This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
So hard on the heels of the national trust charging to use their properties, comes this
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/13/stoke-gifford-parkrun-c...
I'm not a runner, but parkrun seems to tick all the boxes - free, healthy, fun, inclusive. This parish council ( and I've never found parish councils anything other than cliquey and petty ) seems to regard it as more of a cash cow.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/13/stoke-gifford-parkrun-c...
I'm not a runner, but parkrun seems to tick all the boxes - free, healthy, fun, inclusive. This parish council ( and I've never found parish councils anything other than cliquey and petty ) seems to regard it as more of a cash cow.
6
In reply to toad:
This is causing a big stramash on the running Facebook pages I see. Parkrun is one of the big success stories of running and exercise over recent years - I suspect it's done more to get people exercising than any government initiative (local or national).
I do wonder if this has become an issue for this particular council simply because it is a parish council and may not have the same kind of interests in actively promoting healthy activities. We don't have parish councils in Scotland, so I can't make a direct comparison, but as far as I can see, most Scottish local authorities which have parkruns love them because they help councils point at health living initiatives and activities, without the LA actually having to do anything themselves.
This is causing a big stramash on the running Facebook pages I see. Parkrun is one of the big success stories of running and exercise over recent years - I suspect it's done more to get people exercising than any government initiative (local or national).
I do wonder if this has become an issue for this particular council simply because it is a parish council and may not have the same kind of interests in actively promoting healthy activities. We don't have parish councils in Scotland, so I can't make a direct comparison, but as far as I can see, most Scottish local authorities which have parkruns love them because they help councils point at health living initiatives and activities, without the LA actually having to do anything themselves.
12
In reply to toad:
Hopefully the council will back down. Parkrun isn't really for me- I prefer my runs mucky and off road but it's an absolutely brilliant way to get people off their arses and active. People who might not otherwise get out there- from 4 year olds upwards and the inclusivity and free nature of it is its genius. I volunteer at the local kids parkrun and the thought of councils obstructing it really,really boils my piss.
Hopefully the council will back down. Parkrun isn't really for me- I prefer my runs mucky and off road but it's an absolutely brilliant way to get people off their arses and active. People who might not otherwise get out there- from 4 year olds upwards and the inclusivity and free nature of it is its genius. I volunteer at the local kids parkrun and the thought of councils obstructing it really,really boils my piss.
11
In reply to toad:
It seems they are all amputees as well.
"Brown said that parkrun’s attendance had grown from 50-60 people to more than 300. He said it was not possible to evaluate the cost of the runners’ impact on the park, but said: “Three hundred feet pounding the paths every Saturday morning does cause extra wear.”"
It seems they are all amputees as well.
"Brown said that parkrun’s attendance had grown from 50-60 people to more than 300. He said it was not possible to evaluate the cost of the runners’ impact on the park, but said: “Three hundred feet pounding the paths every Saturday morning does cause extra wear.”"
44
In reply to toad:
If Parkrun were a charity then I suspect there would have been no issue. As other commercial organisations must pay to use that park, why not Parkrun?
(This is not my personal view BTW and I think the decision is wrong).
If Parkrun were a charity then I suspect there would have been no issue. As other commercial organisations must pay to use that park, why not Parkrun?
(This is not my personal view BTW and I think the decision is wrong).
In reply to Toccata:
I don't know about its exact setup but I'd be surprised if Parkrun wasn't a company with non profit passing/charitable aims, which is similar (but obviously not the same!) as being a charity.
I don't know about its exact setup but I'd be surprised if Parkrun wasn't a company with non profit passing/charitable aims, which is similar (but obviously not the same!) as being a charity.
In reply to toad:
To put the cat amongst the pigeons
Parkrun as an organisation makes money, I don't know the details of how but I suspect grants, merchandise sales and sponsorship are the main streams of funding.
Parkrun has an impact (wear and tear, litter, parking) on the public land managed by the council, so the council asks for its cut.
The fair comes to town and sets up on the same land to make money, the fair pays the council for using the land to make money.
To put the cat amongst the pigeons
Parkrun as an organisation makes money, I don't know the details of how but I suspect grants, merchandise sales and sponsorship are the main streams of funding.
Parkrun has an impact (wear and tear, litter, parking) on the public land managed by the council, so the council asks for its cut.
The fair comes to town and sets up on the same land to make money, the fair pays the council for using the land to make money.
10
5
In reply to the thread:
I don't really know much about parkrun event but if they are put on by a commercial organisation, how does that organisation make the money to pay their staff? Does anyone know?
I don't really know much about parkrun event but if they are put on by a commercial organisation, how does that organisation make the money to pay their staff? Does anyone know?
In reply to Toccata:
It may not be a charity as such, but it is a not-for-profit group, the organisers are volunteers, it doesn't charge the runners and has been very successful in encouraging many people to take up running
This is a terrible, negative decision, but I do think there is an increasing risk that parkrun will become a victim of it's own success, as cash strapped councils look for fresh revenue streams. Short term, narrow minded governance being imposed from above.
It may not be a charity as such, but it is a not-for-profit group, the organisers are volunteers, it doesn't charge the runners and has been very successful in encouraging many people to take up running
This is a terrible, negative decision, but I do think there is an increasing risk that parkrun will become a victim of it's own success, as cash strapped councils look for fresh revenue streams. Short term, narrow minded governance being imposed from above.
15
In reply to toad:
I'm in the process of setting up a parkrun for our local area. It's a very long and convoluted process but relies totally on the goodwill of people, volunteers and the negotiation of permissions with the local park. In our case the land owners generally charge for "events" but have proposed that this fee be waived for us as we are non-profit and they recognise the benefits to the community.
I've also run the parkrun in Little Stoke oddly enough. The day I was there they had a football tournament on and the parkrun had to use an alternative start so as not to conflict with the tournament. There was no griping, no argument and the run passed off perfectly. The footballers kicking up the turf on the grass will have done a heck of a lot more damage than the runners on the paths.
To me this is an utterly short-sighted view from the Parish Council and is based on a principle that just does not hold water. The idea of parks is to keep them open for use for all people, the ethos of parkrun is to fit nicely into that.
What is also forgotten is that each parkrun has to raise the funds for the initial set up, and once that is done the local parkrun works on a very simple zero-finance model - there is no money!
We press on with our attempts to get parkrun local to us - we are very close to succeeding and I hope that this move down near Bristol does not cause a knock-on effect to us and elsewhere.
I'm in the process of setting up a parkrun for our local area. It's a very long and convoluted process but relies totally on the goodwill of people, volunteers and the negotiation of permissions with the local park. In our case the land owners generally charge for "events" but have proposed that this fee be waived for us as we are non-profit and they recognise the benefits to the community.
I've also run the parkrun in Little Stoke oddly enough. The day I was there they had a football tournament on and the parkrun had to use an alternative start so as not to conflict with the tournament. There was no griping, no argument and the run passed off perfectly. The footballers kicking up the turf on the grass will have done a heck of a lot more damage than the runners on the paths.
To me this is an utterly short-sighted view from the Parish Council and is based on a principle that just does not hold water. The idea of parks is to keep them open for use for all people, the ethos of parkrun is to fit nicely into that.
What is also forgotten is that each parkrun has to raise the funds for the initial set up, and once that is done the local parkrun works on a very simple zero-finance model - there is no money!
We press on with our attempts to get parkrun local to us - we are very close to succeeding and I hope that this move down near Bristol does not cause a knock-on effect to us and elsewhere.
18
In reply to 3leggeddog:
From the parkrun website :
parkrun is a not-for-profit organisation. All income directly supports our existing events and is used for the development of parkrun. parkrun UK has no shareholders.
From the parkrun website :
parkrun is a not-for-profit organisation. All income directly supports our existing events and is used for the development of parkrun. parkrun UK has no shareholders.
6
In reply to 3leggeddog:
One thing mentioned in the reports about this is the lead-in period for any new Parkrun event, which involves up to two years of negotiation and impact assessment before a venue is agreed. Perhaps the council were caught out by the success of their local event.
One thing mentioned in the reports about this is the lead-in period for any new Parkrun event, which involves up to two years of negotiation and impact assessment before a venue is agreed. Perhaps the council were caught out by the success of their local event.
8
In reply to 3leggeddog:
It's an interesting challenge but you are comparing apples with oranges there.
I am not sure how many people in the parkrun organisation get paid and how much. All I know is that the individual parkrun event is a separate entity from parkrun as a whole and they simply "plug in" to the parkrun model.
Each parkrun event has a zero finance model, so what exactly would the Council bet getting a cut of and how could it estimate that?
When the fair comes to town there is money flying around - there is money in and money out and a profit being turned. When parkrun comes to town a bunch of people run around the paths and then go home with no money having exchanged hands.
It's an interesting challenge but you are comparing apples with oranges there.
I am not sure how many people in the parkrun organisation get paid and how much. All I know is that the individual parkrun event is a separate entity from parkrun as a whole and they simply "plug in" to the parkrun model.
Each parkrun event has a zero finance model, so what exactly would the Council bet getting a cut of and how could it estimate that?
When the fair comes to town there is money flying around - there is money in and money out and a profit being turned. When parkrun comes to town a bunch of people run around the paths and then go home with no money having exchanged hands.
8
In reply to toad:
Local authorities get funded to maintain a neat and un-used looking park so future generations can maintain it looking neat and un-used . That's a really difficult job if members of the public insisting on running round it all the time.
Local authorities get funded to maintain a neat and un-used looking park so future generations can maintain it looking neat and un-used . That's a really difficult job if members of the public insisting on running round it all the time.
11
In reply to 3leggeddog:
Park run has a revenue of £300-400k annually, this pays for a small paid team (12 globally I think), website and all local operating costs. It facilitates about 6m running or volunteering opportunities annually. If the cost model suggested at Little Stoke was applied across park run, it would increase the cost by 2,000%.
Park run has a revenue of £300-400k annually, this pays for a small paid team (12 globally I think), website and all local operating costs. It facilitates about 6m running or volunteering opportunities annually. If the cost model suggested at Little Stoke was applied across park run, it would increase the cost by 2,000%.
6
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
I'm assuming you are trolling but on the very slim off chance you aren't... LAs provide parks as a leisure resource for their residents.
I'm assuming you are trolling but on the very slim off chance you aren't... LAs provide parks as a leisure resource for their residents.
In reply to Rampikino:
I agree not the best of analogies but the issue still stands whether it is a for profit or not for profit organisation. Money moves through the vehicle of the council's land. I wanted to avoid the cliched "cash strapped councils" line but in the case it applies. We are all very aware of the effect of austerity on our public services.
Turning the argument on it's head:
Should the council be expected to donate to the Parkrun cause by not levying a charge for the impact caused by the event? Noting that this donation will have negative impact on other council services.
In a climbing context, access to Foredale quarry was lost on a similar issue. Landowner not happy with commercial interests impacting on his land without his own cut.
I agree not the best of analogies but the issue still stands whether it is a for profit or not for profit organisation. Money moves through the vehicle of the council's land. I wanted to avoid the cliched "cash strapped councils" line but in the case it applies. We are all very aware of the effect of austerity on our public services.
Turning the argument on it's head:
Should the council be expected to donate to the Parkrun cause by not levying a charge for the impact caused by the event? Noting that this donation will have negative impact on other council services.
In a climbing context, access to Foredale quarry was lost on a similar issue. Landowner not happy with commercial interests impacting on his land without his own cut.
2
2
In reply to toad:
How exactly do they intend to stop 300 people going for a run in the park without paying? Just remove the 'parkrun' name or keep the start/finish just outside the park
How exactly do they intend to stop 300 people going for a run in the park without paying? Just remove the 'parkrun' name or keep the start/finish just outside the park
4
In reply to lummox:
I think it was sarcasm, rather than trolling. But there is a grain of truth in what he says. The two goals are to minimise management costs and maximize revenue. If that means (as a local example) telling kids playing football to leave the park, so it can be used for event parking, so be it. The income received from the parking doesn't seem to be used to repair vehicle damage, mind and I'd be surprised if the theoretical income from Parkrun would ever be used to repair the equally theoretical damage from runners.
They could probably save far more money by a few alterations to the frequency and areas of their mowing regime
I think it was sarcasm, rather than trolling. But there is a grain of truth in what he says. The two goals are to minimise management costs and maximize revenue. If that means (as a local example) telling kids playing football to leave the park, so it can be used for event parking, so be it. The income received from the parking doesn't seem to be used to repair vehicle damage, mind and I'd be surprised if the theoretical income from Parkrun would ever be used to repair the equally theoretical damage from runners.
They could probably save far more money by a few alterations to the frequency and areas of their mowing regime
1
1
In reply to lummox:
You're right I am just having a laugh.
But on a serious note it says on Wikipedia the reason this council decided to charge was because "Stoke Gifford Parish Council said it was "unfair" to expect non-running residents to pay for path upkeep" isn't that just a pay per use system? I don't use the swings in my local park but I still pay for them, maybe children should be charged for going on them?
You're right I am just having a laugh.
But on a serious note it says on Wikipedia the reason this council decided to charge was because "Stoke Gifford Parish Council said it was "unfair" to expect non-running residents to pay for path upkeep" isn't that just a pay per use system? I don't use the swings in my local park but I still pay for them, maybe children should be charged for going on them?
16
In reply to 3leggeddog:
Councils have a responsibility to improve the health and wellbeing of their residents, in conjunction with local CCGs, NHS Trusts etc. etc. at significant financial cost. Activity in parkrun is almost certainly helping to reduce health risks and their attendant costs.
I am really struggling to see the monetary impact upon my local council of the children's parkrun I help to organise, for example.
> Should the council be expected to donate to the Parkrun cause by not levying a charge for the impact caused by the event? Noting that this donation will have negative impact on other council services.
Councils have a responsibility to improve the health and wellbeing of their residents, in conjunction with local CCGs, NHS Trusts etc. etc. at significant financial cost. Activity in parkrun is almost certainly helping to reduce health risks and their attendant costs.
I am really struggling to see the monetary impact upon my local council of the children's parkrun I help to organise, for example.
3
In reply to 3leggeddog:
This is what parks are for. It's increasing the benefit of public spending on those parks. Yes, commercial advertising could be objected to, otherwise everyone would be putting adverts in local parks. But a small amount is not a problem and there's usually plenty at council funded events.
This is what parks are for. It's increasing the benefit of public spending on those parks. Yes, commercial advertising could be objected to, otherwise everyone would be putting adverts in local parks. But a small amount is not a problem and there's usually plenty at council funded events.
2
In reply to Tall Clare:
Try telling that to the council HR manager looking at the next round of redundancies seeing Parkrun turning over £400k annually and employing 12 people on the back of free use of council land and services.
> But I think it's been agreed that Parkrun isn't a commercial event.
Try telling that to the council HR manager looking at the next round of redundancies seeing Parkrun turning over £400k annually and employing 12 people on the back of free use of council land and services.
3
10
In reply to lummox:
But that isnt a parish council's responsibility, so no incentive to promote parkrun, unlike, say, a District or County council (although bigger councils can still be pretty shoddy when it comes to commodification of public resources)
> Councils have a responsibility to improve the health and wellbeing of their residents, in conjunction with local CCGs, NHS Trusts etc. etc. at significant financial cost. Activity in parkrun is almost certainly helping to reduce health risks and their attendant costs.
But that isnt a parish council's responsibility, so no incentive to promote parkrun, unlike, say, a District or County council (although bigger councils can still be pretty shoddy when it comes to commodification of public resources)
1
In reply to 3leggeddog:
again you're losing sight of the fact that this is a parish site -they dont have a HR manager (or often, any staff at all). A "proper" LA sees parkrun as a net benefit (currently, at least)
again you're losing sight of the fact that this is a parish site -they dont have a HR manager (or often, any staff at all). A "proper" LA sees parkrun as a net benefit (currently, at least)
3
In reply to 3leggeddog:
As someone said further up, that's the overall Parkrun organisation, not each town's parkrun, which is run effectively as a franchise. Any council HR manager making redundancies based on that should be first in line for a P45.
I work on an event that takes over council land for a weekend every couple of years, all fully agreed with the council. The event is non profit passing and fulfills various council objectives to do with wellbeing and community building. The event is very well supported and contributes to the town's economy through visitors coming from near and far - but every time, there are *still* a couple of people bitching that the parade (clearly publicised with road closure signs and full council support) has held them up for half an hour, or that the car park used by the event should not be used for the event as it's 'wasting council money'. My point here is that events like this deliver an awful lot for councils, arguably far more than they cost the council.
As someone said further up, that's the overall Parkrun organisation, not each town's parkrun, which is run effectively as a franchise. Any council HR manager making redundancies based on that should be first in line for a P45.
I work on an event that takes over council land for a weekend every couple of years, all fully agreed with the council. The event is non profit passing and fulfills various council objectives to do with wellbeing and community building. The event is very well supported and contributes to the town's economy through visitors coming from near and far - but every time, there are *still* a couple of people bitching that the parade (clearly publicised with road closure signs and full council support) has held them up for half an hour, or that the car park used by the event should not be used for the event as it's 'wasting council money'. My point here is that events like this deliver an awful lot for councils, arguably far more than they cost the council.
11
In reply to Tall Clare:
Park run is an amazing success, and as others have said, does far more on the health and wellbeing agenda than many LAs achieve. The parish council doesn't have the same responsibility to promote this that the district council does however. I wonder if a solution would be for the DC to pay a small grant to the PC for the park upkeep. I suspect though that the actual cost of maintenance caused by the parkrun is less than the cost of maintaining play equipment, and they're not charging kids for using the swings.
It shouldn't come to this. It's one of the many side effects of the national government's war on local government and a culture of everybody trying to make money out of everything. Quite depressing.
Park run is an amazing success, and as others have said, does far more on the health and wellbeing agenda than many LAs achieve. The parish council doesn't have the same responsibility to promote this that the district council does however. I wonder if a solution would be for the DC to pay a small grant to the PC for the park upkeep. I suspect though that the actual cost of maintenance caused by the parkrun is less than the cost of maintaining play equipment, and they're not charging kids for using the swings.
It shouldn't come to this. It's one of the many side effects of the national government's war on local government and a culture of everybody trying to make money out of everything. Quite depressing.
4
2
In reply to 3leggeddog:
yes, in general councils should make this kind of 'donation' because the activity contributes to their corporate responsibilities which include promoting the health and wellbeing of their residents. Parkrun clearly has positive effects on mental, physical health and community building. And councils don't have to lift a finger (the impact on maintenance is minimal and therefore a red herring).
However as has been point d out Stoke Gifford is a parish council without wider responsibilities for providing statutory public services so your point about impact on budgets is invalid. Further., someone I know checked and the PC is apparently relatively financially secure.
Parkrun is a charity limited by guarantee which is a form commonly taken by charities (though I don't think PR is a charity). Presumably it chose this form as it makes it easier to do the commercial link ups that it uses to subside the model.
Ps lummox. If you ever do a bit of parkrun tourism come and see us at Lyme Park or Marple - as muddy and off-road as they come!
> Should the council be expected to donate to the Parkrun cause by not levying a charge for the impact caused by the event? Noting that this donation will have negative impact on other council services.
yes, in general councils should make this kind of 'donation' because the activity contributes to their corporate responsibilities which include promoting the health and wellbeing of their residents. Parkrun clearly has positive effects on mental, physical health and community building. And councils don't have to lift a finger (the impact on maintenance is minimal and therefore a red herring).
However as has been point d out Stoke Gifford is a parish council without wider responsibilities for providing statutory public services so your point about impact on budgets is invalid. Further., someone I know checked and the PC is apparently relatively financially secure.
Parkrun is a charity limited by guarantee which is a form commonly taken by charities (though I don't think PR is a charity). Presumably it chose this form as it makes it easier to do the commercial link ups that it uses to subside the model.
Ps lummox. If you ever do a bit of parkrun tourism come and see us at Lyme Park or Marple - as muddy and off-road as they come!
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Agreed - or even if representatives of the PC went along to the park run and explained the situation, I imagine quite a few runners would be up for making voluntary donations. It's the idea of a fee that's problematic, and against the spirit of the event, I think.
> I wonder if a solution would be for the DC to pay a small grant to the PC for the park upkeep. I suspect though that the actual cost of maintenance caused by the parkrun is less than the cost of maintaining play equipment, and they're not charging kids for using the swings.
Agreed - or even if representatives of the PC went along to the park run and explained the situation, I imagine quite a few runners would be up for making voluntary donations. It's the idea of a fee that's problematic, and against the spirit of the event, I think.
2
In reply to toad:
It’s a shame, but 300 people running every week - particularly over a short time period - does have an impact. People park (sometimes badly), people drop litter (and even if they put it in bins, those bins need to be emptied), people need to go for a pee (either in toilets which need to be cleaned, or in bushes), and people erode paths...
All of this costs money to put right, and parks don’t look after themselves.
Councils around the country are in funding crisis thanks to central government cuts, which means services are being cut left right and centre, and they must look for new income streams just to keep their head above water.
It seems a shame, but something has to give. Maybe one of Parkrun’s sponsors can cough up some cash to help the council.
Don’t be surprised if this theme rears its head more frequently in the future.
It’s a shame, but 300 people running every week - particularly over a short time period - does have an impact. People park (sometimes badly), people drop litter (and even if they put it in bins, those bins need to be emptied), people need to go for a pee (either in toilets which need to be cleaned, or in bushes), and people erode paths...
All of this costs money to put right, and parks don’t look after themselves.
Councils around the country are in funding crisis thanks to central government cuts, which means services are being cut left right and centre, and they must look for new income streams just to keep their head above water.
It seems a shame, but something has to give. Maybe one of Parkrun’s sponsors can cough up some cash to help the council.
Don’t be surprised if this theme rears its head more frequently in the future.
1
In reply to Stig:
Not sure the impact on maintenance is minimal, for example re seeding a grass verge every month due to damage caused by inconsiderate parking soon adds up.
Mass participation events all have an impact, this impact could be paid for by direct, overt charging to event organisers/participants or by indirect, covert means (giving the over zealous traffic warden overtime on event days?). Either of these methods would lead to folk ranting on here.
Not sure the impact on maintenance is minimal, for example re seeding a grass verge every month due to damage caused by inconsiderate parking soon adds up.
Mass participation events all have an impact, this impact could be paid for by direct, overt charging to event organisers/participants or by indirect, covert means (giving the over zealous traffic warden overtime on event days?). Either of these methods would lead to folk ranting on here.
1
I'm delighted with parkrun. I had been increasing annoyed by 'monetising of the outdoors' in terms of ever more expensive races pretending to be for charity. While free / cheap running club races are being stopped by health and safety, councils, police charging, england athletics, insurance, or just loss of nerve by organizers in the face of constant threats. Erewash road race, Southwell 10K, Goose Fair Gallop and Epperstone 10K have been local casualties after long histories.
I had thought parkrun would reduce the demand for the overpriced races.
Wrong. The running population has increased hugely.
At an annual league race last night I'd never seen so many.
Parkruns, about 7 round here, are getting up to 400 runners each.
Excellent.
With that demand prices are probably not going to fall.
Hopefully people are going to arrange bigger races and more of them.
I had thought parkrun would reduce the demand for the overpriced races.
Wrong. The running population has increased hugely.
At an annual league race last night I'd never seen so many.
Parkruns, about 7 round here, are getting up to 400 runners each.
Excellent.
With that demand prices are probably not going to fall.
Hopefully people are going to arrange bigger races and more of them.
1
10
In reply to Richard Alderton:
probably off topic, but councils are prohibited for ideological reasons from increasing council tax, and then can't afford to provide the services they are legally obliged to, never mind any extras. There's a solution there somewhere, but I just can't see it...........
probably off topic, but councils are prohibited for ideological reasons from increasing council tax, and then can't afford to provide the services they are legally obliged to, never mind any extras. There's a solution there somewhere, but I just can't see it...........
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Exactly. If the budget is only enough to run the park if it's not used, they are wasting money.
Exactly. If the budget is only enough to run the park if it's not used, they are wasting money.
In reply to toad:
It's easy to see this as a greedy council making money out of laudable charity and jump on the outrage bus but if you read the letter about why they have taken this decision it seems to make sense to me. Could it be that the venue is just not very suitable for parkrun and it should be held elsewhere? I don't know the venue but I can imagine 300 runners not necessarily from the neighbourhood turning up every Saturday and Sunday morning (did I read that right?) and taking over the park could be a bit aggravating for various reasons. Social media frenzy?
It's easy to see this as a greedy council making money out of laudable charity and jump on the outrage bus but if you read the letter about why they have taken this decision it seems to make sense to me. Could it be that the venue is just not very suitable for parkrun and it should be held elsewhere? I don't know the venue but I can imagine 300 runners not necessarily from the neighbourhood turning up every Saturday and Sunday morning (did I read that right?) and taking over the park could be a bit aggravating for various reasons. Social media frenzy?
1
1
In reply to toad:
Someone might need to explain that to my local council who just raised our council tax or possibly some of these:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/families-face-biggest-counci...
"Authorities able to raise council-tax charges by up to 3.99 per cent in 2016-17 without having to call a local referendum"
(Not that I mind the rise in council tax, helps pay for the local services, and free lido)
> probably off topic, but councils are prohibited for ideological reasons from increasing council tax, and then can't afford to provide the services they are legally obliged to, never mind any extras. There's a solution there somewhere, but I just can't see it...........
Someone might need to explain that to my local council who just raised our council tax or possibly some of these:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/families-face-biggest-counci...
"Authorities able to raise council-tax charges by up to 3.99 per cent in 2016-17 without having to call a local referendum"
(Not that I mind the rise in council tax, helps pay for the local services, and free lido)
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Well they pay their council taxes, yes (some of them possibly to a different council I suppose) but that money has to stretch further and further. They (you, me, we) aren't paying enough to maintain the services we would all like.
My local council, Newcastle, has just had a £14m cut in its social care budget from central government. In return, it is permitted to increase council taxes by £1.7m. That's a big gap to fill, and it's happening everywhere.
The council aren't the enemy here. They're the ones who are trying to empty your bins and light the streets and house the vulnerable monitor the air quality and a thousand other things and hopefully have enough left over so that we have a nice park to enjoy. All on less money than last year.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. I would be annoyed being asked to pay for a Parkrun, but we have to be realistic.If you want to blame someone, blame Dave and his idealogical cuts.
Well they pay their council taxes, yes (some of them possibly to a different council I suppose) but that money has to stretch further and further. They (you, me, we) aren't paying enough to maintain the services we would all like.
My local council, Newcastle, has just had a £14m cut in its social care budget from central government. In return, it is permitted to increase council taxes by £1.7m. That's a big gap to fill, and it's happening everywhere.
The council aren't the enemy here. They're the ones who are trying to empty your bins and light the streets and house the vulnerable monitor the air quality and a thousand other things and hopefully have enough left over so that we have a nice park to enjoy. All on less money than last year.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. I would be annoyed being asked to pay for a Parkrun, but we have to be realistic.If you want to blame someone, blame Dave and his idealogical cuts.
5
1
In reply to David Riley:
Couldn't agree more, they boil my piss those things. One of those gimmicky 'colour run' 5k races in the Peak caught my eye last summer - 30 odd quid to enter, heavily advertised as a charity event but after much digging around their website I eventually managed to find in the small print that approximately 2% of nob all was going to their "charity partner".
Caught my eye when, a couple of months before the event, correx signs popped up cable-tied to lamp posts, sign posts and trees all over the place. And of course after the event they didn't bother to take them down again. Should've been done for fly-tipping or sommat. Grr.
> I had been increasing annoyed by 'monetising of the outdoors' in terms of ever more expensive races pretending to be for charity.
Couldn't agree more, they boil my piss those things. One of those gimmicky 'colour run' 5k races in the Peak caught my eye last summer - 30 odd quid to enter, heavily advertised as a charity event but after much digging around their website I eventually managed to find in the small print that approximately 2% of nob all was going to their "charity partner".
Caught my eye when, a couple of months before the event, correx signs popped up cable-tied to lamp posts, sign posts and trees all over the place. And of course after the event they didn't bother to take them down again. Should've been done for fly-tipping or sommat. Grr.
6
In reply to toad:
I can just about picture in my mind the meeting at which this decision was made. About half a dozen councillors, all pretty sedentary and probably several of them co-opted, sitting in a smart village hall renovated with cash from various outside bodies, grumbling about the "locals" having to pay for all the "damage" (extent of which and costs of of repair not specified) done by runners mostly from "outside our area". One might throw in a remark about how it's a point of pride to keep our precept the lowest in the county.
I can just about picture in my mind the meeting at which this decision was made. About half a dozen councillors, all pretty sedentary and probably several of them co-opted, sitting in a smart village hall renovated with cash from various outside bodies, grumbling about the "locals" having to pay for all the "damage" (extent of which and costs of of repair not specified) done by runners mostly from "outside our area". One might throw in a remark about how it's a point of pride to keep our precept the lowest in the county.
1
3
In reply to toad:
What about the football teams who play at the park and are charged.... should they be allowed to play for free.....that was one of the dilemmas the Parish Council faced.
What about the football teams who play at the park and are charged.... should they be allowed to play for free.....that was one of the dilemmas the Parish Council faced.
1
In reply to 3leggeddog:
This is a Parish Council. The District Council chooses to support the parkrun, because of the health, wellbeing and financial benefits to the Stoke Gifford community. The District Council that more than likely actually pays for any actual repairs in the park, rather than the Parish Council.
My own Council supports a parkrun, because it is by far the cheapest way of meeting some of their public health obligations. Another local park puts £10s of thousands in to the park, through participants choosing to use the cafe after the park run.
> Try telling that to the council HR manager looking at the next round of redundancies seeing Parkrun turning over £400k annually and employing 12 people on the back of free use of council land and services.
This is a Parish Council. The District Council chooses to support the parkrun, because of the health, wellbeing and financial benefits to the Stoke Gifford community. The District Council that more than likely actually pays for any actual repairs in the park, rather than the Parish Council.
My own Council supports a parkrun, because it is by far the cheapest way of meeting some of their public health obligations. Another local park puts £10s of thousands in to the park, through participants choosing to use the cafe after the park run.
1
As others have pointed out this is a parish council. They have 15k residents and a budget of £500k a year. For painting the swings and maintains dog bins and other mundane things that parish councils get involved in.
Our local ParkRun is off road. When there are 250-300 cars turning up every Saturday the residents start to get very upset.
We have been continually warned that the continued success of the event depends on us working with the local residents.
Seems to me that there has been a breakdown in communications here. Or maybe the 12 counsellors (6 votes for charging, 4 against) didn't understand ParkRun fully.
Post edited at 13:24
In reply to neilh:
Completely different situation and knowing how much it costs to maintain league standard pitches and associated facilities, football is much more heavily subsidised than parkrun.
Completely different situation and knowing how much it costs to maintain league standard pitches and associated facilities, football is much more heavily subsidised than parkrun.
1
In reply to Richard Alderton:
You make good points and I have much sympathy for your PoV, but 'being asked to pay for a Parkrun' was never going to happen. It just isn't possible (let alone desirable) to start charging people to participate, so the council never stood any chance of raising revenue from the event, all they can do is prevent it from taking place.
I just looked at a news article on this on the BBC website, and of course there were many people criticising the decision, one of whom was the "sports minister Tracy Crouch". Fair comment from all the others, but as a minister in the current government Tracy Crouch can wind her f*cking neck in, she's a culpable as the parish councillors.
> Don't get me wrong, I don't like it. I would be annoyed being asked to pay for a Parkrun, but we have to be realistic.If you want to blame someone, blame Dave and his idealogical cuts.
You make good points and I have much sympathy for your PoV, but 'being asked to pay for a Parkrun' was never going to happen. It just isn't possible (let alone desirable) to start charging people to participate, so the council never stood any chance of raising revenue from the event, all they can do is prevent it from taking place.
I just looked at a news article on this on the BBC website, and of course there were many people criticising the decision, one of whom was the "sports minister Tracy Crouch". Fair comment from all the others, but as a minister in the current government Tracy Crouch can wind her f*cking neck in, she's a culpable as the parish councillors.
5
1
In reply to toad:
I think an important issue here is that it doesn't actually cost the Council anything. The District Council helped with set up costs, but their are no local costs after that. Having been to lots of different parkrun events, the idea that it led to increased maintenance costs in pretty silly.
I the Parish Council wanted to monetarise the event, they could have opened a cafe or even just licence a mobile food and drink operator.
> probably off topic, but councils are prohibited for ideological reasons from increasing council tax, and then can't afford to provide the services they are legally obliged to, never mind any extras. There's a solution there somewhere, but I just can't see it...........
I think an important issue here is that it doesn't actually cost the Council anything. The District Council helped with set up costs, but their are no local costs after that. Having been to lots of different parkrun events, the idea that it led to increased maintenance costs in pretty silly.
I the Parish Council wanted to monetarise the event, they could have opened a cafe or even just licence a mobile food and drink operator.
2
1
In reply to The New NickB:
http://www.stokegiffordjournal.co.uk/2015/11/20/cash-strapped-council-levy-...
The council guy on the news this morning also raised some insurance concerns... does anyone have any details? He also said other joggers, not part of Parkrun ( even at the same time) would not be charged.
http://www.stokegiffordjournal.co.uk/2015/11/20/cash-strapped-council-levy-...
The council guy on the news this morning also raised some insurance concerns... does anyone have any details? He also said other joggers, not part of Parkrun ( even at the same time) would not be charged.
In reply to Offwidth:
As has been pointed out elsewhere, anyone want to give odds on hundreds of people independently turning up for a 5k jog/run this coming Saturday ?
As has been pointed out elsewhere, anyone want to give odds on hundreds of people independently turning up for a 5k jog/run this coming Saturday ?
4
1
In reply to lummox:
Exactly.
Councils are trying to get people active.. the heart trails. These have been an unprecedented success story in getting people active and leading a healthy life. Just brilliant.
They could even just have a donate bucket at each race to maintain parks and I bet people will throw in some cash.. but actually charging is a major backwards step.
I know football teams et charged but they normally need extra maintenance, goals installed, lines painted, grass cut..
> Hopefully the council will back down. Parkrun isn't really for me- I prefer my runs mucky and off road but it's an absolutely brilliant way to get people off their arses and active. People who might not otherwise get out there- from 4 year olds upwards and the inclusivity and free nature of it is its genius. I volunteer at the local kids parkrun and the thought of councils obstructing it really,really boils my piss.
Exactly.
Councils are trying to get people active.. the heart trails. These have been an unprecedented success story in getting people active and leading a healthy life. Just brilliant.
They could even just have a donate bucket at each race to maintain parks and I bet people will throw in some cash.. but actually charging is a major backwards step.
I know football teams et charged but they normally need extra maintenance, goals installed, lines painted, grass cut..
2
In reply to Offwidth:
Insurance is a none issue, the event is fully insured. There are plenty ways of generating revenue. All this does is end the event.
Insurance is a none issue, the event is fully insured. There are plenty ways of generating revenue. All this does is end the event.
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Exactly, that's what the one in Sheffield does.. Just open up the café before the start and people can use the toilets and also get a coffee before and after.
> This is a Parish Council. The District Council chooses to support the parkrun, because of the health, wellbeing and financial benefits to the Stoke Gifford community. The District Council that more than likely actually pays for any actual repairs in the park, rather than the Parish Council.
> My own Council supports a parkrun, because it is by far the cheapest way of meeting some of their public health obligations. Another local park puts £10s of thousands in to the park, through participants choosing to use the cafe after the park run.
Exactly, that's what the one in Sheffield does.. Just open up the café before the start and people can use the toilets and also get a coffee before and after.
1
In reply to 3leggeddog:
Parkrun does not make money, it has some revenue from sponsors, it pays a small number of staff to support thousands of volunteers to run approximately 700 events each week. It is non-profit making.
Parkrun does not make money, it has some revenue from sponsors, it pays a small number of staff to support thousands of volunteers to run approximately 700 events each week. It is non-profit making.
In reply to toad:
No idea what these are like as I hate running and would never go near one.
Having said that its clearly good, healthy (if you don't count joint damage) activity that is to be encouraged.
However, public facilities are there for everyone, and I have to say hundreds of people turning up regularly and taking over the park makes it hard for other park users to enjoy what ever they may wish to do in the park - perhaps that is part of the reasoning.
Despite protestations about litter clear ups etc, the noise and rubbish, parking issues etc could well be getting other peoples backs up.
A good example of this is Clapham common where just about very square meter of it now seems to be used by fitness instructors and groups barking orders, listening to music etc, making it less pleasant for families etc.
If the Parkrun company is making money (even if free to participants) then it should pay its way.
No idea what these are like as I hate running and would never go near one.
Having said that its clearly good, healthy (if you don't count joint damage) activity that is to be encouraged.
However, public facilities are there for everyone, and I have to say hundreds of people turning up regularly and taking over the park makes it hard for other park users to enjoy what ever they may wish to do in the park - perhaps that is part of the reasoning.
Despite protestations about litter clear ups etc, the noise and rubbish, parking issues etc could well be getting other peoples backs up.
A good example of this is Clapham common where just about very square meter of it now seems to be used by fitness instructors and groups barking orders, listening to music etc, making it less pleasant for families etc.
If the Parkrun company is making money (even if free to participants) then it should pay its way.
4
5
In reply to Bobling:
Saturday's primarily. The Sunday's is junior parkrun, this is usually once a month and a much smaller event.
Saturday's primarily. The Sunday's is junior parkrun, this is usually once a month and a much smaller event.
1
1
In reply to 3leggeddog:
But they don't make money through running the actual events. No one pays to attend the events. Money is made through donations and buying stuff ("I've completed 10 parkruns" T shirts etc), which is then re-invested in events (i.e. no profit for anyone to be "taking a cut of", as others have suggested).
I also think you should consider that that money is based around 362 locations (wikipedia figure). If this park run is "average" (I expect it isn't, I expect much larger events will be held in big cities), that would suggest about £1000 and 0.03 of an employee (less than 2 weeks) for this event, which suggests a rather different scale of event.
Of course, even those figures are rubbish, as most of the central time and effort goes into setting up new events, website, online shop, development, PR etc, rather than the local events, which as many people have said above are organised by local volunteers for local people.
> Try telling that to the council HR manager looking at the next round of redundancies seeing Parkrun turning over £400k annually and employing 12 people on the back of free use of council land and services.
But they don't make money through running the actual events. No one pays to attend the events. Money is made through donations and buying stuff ("I've completed 10 parkruns" T shirts etc), which is then re-invested in events (i.e. no profit for anyone to be "taking a cut of", as others have suggested).
I also think you should consider that that money is based around 362 locations (wikipedia figure). If this park run is "average" (I expect it isn't, I expect much larger events will be held in big cities), that would suggest about £1000 and 0.03 of an employee (less than 2 weeks) for this event, which suggests a rather different scale of event.
Of course, even those figures are rubbish, as most of the central time and effort goes into setting up new events, website, online shop, development, PR etc, rather than the local events, which as many people have said above are organised by local volunteers for local people.
Post edited at 15:04
1
In reply to toad:
There's a lot of chat about this but I've not see anyone address all the reasons flagged by the parish council, there are some valid points in there along with some less valid (Saturday AND Sunday?)
http://www.stokegifford.org.uk/attachments/article/468/Stoke%20Gifford%20Pa...
Why should Parkrun UK contribute towards Little Stoke Park Maintenance?
There's a lot of chat about this but I've not see anyone address all the reasons flagged by the parish council, there are some valid points in there along with some less valid (Saturday AND Sunday?)
http://www.stokegifford.org.uk/attachments/article/468/Stoke%20Gifford%20Pa...
Why should Parkrun UK contribute towards Little Stoke Park Maintenance?
> Parkrun are an organised group with paid directors and staff and attract over 300 runners using the park & facilities each week.
> There is no limit to the number of runners that use the park.
> They are sponsored by national companies.
> They monopolise the park paths and car park between 0830 & 1030 each Saturday and Sunday.
> They use the parks toilets and washing facilities.
> They use Council storage space.
> A large number of runners are from outside the Parish of Stoke Gifford and come from all across South Gloucestershire, Bristol and further afield to use the facilities in this area (which are financed by Stoke Gifford Council tax payers).
> Little Stoke car park is too small for their parking use.
> Complaints have been received from local residents relating to pavement & grass verge parking, park users and hall hirers regarding a number of incidents involving runners over the last three years.
> There is no limit to the number of runners that use the park.
> They are sponsored by national companies.
> They monopolise the park paths and car park between 0830 & 1030 each Saturday and Sunday.
> They use the parks toilets and washing facilities.
> They use Council storage space.
> A large number of runners are from outside the Parish of Stoke Gifford and come from all across South Gloucestershire, Bristol and further afield to use the facilities in this area (which are financed by Stoke Gifford Council tax payers).
> Little Stoke car park is too small for their parking use.
> Complaints have been received from local residents relating to pavement & grass verge parking, park users and hall hirers regarding a number of incidents involving runners over the last three years.
2
In reply to Loughan:
Most of these comments have been dealt with by locals to Little Stoke Park. Some of it is just dishonesty from Stoke Gifford Parish Council.
Most of these comments have been dealt with by locals to Little Stoke Park. Some of it is just dishonesty from Stoke Gifford Parish Council.
2
1
In reply to toad:
There are ever more people, a growing interest in the outdoors at both a personal and a business level, and ever decreasing amenity land near population centres as more housing and stuff is built.
I don't see the problems associated with this going away. Large, organised events that produce discrete chunks of visible wear and tear are always going to be at the forefront of the drama. Many other organisations profit more silently from country infrastructure maintained at taxpayers and landowners expense. The whole industry - magazines, kit and clothes manufacturers, retailers etc make money by growing their business of the back of the "natural" environment, which is kept in its decidedly unnatural stare at someone else's expense.
I don't have a clue what the answer is, but letting local authorities muddle through penalising what most would regards as one of the more ethical players in popularising excercise and the great outdoors is not the way to do it.
There are ever more people, a growing interest in the outdoors at both a personal and a business level, and ever decreasing amenity land near population centres as more housing and stuff is built.
I don't see the problems associated with this going away. Large, organised events that produce discrete chunks of visible wear and tear are always going to be at the forefront of the drama. Many other organisations profit more silently from country infrastructure maintained at taxpayers and landowners expense. The whole industry - magazines, kit and clothes manufacturers, retailers etc make money by growing their business of the back of the "natural" environment, which is kept in its decidedly unnatural stare at someone else's expense.
I don't have a clue what the answer is, but letting local authorities muddle through penalising what most would regards as one of the more ethical players in popularising excercise and the great outdoors is not the way to do it.
Post edited at 16:34
3
> Parkrun are an organised group with paid directors and staff and attract over 300 runners using the park & facilities each week.
All 300 runners are members of the public using a public park for one of the activities for which it was designed. > There is no limit to the number of runners that use the park.
So, it's a park then.> They are sponsored by national companies.
So?> They monopolise the park paths and car park between 0830 & 1030 each Saturday and Sunday.
Any park user who drives to the park presumably uses the car park. Also, Parkruns (I've not done the Stoke Gifford one, but I've done others) are very considerate to other park users. They definitely do not 'monopolise' anything, and saying so is just inflationary on the part of the council. And as you observe, they're on Saturday so I'm not sure what the Sunday comment is supposed to be in reference to.> They use the parks toilets and washing facilities.
Like members of the public then.> They use Council storage space.
Presumably implying the council offered it to them, unless they showed up with bolt cutters?> A large number of runners are from outside the Parish of Stoke Gifford and come from all across South Gloucestershire, Bristol and further afield to use the facilities in this area (which are financed by Stoke Gifford Council tax payers).
This seems fishy to me. Stoke Gifford is surrounded on 3 sides by other Parkruns, atleast 2 of which are in locations that have better facilities than the Stoke Gifford field. One is at Ashton Court which is fully fitted out with National Trust-type facilities, and even the Pomphrey Hill one has a cafe (which is open and used during the Parkrun). Are they seriously claiming people travel further, past other options, in order to run at a venue which has no facilities beyond grass and toilets?> Little Stoke car park is too small for their parking use.
How would charging them fix this? This is back pedalling by the council trying to make it look like their request for money was anything other than an ill advised cash grab.> Complaints have been received from local residents relating to pavement & grass verge parking, park users and hall hirers regarding a number of incidents involving runners over the last three years.
This sentence doesn't even make sense. Are the local residents complaining about hall hirers? Also, as before, how would charging them fix this?This is just a petty group of individuals who haven't got any proper authority over anything important, so they get elected to a parish council where they can pretend they're in charge of something, complaining that the public is daring to use a public park. They're now quite rightly getting a kicking for it and trying to reverse engineer some justification.
As an aside, Bristol council have been taking a beating for this for the last 2 days over twitter. Bit harsh considering it's nothing to do with their area! I don't expect South Gloucestershire council are pleased either, as it IS in their area but they are very supportive of initiatives like this. There is a running group in the park near my house that receives a degree of support from South Glos council.
11
In reply to mullermn:
The reference to Sunday mornings is Junior Parkrun. This is once a month and a much smaller event.
The reference to Sunday mornings is Junior Parkrun. This is once a month and a much smaller event.
1
In reply to mullermn:
I wonder about the claim of "dominating the park from 8:30 to 10:30" as well. I don't know the park, but at most parkrun events, most people turn up at 8:50, fast finishers are leaving the park by 9:20 and even when I've volunteered as a sweep / tail runner, I have been on my way home before 10. The only thing that generally keeps people longer is a cafe.
I wonder about the claim of "dominating the park from 8:30 to 10:30" as well. I don't know the park, but at most parkrun events, most people turn up at 8:50, fast finishers are leaving the park by 9:20 and even when I've volunteered as a sweep / tail runner, I have been on my way home before 10. The only thing that generally keeps people longer is a cafe.
3
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I don't know about other organisations, but the "original" outdoor fitness instruction company (British Military Fitness) at least pays for its use of parks around the country...Clapham Common included.
> A good example of this is Clapham common where just about very square meter of it now seems to be used by fitness instructors and groups barking orders, listening to music etc, making it less pleasant for families etc.
I don't know about other organisations, but the "original" outdoor fitness instruction company (British Military Fitness) at least pays for its use of parks around the country...Clapham Common included.
Post edited at 17:09
6
In reply to toad:
My local park has recently been spoiled by hundreds of overweight folk stampeding round, puffing and panting and dripping with sweat every Sunday morning just when I like to go over with the mongrels to quietly do our business.
My local park has recently been spoiled by hundreds of overweight folk stampeding round, puffing and panting and dripping with sweat every Sunday morning just when I like to go over with the mongrels to quietly do our business.
4
In reply to toad:
70+ replies to ParkRun v elected council
27 replies to BMC v NT
I think UKC might be showing a bit of bias here.
70+ replies to ParkRun v elected council
27 replies to BMC v NT
I think UKC might be showing a bit of bias here.
1
In reply to lummox:
Try the park run at Killerton in Devon. That ticks both boxes!
> Hopefully the council will back down. Parkrun isn't really for me- I prefer my runs mucky and off road
Try the park run at Killerton in Devon. That ticks both boxes!
In reply to bouldery bits:
But if a drive from Leeds though!
> Try the park run at Killerton in Devon. That ticks both boxes!
But if a drive from Leeds though!
1
In reply to L'Eeyore:
You might have to explain that.
> 70+ replies to ParkRun v elected council
> 27 replies to BMC v NT
> I think UKC might be showing a bit of bias here.
You might have to explain that.
2
In reply to The New NickB:
Bouldery bits has done it better than me, ask him/her to explain - I'm in a bad mood...
> You might have to explain that.
Bouldery bits has done it better than me, ask him/her to explain - I'm in a bad mood...
1
1
1
In reply to Rob Naylor:
It does indeed, but whilst they pay, who compensates the public who are put out. There's plenty of space there, but of course the council license any old company that asks because they need the cash and they then of course feel entitled to do what they like.
It's a difficult question especially with so little open space in london. Where I am in Surrey there's a rec or cricket ground in every village if you want fitness type training and organised stuff, and nice woods and things if you want peace.
> I don't know about other organisations, but the "original" outdoor fitness instruction company (British Military Fitness) at least pays for its use of parks around the country...Clapham Common included.
It does indeed, but whilst they pay, who compensates the public who are put out. There's plenty of space there, but of course the council license any old company that asks because they need the cash and they then of course feel entitled to do what they like.
It's a difficult question especially with so little open space in london. Where I am in Surrey there's a rec or cricket ground in every village if you want fitness type training and organised stuff, and nice woods and things if you want peace.
In reply to Loughan:
> There's a lot of chat about this but I've not see anyone address all the reasons flagged by the parish council, there are some valid points in there along with some less valid (Saturday AND Sunday?)
Parkrun UK did address these points in great detail in an open letter to the Parish Council, sadly I can't quickly find it right now but it was very well reasoned and drew on actual data and statistics rather than the rhetoric the council used.> Parkrun are an organised group with paid directors and staff and attract over 300 runners using the park & facilities each week.
Parkrun have very few (12 I think) paid staff who provide support to thousands of volunteers across the country (indeed the world). The whole parkrun ethos is as much about encouraging people to volunteer and so build a supportive community as it is about running.> There is no limit to the number of runners that use the park.
There absolutely is a limit. Each event has a full risk assessment which will include a safe limit on the number of runners. Indeed the event has been cancelled this week precisely because of fears that the publicity will result in too many people attending (the Parish Council ban doesn't come in to force until May).> They are sponsored by national companies.
Yes, but that's not a bad thing. Parkrun have been very careful in their choice of sponsors and as that's their only source of income *at all* they need to do this in order to fund the setup of events.> They monopolise the park paths and car park between 0830 & 1030 each Saturday and Sunday.
Twaddle. The event organisers and key volunteers will turn up at 8:30 but the vast bulk of participants will arrive much closer to 9am. By 9:35 the bulk of people will have finished running and by 9:45 even the walkers will be done.> They use the parks toilets and washing facilities.
I hope they do.> They use Council storage space.
According to parkrun this is with the agreement of the council. In their open letter they simply say that if the PC would prefer them not to they'll happily make other arrangements.> A large number of runners are from outside the Parish of Stoke Gifford and come from all across South Gloucestershire, Bristol and further afield to use the facilities in this area (which are financed by Stoke Gifford Council tax payers).
How incredibly small minded. I'm sure that residents of the Parish of Stoke Gifford occasionally stray outside of the parish boundaries and use facilities in other parishes too.> Little Stoke car park is too small for their parking use.
Parkrun UK pointed out that they marshal their carpark use on a Saturday morning and ensure that at least one third of the spaces are left for other users which has always been enough.> Complaints have been received from local residents relating to pavement & grass verge parking, park users and hall hirers regarding a number of incidents involving runners over the last three years.
Parkrun keeps a very detailed record of all incidents and complaints which are reported to them and pointed out that very few had been passed on from the PC. They asked why, if the PC had received complaints, they had not been passed on.
7
In reply to toad:
Hugely short sighted but the real story here isn't the charging as Parkrun will just pack up at this location. The real issue is that other parks will jump onto the charging bandwagon and next thing you know no more Parkruns
Hugely short sighted but the real story here isn't the charging as Parkrun will just pack up at this location. The real issue is that other parks will jump onto the charging bandwagon and next thing you know no more Parkruns
In reply to balmybaldwin:
So little open space in London!?!
One of London's redeeming features as a city is the amount of public open space it has.
So little open space in London!?!
One of London's redeeming features as a city is the amount of public open space it has.
6
In reply to toad:
So I don't agree with the decision to charge park run for the use of the park but.....,
I have a lot of sympathy for stoke gifford parish council
Parks are quite expensive to maintain. ( I need to find 30K for drainage works in the local park i help look after)
There is no statutory requirements for councils to fund parks so they are always first on the list when funding is to get cut. as an example there are 105 parks in southampton with a team of 6 to look after all of them that means that all they can do is cut the grass and mostly they are behind on that, and heaven help you if you need an expensive capital project like a path repairing.
so the question here is not if the council should charge park run or not (they shouldn't) but if we should be pushing the government to make the provision of green space a statutory responsibility with ringfenced funding.
So I don't agree with the decision to charge park run for the use of the park but.....,
I have a lot of sympathy for stoke gifford parish council
Parks are quite expensive to maintain. ( I need to find 30K for drainage works in the local park i help look after)
There is no statutory requirements for councils to fund parks so they are always first on the list when funding is to get cut. as an example there are 105 parks in southampton with a team of 6 to look after all of them that means that all they can do is cut the grass and mostly they are behind on that, and heaven help you if you need an expensive capital project like a path repairing.
so the question here is not if the council should charge park run or not (they shouldn't) but if we should be pushing the government to make the provision of green space a statutory responsibility with ringfenced funding.
4
In reply to mullermn:
Pretty much every Parish Council has to strong-arm volunteers to become councillors. So your solution here is simple. Stop whining on a forum, join your local PC and actually change something.
> This is just a petty group of individuals who haven't got any proper authority over anything important, so they get elected to a parish council where they can pretend they're in charge of something, complaining that the public is daring to use a public park. They're now quite rightly getting a kicking for it and trying to reverse engineer some justification.
Pretty much every Parish Council has to strong-arm volunteers to become councillors. So your solution here is simple. Stop whining on a forum, join your local PC and actually change something.
2
In reply to Rampikino:
If there is organised football, they will be paying to use the park. I know for certain that football clubs in my area pay to use council-owned pitches.
Parish councils have a budget of around £20-30 per resident per annum. Outside a narrow limit they can no longer increase that. Most of what that £20-30 goes on is statutory and cannot be changed so the actual discretionary spend is a few quid a year per resident. So what are you going to spend that few quid a year on?
> I've also run the parkrun in Little Stoke oddly enough. The day I was there they had a football tournament on and the parkrun had to use an alternative start so as not to conflict with the tournament. There was no griping, no argument and the run passed off perfectly. The footballers kicking up the turf on the grass will have done a heck of a lot more damage than the runners on the paths.
If there is organised football, they will be paying to use the park. I know for certain that football clubs in my area pay to use council-owned pitches.
Parish councils have a budget of around £20-30 per resident per annum. Outside a narrow limit they can no longer increase that. Most of what that £20-30 goes on is statutory and cannot be changed so the actual discretionary spend is a few quid a year per resident. So what are you going to spend that few quid a year on?
In reply to Dogwatch:
I understand the 'if you want something to change, get involved' logic, but I think you're being too simplistic.
If someone gets mugged you don't tell them 'well, stop whining and join the police', if someone doesn't like their bank's policies you don't say 'well, get a career in financial services'. It's not unreasonable to expect people to do a decent job of the roles they've agreed to do.
I understand the 'if you want something to change, get involved' logic, but I think you're being too simplistic.
If someone gets mugged you don't tell them 'well, stop whining and join the police', if someone doesn't like their bank's policies you don't say 'well, get a career in financial services'. It's not unreasonable to expect people to do a decent job of the roles they've agreed to do.
In reply to james wardle:
Absolutely. Been fighting for this in various ways for years. But parks are increasingly seen as a revenue generator, not a public resource. My (tory) council is surprisingly well disposed towards nature conservation, but the general greenspace budget is a fraction of what it should be, and every possible opportunity for cost cutting is utilised - there are some genuine efficiency savings to be had, but the majority of them are either a deleterious reduction in maintenance (which will eventually come back to bite them down the line when avoidable major repair works are required) or silly avoidable mistakes because of inadequate supervision
> so the question here is not if the council should charge park run or not (they shouldn't) but if we should be pushing the government to make the provision of green space a statutory responsibility with ringfenced funding.
Absolutely. Been fighting for this in various ways for years. But parks are increasingly seen as a revenue generator, not a public resource. My (tory) council is surprisingly well disposed towards nature conservation, but the general greenspace budget is a fraction of what it should be, and every possible opportunity for cost cutting is utilised - there are some genuine efficiency savings to be had, but the majority of them are either a deleterious reduction in maintenance (which will eventually come back to bite them down the line when avoidable major repair works are required) or silly avoidable mistakes because of inadequate supervision
In reply to mullermn:
There are a surprising number of people who have tried the "get involved" approach and then quickly stand down when they realise that they are up against an established clique who won't countenance any change to the status quo. Plus there's a big time commitment, which usually rules out the younger, more energetic elements because of stuff like childcare
There are a surprising number of people who have tried the "get involved" approach and then quickly stand down when they realise that they are up against an established clique who won't countenance any change to the status quo. Plus there's a big time commitment, which usually rules out the younger, more energetic elements because of stuff like childcare
You are in this case attacking volunteers. The comparison with police or banks is facile.
The problem with Parish Councils is that fewer and fewer are willing to become councillors or even turn up to council meetings, which are all public. The few who are willing are mostly retired. So do you plan to do something about it or just whinge?
The problem with Parish Councils is that fewer and fewer are willing to become councillors or even turn up to council meetings, which are all public. The few who are willing are mostly retired. So do you plan to do something about it or just whinge?
In reply to toad:
Yes I recognise both of those. The only thing that will change that is enough new people being willing to stand.
> There are a surprising number of people who have tried the "get involved" approach and then quickly stand down when they realise that they are up against an established clique who won't countenance any change to the status quo. Plus there's a big time commitment, which usually rules out the younger, more energetic elements because of stuff like childcare.
Yes I recognise both of those. The only thing that will change that is enough new people being willing to stand.
In reply to Dogwatch:
I was quite surprised when I looked up the councillors involved and found that they were politically affiliated. The party membership issue, probably means handing candidates is less of an issue, although I did see that one of the wards was uncontested at the last elections. I don't live in an area with Parish Councils, so my experience is limited, but my Mum was a PC in Lancashire. At the time all the Councillors in her parish were independent, generally small c conservative, but independent. She would never have been elected on a party political platform.
If you read some of the information about this decision, the Little Stoke parkrun team / community were more than willing to work with the PC to improve the park. They were already doing a lot of work to minimise their impact, particularly around parking. They had offered to get together volunteer work parties etc. Remember parkrun is already a volunteer organisation, these are the sorts of people that the PC should want involved in their local facilities.
The ideal solution is probably some sort of Friends of Little Stoke Park group, with involvement from all user groups, the ability to apply for grants, the motivation and nouse to generate income in more sensible ways and agency to resolve problems between user groups. Unfortunately, at least some of my experience is that politician, particularly ones like these on the lowest rung of political office, hate to give out influence over parts of their little empire.
I mainly get the impression that a couple of key members of the PC just don't want parkrun in Little Stoke Park and have created a series of issues that don't honestly reflect the situation on the ground.
> Pretty much every Parish Council has to strong-arm volunteers to become councillors. So your solution here is simple. Stop whining on a forum, join your local PC and actually change something.
I was quite surprised when I looked up the councillors involved and found that they were politically affiliated. The party membership issue, probably means handing candidates is less of an issue, although I did see that one of the wards was uncontested at the last elections. I don't live in an area with Parish Councils, so my experience is limited, but my Mum was a PC in Lancashire. At the time all the Councillors in her parish were independent, generally small c conservative, but independent. She would never have been elected on a party political platform.
If you read some of the information about this decision, the Little Stoke parkrun team / community were more than willing to work with the PC to improve the park. They were already doing a lot of work to minimise their impact, particularly around parking. They had offered to get together volunteer work parties etc. Remember parkrun is already a volunteer organisation, these are the sorts of people that the PC should want involved in their local facilities.
The ideal solution is probably some sort of Friends of Little Stoke Park group, with involvement from all user groups, the ability to apply for grants, the motivation and nouse to generate income in more sensible ways and agency to resolve problems between user groups. Unfortunately, at least some of my experience is that politician, particularly ones like these on the lowest rung of political office, hate to give out influence over parts of their little empire.
I mainly get the impression that a couple of key members of the PC just don't want parkrun in Little Stoke Park and have created a series of issues that don't honestly reflect the situation on the ground.
Post edited at 10:59
4
In reply to toad:
I love my local parkrun. In fact I am trying to start one closer as currently I have to drive to one (which isn't very green).
However, each could be being run in a completely different way as local volunteers follow a model but can effectively change things as they seem fit. Some may clean up after themselves, others won't do it properly etc. People even bring in cake and share it with all the runners.
I see this as a wider political issue. The current government favors decentralization and giving more powers to local councils in the way they raise and spend money. This council is obviously trying to find ways of raising more money. I doubt they have anything against parkrun, it is just an excuse to get more income from a popular event.
It works when you have a good council and doesn't work when you have a bad one. A bit like Jeremy Corbyn's argument today to stay in the EU. He doesn't trust government to make the right decisions on the environment, job security and our national security so he would rather someone else do it.
I have a fantastic local council which is actually considering helping us raise the £3000 needed to create another park run.
I love my local parkrun. In fact I am trying to start one closer as currently I have to drive to one (which isn't very green).
However, each could be being run in a completely different way as local volunteers follow a model but can effectively change things as they seem fit. Some may clean up after themselves, others won't do it properly etc. People even bring in cake and share it with all the runners.
I see this as a wider political issue. The current government favors decentralization and giving more powers to local councils in the way they raise and spend money. This council is obviously trying to find ways of raising more money. I doubt they have anything against parkrun, it is just an excuse to get more income from a popular event.
It works when you have a good council and doesn't work when you have a bad one. A bit like Jeremy Corbyn's argument today to stay in the EU. He doesn't trust government to make the right decisions on the environment, job security and our national security so he would rather someone else do it.
I have a fantastic local council which is actually considering helping us raise the £3000 needed to create another park run.
1
In reply to Dogwatch:
My point wasn't about whether or not the footballers were paying - it was simply that the parkrun gave way to the football tournament without any fuss or problems and that both could co-exist.
> If there is organised football, they will be paying to use the park. I know for certain that football clubs in my area pay to use council-owned pitches.
> Parish councils have a budget of around £20-30 per resident per annum. Outside a narrow limit they can no longer increase that. Most of what that £20-30 goes on is statutory and cannot be changed so the actual discretionary spend is a few quid a year per resident. So what are you going to spend that few quid a year on?
My point wasn't about whether or not the footballers were paying - it was simply that the parkrun gave way to the football tournament without any fuss or problems and that both could co-exist.
In reply to Dogwatch:
Councils spend hundreds of thousands of pounds a year maintaining football pitches, think £6-7,000 per pitch. Much more if they also providing changing facilities and toilet. There will be a limited number of games that can be played on each pitch per week. That £30-40 that a team pays for a pitch probably equates to £3,000 in revenue per pitch for the Council. A 3G pitch can bring in much more revenue, maybe several thousand pounds a week, but the facility will probably cost £3-400,000 plus ongoing maintenance and lifecycle costs. Both types of facility require active management. Footballers may have to pay for exclusive use of facilities, but considering the real costs, the costs are generally heavily subsidised.
Parkrun on the other hand used the path around the park, which needs to be maintained anyway. I wonder how much Stoke Gifford PC have actually spent on path repairs in Little Gifford Park in the last two years.
> If there is organised football, they will be paying to use the park. I know for certain that football clubs in my area pay to use council-owned pitches.
Councils spend hundreds of thousands of pounds a year maintaining football pitches, think £6-7,000 per pitch. Much more if they also providing changing facilities and toilet. There will be a limited number of games that can be played on each pitch per week. That £30-40 that a team pays for a pitch probably equates to £3,000 in revenue per pitch for the Council. A 3G pitch can bring in much more revenue, maybe several thousand pounds a week, but the facility will probably cost £3-400,000 plus ongoing maintenance and lifecycle costs. Both types of facility require active management. Footballers may have to pay for exclusive use of facilities, but considering the real costs, the costs are generally heavily subsidised.
Parkrun on the other hand used the path around the park, which needs to be maintained anyway. I wonder how much Stoke Gifford PC have actually spent on path repairs in Little Gifford Park in the last two years.
Post edited at 12:40
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...