Pollok Park site for "Go Ape" centre.... just say NO!!

[hound dog]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.2083449.0.0.php#comments

Looks like the planning decision will be on Tuesday. Typical arrogance from the "council insider" in dismissing the unprecedented number 880 objections as "including professional objectors". In contrast the 140 letters of support were "significant".

Those of us who have been in to the Planning Dept. can vouch that the majority of these "supportive" letters are from as far away as the south coast of England and as far north as Inverness. That's the ones that actually provide an address - most of them are by email with no indication of the person's location, which should automatically render them null and void. At the meeting in the Burgh Hall it was revealed that a member of staff in the PR company employed by Go Ape had requested on her Facebook site that those who enjoyed the experience wrote letters of support to the Planning Dept. in Glasgow. Judging by the wording of many of these emails, they were written in response to that request.

[Mori]

Item 1D 17 pages

APPLICATION
07/03308/DC DATE VALID
18.10.2007

SITE ADDRESS
Site Of Proposed Adventure Playground At Pollok Country Park 2060 Pollokshaws Road
Glasgow

PROPOSAL
Use of land for high ropes adventure course with associated equipment, reception cabin
and forest shelter.

APPLICANT
Adventure Forest Ltd T/A Go Ape
Hargrave Hall, Church Lane
Hargrave
Burt St Edmonds
Suffolk
IP29 5HH

REPRESENTATIONS/ CONSULTATIONS
A total of 1048 letters of representations have been received of which 881 are objections, including a petition of
objection from St Ninian’s High School with 257 signatories and a petition with 24 signatories, objection from
Pollokshaws and Eastwood Community Council, Shawlands and Strathbungo Community Council, Pollokshields
Community Council, Kinning Park Community Council, Pollok Community Council, the National Trust for
Scotland, Pollok & Corrour Ltd, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, Bill Aitken MSP, Councillor Khalil Malik. Nineteen of the
submissions do not express either support or objection, including a submission from solicitors acting on behalf
of Sir William Burrell’s Trust. The remaining 148 submissions are in support of the proposals, including a
submission from Mohammad Sarwar MP. The basis of objection are summarised as follows.

[My Kitten]

I specifically like this bit

The proposals would be detrimental to the local area and its conservation area status as it would result in
disruption, noise from participants and vandalism with a detrimental effect on quality of life for local
residents and park users.

Comment: The applicant has asserted that noise generated at existing venues is not intrusive and due to
the wooded nature of the site, the noise of laughter, etc will dissipate within a few metres. Given the
recreational nature of the park at present, it is not unreasonable or uncommon to expect a degree of noise
from its patrons. Arising from the compatibility of the proposed use with the green belt designation and park
function of the site, it is considered that any associated noise will not detract from its primary function.

aye some idiot flying down a zip wire really is the same noise as someone walking their dog or sitting having a picnic

[onyirtodd]

Apparently Go Ape did a wee survey of zip wire users at their other sites and it transpires none of the 'idiots' had shat on the grass.

[Sunflower]

The remaining 148 submissions are in support of the proposals, including a
submission from Mohammad Sarwar MP.

Hmm. 'My' MP is going to be getting a letter...........

[Sharon]

It's really not noisy, a small buzz as someone a zipline goes past, though the occassional scream may be heard too.

It's the commercialisation of the park that I believe is the main issue here. Cheap rent for private profit and a facility that carries a high ticket price so cannot be argued to be open to all. Followed by changing open woodland into something that is no longer entirely open and natural.

Still on the commercialisation of parks argument, and for a different thread, who would argue against the occassional coffee shop being opened in some of the existing disused park buildings?

[Sunflower]

For me it's the changing of open, 'natural' woodland into something that's interrupted by tall fence things (round the so-called access points) distributed over a relatively large area of the woods, with cables and slides covering the same relatively large area and affecting even more, and the council being less than straightforward about their reasons.

The council says it did a survey (was anyone here asked? what where the questions?) and people said they'd like more things to do in the parks (so presumably it was a survey about parks in general, not Pollok Park in particular and definitely not the natural woodland in particular).

Well, 'more things to do in parks'... The Go Ape Experience (fun as it sounds in the right place) is something that (a) you're advised to book for, (b) you cough up significant amounts of money for, (c) children under 10 can't use at all and (d) children(?) up to 17 must be with a supervising adult. If you're 18 you can go without a supervising adult - and it'll cost you £25. And it takes 2.5 to 3 hours.

How many of the people who wanted 'more things to do in parks' imagined something that you have to book for, that costs that much, takes that long, and is not open to children? I'd have been thinking of low key things you could do on the spur of the moment - I dunno, how about a nature trail, a fitness trail, trimpark, bike hire, bouncy castle for small kids, face painting, ice cream kiosk, and yes, tea/coffee somewhere more obvious than Pollok House/Burrell?

The other argument being used is that Go Ape will help attract more young people, especially the 'deprived' into the park. Well, I don't imagine you'll be able to roll up, say 'I'm deprived, gi's a go' - the free places will be for organised groups from 'deprived' areas. Seems to me like a sop - if anything's going to help such young people, it's not a one-off thrill, and if the thrill is part of a carefully managed programme, there are plenty of other experiences available (including Go Ape at Aberfoyle).

I would also like to have info from a neutral source about the areas involved. What's the area of the North Wood bounded by the (now tarred) footpaths? What's the included area if you draw a line round the outside of all the Go Ape structures (assuming that area would include all the overhead stuff). What's the larger area over which the sound will carry, wildlife is likely to be affected?



This is my go at marking the areas of the park that are actually open to the public (there are some other footpaths). (The 'H's are where the cows are.) The white blanks are the Go Ape areas marked on the original council consulation thing (the Save Pollok Park website shows them slightly differently, and with an additional zip slide over the glade). At the very least, anyone who talks about 300+ acres of Pollok Park and 3 acres for Go Ape (which I've seen something like, somewhere), hasn't looked very closely.

And finally, North Wood in spring, couple of years ago. Full glory here

[Sunflower]

OK, now I've read the council's thing for Tuesday's meeting

Item 1D 17 pages

and I'm mad as hell and totally depressed.

Sample 'representation': In assisting to prevent vandalism of the structures, the fences required will have to be at least 2 metres high and not in keeping with the rest of the park.
Planning people's Comment: In principle, the introduction of enclosures is not considered as being detrimental to the general
amenity value of the park.

Have these people ever been in natural woodland? (Slits throat)

[onyirtodd]

^ 2 metres isn't going to be anywhere near high enough.

[hound dog]

Article in the Sunday Herald

http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people ... p#comments

Of particular note

One of the Maxwell family has spoken out against it and says

Glasgow City Council is playing a dangerous game, he argues. If they can drive a coach and horses through the 1966 agreement in this case, what next for Pollok Park? "They are basically saying that if you make a gift and lay down conditions on it, those can later be disregarded," he says. "That might just discourage people from making such gifts in the future...

and

Robert Booth, executive director of the council's planning committee, talks of an ideal opportunity to open the woods up to the whole community, especially the young and disenfranchised."

What planet is that man living on ???????

[invy]

It's really not noisy, a small buzz as someone a zipline goes past, though the occassional scream may be heard too.

I can imagine there being a bit more shouting and screaming if it's a group/team building outing as there will more than likely be people egging others on.

It's the commercialisation of the park that I believe is the main issue here. Cheap rent for private profit and a facility that carries a high ticket price so cannot be argued to be open to all. Followed by changing open woodland into something that is no longer entirely open and natural.

Totally agree with you 100% Sharon. It's the nature of the business in that private enterprise will take a large profit from a space that was gifted to the city and ALL of those living in it - should we pay to access that gift? I really don't have an issue with a business like Go Ape! - if the proposal was for one of the more 'developed' (for want of a better word) parks then I'd have nothing against it. It just feels wrong wrong wrong for Pollok Park. I could sneeze and it'd hit Queens Park yet I'd have no objection to the business being sited there. I'd imagine it might even be more accessible in one of the mainstream parks. So personally it's not a case of NIMBYism, quite the opposite. Unfortunately I feel that Mr Mayhew's appearance and comments at the public meeting last month were nothing more than a PR exercise - "I hear what you say but I'm not listening..." Wouldn't it be nice if Go Ape! were to say they'd help fund more appropriate projects in the park should they get the go ahead?

Still on the commercialisation of parks argument, and for a different thread, who would argue against the occassional coffee shop being opened in some of the existing disused park buildings?

Absolutely no problem with that - quite the opposite as it wouldn't be intrusive, wouldn't restrict access to the park and would actually provide a facility that would enhance the park in the right way and be accessible to many more people than the Go Ape! development would. I'd be happy to see any development that enhanced the appeal of Pollok Park without detracting from its character. I'm sure the Maxwell family would be more receptive to that kind of plan rather than the 'them and us' ethos of this proposal.

-Jim - quite annoyed to be regarded as a professional objector...

[hound dog]

If anyone would like to sign there is an online petition against the proposals.

http://www.petitiononline.com/220848/petition.html

[Toaster]

Result coming in - Council postpones decision for a site visit and hearings

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7275486.stm

[red_kola]

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/di ... tation.php

Campaigners against the Go Ape adventure course in Pollok Park are claiming a victory after Glasgow City Council admitted it has "no record" of how it designed the public consultation exercise which has formed the basis of its argument for the development.

Responding to a freedom of information request, the council said it had no record of the authors or the methodology of the consultation, which many park-goers claim was poorly advertised and Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, described as "woefully inadequate".

continues...

Don't know whether to laugh or cry...

[fourbytwo]

just another case of the Council selling off the family silver, in order to support their 'gross' fiddling of the public purse when spending 'our money' on consultations and plans 'contrary to the Glasgow good'
As we all pay the wages of these 'council officials' is it not about time we grabbed them by the short and curlies, and demanded that their priorities are to the people of Glasgow, and not the privateers who offer them 'backhanders'.