13 June (Part 1) - Council makes money from old rope
Planning meetings can be a lengthy bore but last Thursday’s covering the controversial Go Ape plans promised to be
lively so I dusted off my long lens. There was a decent crowd outside the Civic
Offices by six twenty five and more in the foyer along with security men.
The following will be a relatively formal report on proceedings but there were
things that may require comment later.
The
public was let into the Council Chamber ten at a time and my photos suggest that there were about 100 people in
attendance, not all of whom were there for Go Ape.
As already noted, the tiered
seating was not in use which put some speakers, and eventually their votes, out of view.
The audience was not especially unruly although the low level chattering was a
distraction at times but few resorted to shouting their opinions. Even so, the
Chairman, Councillor Kurtis Christoforides was ruffled by it especially when Officer judgments were questioned. His
comments and threats to adjourn the meeting only serving to rile the protestors even more.
The discussion began with a presentation by a Planning Officer. The ropeways
would extend both north and south of the central access road and have three
entrances. It will get within 29 metres of residential properties. Historic
England has raised no objections and the existing car park is said to be big enough.
A local resident by the name of Watson said the scheme would have a severe
impact on the park. Environmental habitat, security, safety and legal objections
were raised and the scheme would create noise. It is over-commercialisation of a green space.
A second objector made similar points mentioning the 647 written objections and
2,126 signatures on a petition.
Councillor Andrew Curtois
said he lived next to the proposed site and that the main objection was
the commercialisation of ancient woodland. He said that the law was that there
can be no development of ancient woodland. The application is unlawful and
conducting surveys after permission is granted is not acceptable. Go Ape
installations elsewhere have been wrecked by storms with irretrievable damage
done to trees all for the creation of two full time jobs.
Mr. Stafford was the Go Ape representative and he began his address to Council
with a complaint about the audience being somewhat excitable. The Chairman asked
them to be quiet. Go Ape would benefit the area and the environment would be
respected. The trees would be looked after because they are essential to the
success of the scheme. Litter picking would be daily and between 18 and 30
occasional jobs would be provided for young people.
Councillor Oscar Harrison (Conservative, Longlands) said he was extremely
disappointed by the number of adverse comments about Councillors posted on line.
He did not accept the commercialisation arguments. It has a boating lake and
kiosks and a farmers’ market. He was uncomfortable about the variety of and
unknown number of trees to be felled. He was concerned about noise. He was told
that current proposals envisage five trees being felled and that environmental
health experts had said the noise levels would be insignificant.
Councillor Barry Saunders (Conservative, Falconwood & Welling) questioned the
ancient woodland argument but was particularly concerned about
anti-social
behaviour. Bexley attracts “not nice youths” from outside the borough and Go Ape
might bring more trouble. They decapitate cats and they are disgusting. It will be a big issue.
The Council Officer said that Danson Park is not ancient woodland but it is a
listed heritage asset. The three Go Ape access points will be locked overnight.
Councillor Larry Ferguson (Labour, Thamesmead East) said he was minded to back
the proposal. It was only a small area of the park and will create no
substantial harm. The imposed conditions will ensure that all changes to the park must be reversible.
Councillor
June Slaughter (Conservative, Sidcup) said she had “an awful lot” of questions
and proceeded to reel off 16 concerns. (The Chairman helpfully counted them.)
What will be the effect of concrete blocks on the woodland floor? What is the
long term effect of new structures? Can the Council’s parks team cope? Is
everything really reversible? What are these ecological enhancements mentioned
in the report? What part of the rope course lies outside the tree cover? What do
we know about lighting for evening events? How many customers are allowed on
site? As well as trees being felled, branches will be removed. What is the
effect on tree health? What will the stockades look like? Who will pay for extra
maintenance requirements in the car park? Overnight security will be problematic?
Have we discussed the long term effect of Go Ape with land owners elsewhere?
The Chairman said it is not practical to answer so many questions but she was
told most of her queries were answered in the official report. The Councillor
was told that everything queried was was deemed to be “sufficient” and the maximum number of
customers permitted at the same time would be 128.
Councillor Terry Barcock (Conservative, Sidcup) said that noise would be a big
issue especially for nearby residents. Parking and tree removal were considered
to be of concern but the Council Officer said that no mature trees would be
removed. Immature being defined as under 20 centimetres at chest height. There
will be no ongoing noise monitoring. Councillor Harrison expressed his
unhappiness with the existing noise assessment which was based on a very different Go Ape site.
The proposer in favour of the Application was Councillor Ferguson from far away
Thamesmead and the seconder was the Chairman. To shouts from the public gallery
the Chairman announced that the Application had been approved.