Villagers are to get another opportunity to express their views about Pencaitland’s narrow main-road footpath. In September, plans agreed by a range of community groups and ELC transport officials were expected to be passed by ELC Planning Committee. But Planning delayed its decision, saying it wants to ensure villagers have another chance to review the the same plans.
A letter to villagers explains that a public consultation is being offered to all interested locals in Pencaitland’s Trevelyan Hall between 2pm and 8pm on Tuesday the 30th of October. Transport officials and local councillors will be on hand to answer any questions or concerns anyone may have about the proposed parallel footpath before a final decision is taken by ELC councillors on whether to complete the partially done footpath or drop the plan with no alternative solution on offer. Can’t make it? You can still make your views known.
The plan boils down to building a wider footpath running parallel to the main road from the bridge, through church grounds and directly into the school, thus avoiding the main road pavement which is 75cm in places and too narrow for two people to pass without stepping onto the road, or to allow someone using a wheelchair or pushing many makes of baby buggy to safely get across the village on foot.
BACKGROUND
It was the footpath campaign, made up of concerned parents, dog-owners and other locals, that originally took issue with the ELC over the dangerously narrow footpath in 2008. This came to a head in February 2011 when ELC councillors and officals vetoed an earlier plan to extend the lights and widen the main road pavement.
Subsequent community talks were held at the direct request of ELC councillors. This led to the parallel footpath plan which was the end result of 18 months of discussion between members of the church, ELC transport and planning officials, ELC councillors, the Community Council and the Fatal Footpath Campaign.
PROs & CONs
The community now has a second opportunity to review the same parallel footpath plan later this month and express a view on whether they wish to see the parallel path proceed to completion or, effectively, drop it entirely. Currently this is the only footpath plan acceptable to ELC’s transport officials.
So what’s good and bad about the parallel footpath plan which is being re-presented to members of the community on the 30th?
PROs
- The parallel footpath provides an alternative and more direct route to and from Pencaitland Primary School.
- It is a wider footpath which, unlike the existing pavement, can take wheelchairs and buggies.
- It separates pedestrians from cars, buses and lorries.
- Parking in the Carriage House car park will be improved for all users of this community facility.
- An overflow carpark, part of the school’s existing parking, will be accessible via a footpath to church-goers, thus potentially reducing the need to park on the main road which can cause problems of its own each Sunday.
- With a more direct and safer walking route there will be less reason to drive kids to school from Wester Pencaitland
CONs
- This plan is more elaborate and costly than simply moving the lights and widening the footpath (though this is no longer an option open to the community after this was rejected by ELC councillors in July 2011 on the advice of transport officials).
- Some residents of the Glebe are concerned that this plan may make parking worse in the cul de sac. (there were six objections when this plan went to planning consent).
HAVE YOUR SAY
We would encourage everyone with a view on these plans to make the time to go and see for themselves what’s being proposed and to consider what it will mean for the community as a whole. ELC officials are going to be on hand from 2pm through to 8pm to try to give everyone a chance to see, and have explained, what is being proposed.
However, if you are unable to come along on the day but want to express a view we would encourage you to leave a comment below, email us, and/or take part in our mini survey.
If you don’t see the survey question above you can click here
Just worth adding that the path along the river has deteriorated and parts are fenced off as it has collapsed into the Tyne. Given the last few winters it’s very likely it will also flood again which will bring down even more of the path.
John
Hi Joanne
It wasn’t so much upgraded as created from scratch. The tarmac path around the back of the school didn’t exist at all a few years ago.
To put some context on this, when the footpath campaign began in 2008 that back path was the unilateral reaction of the ELC with no consultation with any community members. However, now that we have it, it’s a very welcome bit of village amenity. Weather and time permitting, if my kids are going to/from school I use it too, though, now winter is setting in, not at all
Problem is it does not address a whole raft of concerns back at the main road where the problem has always been.
The woodland footpath at the back of the school…
• Is not usable all year round when it’s either very wet/muddy, flooded or under snow. See an example.
• Is not a route chosen by pedestrians using the main road.
• Is a significant detour away from the main road – people are unwilling (human nature) to take it.
• Is does not address safety issues at the narrow main road pavement.
• It is not DDA compliant (i.e. it’s too steep an incline for disabled use).
• It is poorly lit for night-time use.
Apart from those obvious points, in discussions about the parallel footpath one issue that was raised, which did not occur to me (probably because I’m male), was that some are simply unwilling to use these forest footpaths at night or on their own for reasons of feeling unsafe/isolated.
So, to answer your question, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the footpath in the woods. But whatever its wrongs or rights, it has no bearing on the issues being addressed by the parallel footpath to overcome historic problems of our 75cm wide main road pavement.
Cheers
Ralph
can someone explain what is wrong with the existing path through the woods which appears to have been upgraded extensively since I wnet to school using it every day?
Hi Stephen
I can’t speak for either ELC’s Transport officials nor the Church but I can give you my opinion on both…
I’ve spoken to Transport on the question of a crossing on this section of road, including at the Public Consultation where I discussed it with Brian Cooper, Senior Transportation Manager at East Lothian Council. I’ve been given a clear steer that this is very much something they are willing to consider doing as part of wider safety improvements being looked at across the whole of the village at this very moment. Quite apart from the footpath plans this is something we will be pushing for.
I suspect that the church will be relieved to have a safer crossing for people trying to get to/from the Carriage House and church. On Sundays with cars parking head to toe there is no easy entry or exit for pedestrians who have to squeeze between parked cars. A crossing would open up sufficient space for people on foot to not have to squeeze through a line of cars any more to reach the opposing pavement.
On other days it would provide additional safety to any pedestrians and act as ‘road furniture’ encouraging drivers to go a little slower.
So yes there would be a loss of some parking space but a gain in other aspects too.
I doubt you’ll find anyone objecting, church or otherwise, to such a common sense safety improvement.
Cheers
Ralph
A well worded reply Ralph and can’t really argue with anything you have said. If this is the next best thing that Pencaitland can have then so be it as we do need to do something about it, but I have reservations on whether they will allow a pedestrian crossing at the carriage house given how close it will be to the exit of carriage house and also the current set of lights. Plus the parking restrictions that will need to be imposed on said crossing will surely not go down well with the church either. Could end up losing more car parking than what the original plan proposed.
Hi Stephen
It’s not at all silly. As a strong advocate and supporter of this original proposal – which was to move the lights another 25 or so metres East from their current location in order to then widen the pavement to 2 metres, I was deeply unhappy when, despite a petition which 350+ villagers signed, Council rejected this plan, originally produced by its own Transport officials to do just this.
That’s because, despite those transport officials devising this plan they were unwilling to back it in practice when it came to providing a recommendation. They did not deem it sensible, despite the strong local support for this solution. So Transport recommended to the elected councillors who voted on that plan to reject it as it was deemed to set a precedent that Transport was unwilling to take. That’s precisely what ELC councillors then did.
There was all sorts of transport language bandied about, talking of inter-green times et cetera, but what it boiled down to was that without the blessing of ELC’s transport mandarins it was never going to fly with ELC councillors. Those councillors may reject the advice of planning officials (and I’ve seen them do so) but it’s much rarer that they go against the view of Transport officials.
So that’s why, after that kick in the teeth for that plan’s supporters, Council asked all those concerned to gather and find a compromise solution which addressed, if not all, then the key concerns of all the parties and, after much debate between church, community representatives, Carriage House users, the Footpath campaign, ELC officials and councillors, this current plan was developed.
As I think I’ve said previously, this new plan is not ideal but it is the absolute best possible outcome we can achieve in light of Transport’s intransigence in terms of the original plan, which they rejected then and continue to do so now.
I’d say that the vast bulk of people I spoke to at the public consultation Tuesday past were asking why the lights couldn’t just be moved and the pavement widened as per the original plans? I’ve asked the very same question myself. And whilst I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions and recommendations ELC Transport made, unless those recommendations change (which I’m told repeatedly they won’t be) there is no other possible option on the table.
That means without the plan before us today, people like Maya, who uses a K-Walker, or anyone with limited mobility or simply people who want to know that they can send their kids to school safely, we will be entering 2013 without a modern width path which allows any able or disabled person to safely cross through the heart of the village.
So I am a convert to this plan as the best possible solution which improves the amenity for all pedestrians.
Would I rather the original plan was implemented? Yes. Am I prepared to argue the case and try to have the recommendation of Transport changed? No.
It’s a very very long-shot and, quite frankly, even if that ever were to happen it would add many years to something that has already been going on for nearly five so far. Also, in that unlikely scenario, we would then once again have to contend with convincing other parties, who were vehemently against the original plan, to change their positions. That’s even more unlikely to happen.
Let’s say there was objection from the Church or Scotland. This would add a further two years minimum to go through the motions of a Scottish governemnt ajudication process which would most likely end up costing far far more than simply getting this thing we have before us today done. So any talk of saving money by fighting for the original plan is, quite frankly, so much smoke and mirrors.
Is this current plan likely to be more expensive than moving the lights and widening the footpath would have been? Yes. But I’ll tell you now that if the money allocated to do this in Pencaitland isn’t spent here then for sure it will be spent to the benefit of some other town or village in another part of the county.
In any event, for the reasons above that plan is dead in the water so it’s not like there is any actual choice here… other than not doing anything at all and ensuring that children and adult, able-bodied or otherwise have to continue to use this ridiculously narrow 75cm wide footpath as 4,500 vehicles trundle through our village each workday – a path that prevents wheelchair users from even getting across the village under their own steam.
Is that an acceptable outcome? I certainly do not think so.
All the best
Ralph
Silly question time but why is the original proposal, which is by far the most sensible and cost effective one, dead and buried?
Dear Sheila , I agree. The proposed path to the school is safe and ideal but the traverse route through the village needs a safe crossing point over the main road at the carriage house end.
Ian
Here’s what I’m going to be writing in the comments book when I go to the Trevelyan Hall for the footpath consultation today:
Hi Ian
I was specifically referring to the 25m stretch of very narrow pavement at the main road after the bridge heading east. Nothing else. The alternative route will mean no-one need ever use that dangerously narrow section (75 centimetres wide in places) if they don’t wish to. And those who couldn’t use it at all will now have a passable path.
As to crossing the road further up the road near the carriage house entrance/exit, for those not going to the school they will be able to cross over to the wider pavement to carry on up the village on foot at that point. Fortunately that stretch has good visibility in both directions and, as I’ve discussed with you directly, I believe, as you do, that there should be consideration of whether it makes sense to look at some form of zebra or similar affair around that point. (see my previous posts below on this).
All the best
Ralph
Dear Ralph, in your reply to Alastair and Krista you state the new footpath will allow people to opt to keep well away from large lorries and buses at any time. Not true. They will have to cross in front of them at the carriagehouse end to get back to the North pavement in order to continue on their journey.
Hi Alastair/Krista
You can check out the Facebook page for the Footpath campaign and read the articles from the local media and comments on the page’s timeline to get a really good sense of what went on before.
The bottom line is that the Council’s transport officials, despite producing a plan which aimed to move the lights and widen the footpath, were not willing to back such a change. Councillors, presumably as non-transport experts, were unwilling to vote to grant planning permission for that solution, if they didn’t have the green light from their officials to do so.
That was despite a petition of 350 or so locals that was demanding exactly that. So that option is basically exhausted and is now off the table.
Currently anyone walking up or down the road on the north pavement walks without crossing the main road. Someone on the South pavement heading west would need to cross once to the north pavement as they cannot walk all the way through the heart of the village on the south. The new proposed path will do a number of things:
1. Remove people/kids from very close contact with cars, vans, buses on the unusually narrow pavement
2. Provide a much wider footpath very close to the current pavement that can be used by anyone at any time and in all weather conditions.
Speaking of which, with the poor weather closing in, even those who want to use the back path that goes behind the school have to consider sticking to the main road pavement as it gets muddier/icy/wetter in winter on this other indirect route.
But in using the parallel path it would require one additional crossing to use.
I’m not sure any improvement would be better. This was already tried with a very indirect path to the back of the school with no public consultation on its merits. We now have it and it’s a welcome addition to the amenity for the whole village but it never addressed the issues of concern all the way back at the main road pavement which was the original source of so many complaints from concerned pedestrians.
Whilst this new parallel footpath does not resolve the narrow footpath (and it seems it can never be for historical reasons), it is a huge step forward in dragging the village’s public pavement network into something approaching modern standards of accessibility and usability. It’s not perfect by any means but there is no other solution possible that comes close. It will mean that two kids I know of, who currently could not cross the village unaided without using a car, would be able to do so.
I agree – it will be a big improvement over the status quo if it goes ahead, but it is not the perfect answer to everybody’s hopes and wishes… it’s simply the very best plan that can be achieved under the existing circumstances with which we have to work.
Now on that I want to challenge your assumptions. For anyone who today feels wary and nervous, for themselves or for their kids using that very narrow stretch of pavement on the main road, especially during morning and evening rush hour, the new parallel footpath will allow them to opt to keep well away from large lorries and buses at any time.
It improves pedestrian safety and choice for all of the people at any time.
It also, for the very first time, will allow people who simply cannot cross the village today with child buggies or wheelchairs that do not actually fit the current pavement, to now be able to gain a level of independence of movement they’ve never had before.
If anything, I’d hope that it will encourage people out of their cars for short trips within the village. Quite a few are unwilling to use the existing pavement and instead opt to take their cars on very short trips to the shop, Post Office, Carriage House or school. If this new footpath encourages parents to stop making those journeys and for kids to get more physical exercise that’s to be welcomed.
All the best
Ralph
We’re undecided about this. I don’t think anyone would doubt the current “fatal footpath” is completely unsuitable and we’ve had as much bother with it as everybody else (with or without kids). Some of this debate probably pre-dates our time in the village, but we’re unsure why the transport department view about widening the path seems to be more important than child safety and disabled/frail access, but that may be old ground.
However, Ian does have a valid point here. The road would need to be crossed three times when the school gate is closed and it wouldn’t provide any particular improvement as an east-west link for most people, most of the time.
We don’t doubt that any improvement has to be better than nothing, but if this is going to to cost a lot of money, then everybody affected by this has to be taken into consideration, not just children (including ours).
We would be wary about something which is “DDA complaint” being considered the same as “disabled friendly”. These are not necessarily one and the same thing.
A lot of work has clearly gone into this, but as far as we can see this improves safety for some of the people some of the time, rather than most people most of the time.
Hi Ian
I agree that Transport needs to add detail on crossing back from the carriage house drive for people on foot.
As I think I mentioned earlier, the officials on hand at the on-site meeting did not seem to think that, basically what you’re suggesting, was an insurmountable problem. Adding slopes to pavements and, I think, at least in my view, a pelican crossing, makes a lot of sense as it’s only a very small, though I agree important element, of a much broader pedestrian safety plan.
This point was made though so they are aware of this in Transport.
Best
Ralph
Hi Ralph if a disabled person cannot cross the busy road at the carriagehouse end safely then it is not a viable option. That is my point. Could be fixed with a pedestrianised crossing point and lowering of the pavement on the north side of the main road.Someone has to take this on board since no-one seems to be even considering it!
Yours, Ian
Hi Ian
You said: “the present plan is not a viable solution for people with disabilities.”
Of course it’s a viable solution. It will be like night and day in comparison to the status quo for people, whether able-bodied or otherwise.
It will allow people who hitherto couldn’t even traverse the village to have a means of now doing so, whether going to the school or going from one end of the village to the other.
If I followed the logic of your argument it’s like saying, ‘let’s not fix a problem in one place just in case it might make a problem in another place’.
Even if that were remotely true, you’re highlighting something that the community should then address and resolve if your argument bears out in practice.
Best
Ralph
Dear Natasha whilst I understand your difficulties and fully sympathise with you, the present plan is not a viable solution for people with disabilities. It is changing a fatal footpath to a fatal road crossing at the carriage house end. Surely now is the time to get it right and safe for all users not just buggy pushers.
As a mother with a double buggy I can barely use the existing pavement without potential accident or injury to my babies. Last year there were 2 days when it was so unsafe, due to icy conditions, that I could neither go through the woods due to the dangers of ice on the steep path, and the narrow footpath was too big a risk. I was forced to keep my kids off school because I couldn’t get them there. The car was not an option due to our street being sheer ice it was impossible to reverse.
This kind of situation would be remedied by the new proposals. Although not perfect at least safer than the current conditions. I respect that it may not be supported by everyone, but to those who oppose it please consider how you will feel when there finally is a death or serious accident of a child. Let’s not underestimate the potential for this – many children / babies in buggies have had several near misses, my own kids included.
Natasha
“nowhere in the plans do I see provision for disabled people or elderly people with mobility problems to cross back over the busy main road- from the carriage house entrance across the main road there will be no crossing point nor does the pavement appear to be lowered”
I attended the on site meeting. This is purely anecdotal on my part but it was made clear by the officials that adding appropriate pavement fixtures for people with disabilities would be a matter of course and it wasn’t even considered worthy of further debate.
“ This is a more dangerous situation than already exists along the non fatal footpath”
Again, in this instance I feel you’re taking issue with a non-existent problem. There are many others I’m sure you can nitpick over if you like but none of them are mission critical to the main intent of creating a safe, wide footpath that anyone and everyone can use.
Right now there are a number of people who live in the village who do not use the existing narrow pavement – not because they choose not to, but because they simply cannot, even if they wanted to. I suppose you could argue that this is the safest of all because, as they have no choice in the matter, there’s no possibility of them getting into danger. However, in this day and age I personally believe we need to have a village which does cater to the needs of both the able bodied and everyone else. I certainly don’t think it’s acceptable that the only main road pavement in the centre of the village is so narrow that people have to step into the road to pass, or that a wheelchair user can’t use it at all, or even a mum or dad with a slightly too wide buggy has to struggle and hope for the best.
And let’s remember, with a rapidly ageing demographic that need for footpaths that can cater to people with disabilities is only going to become more evident over time. Fortunately, apart from the pavement at the bridge, most of the village has wide footpaths. So unless you think the solution is to make the elderly and disabled get in a car (if they drive/own one) to get from one side of Pencaitland to the other to pick up the paper or some things from the shop, this is the only workable and worked-out option on the table.
Is it the answer to all our dreams? No.
Is it the most sensible, viable and practical solution that meets most people’s needs most of the time and which will get the green light from ELC’s transport mandarins. Yes.
Right now, unless you have a better plan which does the above that you’d like to share, this parallel footpath will be a big step (excuse the pun) forward.
Cheers
Ralph
Dear Ralph, nowhere in the plans do I see provision for disabled people or elderly people with mobility problems to cross back over the busy main road- from the carriage house entrance across the main road there will be no crossing point nor does the pavement appear to be lowered
This is a more dangerous situation than already exists along the non fatal footpath
Hi Ian
“So Ralph you are now agreeing that this path is for schoolchildren and church-goers only as outwith school hours,weekends,and holidays it will be closed.”
No. It’s open to all to use whether they are school children or parents going to school, people going to the church, users of the Carriage House facilities (which are used by all sorts and not just churchgoers) and, of course, pedestrians wishing to avoid the narrow main road pavement.
Whether the gate into school grounds are closed or open has no impact on pedestrians not heading for the school, nor does it prevent anyone from using the parallel footpath to avoid the narrow pavement at any time of night or day.
“Outwith school hours crossing the busy main road 3 times is not a viable option”
I count one to cross to the parallel path and go to the school. Two to cross back if you’re going on up to Easter Pencaitland proper.
“…impossible for wheelchair users and elderly people with mobility problems.”
Not sure why you are arguing this when it clearly is DDA compliant according to the plans? It’s certainly a good bit more disabled friendly than the status quo and a whole lot less threatening to life and limb.
I remember one mum telling me how she used to have a buggy that wouldn’t fit on the pavement. She had to time it just right and literally run up the road in order to avoid the rush of vehicles when the lights changed. In fact, you can go see a picture of just this on the Facebook page mentioned above.
“You forget that the majority of people in Easter Pencaitland, the pub , the shop, the bowling green, the housing is on the south side of the main road,thereby needing three crossings of the road to get from East – West. I rest my case.”
Ian, that’s stretching an argument until it’s paper thin. You’re lumping in some hypothetical third crossing some 200 or more metres up the road that really has got absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the issue down at the bridge.
In any event, clearly you’re not pro this particular plan. I’d like to hear what, if any, alternative you have in mind that you think would pass muster with ELC officials? If you’ve got ideas I’d like to hear them.
All the best
Ralph
So Ralph you are now agreeing that this path is for schoolchildren and church-goers only as outwith school hours,weekends,and holidays it will be closed It will not be the East-West Link you previously championed. Outwith school hours crossing the busy main road 3 times is not a viable option and impossible for wheelchair users and elderly people with mobility problems.You forget that the majority of people in Easter Pencaitland, the pub , the shop, the bowling green, the housing is on the south side of the main road,thereby needing three crossings of the road to get from East – West. I rest my case.
Ian
Sorry, but why would people wanting to travel across Pencaitland on foot and not wishing to go to the school want to pass through the school’s grounds to get across the village? The school is just one destination. Yes it’s important, but only for people specifically trying to get to the school.
For others they would cross over at the new pedestrian crossing on the Tyne bridge and could either go on into the school (if that was where they were headed) or cross back over further up, beyond the narrow main road pavement where there is good visibility in both directions. As I said earlier this is particularly important for those who, quite naturally, feel unsafe on the narrow pavement or who can’t actually use the existing pavement.
You call it a busy main road and I agree that at times it’s very busy. That’s the very reason that people are so wary of the dangerously narrow pavement as it’s just plain unsafe. I’ve witnessed numerous occasions where large vehicles have mounted the already narrow sliver of pavement to squeeze past other vehicles coming in the other direction. One mum told me a few weeks back how a tractor mounted the pavement. She thought it would wait but it literally chased her up the footpath and was very unsettling for her.
Ironically that’s why more than a few parents put their kids in the car and drive them to school as they are unwilling to allow their kids to use that stretch of pavement.
Cheers
Ralph
Dear Ralph,- the logic is whilst being able to see the advantage for schoolchildren,if the school gate is closed then people who wish to travel across Pencaitland will have to cross abusy main road three times-highly dangerous.wheelchair users no lowered pavement acress
Hi Ian
You said: “The school will control the access to it- you don’t know when it will be open or shut,so it will not be a viable accessible route to be used as a West-East Pencaitland pathway.”
Not sure I follow your logic? It will be for school kids going into/out of the school.
It will also be viable for everyone else who simply wants to avoid the narrow main road pavement. Because people cannot freely travel on through the school grounds it does not follow that this therefore invalidates the value of the parallel route to people simply wanting to head from Wester to Easter Pencaitland or vice versa – that’s especially so for parents with kids in buggies or anyone who needs to rely on a wheelchair.
Cheers
Ralph
Dear Ralph- You have emphasised the weakness of this path. The school will control the access to it- you don’t know when it will be open or shut,so it will not be a viable accessible route to be used as a West-East Pencaitland pathway.
It’s worth adding that, as ever, everyone thinks and hopes that someone else will do the heavy lifting and it will all work out in the end.
That’s really not the case in this instance. As a reluctant convert to this parallel footpath (because nothing else is possible or viable) I know that everyone who cares about having a safe route across the heart of the village for young and old, that avoids our dangerously narrow pavement, need to come out and show their support. If you don’t there’s a very real chance it will be killed stone dead and five years of campaigning on this one issue by quite a few locals will have been in vain.
So pass the word around and encourage anyone you know who cares about this to make it abundantly clear by going to this consultation and leaving a comment. You can also email Brian Cooper in ELC’s Transport on bcooper@eastlothian.gov.uk There will be no more opportunities after this.
You can get a fuller picture by looking at the timeline on the Pencaitland Fatal Footpath Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Pencaitland-Fatal-Footpath/167854103352249
Hi Ian
As I understand it there are quite a few more than three kids currently using the narrow pavement on the main road. In just one trip a few weeks back, around 8.40am on a weekday, at the time I was going over the bridge heading east I counted 15 in all. But I think the numbers are not the issue. What price any one person (or child’s) safety?
I believe this parallel path will be open at all times for anyone to use. However, access into and out of the school grounds is controlled by the school and I think it will be closed some of the time.
Anyone, particularly pram users and people with mobility issues, will be able to use the parallel footpath to avoid using the 75cm wide pavement on the main road. At the moment anyone in a wheelchair cannot get across the village at all as the existing pavement is too narrow to fit both wheels. Pedestrians can cross back, looking at the plans either at the main church entrance or further up, to carry on along the main road where, fortunately, the pavement is much wider.
Cheers
Ralph
Is the footpath only to be used during school hours? (I believe there is to be a gate and padlock at the school end). If so it is not solving the problem for any other users- a very expensive solution for 3 school children going to and home from school. Outwith school still same problem road!
RT @pencaitlandpc: RT @pencaitlandcc: #footpath plan returns for more village consultation. Have your say. http://t.co/SPSfCPDh @elcourier @newseastlothian
Parallel footpath proposal returns for more consultation: After ELC’s Planning Committee delayed decision on pla… http://t.co/XvUgHU95
RT @pencaitlandcc: #footpath plan returns for more village consultation. Have your say. http://t.co/E6Cepnoz @elcourier @newseastlothian
RT @pencaitlandcc: #footpath plan returns for more village consultation. Have your say. http://t.co/SPSfCPDh @elcourier @newseastlothian
Got a comment on the plans? Please feel free to post your views here.