact details for your local office bytelephoning Scottish Natural Heritage headquarters (0131 447 4784) or on their website (http://213.121.208.41).

5. OwnershipYou may also require to obtain written permission for any proposed works from owners of graveyards and individualmonuments.

March 2003Historic Scotland, Longmore House, Salisbury Place, Edinburgh EH9 1SH. Telephone 0131 668 8600Website www.historic-scotland.gov.uk

calton burial ground scoping doc icosse may 2008

1

CALTON GRAVEYARD, Abercromby Street Established by the Calton Incorporation of Weavers in 1786. Extended in 1822. Control passed to the district council in 1885. 309-341 (ODD NOS) ABERCROMBY STREET Listed Category: B Historic Building Number 33811 Date of Listing 16.03.1993 Description: Burial ground, established 1786 by the Calton Incorporation of Weavers; approximately doubled in area 1822; series of 18th and 19th century stone monuments; each rubble-built enclosure walls, 2 gateways, to the martyred weavers; 2 memorial stones, “Renovated ... and re-dedicated by an assembly of Trade Union delegates on 27 June 1931”. Set in present position by Glasgow Trades Council, 1957 (dated) with square ashlar gatepiers. Also "martyrs" monument.

Map of the City of Glasgow and suburbs, Fleming 1807

OS 1st edition 1857-58

OS 2nd edition 1892-94

calton burial ground scoping doc icosse may 2008

2

MAP REGRESSION The 1807 map shows the burial ground when it was just the original northern section - Fleming doesn't show any features but that's not to say they weren't there (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence etc). The reason I say that is because the 1857-58 OS 1st edition shows the graveyard with its southern extension, but also clearly shows a large rectangular feature just off-centre which may have dated from the pre-extension period (i.e. pre-1822). The 1857-58 map also seems to show a clear boundary between the two sections of the graveyard – it’s drawn the same as the main perimeter wall, so it probably was of a similar construction. There was also a small structure beside the opening between the two sections, which could have been a hut/shed for the superintendent/gravediggers, or some form of mortsafe. There are a number of open enclosures on either side of the central wall which were probably family plots or crypts. The main driveway was in existence by this period, and probably was laid out at the time of the extension, or soon after, to unify the operation of the burial ground. By 1892-94, the graveyard was much more intensively planted, but the only other features shown are the central dividing wall and the hut/mortsafe. None of the maps give any indication as to the lay-out of the plots within the graveyard, so it is difficult to say anything about that element without access to the Register of Lairs or a ground-penetrating radar survey. I would hazard a guess though there was some re-arrangement of the interior when the internal wall was removed and the graveyard unified – this could possibly have been done in 1931 by the Trades. Summary: Major things to watch out for are:

• the central dividing wall • the hut/mortsafe structure • the family plots/crypts which were arranged on either side of the original central dividing wall • the rectangular feature in the original, northern section shown in the 1st edition OS of 1857-58

HIS

TORI

C S

CO

TLA

ND

WE

SAFE

GU

ARD

TH

E N

ATI

ON

'S B

UIL

T H

ERIT

AG

E A

ND

PRO

MO

TE IT

S U

ND

ERST

AN

DIN

G A

ND

EN

JOY

MEN

T

GLA

SG

OW

BU

RG

HC

ITY

OF

GLA

SGO

W C

OU

NC

IL

5223

3381

1

309-

341

(OD

D N

OS

)AB

ER

CR

OM

BY

ST

RE

ET

, BU

RIA

LG

RO

UN

D

B

NS

605

16-M

AR-

1993

642

Buria

l gro

und,

esta

blish

ed 1

786

by th

e C

alton

Inco

rpor

atio

n of

Wea

vers

;ap

prox

imat

ely d

oubl

ed in

are

a 18

22; s

eries

of 1

8th

and

19th

cen

tury

ston

em

onum

ents;

eac

h ru

bble-

built

enclo

sure

wall

s, 2

gate

way

s, to

the

mar

tyre

dw

eave

rs; 2

mem

orial

ston

es, "

Reno

vate

d ...

and

re-d

edica

ted

by a

n as

sem

bly

of T

rade

Unio

n de

legat

es o

n 27

June

193

1". S

et in

pre

sent

pos

ition

byG

lasgo

w T

rade

s Cou

ncil,

1957

(dat

ed) w

ith sq

uare

ash

lar g

atep

iers.

Also

"mar

tyrs

" mon

umen

t.

Willi

amso

n et

al,

GLA

SGO

W, 1

990,

p45

4.

Info

rmat

ion

Supp

lemen

tary

to th

e St

atut

ory

List

ST

ATU

TO

RY

LIS

T

ITEM

NO

: H

BNU

M:

Gro

up w

ith It

ems:

C

AT:

Map

Ref

.:

Gro

up C

at.:

D

ate

of L

isting

:

DES

CRI

PTIO

N:

NO

TES:

REFE

REN

CES

:

(This

info

rmat

ion

has n

o leg

al sig

nifica

nce)

Glasgow City Council Land and Environmental Services Heritage Proposals May 2008

Glasgow City Council Land and Environmental Services Parks and Open Spaces Business case for Restoration of Abercromby Street Cemetery ‐ also known as the Calton Burial Ground‐ Ward 9 CPP3 This cemetery is more than 250 years old. It is redolent with history and contains several of Glasgow’s most important monuments – most notably the Calton Weavers’ Monument which has considerable significance for Glasgow, and also for the Labour Party and the STUC. A commemorative plaque to the Weavers recalls the events of 1787, though only one name is still legible, that of John Page. The graveyard also holds the remains of and headstone for the Rev. James Smith, who was Abraham Lincoln’s minister, and later US consul in Scotland. The cemetery is currently in very poor condition The initial proposals to reinstate the 1.33 acre cemetery will cost in the region of £100,000 summarised as follows; Phase 1 in 2008/9 – Estimate costs £34,000 of which £14,900 secured at May 2008. Restore 30 fallen headstones – say £15,000 Cleaning 100 headstones – say £2,000 Heritage style signage cabinet at entrance. – say £4,900 Arbor Phase 1 ‐ Replace dead trees as per enclosed Arbor tree planting plan – say £4,000 Heritage leaflet say £4,000 2 new benches say £1,000 Remedial works to soil seed and grade grass areas – say £3,000 4 Planters outside Main gates. ‐ Source from grounds maintenance budget Stump Grind 15 trees ‐ already removed. ‐ Source from grounds maintenance budget Remove two old/ trees which are diseased. ‐ Source from grounds maintenance budget Phase 2 in 2009/10 ‐ Estimate costs £58,000 – no funds secured to date New Path and coping for 90 metres x 3metre wide passage – Say £28,000. 2 sets of New Heritage Gates – say £25,000 Arbor Phase 2 ‐ Replace dead trees – say £5,000 Existing Funding‐ There is a £5,000 PDP contribution to phase 1 of which has been matched by £5,000 from DRS Heritage and Design and £4,900 from the LES signage budget. This seed corn money will be used to source other funds. The project has the support of local councilors notably Cllr.Redmond and Cllr. Thewlis. There is the potential of AMC funding. LES are also intending to approach the TUC and Glasgow City Heritage for additional funding. This ancient cemetery is in poor condition but has great historical significance. There is a thriving Friends of Group – The Friends of the Weavers. This ties in with emerging proposals from the DRS Gateway initiative and LES works in nearby Tullis Street – which may offer additional funds.

Pictures of Abercromby Street cemetery circa 1900

It is intended that the fallen stones are restored by sculpture conservation experts and a heritage leaflet drawn up in conjunction with the Friends of Group. Approaches have been made to GUARD and WOSAS for historical information – a review of historic lairs and headstones is being carried out by an external cemeteries expert in conjunction with the Glasgow and West of Scotland Family History Society. LES has also written to a sculpture conservation firm for a quote for restoring the Weavers’ Monument and has started discussions with Historic Scotland to gain appropriate permissions for having the stone restored to its former grandeur.

ABERCROMBY STREET BURIAL GROUND. A1 x 6, Corylus culurana 20-25cm 150L Turkish hazel A2 x 4, Corylus avellana Zellernus 2-2.5m 50L Red Filbert/Hazel A3 x 4 Crataegus x prunifolia 20-25cm 100L Broad leafed Cock Spur T1 Quercus frainetto 20-25cm 250L Hungarian Oak T2 Quercus Pratraea 20-25cm 250L Sessile Oak T3 Salix alba 20-25 200L White Willow T4 Pinus maritime 3-3.5m 100L Austrian Pine T5 Betula nigra 20-25 350L River/Black Birch All to use underground stabilisation and include planting costs


Page 55


8.4 Appendix 4 - Services Information


Page 56


rmckeown

Typewritten Text

rmckeown

Typewritten Text


rmckeown

Typewritten Text



Page 57


8.5 Appendix 5 - Typical Parking Bay Details for James Street and Main Street


Page 58



Page 59


8.6 Appendix 6 - Full Size Drawings:

Abercromby Street Cemetery - Plan

Tullis Street Park - Plan

Tullis Street Park - Aerial Sketch

BCLC Park - Option 1 - Plan




BCLC Park - Option 1 - Aerial Sketch

BCLC Park - Option 2 - Aerial Sketch

James Street + Main Street - Option 1 - Plan

James Street + Main Street - Option 2 - Plan

clyde gateway - bridgeton environmental improvements final report

Documents