Home
July 04, 2008 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper
THE PEOPLE AND THE PARK
The battle for the soul of our urban wilderness
By Karin Goodwin

THE OAK, sycamore and elm stand tall and silent. Yet nothing is still here among the ancient trees of Pollok Park. Birds nest in the crook of gnarled branches, leaves ready themselves to unfurl. And something else is stirring. This peaceful pocket of woodland is at the heart of a bitter battle involving local people, developers, city councillors and Scotland's deputy first minister, as well as descendents of the land's ancestral owners.

It is not the first time this place has become a battle-ground. The Maxwell family seat for seven centuries, the land was gifted to the people of Glasgow in 1966. Since then, the beneficiaries have taken their custodianship seriously, fiercely contesting any development that might threaten this unique tract of urban wilderness.

The estate's former owners, meanwhile, have remained silent in the face of controversy, even as anti-motorway protesters camped out in the shrubbery. Now, with plans to create an aerial adventure course in North Wood igniting passions across the city, the Maxwell family have been moved to speak out. Donald Maxwell Macdonald, youngest son of Anne Maxwell Macdonald, who was raised on the estate and brokered the gift 10 years after her father Sir John's death, says he thinks a tree-top adventure centre is "a wonderful idea", in its place. "Pollok Park," he says, "is a place for walking in the woods, bird-watching and so on, not for swinging from trees."

Last week, his grandfather's gift was named Europe's Best Park. If it gets the green light, Suffolk-based company Go Ape plans to construct rope swings, tarzan swings and zip-slides up to 40 feet above the forest floor. It would, according to Glasgow City Council's website, allow participants "to experience the thrill of the forest from a unique, challenging and fun perspective".

More than 600 objections have been lodged, including warnings about noise, crowds and the complaint that: "At £20-25 a go it is commercialisation of public space and will interfere with a unique, wild habitat." Others argue that the seven-week consultation period, which ended on October 22, was inadequate.

After months of packed public meetings, heated debates and protests, both Glasgow City Council and Go Ape claim to be bemused by the uproar. Robert Booth, executive director of the council's planning committee, talks of an ideal opportunity to open the woods up to the whole community, especially the young and disenfranchised. "You might hear the zip wires and people laughing but it's a big park and the vast majority of the wood is under-used," he says. The consultation was widely advertised last year, he adds, pointing out that the council has no truck with "nimbyism".

Bill Fraser, a stalwart of the Save Pollok Park campaign, strenuously denies the "nimby" charge, arguing that "the haven" of North Wood must be protected from privatisation.

Back in 1994, plans to route the M77 extension through part of the estate sparked the establishment of a protest camp, cheekily titled Pollok Free State. Led by local visionary campaigner Colin McLeod and supported by anti-road protesters from across the world, the Free Staters were a thorn in the side of Scottish industry minister and Tory MP, Allan Stewart, who was seen holding a pick-axe in the company of protesters. He resigned, but the road went ahead.

Perhaps, says Colin McLeod's widow, Gehan, this latest dispute shows that while that battle was lost, the war over access to outdoor spaces has yet to be won.

Historically, Glasgow has set great store on parkland. Dr Andy Zieleniec, lecturer in geography and sociology at Keele University, points out that most of the city's parks were established during the Victorian era, thanks to tireless campaigners who persuaded authorities of the health benefits of green space. "The same arguments are being used by lobby groups like Greenspace today and are just as relevant," he says.

Yet as more and more green space is sold off, people are increasingly defensive of what is left. "There is a historical legacy at stake here," Zieleniec argues. "People associate meanings and values with places that they go to a regular basis. For many, their sense of belonging and identity is being undermined by creeping commercialism."

Andy Wightman, author of Who Owns Scotland, argues that the debate is "all about power".

"Politicians seem to have recognised that community ownership of assets can empower people in places like Gigha," he says. "But when it comes to urban areas they get confused and defensive."

Back in the woods, the debate continues to rage. The proposal will go to a planning committee vote within weeks, and because of the council's commercial interest, looks certain to be referred to the Scottish government.

Talks have finally opened with the NTS - custodians of the 1939 conservation agreement made by Sir John Stirling Maxwell - who will play a key role in arguing for the park's best interests. Property manager Robert Ferguson is aware of the need for diplomacy. "It is not for us to say who is right," he says. "But Pollok is an important place to the National Trust. Sir John Stirling Maxwell led by example, and we will follow. We can't and would not want to preserve North Wood in aspic, but the spirit should remain."

The Benefactors

In 1939, Sir John Stirling Maxwell, above, worried about the effects encroaching development might have on the future of Pollok estate, drew up an agreement with the National Trust to ensure that its consent was required for any changes made to the park.

In 1966, 10 years after Sir John's death, his daughter Anne Maxwell Macdonald, now 101 and living in Argyll, handed over her former home and 361 acres of land to Glasgow Corporation.

"My mother was attached to the place but she was a very practical person," says her son, Donald Maxwell Macdonald, 69.

The terms of the gift were carefully thought out. Along with the 1939 agreement, another minute, signed by all parties, stated that the land should remain "for ever for the benefit and enjoyment of the nation and in particular the citizens of Glasgow and that the open spaces and woodlands should remain for the enhancement of the beauty of the neighbourhood as well as for the benefit of the public".

"Sir John Stirling was very public-spirited," Margo Maxwell Macdonald says of her husband's grandfather. "He cared very much that people needed space and air."

That condition was closely scrutinised before an objection letter to Go Ape's proposals was lodged on the family's behalf earlier this year. It is not the first time the family has had concerns. In the 1990s it silently supported the National Trust's opposition to plans to route the M77 through the park, on the grounds that it would reduce the green belt.

"I personally thought the National Trust was wrong to agree in the end," Donald Maxwell Macdonald admits now, though he also confesses he was no fan of "those protestors up trees".

He still hopes the estate's woodland will remain intact. "It Go Ape is not what anyone has ever wanted for Pollok in that it is a commercial enterprise," he says. "This venture, as I see it, promoted by the City of Glasgow, is something they are going to make up to £80,000 on and that's the reason why they are so keen to do it.

"As far as I'm aware no other enterprises in the park are there to benefit a company in this way." Sports clubs merely pay for themselves, he says, while the NTS ploughs money raised back into conservation concerns. "It is not laughing all the way to the bank as it were, which is presumably what the Go Ape people and the city fathers are looking to do."

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

The Protestors

At five months old, Luis is already a Pollok Park regular. Snuggled up in a cuddly bear suit, and strapped to his mother, Lusi Alderslowe, he kicks his legs contentedly as the family walk home to Govanhill through the woods. Neither he nor his two-year-old brother Robin understand why their parents are fighting the Go Ape proposals but, explains their father Danny - a Green councillor for Glasgow's Southside Central ward - this is about preserving the woodland not only for their generation, but those that follow.

A former Pollok Free Stater, Danny fondly recalls sleeping in a treehouse during the anti-M77 protests. "When you live in a tree you can't help but feel in touch with nature," he explains. "This park gave me something so I feel that it's important to pay that back."

His partner Lusi comes here to listen to the birds sing. "We need to leave that spot as it is so that we can remember what it's like to hear them," she says, adding that carefully managed activities are not the only way to enjoy nature. "North Wood is a space that allows you to be spontaneous," she explains. "You can pick up leaves or play with the pine cones, turn left or right, or go off the paths and wander between the trees. There are no rules."

The Supporter

When teacher Deirdre Hoyle heard about the planned adventure course, she thought: "Wow - I've been on one of those in France. It was fabulous." Used to sharing the wood with cyclists and dog walkers, she can't see what difference a few people swinging overhead would make. At a public meeting, she was one of just seven people to raise their hands in favour of Go Ape's proposals. She fears that opposition to the scheme reiterates the message that young people are not welcome. She remembers fruitlessly cajoling her own teenaged children to join her on trips to the park. Anything that takes them into the fresh air is great, she says. "It might just open up the idea that getting outdoors can be great fun."

The Bird-watchers

Leave the asphalt pathways behind, scramble through the trees deep into the forest and you enter another world. And for birdwatchers William Johannesen, James Wrigley, John Thomson and Robert Gregory, that is why North Wood is special. Here in the peaceful gloom, 10 minutes from their homes but a million miles from the daily grind, deer graze and sparrowhawks soar.

Johannesen and Wrigley first came here over 40 years ago as nine-year-olds, escaping the realities of the deprived housing schemes in which they were raised. A decade later, Thomson discovered it. "It felt unbelievable to me," he says, "like being in the middle of nowhere." Gregory, meanwhile, came here with his father, who instilled in him a love of nature. He dreams of the day when he brings his own children here.

"When my kids were young and we lived in Arden, my wife and I would bring the whole family here for picnics," says Johannesen. "It was our escape. We didn't have money to go on excursions here, there and everywhere."

Now Wrigley, Johannesen and Thomson, who are currently out of work, go exploring several times a week. They wait patiently to capture footage of a kingfisher, a cormorant or the sparrowhawk feeding its young. Gregory, who works as a panel-beater, joins them at weekends and relishes the solace it brings.

All oppose the Go Ape proposals, believing they would shatter this fragile piece of woodland, the last wild remnant of a park already pillaged. "It's scary what they've done to Pollok," says Wrigley. "This is the last unspoiled bit."

The zip wires would discourage the sparrowhawks from nesting, Johannesen worries, and gradually the diversity would be lost. As for equality of access: "When you look at the Go Ape website it says it's for all families. But at £20 a go the reality is only some parents will be able to bring their children here."

Instead, suggests Thomson, why not invest in park ranger tours, and bring young people here to see nature in its raw state? Johannesen nods. "Right now all the deprived kids can use this park the same as everybody else."

"We don't want to lose this," adds Wrigley, softly. "It's part of our identity."

The Developers

In 2001, Tristram Mayhew (above right) had just lined up his dream job in Barcelona as European head of communications for a large American company. The job came with a penthouse, a roof-top swimming pool and a generous remuneration package that would keep his wife, Rebecca (above left) , and new baby in style. He'd left his army post as a tank commander looking for new challenges like this. So why didn't he feel more excited?

Then, on holiday in France, he visited a forest park. And the idea for Go Ape was born. "We just followed the laughter through the woods and saw a family swinging from above us," he says. "It was Rebecca who verbalised it. She saw the look in their eyes and said: We should be doing this.'" Tristram, meanwhile, finally saw the chance to combine setting up a family business with something he felt was "fundamentally worthwhile".

"We wanted to do something which encouraged people to live as adventurously as possible," he says. "To move from the mindset of I can't' to yes I can'."

Brought up in Kent, he is passionate about giving young people the chance to explore the great outdoors. He enthuses about the importance of the woodland, about the conservation work in which Go Ape invests, about the donations the company makes to charities working in the Amazon. One of Go Ape's mottos, he points out, is: "Do the right thing."

So, Mayhew admits, it is difficult to accept the role of villain in the battle for Pollok Park's woodland. He blames much of the opposition on misunderstanding. "The first meeting in September went extremely well," he says. "Subsequently I think a huge amount of misinformation was persistently broadcast through the media, websites and forums.

"It was claimed 32 acres of land was being fenced off. That would have had me up in arms but it is completely wrong. There is no perimeter fence - we only use the treetops. People can walk underneath in the same way as ever, and actually only about three acres will have any visual impact at all."

He argues that people who are attracted to Go Ape principally because it is an adventure activity will be tempted back into the park on bikes or on foot. It will also, he says, make Glasgow City Council a decent amount of revenue that can be ploughed back into the park.

"But we wouldn't be proposing a site if we didn't think people wanted it," he says. "We are confident of our ability to attract 20,000-30,000 people from the Glasgow area. Why should the voices of the protestors be heard louder?"

Share this story on: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | NowPublic | Yahoo!
Posted by: Gavin, Glasgow on 12:36am Sun 2 Mar 08
There are in fact 818 submissions objecting to this proposal.
The application will be heard by the planning committee on Tuesday 4th March. The report from the planning officer is to recommend granting planning permission.
Having read this officials report it has completely failed to address legitimate planning concerns, including no toilet provision for users, no provision for parking for these users, additionally there has been absolutely no research into the noise of this development nor into the visual impact it will have, other than some very vague assurances by the developer.
The consultation which at the very least was seriously flawed, is used to justify the need fro this development, yet examination of this shows that of the 214 returns, 140 were from 1st year students in Maryhill doing a citizens project, yet in January over 600 people attended a public meeting, in February over a 1000 turn up for a "vigil" in the park.
The size of this development is constantly down played both by the council and by Go Ape, there are 42 activities involved in all, including the 6 zip wires. It covers most of the North Wood and will have a serious impact on the peace and tranquillity of the wood, which in turn must have a negative impact on the fauna and wildlife.
The council quote from their Parks and Green spaces document where many citizens rightly responded that they wanted more to do in the cities parks, I am absolutely sure that none of them imagined that the first ones to be be developed would be the cities most used parks ie Pollok and the Botanics.
Having used this park as a child, and being a regular user with my own children, I fear for this unique atmosphere of Pollok which remember is enjoyed by over 2 million visitors a year and am left to wonder if this development goes ahead will Pollok still be the best park in Europe.
It is likely that the planning committee, constrained by only "planning matters" will approve the application, even if called in by the Scottish Government this will only have a very limited remit. That the development will happen and Glasgow will lose another prized and highly valued resource and for what, what does it actually gain, and then compare that to what it will lose.
Sad is it not
Posted by: Scott, SIPP on 1:23am Sun 2 Mar 08
Karin, I'm sure the Brontes would have been very proud of you for your sheer determination to put forward your piece (up until the last element).

But as a reporter do you not think you are missing out many of the important elements of this argument which you are you are obligated to find out?

Savepollokpark.com supply a very varied view on the entire argument, for and against whilst you seem to supply a prose, up and until your final verse, which bewitches common language and distorts reproducible facts for the everyday citizen.

Instead of confusing your readers with oddly stated stanzas why not treat them to a reporters findings which display facts instead of poetic fanciment?

I hope you find this worthwhile, it may help in keeping with your chosen career - at least with maintaining any respect for your published work.

-Scott
Posted by: Scott, SIPP on 1:25am Sun 2 Mar 08
Karin, I'm sure the Brontes would have been very proud of you for your sheer determination to put forward your piece (up until the last element).

But as a reporter do you not think you are missing out many of the important elements of this argument which you are you are obligated to find out?

Savepollokpark.com supply a very varied view on the entire argument, for and against whilst you seem to supply a prose, up and until your final verse, which bewitches common language and distorts reproducible facts for the everyday citizen.

Instead of confusing your readers with oddly stated stanzas why not treat them to a reporters findings which display facts instead of poetic fanciment?

I hope you find this worthwhile, it may help in keeping with your chosen career - at least with maintaining any respect for your published work.

-Scott
Posted by: Ian, Glasgow on 3:39am Sun 2 Mar 08
And not all of us who oppose the development are green party nutters chaining themselves to trees, by the way! ; )
Posted by: myparktoo, Dennistoun on 6:28am Sun 2 Mar 08
Terrible article. Can we have more of the for arguments then we can maybe make up our own minds.

The Go Ape plan will attract a lot more people to the park - people who would not normally go, who also pay the council tax. How selfish of the protesters. Its a massive park, there is space for this.
Posted by: mulross, glasgow on 9:57am Sun 2 Mar 08
She fears that opposition to the scheme reiterates the message that young people are not welcome. She remembers fruitlessly cajoling her own teenaged children to join her on trips to the park. Anything that takes them into the fresh air is great, she says. "It might just open up the idea that getting outdoors can be great fun."


What absolute garbage and shows what an ivory tower the "supporters" inhabit. Generations of children have enjoyed the fresh air and everything else that Pollok has to offer, free of charge. Perhaps "teacher, Deirdre Hoyle" should realise that not every parent can afford the large sums of money that she obviously can to get her children "out in to the fresh air".

Get real folk....

Can we have more of the for arguments then we can maybe make up our own minds.


The fact is that there are very, very few "for" arguments. I was able to make up my own mind without other people providing me with arguments. So why can't you?
Posted by: The Wise One, Glasgow on 10:35am Sun 2 Mar 08
Posted by: myparktoo, Dennistoun on 6:28am today
Terrible article. Can we have more of the for arguments then we can maybe make up our own minds. The Go Ape plan will attract a lot more people to the park - people who would not normally go, who also pay the council tax. How selfish of the protesters. Its a massive park, there is space for this.
.



I would suggest that nearly all protesters are not against a 'Go Ape' development, but are against the siting of it.

If it is such a good idea, why not site it in another park, there are plenty in Glasgow.
The truth of the matter is none have so many visitors and thus, the decision has been made on financial grounds. Nothing to do with what the people of Glasgow want, as the majority will not be able to afford it!

I suggest people remember all those councillors who have voted for this development and show their disapproval at the next election.
Posted by: paula, glasvegas on 11:39am Sun 2 Mar 08
mulross wrote:
She fears that opposition to the scheme reiterates the message that young people are not welcome. She remembers fruitlessly cajoling her own teenaged children to join her on trips to the park. Anything that takes them into the fresh air is great, she says. "It might just open up the idea that getting outdoors can be great fun."
What absolute garbage and shows what an ivory tower the "supporters" inhabit. Generations of children have enjoyed the fresh air and everything else that Pollok has to offer, free of charge. Perhaps "teacher, Deirdre Hoyle" should realise that not every parent can afford the large sums of money that she obviously can to get her children "out in to the fresh air". Get real folk....
Can we have more of the for arguments then we can maybe make up our own minds.
The fact is that there are very, very few "for" arguments. I was able to make up my own mind without other people providing me with arguments. So why can't you?
you were able to make your mind up without both sides of the argument perhaps because you are narrow minded mulross, and frankly your statement there proves that there is no point in listening to what you say as you clearly haven't bothered to listen to others.
Posted by: mulross, glasgow on 12:57pm Sun 2 Mar 08
you were able to make your mind up without both sides of the argument perhaps because you are narrow minded mulross,


I never said that and your pathetic attempt to twist my words is yet another proof (if it was needed, which it's not) that those who support Go Ape (or simply oppose the protesters, and they are not always in the same camp) have very little to offer in the way of contructive argument.


Posted by: Gavin, Glasgow on 4:03pm Sun 2 Mar 08
myparktoo wrote:
Terrible article. Can we have more of the for arguments then we can maybe make up our own minds.

The Go Ape plan will attract a lot more people to the park - people who would not normally go, who also pay the council tax. How selfish of the protesters. Its a massive park, there is space for this.
Perhaps the difficulty is that the for arguments are few and far between, and most of the ones I have heard do not stand up to examination
Posted by: myparktoo, Dennistoun on 5:28pm Sun 2 Mar 08
Face it. You just dont like people. Those sounds you might hear if the development goes ahead are - wait for it - people enjoying themselves!

If someone is smoking in 'your' park do you suck a lemon and shout 'Your smoke is killing me!'

If a dog is off its lead do you take out a lime from your bag and bite in.

Mountain cyclists - now where is my citrus collection!

For the love of god, learn some tolerance. Its our park too!
Posted by: myparktoo, Dennistoun on 5:38pm Sun 2 Mar 08
Tell you what. Give us all a break. Why dont you just go to the local Library?
Posted by: fiona, shawlands on 6:23pm Sun 2 Mar 08
I think that Go Ape sounds good ....I am for it. Those against it may suffer nimbyism as they just don't want it in pollok.
I also think that the personal attack on the brave soul (Deirdre) is appalling and for me sums up the mentality of some of those agin it.
I hope the advice of the qualified council officers is followed and the application granted.
Some of those protesters are concerned about wild life yet all day averyday there are dogs off the lead despite the signage at the park... do they think that dogs are incapable of scaring deer, to say nothing of the T. canis deposited by said pooches.
Hope this gets to you from my ''ivory tower''.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 6:37pm Sun 2 Mar 08
Myparktoo No Cockatoo
For the love of god, learn some tolerance.
I always laugh when I hear some ego saying, "See it my way!"

A "Suffolk-based" company? Let's have an adventure park built in Kew Gardens by a "Perth-based" company.

Posted by: emma, Pollokshaws, Glasgow on 8:18pm Sun 2 Mar 08
Its not nimbyism, its about affording £20 a go for zipping down the wires, its about a country park being manipulated for profit. The whole point of a country park is that its the country, peace, tranquility, nature not profit. I certainly cant affort to spend £20 a month on something i will do once to enhance my park experience. We lost a chunk of the park to the M77 do we really want to loose any more valuable green unadulterated space? The whole consultation process was a shambles and the disregard of the whole of Glasgow by the Council representatives should be remembered.
Posted by: myparktoo, Dennistoun on 1:35am Mon 3 Mar 08
This is MAD! You have the Goals Five a side pitches eating into Queens Park. You have folk using this facility who would not normally go into the park. Its packed out all the time.

Yes its run for a profit. And it provides a much better service than comparable council services which eat up large subsidies.

Oh yes and its an East Kilbride based company- with five a side pitches all over England - some of which were no doubt built in Parks!

Providing a service people want, and paying taxes on their profits.

Why not run a campaign to close it down - for all the reasons you are using against the GO-Ape plan. I'd like to see the response. Your a bunch of hysterical scare-mongering nymbies. And your about to be found out.

http://www.goalsfoot

ball.co.uk/Contact/B

ranchLocator.aspx?br

anchid=4

http://uk.reuters.co

m/investing/quotes/c

ompanyProfile?symbol

=GOAL.L
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 8:32am Mon 3 Mar 08
MyCockatoo
Yes its run for a profit.
In that case I can only repeat what I said before:
Let's have an adventure park built in Kew Gardens by a "Perth-based" company.
Posted by: Malcolm, langside on 10:00am Mon 3 Mar 08
Quote from myparktoo -
"This is MAD! You have the Goals Five a side pitches eating into Queens Park. You have folk using this facility who would not normally go into the park. Its packed out all the time"

I live near Queen's Park & walk through it all the time, from morning to late evening. The people who visit Goals arrive mostly by car. The car park isn't big enough so cars are parked on the grass in the park. Before bollards were put up blocking the paths people drove through the park. Very few of these visitors are 'using the park' - they're not walking through it, they're not enjoying the park as a park. Goals was supposed to provide free sessions for local organisations - these were never promoted, so take up has been non-existent. As noise, ask the people living in Camphill House about it.
Posted by: No-Go Ape, Glasgow on 5:48pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Let's nail this nimbyism (note spelling myparktoo) myth once and for all. Nimbyism is an accusation levelled at those who oppose developments that are important and necessary. While Go Ape undoubtedly has many fine qualities, importance and necessity are not among them. The North Wood of Pollok Park, on the other hand, is recognised as being important and necessary for environmental, conservationist, historic and spiritual reasons. Go Ape has no place there.
Posted by: malcolm, Langside on 10:37pm Mon 3 Mar 08
myparktoo wrote:
Terrible article. Can we have more of the for arguments then we can maybe make up our own minds. The Go Ape plan will attract a lot more people to the park - people who would not normally go, who also pay the council tax. How selfish of the protesters. Its a massive park, there is space for this.
Why don't they normally go? Nobody is preventing them. It's free - all itneeds is an open mind and the will to take a walk in peaceful surroundings. Why do people need 'excitement' before they do anything? If Go Ape builds their assault course, some areas wil be inaccessible (see the photographs of the course in Aberfoyle in the Evening Times last week if you doubt it) and a lot of people who enjoy a walk in quiet woods now would not go because of the noise from people shouting and the zip wires screeching. There is not the space for it - the North Woods, as has been frquently pointed out, is small and unspoilt. Go Ape will spoil it.
Posted by: James M Alexander, Glasgow on 11:51pm 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.
Posted by: Mrs Armitage, Glasgow on 10:05am Tue 4 Mar 08
Tristram Mayhew says,"But we wouldn't be proposing a site if we didn't think people wanted it," he says. "We are confident of our ability to attract 20,000-30,000 people from the Glasgow area. Why should the voices of the protestors be heard louder?"

148 letters of support received by Glasgow City Council. (Not 20,000-30,000)

Approx 900 letters of objection received by Glasgow City Council. (One of these being from me)

Come on, you don't need a Masters in Statistics to see that the above is more representative of the people of Glasgow than the sham of all shams of a consultation run by the Council.

Also, to Mr Booth. In future when you learn a new word(nimbyism)and are feeling all chuffed with yourself, consider first whether its use is appropriate. I don't live anywhere near Pollok Park but still travel with the family at least once a week to visit. So 'not in my back yard' is inapplicable in my case and I know this to be true in the case of many others who have objected.
Add your comment
Name:
Email: *
Location:
**
Security Image. Registered site users are not required to enter Security Image Information.
 
 e.g. 123-123
Comment:
Please note: All HTML tags will be ignored.
Format Text:

 
By posting a comment, I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of use. Comments are not moderated but we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention and we may delete inappropriate postings. Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory. Remember, you are personally liable for what you post on this site. If you wish to complain about a comment, contact us here.
* Your email address will not be displayed
** To avoid register now or login