G41's Joe Eyre attended this afternoon's Planning Applications Committee, which approved the Go Ape application by 14 votes to six. Here's his full account of who said what, the questions asked and answers given.

The Planning Applications Committee of the city council decided, on 25 March, by 14 votes to six to give the go ahead to the Go Ape development in Pollok Park.
The committee meeting took place after councillors had carried out a visit of the proposed site in Pollok Park’s North Wood earlier in the morning.
The senior council officer leading on the application began his presentation to the committee by showing a five minute long promotional video produced by Go Ape.
He recommended that the committee approve the planning application with conditions, saying that the proposed tree top course was compact with only four ‘touchdown’ points - where people using the course would be on the ground.
He conceded that one structure in the proposed development would be situated only 40 meters from the Burrell museum and that 27 trees would have to be felled to accommodate the development. He maintained, however, that no protected species of flora or fauna would be put at risk.
He reported that more than 880 objections had been received, with 160 responses supporting the application. He stated that Scottish Natural Heritage had no objection and that the West of Scotland Architectural Service had no concerns about any major architectural impact.
He told the committee that noise surveys carried out in woodland environments indicated that there would be no noise impact beyond 50 meters of the Go Ape site.
He said that there were no serious concerns about parking associated with the development, that cars would come in batches and that there was overflow car parking space in the park should it be required.
He did not see any major difficulty over toilet facilities, but said that it would be a condition of approval that additional surveys and other works should be carried out.
He concluded that the impact of the proposal would be minimal and that it was a matter referable to ministers.

Members of the committee then asked questions on the report.
Clr Frank Docherty of East Centre ward asked about the independent inspectors whom Go Ape had said they would engage to carry out annual inspections of the woodland. He was told that these would be additional inspections and that the city council's Land and Environmental Services would be carrying out their own surveys.
He then asked what the age of any replacement trees would be. In response, officers stated that if the replacement trees were young trees this would be part of the on-going planting programme for the North Wood.
Baillie Jahangir Hanif of Southside Central ward was concerned about parking and asked if he was right to assume that up to 90 people might be on the course at the same time. He was told that this was possible but that Land Services were not concerned about the parking implications.
Another member of the committee raised concerns over a probable change to the character of the North Wood. He was told that Scottish Natural Heritage took the view that the impact of the development would be low and that they were satisfied that the nature of the woodland would not
be compromised.
He was not satisfied and stressed that he was concerned about the character of the North Wood. “It is a quiet area,” he said. “How would this development affect its character? It is the only area left in the
park that is not affected by other developments like cycle tracks, and so on. People go there for quiet.”
Baillie Liz Cameron of Garscadden/Scotstounhill ward, asked about the management of the wood. An officer from Land Services told her that a local management plan had been adopted in 2005 and that under this plan about 500 trees had been removed over an 18-month period and that a further 500 more were designated to go.
Baillie Cameron then said that constituents had been in correspondence with her who were concerned that bats might be disturbed. She was assured that if bats were found in the area they would be protected.
Clr Margot Clark, Linn ward, asked if access to any part of the Glade - where a zip slide is proposed - would be restricted. She was assured that any zip wire crossing the Glade would be at a high level and that people would be able to use the area.
She then expressed concern about new structures associated with the development, such as fences, ladders, and landscaping work including landing stages.
The lead officer said that there would be four zones, with a ladder each and four landing zones. He said there would be no significant intrusions into the woodland.

Clr Colin Deans of Newlands/Auldburn ward then spoke in favour of the proposed development.
He said he had been shocked by the sound and fury the proposal had caused. He said that the objectors did not comprise a homogeneous opposition to the development.
He stated that some objectors had said that if the development was controlled by the council and free to use they would support it. Objectors from Kings Park wanted the development in their local park, he claimed.
He stated that the majority of objectors represented dog walkers, and said: “I was met by one protester this morning. She had two dogs and was demanding protection for the squirrels. She didn't seem to realise that her dogs might be a threat to the squirrels.”
He said that many objectors wanted to protect peace and quiet. “If I want peace and quiet,” he continued, “I go to the cemetery or the library.” He said that he was happy when he heard kids laughing.
He went on to say that he was shocked at the criticisms of the management team of the park which had won Best Park in Britain and Best European Park awards. He said that objectors were betraying a
lack of trust in the management team.
He continued that there had been objectors to the play area two and a half years ago; that there had been more than 100 objectors to the development of a mountain bike path and that over 1000 had objected to the building of the Burrell gallery 20 years ago.
“We are dealing with people who would oppose anything,” he concluded.

Bill Fraser then made a presentation on behalf of the Save Pollok Park group, which was set up to oppose the development last December. He said the group comprised park users and others who were concerned by the proposal.
He told the committee that a petition organised by his group had collected over 4000 signatures and said that both the National Trust for Scotland and the Maxwell family had come out against the development.
He said that although there were 360 acres in the park only 220 could be used by the public. The North Wood, with 100 acres, was the only substantial area left for public use. The Go Ape proposal would take up 32 acres, or 30 per cent of the wood, while the mountain bike area took up another 50 per cent.
He said that his group was not against Go Ape, per se, but felt that the development was being proposed in the wrong place. “This is a protected area,” he said. “There should be a presumption against development.”
He showed a slide that his group had taken on 16 January showing the car park almost full. He said that they had taken a whole number of shots on subsequent days and that on no day did they find 30 or more spaces free.
On top of that, he said, Culture and Sport Glasgow have plans to increase visitors to the Burrell Collection who would be using the same car park.
He said that the proposal that Go Ape customers would use the toilet facilities in the Burrell was not viable and that the toilets would not be in operation for 40 per cent of the time that Go Ape was proposing to use the site.

Bob Marshall, also of Save Pollok Park, gave a further presentation against the development. He said that the two main objections were on account of visibility and noise.
He stated that the development would be visible from the main Burrell gallery. The architect who had designed the gallery wanted the woodland brought in as a part of the gallery experience, and is horrified by the proposal.
The development would not be neutral in its impact upon the woodland. There would be six fenced off areas.
His presentation contained photographs of Go Ape's Aberfoyle site which showed substantial areas fenced off and the plant life destroyed.
“Plant life will go,” he insisted. “The whole North Wood has been in existence since 1741 as a bluebell wood. Bluebells are protected. I'm not allowed to uplift them and neither is the council.”
He said that the developers had claimed that noise doesn't carry and that only laughter would be heard, but that his group had been in contact with near residents of Go Ape developments in Derbyshire and Cheshire who complain of noise. He showed a video clip to back his point.
“The location is wrong,” he said. “More than 4000 objectors have signed our petition and 75 per cent are from wards in the immediate surrounding area. This is a step too far”
He said that the North Wood is the only quiet area left in the park. The developers had stated that Go Ape would encourage physical activity and good health, but said that the committee should be concerned about mental health and well being too.
“I know one woman who has mental health problems,” he said. “She has told me that a daily walk in the quiet of the wood keeps her spirits going.”
He concluded that the committee could maintain and enhance the character of the wood, or agree to an assault course. It could not do both.

Clr Paul Rooney, Garscadden and Maryhill ward, wanted clarification from council officers as to whether the landing zones would need a covering and what impact this would have on plant life.
He was told that the committee was being asked to approve a particular layout, not carte blanche. Detailed plans would have to be discussed further. A 21-year lease had been agreed in principle but work was still going on regarding the detail.
Clr Rooney went on to say that he had seen a picture of the Go Ape development at Aberfoyle, including their landing zones and that there was a lack of plant life.
Clr Jonathan Findlay, Drumchapel and Anniesland, stated that the Forrestry Commission had laid out all sorts of walks at Aberfoyle and that there would be no such developments in Pollok park. He said that only limited paths would need to be created.
Clr Craig Mackay, Anderston/City, expressed concerns about toilet facilities, while Clr David Meikle, Pollokshields, complained that their had been no full environmental impact survey. The lead official conceded that no flora and fauna survey had so far been done but that one would be insisted upon.

Jerome Mayhew, a Go Ape company director, then gave a presentation to the committee in support of the application.
He said that he realised the application had caused strong emotions, but felt that a lot of the objections were based on misinformation.
Much of this, he said, was down to the red line on the planning application. He said the line was there to show the area that might be affected by the application but that it had nothing to do with the real
plans and that Go Ape's footprint would be much smaller. He assured the committee that there were no plans for any substantial increase to the proposal.
He said that the noise of people laughing was no bad thing and that in tests carried out by the organisation noise from zip wires could not be detected 50 meters away from the site. He insisted that the development would be wholly invisible from the Burrell gallery.
He said he understood that some of the objections were genuine – from people who did not want change, and told the committee that their job was a balancing act.
He stressed that there would be benefits from the development including healthy exercise and challenging experiences and said that there would be a social good in terms of educating young people about woodland areas.
There would be access for disadvantaged groups, with 400 places guaranteed each year.

Mr Mayhew was then questioned by committee members.
Clr James McNally, Newlands and Auldburn, said he had been to the Go Ape site at Aberfoyle and that he had not found it too obtrusive. But he was concerned over parking, saying that there should be no question of increasing the size of the present car park which was as big as the area could tolerate.
Mr Mayhew replied that on the basis of analysis at other Go Ape sites a maximum of 35 cars should be anticipated at any one time on a peak day.
Clr McNally found that slightly odd since on his visit to Aberfoyle there had been 15 people taking part in the course, with a further 15 under instruction and 15 more waiting.
He also referred to the company's promotional material at Aberfoyle which showed that organisations such as the Bank of Scotland, Vodafone and Nuclear Power had used the facility for team building exercises for young executives.
Mr Mayhew accepted that the company had corporate customers but that these only amounted to 6 per cent of business.
Clr David Meikle, Pollokshields, asked Mr Mayhew how he would respond to objectors.
Mr Mayhew said that the National Trust for Scotland were not objecting in principle, but felt that they had not been consulted originally. He claimed that the Maxwell family and some people in Save Pollok Park were misinformed and simply did not want the development to take place. He said that Go Ape would try to do the sensitive thing and that the bits of the wood it would use would be quite difficult to get to.
Clr Mackay stated that the view of the Burrell gallery was that the development would be detrimental.

The committee then moved to deliberation.
Clr McNally said that he had been obliged by the standards board to say nothing during the last six months because he was a member of the Planning Applications Committee, while other local councillors had been free to express their opinions.
He said he had considered the proposal carefully. He had not been convinced by Go Ape over parking. He said that in the summer the car park was overused, with cars parked even on the grass verges and that the traffic was chaotic. He said he was not in favour of additional car parking.
He said that in light of the local plan and green belt requirements, he did not consider the Go Ape proposal compatible. He moved that the committee reject the proposal. He was seconded by Clr Margot Clark.
Committee chairman Clr George Redmond moved an amendment that the committee congratulate council officers on their work on the project, recognise that the proposal would have minimum impact on the character of the park, and that the recommendation of council officers should be accepted. He was seconded by Clr Jonathan Findlay.
The vote was six for the motion of Clr McNally and 14 for the amendment of Clr Redmond, so that the planning application was approved.