Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 11:09am Mon 3 Mar 08
Two points:
[bold]1.[/bold] The issue is not just about Go Ape, it is about a wider issue concerning how some aloof councillors believe it is their incontrovertible right to hand over the assets of this city to private, commercial interests; it is not.
[bold]2.[/bold] If it is not appropriate that Go Ape build in an English Country Park (Thorndon), then it is not [bold]acceptable[/bold] that they are allowed to build in a Scottish Country Park (Pollok).
Two points:
1. The issue is not just about Go Ape, it is about a wider issue concerning how some aloof councillors believe it is their incontrovertible right to hand over the assets of this city to private, commercial interests; it is not.
2. If it is not appropriate that Go Ape build in an English Country Park (Thorndon), then it is not
acceptable that they are allowed to build in a Scottish Country Park (Pollok).
Posted by: Jim Brown, glasgow on 12:03pm Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote]Two points:
1. The issue is not just about Go Ape, it is about a wider issue concerning how some aloof councillors believe it is their incontrovertible right to hand over the assets of this city to private, commercial interests; it is not.
2. If it is not appropriate that Go Ape build in an English Country Park (Thorndon), then it is not acceptable that they are allowed to build in a Scottish Country Park (Pollok).[/quote]
Are there no issues on which the Nasty Nats will not use to try and stir up anti-english feeling?
Two points:
1. The issue is not just about Go Ape, it is about a wider issue concerning how some aloof councillors believe it is their incontrovertible right to hand over the assets of this city to private, commercial interests; it is not.
2. If it is not appropriate that Go Ape build in an English Country Park (Thorndon), then it is not acceptable that they are allowed to build in a Scottish Country Park (Pollok).
Are there no issues on which the Nasty Nats will not use to try and stir up anti-english feeling?
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 12:12pm Mon 3 Mar 08
There is a world of difference between entering in to a mutually beneficial agreement with a commercial organisation and handing over assets. No assets are being handed over, ownership will remain with the Council and additional facilities will be provided within the park.
Can we stick to the merits of the application rather than scaremongering about selling off public property?
There is a world of difference between entering in to a mutually beneficial agreement with a commercial organisation and handing over assets. No assets are being handed over, ownership will remain with the Council and additional facilities will be provided within the park.
Can we stick to the merits of the application rather than scaremongering about selling off public property?
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 12:36pm Mon 3 Mar 08
The arrogance of these unelected officials is astounding. It's well seen that they are in a highly paid job for life, funded by the people of Glasgow whom they treat with utter contempt. The councillors who decided upon this application woudl do well to remember that they are not in such a privileged position.
The Forestry Commission are in the business of forestry management - a bit different from simply destroying healthy trees to make way for a commercial enterprise.
Forbes - there are absolutely NO merite to this application for the ordinary people of Glasgow. The bigggest beneficiary is a private company who are in line to make millions of pounds from a valuable asset that was fiven as a gift with conditions attached. In the words of the grandson of Sir John Stirling Maxwell, the city fathers "are driving a coach and horse through that agreement".
I wonder how many more gifts the City will receive from wealthy individuals / families in the light of this behaviour?
The arrogance of these unelected officials is astounding. It's well seen that they are in a highly paid job for life, funded by the people of Glasgow whom they treat with utter contempt. The councillors who decided upon this application woudl do well to remember that they are not in such a privileged position.
The Forestry Commission are in the business of forestry management - a bit different from simply destroying healthy trees to make way for a commercial enterprise.
Forbes - there are absolutely NO merite to this application for the ordinary people of Glasgow. The bigggest beneficiary is a private company who are in line to make millions of pounds from a valuable asset that was fiven as a gift with conditions attached. In the words of the grandson of Sir John Stirling Maxwell, the city fathers "are driving a coach and horse through that agreement".
I wonder how many more gifts the City will receive from wealthy individuals / families in the light of this behaviour?
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 12:40pm Mon 3 Mar 08
In case anyone was wondering just why the good people of Essex rejected Go Ape's plan for Thornwood Country Park, the three main reasons given by their councillors, - who had the decency to represent the will of their people, rather than trample over it - were:
[bold]1.[/bold] Noise
[bold]2.[/bold] Visual intrusion
[bold]3.[/bold] Ecological grounds
One lesson which Go Ape and their PR company may have learned from their Thornwood fiasco, is not to announce up-front their real long-term objectives, for fear of scuppering initial roll-out. Thus the main omission from their Pollok plan, which was included in their Thornwood plan, was:
> [bold]Provide office accommodation and a meeting room for corporate hire[/bold]
[italic]How can we be sure that this will not be on Go Ape's long-term agenda for Pollok too???[/italic]
In case anyone was wondering just why the good people of Essex rejected Go Ape's plan for Thornwood Country Park, the three main reasons given by their councillors, - who had the decency to represent the will of their people, rather than trample over it - were:
1. Noise
2. Visual intrusion
3. Ecological grounds
One lesson which Go Ape and their PR company may have learned from their Thornwood fiasco, is not to announce up-front their real long-term objectives, for fear of scuppering initial roll-out. Thus the main omission from their Pollok plan, which was included in their Thornwood plan, was:
>
Provide office accommodation and a meeting room for corporate hire
How can we be sure that this will not be on Go Ape's long-term agenda for Pollok too??? Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 12:45pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Source: BBC Local Action Network:
[bold]tinyurl.com/2j4vkr[/bold]
Source: BBC Local Action Network:
tinyurl.com/2j4vkr Posted by: Scott, Airdrie on 12:53pm Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
In case anyone was wondering just why the good people of Essex rejected Go Ape's plan for Thornwood Country Park, the three main reasons given by their councillors, - who had the decency to represent the will of their people, rather than trample over it - were: [bold]1.[/bold] Noise [bold]2.[/bold] Visual intrusion [bold]3.[/bold] Ecological grounds One lesson which Go Ape and their PR company may have learned from their Thornwood fiasco, is not to announce up-front their real long-term objectives, for fear of scuppering initial roll-out. Thus the main omission from their Pollok plan, which was included in their Thornwood plan, was: > [bold]Provide office accommodation and a meeting room for corporate hire[/bold] [italic]How can we be sure that this will not be on Go Ape's long-term agenda for Pollok too???[/italic] [/quote] Yet more scaremongering.....
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
In case anyone was wondering just why the good people of Essex rejected Go Ape's plan for Thornwood Country Park, the three main reasons given by their councillors, - who had the decency to represent the will of their people, rather than trample over it - were: 1. Noise 2. Visual intrusion 3. Ecological grounds One lesson which Go Ape and their PR company may have learned from their Thornwood fiasco, is not to announce up-front their real long-term objectives, for fear of scuppering initial roll-out. Thus the main omission from their Pollok plan, which was included in their Thornwood plan, was: > Provide office accommodation and a meeting room for corporate hire How can we be sure that this will not be on Go Ape's long-term agenda for Pollok too???
Yet more scaremongering.....
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 12:58pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Sydney - you are absolutely spot-on. If you look at the corporate section of Go Ape's website they state quite clearly that they provide conference facilities etc as part of the corporate packages. The lease drawn up by GCC make provision for the facilities to be extended in the future and promising that the Council "will not unreasonably withhold or delay permission"
Sydney - you are absolutely spot-on. If you look at the corporate section of Go Ape's website they state quite clearly that they provide conference facilities etc as part of the corporate packages. The lease drawn up by GCC make provision for the facilities to be extended in the future and promising that the Council "will not unreasonably withhold or delay permission"
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 1:06pm Mon 3 Mar 08
This will not go ahead & we as concerned aim to make sure of this..Pollok Park for the People..
This will not go ahead & we as concerned aim to make sure of this..Pollok Park for the People..
Posted by: Jim Brown, glasgow on 1:10pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Best to ignore Sydney. He would appear to have a party political agenda.
Best to ignore Sydney. He would appear to have a party political agenda.
Posted by: Meep, Shawlands on 1:24pm Mon 3 Mar 08
I think its shocking that after the butchery done to the park by that motorway, that the council want to inflict even more damage on Pollok Park for negligible profits. Robert Booth is not fit to be in charge of Pollok Parks affairs. Shocking.
I think its shocking that after the butchery done to the park by that motorway, that the council want to inflict even more damage on Pollok Park for negligible profits. Robert Booth is not fit to be in charge of Pollok Parks affairs. Shocking.
Posted by: debbie, glasgow, glasgow on 1:40pm Mon 3 Mar 08
oh my god, some people just annoy me. i wonder how many of the objectors have actually seen the plans or read the planning application for the exact details of what they are planning? Just because their website says they offer corporate packages doesnt automatically mean that is what they are planning here. it doesnt matter what their long term objective is, the planning application is decided on the information given and any further development will require another application.
Also, just because people werent satisfied with the statutory consultation period doesnt mean that is wasnt properly handled. each planning application is subject to the statutory consultation process, which people can easily find out about just by phoning the council.
The fact that The Garden History Society has not objected, who are experts, does that not tell people something.
It really annoys me when just because members of the public arent satisfied with an application/consulta
tion process they attack planning officals, when most of them actually have no concept of what is involved in planning or what goes on.
oh my god, some people just annoy me. i wonder how many of the objectors have actually seen the plans or read the planning application for the exact details of what they are planning? Just because their website says they offer corporate packages doesnt automatically mean that is what they are planning here. it doesnt matter what their long term objective is, the planning application is decided on the information given and any further development will require another application.
Also, just because people werent satisfied with the statutory consultation period doesnt mean that is wasnt properly handled. each planning application is subject to the statutory consultation process, which people can easily find out about just by phoning the council.
The fact that The Garden History Society has not objected, who are experts, does that not tell people something.
It really annoys me when just because members of the public arent satisfied with an application/consulta
tion process they attack planning officals, when most of them actually have no concept of what is involved in planning or what goes on.
Posted by: parklover, Glasgow on 1:44pm Mon 3 Mar 08
I don't suppose we would be all that concerned about the plan to fell 27 trees, it's the fact that it's being done to make room for [5 zip wires] - 5 noisy, intrusive zip wires and landing strips. This is just another attempt to trivialise the real concerns of many hundreds of Glasgow citizens who have made their feelings clear by lodging formal objections to this plan.
I don't suppose we would be all that concerned about the plan to fell 27 trees, it's the fact that it's being done to make room for - 5 noisy, intrusive zip wires and landing strips. This is just another attempt to trivialise the real concerns of many hundreds of Glasgow citizens who have made their feelings clear by lodging formal objections to this plan.
Posted by: Pete, Shawlandia on 1:46pm Mon 3 Mar 08
I have no party political agenda (the Nats are no better at this kind of thing- as Donald Trump is learning to his glee). I just can't see how anyone can argue this is anything other than taking land from the public and in to the hands of private capital.
I have no party political agenda (the Nats are no better at this kind of thing- as Donald Trump is learning to his glee). I just can't see how anyone can argue this is anything other than taking land from the public and in to the hands of private capital.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 1:52pm Mon 3 Mar 08
It is rather frustrating not that public officials do not hear or accept genuine concerns but that they appear to deliberately mis represent what few facts there seem to be around this proposed developement
1. it is estimated that 27 trees will be felled, but how many more will require to have branches loped off or trimmmed to allow this developemnt
2. yes there is significant work happenning in the park with several hundred trees being felled, this is because GCC does not have a policy for regular maintainence of the woodland, and the work being done now is to catch up on decades of negelt
3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development
4. Just because a significant amount is up in the trees does not mean that it is not intrusive, do you walk around a wood with your head down.
5. There is absolutely no doubt that the consulatation was not fit for purpose
6. Parking issue is a significant one as 14 people a half hour and it takes something like three hours to get round, therefore they could be as many as 84 people on this at anyone time with the related need for parking. The application its self mentions requiring 41 spaces and 6 dedicated ones for staff. Where are these going to be? In the already over crowded Burrell car PArk?
7. Pollok park is already well used with some 2 million visitors per year, despite this the North Wood remains a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland
Do existing park users not have the right to their pleasure not being ruined by the comparatively small numbers who would use this development?
I ask again what is it that Glasgow gains from this? and then compare it to what it will likely lose?
It is rather frustrating not that public officials do not hear or accept genuine concerns but that they appear to deliberately mis represent what few facts there seem to be around this proposed developement
1. it is estimated that 27 trees will be felled, but how many more will require to have branches loped off or trimmmed to allow this developemnt
2. yes there is significant work happenning in the park with several hundred trees being felled, this is because GCC does not have a policy for regular maintainence of the woodland, and the work being done now is to catch up on decades of negelt
3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development
4. Just because a significant amount is up in the trees does not mean that it is not intrusive, do you walk around a wood with your head down.
5. There is absolutely no doubt that the consulatation was not fit for purpose
6. Parking issue is a significant one as 14 people a half hour and it takes something like three hours to get round, therefore they could be as many as 84 people on this at anyone time with the related need for parking. The application its self mentions requiring 41 spaces and 6 dedicated ones for staff. Where are these going to be? In the already over crowded Burrell car PArk?
7. Pollok park is already well used with some 2 million visitors per year, despite this the North Wood remains a quiet and largely unspoiled woodland
Do existing park users not have the right to their pleasure not being ruined by the comparatively small numbers who would use this development?
I ask again what is it that Glasgow gains from this? and then compare it to what it will likely lose?
Posted by: Pete on 1:55pm Mon 3 Mar 08
The fact that The Garden History Society has not objected, who are experts, does that not tell people something.
Debbie, people's relative expertise isn't the issue, this land is owned by everyone, for everyone's health and benefit and therefore everyone's voice is equal. There are more poeple against this in fora like this one than for it and teh council is just being high-handed and arrogant.
The fact that The Garden History Society has not objected, who are experts, does that not tell people something.
Debbie, people's relative expertise isn't the issue, this land is owned by everyone, for everyone's health and benefit and therefore everyone's voice is equal. There are more poeple against this in fora like this one than for it and teh council is just being high-handed and arrogant.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 1:59pm Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote][bold]debbie, glasgow[/bold] wrote:
oh my god, some people just annoy me. i wonder how many of the objectors have actually seen the plans or read the planning application for the exact details of what they are planning? Just because their website says they offer corporate packages doesnt automatically mean that is what they are planning here. it doesnt matter what their long term objective is, the planning application is decided on the information given and any further development will require another application.
Also, just because people werent satisfied with the statutory consultation period doesnt mean that is wasnt properly handled. each planning application is subject to the statutory consultation process, which people can easily find out about just by phoning the council.
The fact that The Garden History Society has not objected, who are experts, does that not tell people something.
It really annoys me when just because members of the public arent satisfied with an application/consulta
tion process they attack planning officals, when most of them actually have no concept of what is involved in planning or what goes on. [/quote] Debbie
Yes I have read the application in great detail and read almost all of the submissions.
Go Ape themselves will tell you that most of their money comes from corporate bookings not ordinary if somewhat better of folk.
The Garden History Society has a very limited and restricted role. Whereas the National Trust For Scotland has a full and knowledgeable involvement and they objected.
It is regrettable if any planning official is attacked over this, however having read the report to committee I can see why the report could be critisised
debbie, glasgow wrote:
oh my god, some people just annoy me. i wonder how many of the objectors have actually seen the plans or read the planning application for the exact details of what they are planning? Just because their website says they offer corporate packages doesnt automatically mean that is what they are planning here. it doesnt matter what their long term objective is, the planning application is decided on the information given and any further development will require another application.
Also, just because people werent satisfied with the statutory consultation period doesnt mean that is wasnt properly handled. each planning application is subject to the statutory consultation process, which people can easily find out about just by phoning the council.
The fact that The Garden History Society has not objected, who are experts, does that not tell people something.
It really annoys me when just because members of the public arent satisfied with an application/consulta
tion process they attack planning officals, when most of them actually have no concept of what is involved in planning or what goes on.
Debbie
Yes I have read the application in great detail and read almost all of the submissions.
Go Ape themselves will tell you that most of their money comes from corporate bookings not ordinary if somewhat better of folk.
The Garden History Society has a very limited and restricted role. Whereas the National Trust For Scotland has a full and knowledgeable involvement and they objected.
It is regrettable if any planning official is attacked over this, however having read the report to committee I can see why the report could be critisised
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 2:49pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Totally agree gavin48: if you look at Go Ape's marketing communications targeting and positioning you can clearly see that their main income stream is from corporate hospitality and very little marketing effort is aimed at the highly-competitive, less profitable children's activities. Of course that doesn't even take into account a pricing strategy (up to £25 per person) which would be out of reach of most Glasgow families, except the very well-off.
Here's an example of the company's publicity activities:
[quote][bold]Swap your laptops for the treetops at Go Ape![/bold]
Looking for a new and inspirational way to motivate and inspire staff? The search is over with the introduction of the bespoke corporate packages at Go Ape, Dalby Forest, near Pickering. A fresh look at the customary team building exercises. [/quote]
Totally agree gavin48: if you look at Go Ape's marketing communications targeting and positioning you can clearly see that their main income stream is from corporate hospitality and very little marketing effort is aimed at the highly-competitive, less profitable children's activities. Of course that doesn't even take into account a pricing strategy (up to £25 per person) which would be out of reach of most Glasgow families, except the very well-off.
Here's an example of the company's publicity activities:
Swap your laptops for the treetops at Go Ape!
Looking for a new and inspirational way to motivate and inspire staff? The search is over with the introduction of the bespoke corporate packages at Go Ape, Dalby Forest, near Pickering. A fresh look at the customary team building exercises.
Posted by: Forbes Aiken, Glasgow on 3:19pm Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote]3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development[/quote]
A ground equivelant footprint of around 3 acres is hardly "most of the North Wood". You have perfectly adeqaute arguments Gavin48 without overstating the case.
3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development
A ground equivelant footprint of around 3 acres is hardly "most of the North Wood". You have perfectly adeqaute arguments Gavin48 without overstating the case.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 3:37pm Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
[quote]3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development[/quote]
A ground equivelant footprint of around 3 acres is hardly "most of the North Wood". You have perfectly adeqaute arguments Gavin48 without overstating the case.[/quote] Thanks Forbes
but I don't think it is just about Footprint which is the equivalent of 1 and a half full sized football pitches. But how much of the NOrth Wood is effected by both the footprint and the visual/noise intrusion
Forbes Aiken wrote:
3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development
A ground equivelant footprint of around 3 acres is hardly "most of the North Wood". You have perfectly adeqaute arguments Gavin48 without overstating the case.
Thanks Forbes
but I don't think it is just about Footprint which is the equivalent of 1 and a half full sized football pitches. But how much of the NOrth Wood is effected by both the footprint and the visual/noise intrusion
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 3:44pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Debbie, in common with gavin (and many others who have serious concerns about this proposal) I too have been into the Planning dept. seen the plans, read most of the submissions etc. In fact, I have gone to quite a [bold]lot[/bold] of trouble to find out exactly what is being planned.
From your comments, it sounds like that you have not gone to very much trouble at all to find out the facts.
And yes, the reason Go Ape are so keen to get a foothold in Pollok is on account of the corporate in and around a large city. Neithhr will it be that difficult for them to get permission for anything that is not within the current planning application. GCC has made it very easy for them by agreeing within the current lease not to "unreasonable" withhold or delay permission for any expansion.
Debbie, in common with gavin (and many others who have serious concerns about this proposal) I too have been into the Planning dept. seen the plans, read most of the submissions etc. In fact, I have gone to quite a
lot of trouble to find out exactly what is being planned.
From your comments, it sounds like that you have not gone to very much trouble at all to find out the facts.
And yes, the reason Go Ape are so keen to get a foothold in Pollok is on account of the corporate in and around a large city. Neithhr will it be that difficult for them to get permission for anything that is not within the current planning application. GCC has made it very easy for them by agreeing within the current lease not to "unreasonable" withhold or delay permission for any expansion.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 4:48pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Exactly mulross, this proposed development is just a "foothold" and the 'devil is in the detail'.
From another point-of-view, this proposal is also [bold]very damaging to the business development[/bold] in Glasgow and will further undermine business confidence in this city. If the council is willing to lease North Wood for a derisory, peppercorn rent and also allow Go Ape to leech off existing toilets and car parking facilities, then which business is [bold]ever[/bold] going to blow money investing in real infrastructure improvements in this city when a competitor can simply do a quick deal with deluded councillors and under-cut any existing business proposition?
Maybe if we had councillors and officials who were more business-savvy or (even better) qualified and experienced in business, then we would have an effective business plan for this city and not just constantly lurch from one get-rich-quick scheme to the next.
Exactly mulross, this proposed development is just a "foothold" and the 'devil is in the detail'.
From another point-of-view, this proposal is also
very damaging to the business development in Glasgow and will further undermine business confidence in this city. If the council is willing to lease North Wood for a derisory, peppercorn rent and also allow Go Ape to leech off existing toilets and car parking facilities, then which business is
ever going to blow money investing in real infrastructure improvements in this city when a competitor can simply do a quick deal with deluded councillors and under-cut any existing business proposition?
Maybe if we had councillors and officials who were more business-savvy or (even better) qualified and experienced in business, then we would have an effective business plan for this city and not just constantly lurch from one get-rich-quick scheme to the next.
Posted by: OWEN, LINDLEY on 7:42pm Mon 3 Mar 08
This park, and everything in it, belongs to all the people of Glasgow. This is how it should remain. If Go Ape want a facility, they should purchase/lease land from a willing land owner/landlord. Where will it end?
This park, and everything in it, belongs to all the people of Glasgow. This is how it should remain. If Go Ape want a facility, they should purchase/lease land from a willing land owner/landlord. Where will it end?
Posted by: Frank, Glasgow on 8:39pm Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
[quote]3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development[/quote]
A ground equivelant footprint of around 3 acres is hardly "most of the North Wood". You have perfectly adeqaute arguments Gavin48 without overstating the case.[/quote] Why bother Forbes these are just people down on progress that Glasgow Labour are delivering. Any issue to stand in the way of progress is their plan. They just hate that Labour deliver on promises. They were given an opportunity to comment and they were too lazy to do so why we have to listen to this dross is beyond the majority of people of Glasgow who support our council.
Forbes Aiken wrote:
3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development
A ground equivelant footprint of around 3 acres is hardly "most of the North Wood". You have perfectly adeqaute arguments Gavin48 without overstating the case.
Why bother Forbes these are just people down on progress that Glasgow Labour are delivering. Any issue to stand in the way of progress is their plan. They just hate that Labour deliver on promises. They were given an opportunity to comment and they were too lazy to do so why we have to listen to this dross is beyond the majority of people of Glasgow who support our council.
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 9:24pm Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Frank[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Forbes Aiken[/bold] wrote:
[quote]3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development[/quote]
A ground equivelant footprint of around 3 acres is hardly "most of the North Wood". You have perfectly adeqaute arguments Gavin48 without overstating the case.[/quote] Why bother Forbes these are just people down on progress that Glasgow Labour are delivering. Any issue to stand in the way of progress is their plan. They just hate that Labour deliver on promises. They were given an opportunity to comment and they were too lazy to do so why we have to listen to this dross is beyond the majority of people of Glasgow who support our council.[/quote] Frank
do you have any points to make that might add to the discussion. For example do you have any evidence that the majority of people support the council on this issue?
Frank wrote:
Forbes Aiken wrote:
3. The scale of this developement is constantly down played. Let there be no mistake here it is huge and covers most of the North Wood, the zip lines are just 6 of the 41 actvities there will be in this development
A ground equivelant footprint of around 3 acres is hardly "most of the North Wood". You have perfectly adeqaute arguments Gavin48 without overstating the case.
Why bother Forbes these are just people down on progress that Glasgow Labour are delivering. Any issue to stand in the way of progress is their plan. They just hate that Labour deliver on promises. They were given an opportunity to comment and they were too lazy to do so why we have to listen to this dross is beyond the majority of people of Glasgow who support our council.
Frank
do you have any points to make that might add to the discussion. For example do you have any evidence that the majority of people support the council on this issue?
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 10:01pm Mon 3 Mar 08
[quote][bold]OWEN[/bold] wrote:
This park, and everything in it, belongs to all the people of Glasgow. This is how it should remain. If Go Ape want a facility, they should purchase/lease land from a willing land owner/landlord. Where will it end?[/quote]
Couldn't of summed it up better myself OWEN!
And, seeing as Debbie hasn't answered any of the criticisms of her laim posting - then we can take it that she is fully satisfied with the statuatory consultation procedure lengths we have at present ?
The way in which consultations are carried out, advertised, and promoted are not nearly as vigorous as the clear P.R. stunts / publicity being stirred up now for "Go Ape!"
Too little too late - and those who have posted in such great numbers can clearly see through all the spin and know the bigger picture of what damage this Adventure Park will do.
Sydney Meriwether summed up the 2 initial points in a nutshell also - and - its not as if it will be put in for a trial period & withdrawn if the objections to "noise levels" increase even further.
Having our Publically owned - run parks leased to Private Developers when Pollok park was gifted to the publc is clearly wrong - period!
Heres hoping the initial protesters turnout in high numbers (10:30am, at Glasgows City Chambers!)
Those who wish to sit in at the hearing Tuedsay 11:00 am ; I'm sure will witness for themselves the way in which our Planning Department is run!
OWEN wrote:
This park, and everything in it, belongs to all the people of Glasgow. This is how it should remain. If Go Ape want a facility, they should purchase/lease land from a willing land owner/landlord. Where will it end?
Couldn't of summed it up better myself OWEN!
And, seeing as Debbie hasn't answered any of the criticisms of her laim posting - then we can take it that she is fully satisfied with the statuatory consultation procedure lengths we have at present ?
The way in which consultations are carried out, advertised, and promoted are not nearly as vigorous as the clear P.R. stunts / publicity being stirred up now for "Go Ape!"
Too little too late - and those who have posted in such great numbers can clearly see through all the spin and know the bigger picture of what damage this Adventure Park will do.
Sydney Meriwether summed up the 2 initial points in a nutshell also - and - its not as if it will be put in for a trial period & withdrawn if the objections to "noise levels" increase even further.
Having our Publically owned - run parks leased to Private Developers when Pollok park was gifted to the publc is clearly wrong - period!
Heres hoping the initial protesters turnout in high numbers (10:30am, at Glasgows City Chambers!)
Those who wish to sit in at the hearing Tuedsay 11:00 am ; I'm sure will witness for themselves the way in which our Planning Department is run!
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 11:25pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Pollok Park was given over to the people of Glasgow after years in the hands of the rich and powerfull. Part of it is now going back to them![bold]bold[/bold]
Pollok Park was given over to the people of Glasgow after years in the hands of the rich and powerfull. Part of it is now going back to them!
Posted by: hamandegg, glasvegas on 11:25pm Mon 3 Mar 08
has nobody realised that they will use the conference facilities at the burrell and not build their own?! total scaremongering as usual. in aberfoyle they use the david marshall lodge - bringing in valuble income for not just themselves but the lodge itself and local caterers. bigger picture etc etc please insert your insults below...
has nobody realised that they will use the conference facilities at the burrell and not build their own?! total scaremongering as usual. in aberfoyle they use the david marshall lodge - bringing in valuble income for not just themselves but the lodge itself and local caterers. bigger picture etc etc please insert your insults below...
Posted by: jamesa0330, glasgow on 11:58pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Glasgow City Council on its own website describes Pollok Park as a, “a quiet sanctuary for both visitors and wildlife.”
http://www.glasgow.g
ov.uk/en/Residents/P
arks_Outdoors/Parks_
gardens/pollokcountr
ypark.htm
I believe that introducing Go Ape would KILL this unique feature.
Any one site/park/forest can support only a finite number of activities before they trespass upon one another and produce a deleterious impact on wildlife as well as the quality of the site for human visitors. Pollok park is at THAT point – make no mistake this proposed site is in a PRIME part of the park and WILL impact seriously in ruining the atmosphere of the park.
Many of us believe passionately that Pollok Park is UNIQUE as it is one of the last, if not THE last, City Parks in the world, (now officially recognised as Europe’s Best Park) where city dwellers and others can come to experience this quiet sanctuary without the need to travel far.
Deer, other mammals and a large number of other forms of wildlife, flora and fauna flourish here and are part of the chief attractions of the estate.
This is not Nimbyism – please look beyond your wallets and see
A. It's the wrong location!
B. this is about a bigger picture... It’s about the selling off of PUBLIC assets.
Glasgow City Council on its own website describes Pollok Park as a, “a quiet sanctuary for both visitors and wildlife.”
http://www.glasgow.g
ov.uk/en/Residents/P
arks_Outdoors/Parks_
gardens/pollokcountr
ypark.htm
I believe that introducing Go Ape would KILL this unique feature.
Any one site/park/forest can support only a finite number of activities before they trespass upon one another and produce a deleterious impact on wildlife as well as the quality of the site for human visitors. Pollok park is at THAT point – make no mistake this proposed site is in a PRIME part of the park and WILL impact seriously in ruining the atmosphere of the park.
Many of us believe passionately that Pollok Park is UNIQUE as it is one of the last, if not THE last, City Parks in the world, (now officially recognised as Europe’s Best Park) where city dwellers and others can come to experience this quiet sanctuary without the need to travel far.
Deer, other mammals and a large number of other forms of wildlife, flora and fauna flourish here and are part of the chief attractions of the estate.
This is not Nimbyism – please look beyond your wallets and see
A. It's the wrong location!
B. this is about a bigger picture... It’s about the selling off of PUBLIC assets.
Posted by: hamandegg, glasvegas on 12:36am Tue 4 Mar 08
i'm sure i've read that post before? no new arguments?
i'm sure i've read that post before? no new arguments?
Posted by: gavin48, Glasgow on 1:41am Tue 4 Mar 08
[quote][bold]hamandegg[/bold] wrote:
i'm sure i've read that post before? no new arguments?[/quote] Have [bold]you[/bold] anything new to add to the debate? The points have been made before and well made, it does appear as if the best of the reasoning and the best argued points come from those opposed.
It was always clear that go ape would look to use the conference and catering facilities in the Burrell. this is consistent with its policy of piggy backing on existing facilities. The point is that once established it becomes very difficult to "reasonably" restrict any future expansion. If you have ever had dealings with planning you would realise it is very restricted by statute as to what it can actually do, it is in many ways a bit of a toothless tiger.
hamandegg wrote:
i'm sure i've read that post before? no new arguments?
Have
you anything new to add to the debate? The points have been made before and well made, it does appear as if the best of the reasoning and the best argued points come from those opposed.
It was always clear that go ape would look to use the conference and catering facilities in the Burrell. this is consistent with its policy of piggy backing on existing facilities. The point is that once established it becomes very difficult to "reasonably" restrict any future expansion. If you have ever had dealings with planning you would realise it is very restricted by statute as to what it can actually do, it is in many ways a bit of a toothless tiger.
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 8:49am Tue 4 Mar 08
[quote][bold]debbie, glasgow[/bold] wrote:
oh my god, some people just annoy me. i wonder how many of the objectors have actually seen the plans or read the planning application for the exact details of what they are planning? Just because their website says they offer corporate packages doesnt automatically mean that is what they are planning here. it doesnt matter what their long term objective is, the planning application is decided on the information given and any further development will require another application.
Also, just because people werent satisfied with the statutory consultation period doesnt mean that is wasnt properly handled. each planning application is subject to the statutory consultation process, which people can easily find out about just by phoning the council.
The fact that The Garden History Society has not objected, who are experts, does that not tell people something.
It really annoys me when just because members of the public arent satisfied with an application/consulta
tion process they attack planning officals, when most of them actually have no concept of what is involved in planning or what goes on. [/quote] Debbie what bit of "this park was given to the people of Glasgow for their use,not to be sold off to private business projects regardless of size" dont you understand?..
Its perfectly simple, this is OUR PARK & ITS NOT FOR SALE..Oh for the record yes i have seen the plans & they leave plenty of scope for expansion on the proposed site, so dont be fooled by its just going to be a small part of the woods because that is just the tip of the iceberg..Game on.
debbie, glasgow wrote:
oh my god, some people just annoy me. i wonder how many of the objectors have actually seen the plans or read the planning application for the exact details of what they are planning? Just because their website says they offer corporate packages doesnt automatically mean that is what they are planning here. it doesnt matter what their long term objective is, the planning application is decided on the information given and any further development will require another application.
Also, just because people werent satisfied with the statutory consultation period doesnt mean that is wasnt properly handled. each planning application is subject to the statutory consultation process, which people can easily find out about just by phoning the council.
The fact that The Garden History Society has not objected, who are experts, does that not tell people something.
It really annoys me when just because members of the public arent satisfied with an application/consulta
tion process they attack planning officals, when most of them actually have no concept of what is involved in planning or what goes on.
Debbie what bit of "this park was given to the people of Glasgow for their use,not to be sold off to private business projects regardless of size" dont you understand?..
Its perfectly simple, this is OUR PARK & ITS NOT FOR SALE..Oh for the record yes i have seen the plans & they leave plenty of scope for expansion on the proposed site, so dont be fooled by its just going to be a small part of the woods because that is just the tip of the iceberg..Game on.
Posted by: HGlasgwegian, Glasgow on 9:47am Tue 4 Mar 08
Yes Debbie most of us have read the plans. Most of us also use the park on a weekly basis as well and know exactly why we object to the plans.
I very much doubt if you use Pollok Park or the North Wood at all regularly. That is the case with most people who claim to support this proposal. It is the case with the officials - for example one of them blithely announced at the public meeting that the public toilets at the Old Courtyard are open during the proposed hours of Go Ape. Those of us who use Pollok Park frequently know that is not true. The public toilets are in fact usually locked and you have to get a key to use them. Likewise the statements about car parking are just nonsense. During the summer they have to send the overspill from the Burrell car park to park in a field next to the Pollok House car park. So where are the Go Ape cars going to go? A secondary overspill car park? The question has not even been addressed because the officials blandly repeat that there will be no problem accomodating additional parking.
You see this is why people don't trust what they are being tolf about the application - because it is not true.
As for the claims that most people support the council on this - utter nonsense. Most people in Glasgow probably have no opinion one way or another. Those who do have an opinion are the people who use the park the most often. Are they to be ignored in favour of people who know nothing about it and have in many cases probably never even been there?
Yes Debbie most of us have read the plans. Most of us also use the park on a weekly basis as well and know exactly why we object to the plans.
I very much doubt if you use Pollok Park or the North Wood at all regularly. That is the case with most people who claim to support this proposal. It is the case with the officials - for example one of them blithely announced at the public meeting that the public toilets at the Old Courtyard are open during the proposed hours of Go Ape. Those of us who use Pollok Park frequently know that is not true. The public toilets are in fact usually locked and you have to get a key to use them. Likewise the statements about car parking are just nonsense. During the summer they have to send the overspill from the Burrell car park to park in a field next to the Pollok House car park. So where are the Go Ape cars going to go? A secondary overspill car park? The question has not even been addressed because the officials blandly repeat that there will be no problem accomodating additional parking.
You see this is why people don't trust what they are being tolf about the application - because it is not true.
As for the claims that most people support the council on this - utter nonsense. Most people in Glasgow probably have no opinion one way or another. Those who do have an opinion are the people who use the park the most often. Are they to be ignored in favour of people who know nothing about it and have in many cases probably never even been there?
Posted by: AndrewM, Shawlands, Glasgow on 1:25pm Tue 4 Mar 08
If the car park "will be used by a maximum of 14 people every half hour" and a session according to Go Ape last 2.5-3 hours then you have got to be looking at 70-80 people which must require at least 20 parking spaces. On a cold Sunday the car park is already full so what it is going to be like in Summer?
I also object to the idea that our parks become places where things cost serious amounts of money. Glasgow has many many people who live in poverty, will be posting a sign that says "[bold]POOR PEOPLE KEEP OUT[/bold] "?
If the car park "will be used by a maximum of 14 people every half hour" and a session according to Go Ape last 2.5-3 hours then you have got to be looking at 70-80 people which must require at least 20 parking spaces. On a cold Sunday the car park is already full so what it is going to be like in Summer?
I also object to the idea that our parks become places where things cost serious amounts of money. Glasgow has many many people who live in poverty, will be posting a sign that says "
POOR PEOPLE KEEP OUT "?
Posted by: I hear your pain, me,me,me on 8:24pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Pollok Park is an oasis in the city a place you can take the kids, the dog, yourself & just relax..
You actually forget that you are in the midst of one of the biggest cities in Europe, its a beautiful green space & surely to god that this is reason enough that it isnt exploited for financial gain..
Please think on GCC..
Pollok Park is an oasis in the city a place you can take the kids, the dog, yourself & just relax..
You actually forget that you are in the midst of one of the biggest cities in Europe, its a beautiful green space & surely to god that this is reason enough that it isnt exploited for financial gain..
Please think on GCC..
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 9:56pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Following on from the Planning Commitee's Meeting this morning (Tueday 4th March) I can't believe that the suggestion made by one member of the Planning Committee meeting today was to even visit [bold]"GO Ape"[/bold] in Aberfoyle.
Thankfully it was stated that this would only [italic]"cloud the issue!" [/italic]
[bold]To compare the two sites is ludicrous - as Aberfoyle is far bigger, more rural, and in a setting which does not impact on the surrounding urban habitat.[/bold]
Pollok Park is within an inner city area, surrounded by built up areas of housing, and with North Woods being one of the few forrested areas within Glasgow left to us for peace, tranquility and a feeling of being away from the stresses of everyday life.
Our Parks and "Dear Green Spaces" are not simply pieces of land that G.C.C. can so ignorantly, and flippantl sell off - or offer on a plate to Private Developers.
We cannot put a price tag on the value of what green space our city has. It is priceless.
Greedy councillors may see "£" signs in front of their eyes, but those who can see right through this plan know what damage will be done - and how alienating this "Adventure Park" for the wealthy will be for those facing hardship and poverty.
Dream on G.C.C. - But this fight is not over!
With a Public Hearing & visit to Pollok Park by the Planning Commitee - The "Save Pollok Park" group - along with objecting residents and Glasgow Pollok Park users alike will finally get to have their say!
Following on from the Planning Commitee's Meeting this morning (Tueday 4th March) I can't believe that the suggestion made by one member of the Planning Committee meeting today was to even visit
"GO Ape" in Aberfoyle.
Thankfully it was stated that this would only
"cloud the issue!"
To compare the two sites is ludicrous - as Aberfoyle is far bigger, more rural, and in a setting which does not impact on the surrounding urban habitat.
Pollok Park is within an inner city area, surrounded by built up areas of housing, and with North Woods being one of the few forrested areas within Glasgow left to us for peace, tranquility and a feeling of being away from the stresses of everyday life.
Our Parks and "Dear Green Spaces" are not simply pieces of land that G.C.C. can so ignorantly, and flippantl sell off - or offer on a plate to Private Developers.
We cannot put a price tag on the value of what green space our city has. It is priceless.
Greedy councillors may see "£" signs in front of their eyes, but those who can see right through this plan know what damage will be done - and how alienating this "Adventure Park" for the wealthy will be for those facing hardship and poverty.
Dream on G.C.C. - But this fight is not over!
With a Public Hearing & visit to Pollok Park by the Planning Commitee - The "Save Pollok Park" group - along with objecting residents and Glasgow Pollok Park users alike will finally get to have their say!
Comment | Read Comments (36)
