leyton.org

Things had been quiet over the summer with regards the Save Pollok Park campaign. The application was with Scottish Ministers (as the council has a financial interest in the proposal), and they were to decide whether to call it in.

Despite the fact that the council didn’t accurately portray the views of their supposed park management partners National Trust for Scotland, the Maxwell family (who bequethed the park to the people of Glasgow), and despite the views of over 5000 people who signed a petition, and despite the fact that the councils ‘consultation’ was woeful in the extreme, and countless other issues, Ministers decided not to call the application in, so it’s been returned to the council to proceed as they see fit (BBC news article here).

Personally, I’m appalled. It smacks of cowardice, a lack of concern, and despite their repeated deferral of a decision, not really understanding the issues and concerns that were being legitimately raised by the Save Pollok Park campaign, and brushed aside by the council. Call me naive too, but the rather populist agenda of the SNP had me thinking they’d surely see the campaigners view point. But I fear budgets may have been a factor, and calling-in notable other planning proposals has become something of a hot potato.

It’s far from over. There are numerous legal avenues to explore, and the campaign is moving forward with these issues. There’s also a new petition, which you can also sign online. This one asserts that the council is acting illegally in proceeding without the agreement of it’s partners in Pollok Park, the NTS and Maxwell family.

More on this whole sorry mess very soon.

I’ve been a member of Liberty for a few years now. For an organisation of its size, it makes a considerable impact in any debate on civil liberties, which I feel have repeatedly under attack by this Government, most recently with the unnecessary proposal to increase pre-charge detention from 28 to 42 days.

I find this proposal objectionable in the extreme. It further undermines fundamental liberties we used to enjoy, and despite the concessions being offered by the Government (Which, to me, smack of political desperation: Just listen to the concessions supposedly being offered to “rebels”), gives the UK the longest period of detention of any comparable democracy. That Sir Ken MacDonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions – the man who will charge the people detained – is opposed to it’s six week period.

There is a survey that suggests 60% of the public support this measure, but I worry that this reflects a knee-jerk response to a question that draws on fears which have been built up (in my view rather cynically and with political motivation, rather than based on evidence) over the years. Put simply, try to imagine what it would be like to be locked up, without knowing the reasons why, for six weeks?

The desperately frustrating thing is that there are genuine and solid alternatives that appear to be being dismissed: allowing the use of intercept evidence in court, post-charge questioning and, if needed in a genuine crisis (which the Government makes such an issue with), using powers that already exist in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Whilst my MP Tom Harris is almost certain to vote for these measure (he’s a minister), to ensure that he’s properly aware of my objections and the issues I hold important when I come to decide who to vote for at the next election, I’ve today written to him through the excellent writetothem.com website. My letter appears below. I’d suggest anybody else who cares about this matter to consider writing themselves.

Some other resources:

• Sign the petition on the Prime Ministers website.
• Read Liberty’s suggestions on what to do
• Review the campaign details (PDF)
• Join Liberty.

.

Read the rest of this entry »

The council, in it’s dismissal of the Save Pollok Park campaign – like to suggest its opposition to Go Ape in Pollok Park is a negative, single-issue campaign, devoid of constructive suggestions for how the council could meet it’s goals and targets to improve the use of the park.

So to counter that, I thought it’d be worth putting up my own suggestions to Glasgow council. These are just the results of a mornings thinking (aided, I should add, by a wonderful 14km run this beautiful spring morning through Maxwell, Queens, Bellahouston and Pollok Parks).

Cycle hire

We have a hut in Bellahouston park where you can borrow some putters for the pitch and put facility there. With Pollok park, why not introduce similar for bikes, so that better use can be made of the parks mountain bike circuit? It seems woefully under-used: I don’t recall seeing even one biker on it this year, that I recall. Bikes are obviously a bit more valuable than a putter, so a returnable deposit would probably be necessary, although free-bike schemes do operate in some cities.

Rename Pollokshaws West railway station

Pollokshaws west station really needs to be renamed “Pollok Park”, because it’s, well, extraordinarily convenient for the park – but you wouldn’t know it from the name! The free shuttle bus service operates there. Perhaps then visitors to the city, staying in the city centre, would be more inclined to come and visit if they could look at a train map and immediately know where to go?

It’d make sense on another level too. Even locals (myself included) get confused at times as to which station is which. A recent new member at my running club, a long-term Glasgow resident, understandably got mixed up between:

• Pollokshaws West (for Pollok Park)
• Pollokshaws East (on the Cathcart Circle, and at least a 10 minute walk from the Park)
• Pollokshields West (also on the Cathcart circle, and a full 20 minute walk from the Park!!). This is the most confusing name of all. Pollokshields vs Pollokshaws? Throw in, perhaps, a strong Glasgow accent from the person selling you a ticket, and it’s easy to imagine most people getting confused, and winding up in the wrong place.

So we’d actually solve two problems: Understandable confusion, and making it clear Pollok Park is easy to reach, without using a car. On which note…

Traffic

It’s a bit of a bind that cars dominate the central part of Pollok park, and I’m not entirely sure why it’s necessary that the two car parks need to be joined up. It’d be really rather nice if they could look to pedestrianise (at least during peak times/weekends) the section of road that runs from just by the Burrell, through to the back of Pollok house.

Cars also frequently drive at speed, and often (I feel) without due consideration to other road users. Getting rid of them would make the main paths through Pollok entirely traffic free, and more conducive to walks, running, cyclists and more.

If they also reviewed the traffic lights at park exits (they’re not green for long enough at weekends), they might also prevent accidents as cars race to exit, also ruining the benefits of what was supposed to be a relaxing stroll in the park, for many visitors.

Improving existing spaces and facilities

This sounds fun, doesn’t it? But the fields to the east of the park, at the exit on to Haggs/Shawmoss Road, are very poorly drained, and frequently flooded. So they really need to improve the drainage to enable better use of the field to be made. If there have been efforts to improve drainage into the stream, it’s not really worked.

It’s such a great green space, it seems woefully under used, largely just as an overflow car park, and by occasional golfers. Such an open space could be useful for fairs, fetes, parties, camps, and perhaps even markets.

Similarly, the clay courts by this same exit have not – in all my years visiting and living in Glasgow – ever been used. Other than, it seems, to provide a short-cut for cars/vans judging by the damage to the grass verge. Quite simply, they should either be turned to some other purpose, or they should be approaching local schools and clubs to find out why they’re not playing fields of choice.

More events

There seem to be a few ‘big’ events at Pollok park, and elsewhere, but it’d be good to see more events making use of the parks in a structured, but perhaps smaller way. I’m working on my own suggestion (which I’m hoping to be saying more about later this month, after I’m married), to bring the successful UK Time trial events, to Glasgow.

How about also working in partnership with local groups and organisations that already make use of the parks (my running club, and Jog Scotland, for instance), to enhance it in ways they suggest. I’m sure there are other groups (football clubs, cycling clubs) that’d help.

Anything else?

These thoughts are just my own, from a bit of thinking as I ran, and as I avoid some boring accounts work I should really be getting on with. I’m sure that the people of Glasgow, and the Save Pollok Park campaign, have even more suggestions. It’s important that the council realises that the energy and passion demonstrated by thousands of people here in Glasgow for Pollok Park, and many of our other similarly threatened green spaces, is not seen as hostile, but enthused and passionate about our parks, with ideas and suggestions: If only the council would reach out and listen, rather than running flawed consultation exercises that merely give them the result they want.

So when the council finally sees the error of it’s ways, hopefully they’ll start listening to the park users, and then discover – if they do it properly – that we’re not a bunch of nimby’s (as they’ve accused), but an engaged, passionate, and constructive group of people who would actually like to see better use being made of our parks, without selling it off, and charging people unrealistic amounts for the privilege, in some dressed up attempt to “improve” the park.

Last night both Frances and I attended the campaign meeting against Go Ape in Pollok Park, excellently organised – as ever – by Save Pollok Park. It was good to finally briefly meet Bill Fraser too, having exchanged plenty of e-mails over the last few months!

There’s good coverage of the meeting at the Evening times, and The Herald, both with video segments that do a great job of summarising the event. The BBC has brief coverage, but nothing at all from the Scotsman as far as I can tell. But lots to do before we get that far, and it’s by no means guaranteed.

The meeting was a great success, and some excellent points made by all present (politicians and campaigners), across – I think – all political persuasions. A really encouraging turnout of five MSP’s, and five Glasgow councillors, and I genuinely felt that the politicians were going to be a really useful, and supportive asset as matters move forward. Notably none from Labour – who control Glasgow council, but not the parliament – which says all you need to know really.

It’s clear that simply having thousands of signatures on a petition (sign it here!) isn’t enough, but the ineptitude of the council planners, the woeful exclusion of pertinent pieces of information, the misrepresentation of key organisational views, all make excellent grounds for the ‘calling-in’ by the Scottish Government, and – hopefully – sense to prevail.

For anybody interested, I’ve converted the presentation slides that were used to a (small) PDF or a larger one. The shrunk down Powerpoint is here.

At risk of sounding a bit flippant, it’s all starting to get ‘properly serious’ in the Save Pollok Park campaign to prevent Go Ape from setting up in Pollok Park’s North Wood, and thereby ruining the tranquility of one of the few remaining peaceful parts of the park.

In the next week or soNext Tuesday the planning committee are undertaking a site visit, and will later be hearing from concerned parties at the City Chambers. Suffice to say, the Save Pollok campaign are making sure the voices of the concerned public and park users is properly heard, and that there is no doubt where the majority of local opinion falls on this matter.

The detail below is taken from the Save Pollok Park website. Volunteers have also been out in the neighbourhood getting signatures for the petition (sign an online version here if you want: But soon!).

Site Visit & Hearing 25th March

The Planning Applications Committee will hold a site visit and hearing on Tuesday, 25th March. A bus will take members from the City Chambers to Pollok Park, arriving there by 10.00. Accompanied by a Planning Officer they will inspect the site before returning to City Chambers for a hearing scheduled at approx 11.00.

We need volunteers!

We’re sure many of you will want to support us either at the City Chambers or at the Park that day. We need two groups of people to help us out – one at the Burrell, the other George Square.

At the Burrell – we need a group to meet at 09.30 and be available until 1030. Your task is to help mark out the major features of the Go Ape site to help the committee members understand the layout a little better At the City Chambers – once again we need to demonstrate support with as many campaigners as possible at the hearing. You need to be available from 10.30-12.00

Register Your Attendance

We appreciate it’s a Tuesday morning but please do your best to turn up for an hour or two. So we can plan, we need to know how many can make it to either location. We’ve created a special e-mail address where you can register your interest. Please send a mail to: northwoodaction@gmail.com and state: name, e-mail address, and a phone number. Please tell us whether you can be at the Burrell or City Chambers or if you have no preference. Please do this by next Wednesday, 19th March. It’s the Easter weekend just before the hearing so we need time to make final plans and communicate them back to you.

More at http://www.savepollokpark.com in the News and Updates pages.

I’m hoping to get along to the Burrell group, but it depends a little on whether I can squeeze the time in during a busy work day. In the meantime, I figured I’d mentioned this to everybody I know

An online petition has been setup for everybody to register their opposition to Glasgow council and Go Ape’s proposal for Pollok Park. The target of 2,000 signatures would exceed the average number of votes cast for a city councillor at the 2007 election. The petition will close on 16 March.

If you’ve ever visited Pollok Park, you’ll know it’s a special place, and zip wires zooming over favourite, and otherwise quiet, picnic areas, is not exactly an “enhancement” to an already well setup park.

The petition is at: http://www.petitiononline.com/220848/petition.html – Please feel free to sign it if you’ve not already signed one of the petitions circulating at the vigil, or in the neighbourhood.

A week after attending the Go Ape Public meeting, Frances and I were at another public meeting, this time on the future of our local ‘town centre’ of Shawlands, in the heart of Glasgow’s south-side. It was organised by the excellent G41 local news organisation, and very well attended – I’d estimate between 200 and 300 people.

The problem facing Shawlands is not particularly unique. It’s somewhat tired and run down, and hoping to find a way to improve itself. The hope is that there’ll be a ‘Town Centre Action Plan’, which will enable it to develop, with some council or government funding assistance. One thing that feels unique to Shawlands is “The Arcade”, a badly designed shopping centre that is half-populated with retail outlets, the rest of the units remaining empty. It’s a depressing place that doesn’t inspire confidence. It’s been like that for years, and unfortunately it counts for a large swath of the main shop fronts on Kilmarnock Road.

The grand hope, until recently, was that the companies that had purchased the arcade (for something like £23m) was going to redevelop it. Unfortunately, it was announced at the meeting in a discrete sort of way, that the primary developer had been overtaken and/or was moving out of property. This leaves the future of the arcade facing fresh uncertainty.

The large number of people there all seemed behind the idea of ‘doing something’, but I found it frustrating that many of the public who took the opportunity to speak seemed focused on many of the usual things facing a council: Rubbish collection; Crime; Parking; Night Clubs, rather than the larger scheme of things I’d expected the meeting to try and address. All certainly serious issues that I agree need action. The argument was “start at the bottom and work up” and tackle the things which do the area down, but it seemed – to me at least – the wrong forum to do it in. People appeared to feel it was an (the?) opportunity to express their grievances, perhaps in many cases because previous channels – councillors and community councils – hadn’t been working, or that people weren’t appropriately aware of their function and purpose.

What also struck me, almost to the point of actually trying to ask a question, was the attitude was one of “Somebody else should come and do something”. What my grandfather sharply called the “They attitude”: They being “someone other than me/us”. The community, and the council representatives (elected and officials) acknowledged that the plan would be difficult to progress without the arcade owner, but there was still the feeling that They would have to do something. That They were obliged to develop it.

The thing that was missing – to me at least – was that the public (and I suppose I have to include myself here) didn’t seem to be feeling it appropriate to ask themselves what needed to be done to make existing or future owners want to do something about the arcade. To find the business case of leaving the centre as it is a bad one. To make the business case positively compelling for investing and redeveloping it. That means that the rest of Shawlands is such successful centre for retail and business. To some extent, it is a chicken and egg situation (it feels run down, so who’d want to open a shop?), but if we’re going to start anywhere, it’s in making people in the area choose Shawlands for their shopping, rather than another cookie-cut and busy shopping centre with the same-old shops.

Our local MSP, Nicola Sturgeon, and all of the local councillors for Langside and my own Pollokshields ward were present. Sturgeon once again demonstrated why she is a senior, and very accomplished, political figure. She was by far the best performer, actually committing to take certain actions (ie. track down the owners and learn their intensions), summarising points well, and leaving me feeling that she – of all the elected representatives – would actually do something as a result of the meeting.

The Langside councillors did a good job, but I felt badly let down by my own councillors. Perhaps because (I think) they’re all newly elected, and perhaps new to such meetings (much like I am), but not one of them inspired me in any way. Political shots that seemed unwelcome, irrelevant points and a frustrating inability to say or commit to much left me feeling altogether uninspired.

The political shots that were largely unwelcome to the audience did none the less resonate with me: It is actually a rather relevant point. Glasgow has had a Labour run council for decades, and keeps sending them back for another term, so our complaining about the lack of change in Shawlands is a tad bizarre: If we’re as fed up as we seem, surely voting for a different party is something to actually consider? Cynically though, after the comment from the floor of “I didn’t know we even had three councillors”, I’m not sure I’ll be holding my breath.

In business it’s frustrating attending a meeting that have no direct action items: Things that will be done to move the matter under discussion forward. A manager just waffling for an hour; a meeting where there isn’t enough information to make decisions; or a meeting where everybody agrees there’s a problem, but not what to do about it. This meeting seemed to agree at the outset that there should be an action plan, but I’m still at a bit of a loss as to what the next steps will be, and/or who will be involved. I’m largely with shawlander, who argues that we don’t really need more ineffectualy bureaucracy or groups, so hope somebody will take a solid and active role in driving it forward over the next few months. Personally, I’m hoping it’ll be Nicola Sturgeon.

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, here are my views for some positive actions and directions:

• Local people support the businesses in, or setting up in Shawlands. Publicity and encouragement is needed, but ultimately individual action, and a communities resolve to support the area’s businesses wherever possible. Southside happenings lists a few local tea and coffee shops for example.
• Local people need to take it upon themselves to make a fuss and complain about the problems that concern them: A cleaner, tidier, more civil area would help considerably improve Shawlands, but the council and councillors can and do already help in this regard. If not, shout louder and get others involved.
• Business rates and rents are improved so as to encourage small independent traders to open, existing ones to grow..
• Businesses build on other businesses. Boutique shops, groups of traders in a similar vein, interesting shops, to create something worth travelling to. The shops on, and near, Skirving Street are starting to set an example: A barbers shop, lovely delicatessen, and a coffee shop, with some clothes shops, all set a nice atmosphere.
• The idea of a business association is good, but it shouldn’t be restricted to purely retail (the impression I was left with). There are, I expect, plenty of other self-employed people, and small businesses in the area, my own included. Whilst they may not be directly interested in improving the high-street shopping experience, we are interested in facilities, services, decent office space, and supporting our local communities in other ways.
• The internet is an opportunity, not a threat, as somebody seemed to suggest it was last night. Certainly for shops with a “unique selling point” of some sort. It’s not actually all that difficult to operate on the internet as well as on the high-street. To plug myself (it is my website, after all), it’s something I actually help with for a living.
• It’s right and proper that people have grievances, but the correct forums already exist for many that were aired. If they’re ineffectual, it’s important people bear that in mind when voting. If they’re not listening, shout louder and find other people. The onus should also be on the elected representatives there. Get out there and meet people. Put aside the party politics and perhaps reach out to the community in a ‘big way’ more often.

Links

• G41.org.uk was one of the organisers of the meeting. Their website and newspaper is excellent, and should be on every south-siders bookmarks and newsfeed.
• Jo, from G41 has transcribe many of the points from the meeting, which may be of interest.
• Glasgow council staff present referred to a document that specified Shawlands as one of Glasgows 5 (6?) ‘Tier-2 town centres’. I’m hunting about for it, but so far haven’t located an online copy. I’ll update this when I get my mitts on it.
• A Southside Happenings refers to a previous post about the state of the shops in Shawlands. In short: Use ‘em or loose ‘em.
• The Evening times meeting write-up

The Save Pollok Park campaign sent out an e-mail this morning highlighting a number of issues surrounding the Go Ape proposal for the historic North Wood. The big news was that my local constituency MSP, Nicola Sturgeon, has publicly come down against the proposal in a letter to The Herald. At the recent Public meeting she had kept her public comments specifically to calling for the flawed public consultation to be restarted. In her letter, the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, said:

The fact is that this consultation failed and, instead of pressing full-steam ahead to a planning decision, the council should allow it to be rerun. That would allow everyone – those who favour the Go Ape proposal and those who, like me, think that the North Wood of Pollok Park is not the right place for it – to be fully informed and have their say before a final decision is taken.

In an article covering her letter and the ongoing controversy a council spokesperson talks blithely that “A third party has made a planning application and, as a result, the statutory planning process is now under way. Glasgow City Council’s role in the process is as the local planning authority and it is not in a position to stop, alter or frustrate the application.”

Glasgow Council is no “third party”. They invited Go Ape in, and far more importantly stand to financially benefit from their own planning decision. Reading the Proposed lease (PDF) we learn that Go Ape will be paying a rent to Glasgow council, and after the 4th year they will pay, in addition to a base rent, up to 8% of turnover if visitors exceed 35,001. At, say, £20 a head (normally it’s £25 for an adult, so allowing a little for discounts), that could be upwards of £56,000 per year, hinging on a planning decision they themselves make. If this is not a conflict of interest, I really don’t know what is.

I’m certainly hoping that Nicola Sturgeon, who is not without some clout, continues to take an active interest in this proposal. By any measure, other than as a demonstration of how to rig the system, the councils public “consultation” was deeply flawed, especially when viewed against the turnout at the public meeting. Glasgow council have also managed to fall out with their ‘partners’ in managing Pollok Park, namely the Maxwell family that donated the park to the people of Glasgow, and the National Trust for Scotland. Both are on record as opposing the plan.

If Glasgow council proceed any further, they are demonstrating nothing but hubris and naivety. Their conflict of interest alone is reason enough for the planning proposal to be “called in” by the Scottish Government. With the badly flawed “consultation”, disagreeing Park management partners, and overwhelming public opposition, I fail to see how they can actually not want to find a way out.

Finally, Go Ape, an otherwise admirable company, talk about being a “Good news story“. In the right place (namely, forest and private facilities), they most certainly are. In inner cities, and within parks that occupy a special place in the heart of a city, they risk turning themselves into little more than an arrogant profit seeking company, prepared to chase a profit regardless of public opinion. They would do well to take note of the opposition from a local community, the dubious activities and bias of their ‘partner’, Glasgow council who have a conflict of interest on their hands.

Hopefully the furore that has arisen over this will not be lost on them, and they’ll see fit to withdraw the application which, as things appear to stand, is more than likely to be thrown out when these conflicts of interest are brought to book.

I’ve blogged a number of times about the Go Ape proposal (here on the consultation, here, and here), and last night went along to the Save Pollok Park public meeting. The Herald does a much better job at summarising it than I can manage (and believe me, I tried). The BBC is also starting to pick up on the story. But the key points, and my views, might be worth of summarising.

By the papers estimations 700 people attended, with over 100 of them unable to even get inside the room. By any measure that is a stunning turnout. I also think Tristram Mayhew, co-founder of Go Ape, did a good job in difficult circumstances: I don’t think (many) people in the audience dislike like what his company does (Indeed, I’m quite keen to go up to Aberfoyle and try it myself sometime). We just disagree about it’s place in Pollok Park. There is a report that they’ll not come here against the wishes of Glasgow. Hopefully they’ll take note of the strength of feeling on show last night.

As the paper reports, that tempers boiled over is certain, but the real losers were the Labour councillors who seemed intent on shouting down the audience when they were heckled when they refused to answer questions. The event was filmed, so I’m sure the ‘highlights’ will appear somewhere soon. I gather it was Councillor Ruth Simpson, executive member for land and environment who did the ‘best’ job of making a fool of herself and her colleagues when she shouted (and pointed at the public rather rudely and disdainfully) “We have made a full consultation, and you did not respond”. This after an earlier failed attempt to seize the microphone without permission from the chair.

Ruth was clearly not listening to the meeting (why am I not surprised?). People didn’t respond because they did not know about it. Putting flyers in supermarkets and schools, when regular park users were not approached, is simply not a consultation. A website page that was poorly advertised and hard to find (believe me, I tried), is not a consultation. It was a false consultation, one that was engineered to get the result they wanted: It has the horrible smell of gerrymandering about it.

Nicola Sturgeon was the only elected representative present who did themselves proud. She challenged the council to “pause and reopen the public consultation”. There was no response forthcoming from the council (but a lot of attempts to waffle), and much of the ill-temper resulted from her well phrased and neutral question.

There was a suggestion that one of councillors had said (I gather on the public record) that “if people want peace and tranquility, they should go to a library“Councillor Paul Coleshill (Lib Dem, Langside, who opposes the plan) has posted to advise that Colin Deans (SNP, and supportive of the plan) has suggested opposing the plan implies “You are against the laughter of children” and “If you want quiet, go to a library”. More in the comments section below. It speaks volumes to me of the attitude of the supporters that they would suggest such a thing.

The cynic in me thinks that politics is playing a serious role too. Perhaps the Labour councillors viewed those present as not being their natural constituency, and can therefore be ignored? It’s the only reason I can think of for their intransigence in such a meeting. I’d suggest if that is the case, that is a serious miscalculation (as well as negligent about their responsibilities once elected). It struck me as a broad and representative base of local opinion. But with a decades old Labour domination, Glasgow council is now elected on a proportional basis, so they’d do well to bear that in mind before going any further.

There also appears to be a serious breakdown in communication between the National Trust for Scotland and the council. Robert Booth, the ‘bullish’ proponent of the idea, seemed disparaging of the NTS’s lack of response. The NTS seemed to feel the normal process hadn’t been followed. Whatever the story, the National Trust for Scotland is not an organisation to be ignored, especially given their important role in the park, and further demonstrates to me that the consultation was not extensive.

The chair did a brilliant, and ruthlessly neutral job. I think most present warmed to her over the course of the evening as she had a tough job with hecklers, grandstanding from councillors, and an emotive subject to deal with. Being able to switch of a microphone is power indeed.

A key suggestion came from the Save Pollok Park campaign’s summation. Where’s the detail to the plan to make the parks more appealing, and why is it that the Go Ape proposal is the only option? Where’s the wider council strategy that this is a part of? There isn’t one, or at least there isn’t one that is coherent. This is a piecemeal and poorly considered proposal, and it’s simply wrong for Pollok Park.

The council would do well to take head of the strength and size of opinion at the meeting, most of whom feel the council is walking rough shod over a dearly loved part of Glasgow, a wonderful and generous donation that has already been developed in various ways. It’s time to stop, and leave alone the only part of the park that remains undeveloped.

See also

• Save Pollok Park
• The Herald’s coverage of the public meeting
• Front page story on the Evening Times!
• Save Pollok Park facebook group
• Glasgow Council’s ‘consultation’
• G41 should be in every southsiders bookmarks. It’s how I found out about the consultation and got my objection in. They were present too
• My follow-up post on Glasgow council’s conflict of interest regarding the proposal.

Hello if you’re visiting my website after searching for details about the Go Ape proposal in Pollok Park, Glasgow.

The community campaign to stop Go Ape from taking over a part of Pollok Park is at: www.savepollokpark.com – Be sure to visit, and also to write to the Planning officer to express your views on the matter. The public meeting is Tuesday, 22nd January, at 7.30pm, at Pollokshaws Burgh Hall, 2025 Pollokshaws Road. Please get along there if you can.

What follows is my personal website, which seems to appear high up on some search engines. I’ve had quite a response here to my own critical views about the proposal, so feel free to add your own voice too.

I’d previously posted about Glasgow council’s proposal to bring Go Ape! to Pollok Country Park. There was a public consultation that was decidedly dubious (very focused on children’s views, and absolutely no attempt to publicise it anywhere out in the park itself, or to local residents). Whilst the views of everybody matter, approaching primarily groups who are likely to have a positive view is out of order.

Via G41 I see that There’s an opposition campaign kicking off (pdf), following a public meeting last week that I would have been at myself if I hadn’t been at a Christmas Party.

There’s also the beginnings of a website at savepollokpark.com. Have to say, the use of Family Guy’s Evil Monkey (probably my favourite character in the show) is inspired.

Whatever your views, please make them known to the council as soon as you can. More details via the campaign leaflet (clicky here

Update: – I’m not actually associated with the official Save Pollok Park campaign. I do wholeheartedly support it, but this is a personal weblog that just happens to get some quite high listings in popular search engines.

If you want to speak to anybody in the campaign, check out their contact page.

I appreciate all the comments, but if you want to register your objection, please visit The Save Pollok Park campaign website, so you can contact the council planning officer directly.