leyton.org

Absolutely delighted to have just received an e-mail from the Save Pollok Park campaign that gives the marvellous news that Go Ape have withdrawn their ill-considered plans to build a course in Pollok Park. It seems there was an important change requested by the National Trust for Scotland, which meant new planning requirements (as well as expensive alterations) would have been necessary.

Most campaigners never had a problem with Go Ape’s business. I’d still love to have a go on one of their courses. It’s just that the idea of building an aerial assault course in an inner-city park would have completely ruined a stunningly beautiful, and already very limited, part of Glasgow. It just made no sense at all. So I’m delighted they’ve finally seen sense.

The council were also claiming it was about creating a “venue for health and recreational activity”, and at £20 a shot (despite supposed ‘free’ places), it never made sense where there’s so many problems with health, and poverty, in Glasgow. I just wish they had looked at other free, easy, accessible activities which wouldn’t have required chopping trees down, and are already open to all, such as this perhaps?.

Huge congratulations to Bill and Bob of the Save Pollok Park campaign for all their hard work. I’m absolutely certain the campaign would not have been as successful if it hadn’t been for their efforts, diligence and determination over the last couple of years.

Update

The Herald covers the article in more depth here.

The Herald’s leader on the news

In January last year, I headed out into a gloomy Glasgow evening to attend the a public meeting on ‘the future of Shawlands’. A lot was said, but at the time I was concerned it was all, er, hot air. I finished my write-up with this:

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 [agree] 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.

Perhaps I live in some home-worker, running obsessed bubble, but I’ve heard precisely nothing since last years meeting. I know I’ve not exactly gone hunting, but I’ve had a few other things going on that have occupied my time.

So I’ve just read, on southside happenings, that there’s a survey out (see see the end of this post for links). If this is the first thing to have happened, and it’s just a request for more information and feedback, I’m not going to hold out much hope this is little more than a further attempt to be seen to be seeking opinion, rather than actually getting on and doing anything.

Cynic that I may be, so many politicians love ‘consulting’ then doing precisely what they intended all along (having created the impression of having listened), or – worse still – hoping the consultation process will be seen as a substitute for action.

I’d suggest the main feedback will, in any case, be ‘demolish the arcade’, which is the main and understandable demand of so many residents. However I very much doubt that’s going to happen any time soon, without demonstrating there viable business location for investors to fund such. It’s certainly not the councils job to. On that note I did provide a few ideas of my own – ones which are actionable – for how things could be improved under their own merit and perhaps lead on to redevelopment. There have been a few changes for the good in the area (a few new shops have appeared), but there have been setbacks (Woolworths has furthered reduced the arcade’s open shops), but I’ve not noted much determined effort. But I could have missed attempts to publicise this and other efforts since the meeting. But I really do look out for such things in the places I visit.

I’ll fill in the survey sure enough, but I do get the feeling there is no sense of urgency here, and this is very little more than window dressing on an effort that’s not going anywhere fast. I look very much forward to being proven wrong.

Read the rest of this entry »

I was in a meeting recently regarding the forthcoming Glasgow parkrun, and one of the Pollok park representatives asked if I’d support the effort by Friends of Linn park to bring a pebble beach picnic area and improved pathways to the park. 

I love Linn park – it’s Glasgow’s second biggest park, after Pollok, and absolutely delightful. It’s also one of it’s least well known. When I ran through there recently with some fellow runners, many commented that they’d never been to the park, and it boasts a few beautiful outlooks over the Cart. More about the park at the councils website.

The effort by the Friends of Linn park is competing with another project to win funding from the Big Lottery People’s millions, so needs people to phone up and support it. Lines open on Monday 24th from 9am, to midnight. Details on STV Scotland Today on the 24th, and via biglotteryfund.org.uk/peoplesmillions. There’s also more on the Linn park website.

I’m delighted to hear, and fully intend to support, the creation of a new ‘Friends of Pollok Park’ group that will be launching after the Save Pollok Park meeting (Tuesday 28th October at 7.30pm, at Pollokshaws Burgh Hall, opposite Pollok Park). Members of Kelvingrove Park’s Friends Group will be along to explain how they operate. A constructive supporters group should be a great asset to the park. I’ve myself put forward one or two ideas as to how the park could be improved, without recourse to commercially focused development, and hope they’ll be considered at the public meeting next week.

The Save Pollok Park meeting that precedes it should be interesting too, as it’ll be covering the legal arguments as to why the Go Ape lease can’t be granted, and updating supporters as to progress and strategies. Hopefully a constructive series of discussions. 

There’s a petition still open for supporters to sign. It closes next Tuesday, so be sure to get your name down on it before it’s presented to the council.

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’m a big fan of Glasgow’s Citizens’ Theatre, the best independent theatre in Glasgow. I’m also proud that my company is a ‘cast’ corporate sponsor, which is a small way to help them in their efforts to bring the best in theatre to Glasgow.

Discovered today that they’ve setup a weblog with news and goings on featuring. Included are some shots from rehearsals, and a trailer of the forthcoming play “Little Otik”, which I’m hoping to get along to see.

It sounds delightfully surreal, and right up my street:

A couple, desperate but unable to start a family, develop an intense relationship with a tree stump carved to look like a baby. Believing it to be real, gradually their obsession brings the lump of wood to life. As the fixation grows, so does the ‘baby’ and its monstrous appetite. Not content with baby food, it eats the family cat and then the postman. Things get stranger when the social worker arrives to see what’s going on…

Add the weblog to your feeds here: http://citizenstheatre.blogspot.com/

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.

One of my three local councillors, David Meikle, yesterday resigned from the Glasgow Council planning committee. He gave a statement:

Following today’s outrageous decision to approve Go Ape I can no longer sit as a member of the Planning Committee. Go Ape is a fantastic facility but will, in my opinion, have a detrimental impact on the North Wood and the Burrell Collection.

The proposal my fellow councillors approved today is just a step too far and unlike the 14 councillors who approved this scheme I have listened to my constituents, to the people of Glasgow and the Save Pollok Park group, who made a convincing argument against the application at today’s hearing. This is why I have resigned from the Committee.”

I’m in two minds about Councillor Meikle’s decision here. On the one hand, and taken at face value, he appears to have taken a principled stand against a farcical committee decision that is unwanted in a treasured part of Glasgow. So he feels it’s not something he can remain a part of. It certainly has some integrity about it. Whilst I’m yet to see how each of the councillors on the committee voted, it sounds like it was largely down party lines, with all bar one Labour councillor voting to instruction, and a few SNP councillors doing similar for reasons I can’t understand. I have absolutely no confidence the council planning committee takes an objective point of view to what’s put before it, and I don’t think I could be a part of such a body if I were in his position.

On the other hand, and reading between the lines somewhat, it’s a perfect local campaign for a conservative politician to campaign for: let’s keep the park as it is, look how Labour ruined our park, etc. etc. But mostly I’m worried that – on the basis it is a matter of principle – we’ve now gone and lost one of the few committee members who seemed to have had any sense in this matter. So we’re probably in line for a further muppet on the committee, and even worse decisions. Presuming the Labour councillors didn’t always come down on party political lines and gave his minority vote a bit more sway.

This shouldn’t be read as criticism of Cllr Meikle (or be something that puts him off doing what he’s doing, largely, quite well in our ward). He is, after all, one of the very few Glasgow councillors who feels it’s appropriate to put a public record of what he’s up to and thinking (See www.david4pollokshields.com, but feel free to skip the party political stuff; I certainly do).

I certainly wish I could analyse some of the decisions of my other councillors in the same detail, but it’s hard to critique the views and actions of people who stay absolutely silent…

Sad but hardly shocking news that the lemmings at Glasgow council have approved the Go Ape proposal. The BBC covers the story, and gives the final vote as 14 in favour, 6 against. I gather this includes a number of SNP councillors, which shows the ineptitude is not even along party lines.

This clearly demonstrates we have councillors of all political persuasions that treat the electorate with complete and utter contempt. Over 4000 signatures to the petition (which is still available online), and over 800 objection letters, against a few hundred supporting. The number of people objecting outweighed the votes any one of the councillors received at last years election: A strong and compelling mandate, and also gives the lie to the ‘consultation’ that was ineptly organised they can’t even answer Freedom of Information requests about the framework they used.

The Evening Times has more, including an excellent report. One councillor interviewed explained the protesters wouldn’t sway them, as the application must be viewed on its merits. This is one of the problems with the very planning process and the council that people are “just doing their jobs”, and not looking at the wider implications of the proposal and decision, not least that there are thousands of people voicing a strong opinion against. Whether it’s a stand on principle or to enable wider political campaigning on this issue (he had to tread carefully in the run-up to the vote), but Glasgow’s only Conservative councillor resigned from the committee after the vote.

The more I learn about this proposal, the more clear it becomes that the council is intent on just doing what it wants. It’s very much my hope that this issue is kept to the fore in the coming weeks, months and years, and that the voting record of the councillors on this committee are put to them at the next election. They are intent on selling off the assets, and turning one of the biggest urban green spaces in Europe into a theme park. Before too long the trees themselves risk being endangered when the next proposal comes along to turn the North Wood pond into a boating lake…. I was running in Pollok Park earlier today, and yesterday evening, and it was delightful. For how much longer?

Go Ape should be ashamed to call themselves a considerate and environmentally sensitive company. I had been thinking of going and giving the Aberfoyle course a go, but I’m staying well clear of this company at least until they see the error of their ways.

Update

• G41 have a detailed breakdown of the meeting.
• ‘How they voted’ added below.

How they voted

FOR

• George Redmond, Lab
• Jonathan Findlay, Lab
• Liz Cameron, Lab
• Frank Docherty, Lab
• Alex Glass, Lab
• Jean McFadden, Lab
• Catherine McMaster, Lab
• Shaukat Butt, Lab
• Paul Rooney, Lab
• George Ryan, Lab
• Jim Todd, Lab
• Iris Gibson, SNP
• Jahangir Hanif, SNP
• John McLaughlin, SNP

AGAINST

• Jim McNally, Lab
• Margot Clark, Lib/Dem
• Craig Mackay, SNP
• George Roberts, SNP
• David Meikle, Conservative
• Kieran Wild, Green