THE Agenda article on Saturday (“There is a better way forward for Jordanhill”, The Herald, October 23) detailed the views of Jordanhill Community Council on what has become a very complex situation. Often, complex situations have simple solutions, and in this case the solution is very simple.

The Jordanhill community absolutely supports the development of the Jordanhill Campus site, but wants it done in a sustainable and sympathetic manner that brings benefit to the whole community, and strikes the right balance between new homes, open spaces, and delivery of services to the community. It does not support development based on the narrow profiteering approach of the CALA proposal.

Transport infrastructure in the Jordanhill area does not meet even Glasgow City Council’s Base Standards (it is already woefully inadequate), even without the additional burden of the proposed 420 new homes. The city council’s survey claims these 420 new homes will have no impact on transport infrastructure – what planet are they on?

Council officers must work within the existing process, so have recommended that the application be approved. But the SNP administration has declared its intention to completely overhaul this very process, as it is not fit for purpose.

Elected officials have considerably more freedom than council officers to look at the big picture, and not be tied to the constraints of a deeply flawed process. Indeed, they have a moral obligation to exercise that freedom, by actively reforming the planning process – now, not in 12 months’ time.

The first step for our elected representatives is to reject this hugely unpopular self-serving application.

The second step is to engage in a mature manner with the community, based on the community council’s community value proposition.

Simple – and if our elected representatives cannot (or will not) represent the community, they are very unlikely to be re-elected.

John Hamilton,

10 Skaterigg Gardens, Glasgow.

I NOTE your article regarding Glasgow's Jordanhill campus ("Controversial plan for 400 homes at college looks set for green light", The Herald, October 21).

As concerned Jordanhill residents, my wife and I have been following events on this issue and have attended the public meetings. We and more than 300 worried local residents are amazed that the award-winning Strathclyde University, which owns the Jordanhill College campus and is conspicuous by its absence, has, without consulting the community, handed over this beautiful, historic and respected site to Cala Homes to build high-density housing. We understand that the community recognises that the old empty buildings must be developed but we believe the current plan is wrong. The grounds still have some of the ancient woodland from the 18th century although it is blighted with the 1970s built concrete buildings.

I cannot believe that a prestigious university with such a high world status and equally respected School of Architecture can be seen to be handling this wonderful site with such disrespect and irresponsibility. This is the same university which is developing its own main city centre campus to high standards.

In line with the Scottish Government's commitment to community involvement I would have thought that Strathclyde University would have insisted in discussing with the community its proposals for the development of the site, including the management of green spaces and playing fields.

One thought is that universities are developing enterprise incubator programmes for graduates and this site would be ideal for such a development. Would Strathclyde consider this idea?

R McKay,

125 Southbrae Drive, Jordanhill, Glasgow.