Here are the reasons why we think the Scottish Ministers should have called in the planning application- they chose not to but these objections are still valid
Toilets
No public toilet facilities from 8-10.11 or 5-9pm when Go Ape is open. There will be 90+ customers at any one time. The proposal to use the one staff toilet within the Go Ape reception as a public facility is not adequate
Parking
35+7 staff spaces are required = 42
The Report states that a Council department confirmed that the car park “can largely cope with the proposal at peak times” is presented with no evidence of any survey having been undertaken. This is contrary to survey evidence by objectors and local councillors presented at the planning committee on 25th March- namely on no weekend day at mid afternoon from Jan – March 2008 have there been 42 places available in the Burrell car park . The Council has admitted since the Planning Committee that they have never carried out any car parking survey but relied on information form unnamed "knowledgeable officers"
Protected Species
The Go Ape ecological study did not mention flora/ plants and no other survey was made. So there is no knowledge of what plant species exists. It is accepted that the 6 landing sites will cover over and destroy plant life.
Some objectors pointed out that 5 of the landing areas have native bluebells species (protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981). The Planning Report accepts that they will be destroyed . The posed solution to plant new plants elsewhere does not deal with the illegal destruction
Noise
A major objection is noise from wire mechanisms and participants. The Planning report simply accepts the applicant’s statements that these “will dissipate within a few metres” but no independent assessment was done, despite the existence of 15 other Go Ape site in UK. The objectors provided evidence from other sites. This was ignored in the Report.
Visual Impact
The Planning report accepts that the two new wooden buildings will be visible from inside the Burrell gallery – this is contrary to the intended design concept a stated by the architect ( Sir Barry Gasson) that the glass wall was designed so the gallery specifically to overlook the natural woodland. The Report’s conclusion that 2 new wooden buildings will have neutral impact on this design concept is not a reasonable conclusion.
Consultation
The Report states that the pre-application consultation process resulted in 199 positive responses and 38 negative. It does not state that 110 of the positive and 4 of the negative were from schoolchildren forms to fill in by their teachers as a class exercise in citizenship. It is misleading to include these as genuine responses from informed members of the public considering the proposal. The application itself by Go Ape themselves only refers to 123 website responses in total (123) and so the inclusion of the additional class exercise responses by schoolchildren by the Planning Officer reflect a bias.
Given the total number of visitors to the park ( according to Glasgow Council 2,000,000 visits per years including 200,000 to the Burrell Museum ) and the 6 week consultation period the achievement of 123 responses in total and 36 attendees at a public meeting reflect an inadequate process of public information. This should be compared the achievement of the objectors who in a period of only 3 weeks from Jan 2nd to 22nd 2008 informed the public through leafletting and notices resulting in the attendance at a public meeting on 22nd January of approximately 700 people.
National Trust for Scotland Objections
The NTS letter of objection specifically mentioned the Pollok Estate Management Plan prepared in 2002/3. This plan was prepared by a number of bodies including the Council and followed extensive public consultation
Its policy for North Wood is “to bring back into positive management in order to ensure woodland cover in perpetuity and to restore the historic infrastructure and design feature of 18th, 19th and 20th c, thus enhancing public access and interpretation”. The policy for the Glade is “to preserve this open space corridor, enhance access routes and nature conservation qualities”. The NTS stated in its letter of objection that the proposals were “incompatible with these agreed policies.
The Council planning report makes no mention of this key document or the above NTS objections and the planning officer made no mention of any NTS objection at the Planning Committee on 25th March. Councillors were therefore not made aware of the existence of the Management Plan or of the NTS objections.
Even although this Plan remains to be formally adopted by the Council it is the only recent detailed plan for the Estate, was a result of extensive public consultation and with all the relevant bodies. The omission to refer to it or to the NTS objection by the Council planning officers would appear to bias the report
Volume of Objections
In addition to the 881 written objections the Planning Committee on 25th March was presented with 4025 signatures on a petition with thE statement “I object to the siting of Go Ape in Pollok Park” This reflects the strength of mainly local public opposition which would have been captured if the pre- application consultation procedure by the Council or the applicant had been carried out properly by an adequate process for information
Legal Issues
The Council has not addressed the legal issues pointed out to them by many of the objectors and in the NTS and Pollok and Corrour Letters of Objection relating to the 139 Conservation agreements
Given that Pollok Park is a Conservation Area such a Conservation Agreement to which Glasgow City Council is a party is relevant. The Council Planning Committee members were not made aware of it either in the Planning Report or at the Meeting of 25th March.
This states
“ no development of buildings incompatible with the approved purposes of the estate “ and “no trees shall be or felled , topped, lopped or cut save in accordance with usual forest practice “ without the consent of the NTS. Not only was this agreement ignored but the there is no evidence that the Council actively sought agreement by the NTS prior to the planning meeting of 25th March nor has it been given. This is a material fact in a decision which would contravene the terms of the agreement (for example in the felling of trees) and Committee members should have been made aware of the Conservation Agreement.
Common Good
The Pollok estate appears to fall within the definition of Common Good- that is land gifted to the City and not acquired by statutory powers. The Council has failed so far to place the estate on the Common Good register. The proposal is predicated on the granting of a lease with rental income to the Council. This is not legal under Common Good regulations. The status of the Estate should have been clarified both to the Council members and any developer before the planning application stage
Other Justifications
A justification for the development is that it will meet the Council’s objectives in relation to promoting a healthy lifestyle and its youth diversion strategy.(10 is provided -16 years olds). However no justification or evidence is given for the assumption that, given the cost ( £20-£25 per head) participation will be regular and not occasional. It is unclear how occasional participation in this type of activity (eg sliding down zip wires) constitutes a contribution to a healthy lifestyle
The Council Youth Diversion strategy is aimed at those young people who are at risk or already committing acts of anti-social behaviour or crime.
The development requires all 10- 16 year olds to be accompanied by an adult (ratio 1:2). Therefore young customers are required to already be either in family groups or organised parties (scout groups were mentioned by the applicant at the planning committee) and cannot use the facility by themselves. No evidence is presented as to how those young people who are the target of the youth diversion strategy and who by definition are not likely to be in family groups or members other youth organisation such as scouts or guides will be able to use the facility.
Financial Conflict of Interest
There is a statement in planning report that the suitability of several sites was examined and then potential operators invited. This is misleading as it gives the impression that Pollok Park was the only site. The facts (confirmed by Glasgow Land Services, Parks Manager) are that at least one other site (Dawsholm Park in Glasgow) was offered to the applicant . The applicant selected the specific it within Pollok Park for commercial reasons in that they wished to make use of the existing facilities at the Burrell museum (car park, toilets ) and other facilities etc such as the restaurant for corporate entertainment. If the Council had made it a condition that the developer had to provide car parking and toilets then a wider range of sites could have been offered to this or another developer and lease terms allowing for such investments agreed
It is arguable that the Council conceded to the developer’s request that a site which already had car parking, toilets, café etc be selected, so as to reduce their initial outlay. In this way the Council could negotiate a higher annual rental income. It is a stated justification of this development that it meets the Council’s objective of maximising commercial income from the leasing of parks facilities (Strategic Best Value Review 2004). This is a serious conflict of interests as it precluded the proper consideration of all alternative sites which may have been suitable. It is therefore a contention of the objectors that the opportunity for financial gain was a consideration by the Council in its promotion of this site to the exclusion of alternatives and was also a consideration at the subsequent approval at Planning Committee.
The fact that a range of alternative sites was initially considered by Land Services officers was not made available to the public during the Council ‘s consultation process. This action by Land Services closed off the opportunity to participate in a full consideration by the public and Council members of the various sit options and their various merits. 700 members of the public requested that this process be re-opened at a meeting on 22nd January but this was refused.
