UKC

Few things get my goat like this sort of short sightedness by the parish council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-36032842

I'm not usually one for online petitions but Ive just signed up.

In reply to The bandit:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=638663

Afraid you've been beaten to it.

In reply to The bandit:

Yes, seems very short sighted on their part. Fingers also need pointing at central government for cutting council funding to the bone and beyond, no doubt there will be other bad decisions made in the desperate quest to raise a bit of cash and/or cut spending.

You may have missed it, the title doesn't make it obvious, but there's already a thread on this here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=638663

In reply to deepsoup:

The other side of this....... The local football teams who play at the park are charged......so they have kicked up a fuss and want a discount.

In reply to deepsoup:

The other thread's in the wrong forum so missed by anyone with the politics-and-biscuits forums turned off

In reply to neilh:


They are already heavily discounted.

In reply to The bandit:

Parish councils have very small budgets and I can see that 200+ people descending on a local park every Saturday am will soon cause undue wear and tear on grass and path boundaries etc. Why should the parish local's suffer either cuts in their other services increased parish rates or a wreaked park?

I see no difference between the organised runners and the local football clubs- who do pay.

The parish council are not proposing to charge all runners, just like they would not charge a small group of kids or adults having an impromptu kick about in the park (ball games permitting)

and yes this is a consequence of where we are economically, and the government we voted in. Budget Holders are focusing in on core services. General Population health is not a parish council service.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Indeed. This one has a more appropriate title too, prolly.
All the more reason to chuck in a link for the OP and anyone else who may have missed the other one, it's worth a read.

In reply to twodada:

Is it undue wear and tear, caused by a park being used for what a park is for? Why should parish locals suffer? Well who is doing the park run then? They are locals, by and large. Also, locals who run businesses benefit.

As taxpayers generally, btw, we all benefit financially from Parkrun long term. I appreciate that a parish council may not be able to afford to look at the big picture, but the long term benefits of people getting out for a run *vastly* outweigh the costs of a bit more wear and tear on the municipal facilities they're using to get a bit of exercise. Health care, especially that related to obesity, heart conditions etc. is expensive.

All moot anyway. The parish council can't charge the Parkrun, because the Parkrun doesn't have the means to pay. They could raise a bit of cash some other way with a bit of imagination though most likely, for example maybe they could flog a concession for a coffee van or something. If they already have a concession for an ice cream van in the summer, the parkrun makes it significantly more valuable.


Well of course not, how could they? I wonder what the odds are that a couple of hundred individuals might coincidentally turn up at the same time to go for a little run?

In reply to twodada:
Edit: This ^^^^^


Can you explain in what way the wear and tear from 200+ people from in and around the parish using a recreational facility for healthy recreational use can be described as "undue"?

In reply to deepsoup:


If my social media is anything to go by, I think they might get their biggest attendance every this Saturday by some margin, official parkrun or otherwise.

In reply to The bandit:
You see, I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's a Ltd company with paid directors that runs good sized events in parks. Why they can't contribute like other clubs isn't clear to me.

Plus, what about liability? What's to stop someone suing the council for a mistake made by Parkrun?

To me it's very much corporate thing and should be charged as such. Having 350 captive runners is a gold mind for sponsors.

In reply to john arran:
I think the problem comes early on in the session, John. Narrow paths with lots of bunched up people and soft verges do tend to lead to mud baths. Particularly at the moment when nothing seems to be drying out.

Either way, the point for me isn't the maintenance, it's the fact it's a Ltd company (which is beyond most usual recreational clubs) and (from it's accounts) can afford to pay a minimal fee to help out the park budget.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

It's a non profit passing company with charitable aims. The individual park runs are effectively franchises. Not all limited companies are the same.

In reply to Tall Clare:
Sure. But what happens when it comes to liability? I'd be surprised if they have specific insurance without written consent of the land owner... which they clearly cannot have.

While the intentions may well be admirable, in my opinion it's surprising they're permitted to operate in their current guise without formal agreements with the spaces they use as is standard procedure for events companies.

However, this publicity should help boost their sponsorship coffers a bit!

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

It's worth looking through the other thread (yes I know, but I'm not a runner and didn't consider this a running specific issue) as a couple of people with experience explain the procedure for setting up a park run event. Suffice to say, they DO have a formal agreement with the owners of the venues.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


parkruns are covered by UK Athletics' insurance scheme for clubs.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I know there's a two year lead-in to each event launch, which I believe will include establishing who's liable for what, and who pays for it. Rampiniko on the other thread is setting up a park run at the moment - perhaps he could explain how it works.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


The have insurance through UKA, but that requires land owner consent, which they have.


They have agreement. This is about the Parish Council withdrawing consent if they don't pay them.

In reply to The bandit:

Yeah, I see them every Saturday at 9, they come with their bloody running while I am enjoying the quiet beauty of the park. I am opening my 4th can of wife beater and here they are, trampling the paths with their feet. The paths are not for running! They are to be admired from a bench. I don't disagree with their clothing, I find the track suits very nice - I love to wear one myself - but it is ridiculous to use one to exercise. There's a reason they only come in XXL in my favourite brand.

I completely agree they should pay to use the paths, just as children should pay to use the swings (swings that I can't access as much as I would like, even though they are my favourite place to smoke), or as cyclists should pay road tax to use the roads.

In reply to all who have corrected me:

Fair enough. Thanks for the info guys.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

It's a potential gold mine. However, the people who run ParkRun are very keen on the ethics and are very aware that anyone who came in to sponsor the event could have the potential to influence and possibly change the event.

I believe they have recently been persuaded to agree a sponsor (I think the T-Shirt company) but were very careful to appoint someone with a similar ethos and very clear that this would in no way affect the way ParkRun is delivered.

In reply to deepsoup:


If it is locals they can vote in a new parish council and get the fee removed,


I agree that the benefits outweigh the cost. However its different budgets and the pressures on all budget holders are immense and the same arguments can be made for the football clubs and they are charged.

> All moot anyway. The parish council can't charge the Parkrun, because the Parkrun doesn't have the means to pay.
In law just because you can't pay does not mean you are not liable. They will either have to stop using this park, or find away of raising funds.
They could raise a bit of cash some other way with a bit of imagination though most likely, for example maybe they could flog a concession for a coffee van or something. If they already have a concession for an ice cream van in the summer, the parkrun makes it significantly more valuable.


It would require orchestration, and then you would find that someone was probably liable. Even if its done via social media.

In reply to twodada:


I suspect this might happen, unfortunately the elections are not until 2019.


They will go elsewhere, not paying is fundamental and what the Council signed up to.


Doesn't matter, a social run isn't an event. They cannot stop them.

In reply to twodada:

Maybe they will. Then again maybe they wont.
Either way it's completely irrelevant to a discussion about whether the current council are right or wrong. (They're wrong, btw.)


Precisely my point. Because Parkrun can't pay, the council can't charge them - all they can achieve is to stop them using the park. Maybe that's what they're trying to do. Then again if they're trying to raise some revenue they could find a way to do that too, but it'll require a bit more imagination and a little flexibility.


If the Parkrun stops and the runners turn up anyway, perhaps we'll be hearing more about that.

It's "parkrun", one word, lower case.

Sorry, had to be done!

In reply to The bandit:
Really silly question - why don't they just introduce a car parking charge? Many parks where parkruns take place do, and by and large people don't object even though it is effectively a charge for the use of the park (with a 100% discount for arriving by a more environmentally friendly mode of transport i.e. walk/bike).

Indeed, that has precedent elsewhere - car parking charges are basically a means of collecting admission fees to our National Parks, with the useful effect of discounts (per head) for car sharing and a 100% discount if you don't drive, which is also a "progressive tax" because typically those of very limited means won't be driving.

In reply to liz j:

My phone kept separating the words and I was too slovenly to correct it. I apologise.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I'm not apologising. A run in a park could be called a park run, but the name of the organised event is Parkrun - it's a proper noun and I'm giving it a capital letter so there!

In reply to Neil Williams:


Because they don't want local residents to have to pay to use the local parks? I can't think of any parks like this in Bristol/surround that charge for parking, it'd be a sad day if they started to. This isn't an NT type place, it's just a little local park in a pretty densely packed urban area with massive house building that's been going on for years (more coming) and no real provision of places to go. Maybe the place is getting a bit overwhelmed.

In reply to The bandit:

A really shortsighted idea to start charging Parkrun. I know councils are being squeezed but if this takes off nationally, with other councils taking a similar line, the idea of free, organised group running is finished.

I've signed the petition.

Reference car parking charges - why would anyone drive to a 5k running event? If you live close to the location you could walk or if it's a long way away you could run 5k around your neighbourhood. I've never really seen the point of running with several hundred other people unless it's to beat as many of them as you can - but that's not the aim of Parkrun, is it?
Seems a bit like my next door neighbour who drives to the gym to go on the cycling/running machines and spends more time telling me how fast or far he went than he spends cycling.
Charge them I say!

In reply to The bandit:

Their line of thinking sounds like the poor of the parish arguememt from the 1800s..............

In reply to baron:
You could run round your neighbourhood but parkrun is also a social event, something good for your mental health as well as your physical health.

Also it's more of an fun occasion than running round your neighbourhood. There's no chance of getting our 9 year old up at 8am on a Saturday to run round there neighbourhood but she can get motivated enough to do that for parkrun.

Although that said we don't do parkrun any more as we are too far away to get to one.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Even sillier - why didn't they (the council) just ask for donations? I'm sure enough people would be happy to put 50p in a box to fund and maintenance work.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

The council have said its a matter of principle. Organisations must pay for use of the park. Full stop.

They're being very vague as to what to charge and who to actually charge. They're only proposing charging for the weekly adult run and not the monthly children's one on the Sunday.

Googlemaps shows this as a fairly big park with football pitches and rugby pitches, a leisure centre and a community centre plus parking.

It's a big mess. Parkrun will not pay as a matter of principle and this week's run is cancelled and they're telling people to stay away while they come to some arrangement.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Yep, I'm surprised that we don't see more charity collections through parkrun. I'd be very happy to chuck a quid in a bucket each time, though of course it should be entirely voluntary. However there is a difference between charity and council coffers. It's the notion that we should pay simply to run on a public footpaths that is so galling (And no, its not the same as playing a football match - unless you've got jumpers for goalposts)

I see the parkun in question has been cancelled this weekend due to the fear that too many people will turn up - wonder whether turnout will be up elsewhere as a result of the publicity ?

In reply to The bandit:

http://newsthump.com/2016/04/13/park-to-install-coin-operated-swings-a-prem...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

The course is 3.5 laps of the park. It is therefore not that big a park. My *personal* feeling is that the 350 numbers are too large for this park on a weekly basis. In that, in my experience having put on races I would not feel comfortable having that number of people taking part in a shared space week in week out. If it were a one lapper I would feel much more comfortable. If the paths were more numerous and wider I would feel more comfortable.
Thoughts of other race directors either current or prior? I no longer race direct, and have never done parkrun.

RE: Not for profit: What do people think is the most a company employee of something like parkrun should be paid before it enters that dubious category of not for profit in name only... but in fact someone is doing very well out if it thank you. £50,000; £100,000, £500,000, £1,000,000. Please note I am not referring to parkrun per se in this question, but more the point that a 'not for profit', does not mean it is not commercial and someone is not deriving a very nice salary from it; in the same way a members club which many running clubs are set up as are patently NOT?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Can you clarify why you think that parkrun is different to football in terms of usage of a park?

In reply to Dave B:

I'm not a parkrun *run*director but I have been a race director of other things, I organise a lot of sports stuff and I have a keen eye for H&S and I parkrun myself. My local parkrun is roughly the same scale as this one. Anything up to 500 runners, typically about 350-400 and sort of 2.5 laps.
I don't see a problem with this many runners in this amount of space for a 5k run. I would probably feel differently if it were a race but the ethos and the participant profile at parkrun is very different. In a race you tend to get much more bunching and certainly more competition for running space as well as much less consideration for non-participants. At parkrun there is a much greater range of ability which naturally spreads the runners out quite quickly and frankly everyone is much more considerate than they might be in a race. I include myself in that, if you get in my way when I'm racing I'll probably hold my ground but at parkrun, nah, go ahead mate, in fact I'll probably cheer or clap you. If you've never done parkrun and you're used to races it might be strange to get your head around but the ethos is very different, sure everyone is running their hardest but no-one is competing with the other runners. It's a community.

As far as non-participants are concerned I guess there's probably about 10 minutes in any one spot in the first 1.5km of our course where it would be difficult to walk in the other direction simply because of the sheer number of people running towards you, we do have a course which is quite narrow in places and is through woodland. When that happens (someone is trying to walk the other way) you will often see a runner stop and take on the role of impromptu marshal, warning other runners to move over. It's not a run you see so people don't mind doing it, and parkrun encourages a very high volunteer ratio (about 10%) so most runners will also be competent marshals having done it a few times before and knowing what to do.

I understand this point and share your view but I can't find out what the very few staff of the parkrun national organisation are paid. I suspect it's not an earth shattering amount, I certainly hope not.

In reply to Dave B:

With a football pitch you are paying for exclusive use of a designated space, with specific equipment (posts and nets) and which requires regular maintenance for that activity (pitch marking, grass-cutting, repairs to worn areas etc)

The PC believes that the runners should pay for wearing out the tarmac, but then surely such a charge would also have to apply to anyone using the park, for whatever purpose.

In reply to csambrook:

Thanks for your comment.

I suspect all 12 staff will be paid significantly less than the 400,000£ total budget turnover... So, I could see one full time member of staff at the top being paid £80-100K, I suspect it is less than this though... I would kind of hope so...

Interesting thoughts and experiences about the different ethos and not something I had considered. Do other people feel that this is fairly universal?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm fairly certain that the start and finish area will get a lot of wear off the paths, especially in winter . Probably no more than the football pitches.. Looking at a cross county course after it's been run on t nods to indicate that wear would occur on the grass... Not sure if the paths will get a lot of wear as you say.

In reply to Dave B:
I looked on google maps. It's a huge park. I'm guessing they must only be using a small part of it.

There are two football pitches and a rugby pitch plus lots of other open space.

Verulanium Park in St Albans is three laps of the duck pond. The actual park is massive.

The difference between football and a run is that you can easily get payment from 22people who want to use an area for 90mins.

Collecting a £1 from 300 people and stopping those who haven't paid is just a logistical nightmare. For something that takes 20-40mins you'd be queuing for an hour to pay your pound.

Then someone has to recipt it, take it to the bank, submit accounts...

In reply to The bandit:
There should be as big an outcry about the NT money raising proposals http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=638215
Or is that different because it's not a council?

In reply to digby:

The council have been appointed to ensure that the facilities are there for everyone to use. They are funded by tax. Maybe not enough tax but that's a different argument.

The football pitches will be free for the public to use but organisations would have to pay.

This is where there is a conflict. While parkrun is an organisation, its ethos is that it should be free to all.

It seems to me that the problem lies entirely with the council trying to prove a point and has nothing to do with finances.

They can't even come up with a figure, let alone justify one.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


A pitch is unlikely to be free to anyone, the pitches people pay for are expensive maintain and can only handle a a limited amount of football. Unlike paths, football pitches are easily damaged through normal use. Most park will of course have an area of grass that someone can use for informal use.

In reply to digby:

I think there are actually a few parkrun events on National Trust properties.

In reply to The New NickB:


That might change soon.

In reply to The New NickB:

Nope. My local park has a couple of football pitches. I've played on it with my kids and some dads lots of times. No one asks for any money.

Saturday and Sunday it's full of league players. They get charged.

In reply to L'Eeyore:


I suspect not. The NT will have all the money making angles covered, car parking, cafe's, membership representative on hand etc

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Very surprised and it is part of my work. The leagues would go ballistic if they knew use of pitches was not being restricted.

In reply to The New NickB:
Really? That's ridiculous. I assume they have signs up and are roped off? How can that possibly be enforced?

They must pay thousands of pounds to have the area standing empty for 165hours a week.

In reply to The New NickB:


Whilst paying their Directors well in excess of £100k a year and a significant amount of workers below the 'living wage' (sound familiar), but that is ok they are a charity and not a small group of elected (even if by default) volunteers trying their best to manage a very limited of money.

These links will explain further;

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/national-trust-activity-licence-update

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/national-trust-abuses-goodwi...

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Even the best quality pitches can only cope with 3 or possibly 4 matches a week. Even then at the end of the season they will need quite a lot of maintenance work. It would save a lot of money you could play 40 games a week on a pitch, but it just isn't possible.

In reply to L'Eeyore:

My or your views on the National Trust has no real bearing on the decision of Stoke Gifford Parish Council. A decision which clearly had nothing to do with managing money.

In reply to The New NickB:


I'm going to disagree on this, but I'll leave it now.

In reply to The bandit:

In a similar sort of vein, I am a Director if a Community Interest Company that uses public parks/woodland for events, with the permission of the council. In return, it voluntarily donates money to the relative Friends Of organisations or runs working parties to put something back into the areas it uses.

Is it the thin end of wedge for boot camp type companies and professional dog walkers? Or should they actually be charged for use of that land?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

wearing out the tarmac

I saw this on the news, and the path in question was not tarmac, it appeared to be a form of gravel or ash - this would suffer badly from large numbers, particularly when wet.

In reply to fred99:

It's definitely a tarmac surface.

In reply to The New NickB:

Most "Sunday league" type football is played on park pitches that are not restricted for public use at other times. There are several near me.

I do see the point about this. Similarly, on occasions we take the Scouts to public parks to do things like orienteering - technically, I suppose, we should pay.

I can see a bit of a delimiter that makes sense, though - if you want exclusive, guaranteed use (as a football team would need it unless you fancy delaying your match until the local kids have finished their kickabout), you pay. If you are happy to share the park and arrange[1] your event so others are not excluded, you don't pay. Effectively a reservation fee rather than a usage fee.

That said, that then leaves things like BMF in an awkward limbo - they mostly use the park in the way something like a Scout Group does, the difference is they profit from it. So perhaps also charge a cut where commercial for-profit activity is taking place?

[1] MK Parkrun has changed its route a couple of times to keep it at quieter parts of Willen Lake and avoid disruption to other users. As it's getting bigger all the time, other Parkruns have sprung up locally, and I hear that a second one within the town is being considered, possibly at Furzton or Caldecotte lakes. (I'd welcome either of these - Furzton is very local, while from mine to Caldecotte, round it and back is a nice 10k).

In reply to Bingers:
Boot camp companies normally *are* charged and BMF seems not to object to this at least.

Professional dog walkers are charged in some locations already.

I'm not sure I have an issue with charging for for-profit commercial use - I would expect a fee to be chargeable for opening a coffee stand, so why is other use different? This obviously does not encompass Parkrun.