https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... blic-parks
Although I'm pretty gobsmacked, it does give every orienteer in the land the opportunity to make the case for an end to land-use charges (and restrictions on use) by local councils, the Forestry Commission, etc.
Either that, or tell them off for using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
government's Parkrun consultation
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
Is this something we would expect BOF to respond to on behalf of all the clubs staging local events in parks, which councils seem increasingly eager to charge for ?
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
this is possibly the most impressive example of successful lobbying I have ever seen - a government consultation specifically for one branded type of activity!
BOF definitely needs to reply to this and add orienteering to the list, certainly in the event that we're not charging anything for it.
BOF definitely needs to reply to this and add orienteering to the list, certainly in the event that we're not charging anything for it.
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
It maybe that Parkrun is FREE. I can see that if any organisation is charging for events in public parks then the local authority would, quite reasonably, expect a slice of any profits.
- mykind
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 10:11 pm
- Location: Keswick
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
NOC is usually charged when we hold local events in some local parks but this year we are holding a series of introductory events in 3 parks in 2 of our local authority districts (where we are usually charged £50 - 75 for an event) and we have negotiated free access in return for free entry for newcomers.
- Nottinghamshire outlaw
- red
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:24 pm
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
I guess we're lucky in this part of Scotland. We get free use of the parks, and also free use of the pavilions. Makes sense that the parkrun consultation only refers to England.
- Sunlit Forres
- diehard
- Posts: 615
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:57 pm
- Location: Moravia
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
I think the fact that we charge for almost all our events is a red herring. Nothing is free to put on, not even Parkrun - they just have a different method of raising the necessary funds. Therefore I don't think orienteering and other not-for-profit sports activities should be discriminated against.
- Adrian
- blue
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:12 pm
- Location: Brum
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
Reading the consultation document, most of the emphasis is on exclusive use of the park or facilities within it, whereas when a parkrun takes place other users can quite happily continue to enjoy the park. This non-exclusivity applies equally to small local orienteering events. In many cases the councils are also making quite considerable sums of money from car parks which would otherwise be empty on a Saturday or Sunday morning.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
Saxons OC response to the consultation is as follows -
'Running Free:
Consultation on preserving the free use of public parks
Response of Saxons Orienteering Club
Introduction
The Department for Communities and Local Government is consulting on proposals to legislate to put it beyond doubt that local authorities, including parish councils, cannot charge parkrun or junior parkrun for the use of public parks. It is also consulting on whether the proposals should be extended beyond parkrun and junior parkrun, to other organisations or types of use of public parks.
Question 1 :
Do you agree that local authorities should not be able to charge parkrun or parkrun junior for the use of public parks?
Response :
We agree that local authorities should not be able to charge parkrun or parkrun junior for the use of public parks.
Question 2 :
Is there any specific activity, in addition to parkrun or junior parkrun, that takes place in a public park, that does not require exclusive use of the park or a part of the park, that should be considered for inclusion in provisions to prevent local authorities charging for that activity, and if so why?
Response :
We believe that this principle should apply to other ‘Not-for-profit’ sports clubs, including orienteering clubs, for events where there is no exclusive use of a public park; and that this should be extended to other ‘publicly owned’ areas, for example, woods/forests managed by such bodies as the Forestry Commission.
Our reason for proposing this is that such provision would support the Government principles behind these type of events, which provide a great way to use our public facilities, are excellent examples of communities organising events on a voluntary/not for profit basis and enable the public as individuals, families and groups to enjoy healthy exercise.
Question 3 :
Are there any activities that involve a financial charge to a client or clients by a professional or business, but do not involve exclusive use of a public park or part of the park, that should be considered for inclusion in provisions to prevent local authorities charging for that activity, and if so why?
Response :
We offer no comment.'
We have also asked individual club members to consider responding in similar terms.
Hopefully other clubs/individuals are making similar representations?
'Running Free:
Consultation on preserving the free use of public parks
Response of Saxons Orienteering Club
Introduction
The Department for Communities and Local Government is consulting on proposals to legislate to put it beyond doubt that local authorities, including parish councils, cannot charge parkrun or junior parkrun for the use of public parks. It is also consulting on whether the proposals should be extended beyond parkrun and junior parkrun, to other organisations or types of use of public parks.
Question 1 :
Do you agree that local authorities should not be able to charge parkrun or parkrun junior for the use of public parks?
Response :
We agree that local authorities should not be able to charge parkrun or parkrun junior for the use of public parks.
Question 2 :
Is there any specific activity, in addition to parkrun or junior parkrun, that takes place in a public park, that does not require exclusive use of the park or a part of the park, that should be considered for inclusion in provisions to prevent local authorities charging for that activity, and if so why?
Response :
We believe that this principle should apply to other ‘Not-for-profit’ sports clubs, including orienteering clubs, for events where there is no exclusive use of a public park; and that this should be extended to other ‘publicly owned’ areas, for example, woods/forests managed by such bodies as the Forestry Commission.
Our reason for proposing this is that such provision would support the Government principles behind these type of events, which provide a great way to use our public facilities, are excellent examples of communities organising events on a voluntary/not for profit basis and enable the public as individuals, families and groups to enjoy healthy exercise.
Question 3 :
Are there any activities that involve a financial charge to a client or clients by a professional or business, but do not involve exclusive use of a public park or part of the park, that should be considered for inclusion in provisions to prevent local authorities charging for that activity, and if so why?
Response :
We offer no comment.'
We have also asked individual club members to consider responding in similar terms.
Hopefully other clubs/individuals are making similar representations?
-
DaveK - green
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:28 pm
- Location: The garden of England (too many gardens though and not enough forest).
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
Good response by Saxons
Other clubs should do the same. I'll ask around my own club...
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Other clubs should do the same. I'll ask around my own club...
-
Crex - white
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 2:02 pm
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
I don't think organised events should expect free access to public land like parks. I wish it was, and applaud it when it is; I just think it's unrealistic for us to expect it, and wrong to demand it. Where there is a charge, I would hope it would be sensible and proportionate to allow us to run orienteering events.
Why is this? There is a cost associated with maintaining parks, and while day-to-day maintenance is provided for from general taxation, the impact on parks from intensive use can be quite high and require specific funding.
To meet this, it is right that the "polluter pays" to borrow an established phrase. The costs associated with maintaining a park may not be borne by the same population that pays taxes to fund its upkeep. Some parks are maintained by parish councils that have no discretionary control on taxation. If a parkrun requests access, then they would be required to give it free of charge. A large number of people from outside the parish may then travel to the park with either a small local population footing the maintenance bill, or a parish council finding its budgets squeezed. It's not hard to construct more extreme examples that make absolutely no sense.
Legislation is too blunt an instrument. This should be left to local authorities to determine. If you don't agree with a decision, legislation isn't the answer: lobbying your local council is. Once something is in law, it can't be easily changed. This legislation has very little chance of being passed soon given the full schedule for repatriation of EU law over the next two sessions of Parliament.
No one organisation should benefit from these proposals. Providing it free for one organisation risks putting more of the cost on to those organisations that are still able to be charged, meaning orienteering might be asked to shoulder even higher costs than now. Most people would say park run is a good thing; it's not the only thing.
The government should instead issue guidance on best practice for charging for events - suggesting perhaps that zero cost would be ideal - rather than removing any discretion from local government. Consideration should be given to factors such as:
1. the number of users,
2 the intensity of use (e.g. same course every week vs different routes once a year),
3. the profit motive,
4. the inclusiveness of the sport (e.g. open to all on the day like orienteering or closed user groups like team sports)
It frustrates us that large scale events with a commensurately high budget appear to have put some areas beyond regular light use – think of Battersea Park in London, which was used for a World Cup sprint event, and which is swamped by 30k runners each paying about £30 for the annual corporate challenge. We now can’t get sensible costing for a 100-150 person park race every two years. Having a properly defined framework for charging might make these area accessible again.
So, in response to the questions:
Question 1: No. To create a sustainable framework, local authorities should be free to charge for use of their parks, but should consider a wider range of criteria than simply number of people attending (examples outlined below) when assessing the charge and follow government guidance.
Question 2: Special dispensation should not be given to any one organisation. A consistent range of criteria for assessing each request is more flexible than singling out specific organisations.
Question 3: No, per above. Guidance criteria should include how to differentiate between commercial and not-for-profit organisations, and those which include open access at the point of delivery (i.e. entry on the day for us) vs those which require membership (consider team sports like football vs individual participation like orienteering), etc.
Why is this? There is a cost associated with maintaining parks, and while day-to-day maintenance is provided for from general taxation, the impact on parks from intensive use can be quite high and require specific funding.
To meet this, it is right that the "polluter pays" to borrow an established phrase. The costs associated with maintaining a park may not be borne by the same population that pays taxes to fund its upkeep. Some parks are maintained by parish councils that have no discretionary control on taxation. If a parkrun requests access, then they would be required to give it free of charge. A large number of people from outside the parish may then travel to the park with either a small local population footing the maintenance bill, or a parish council finding its budgets squeezed. It's not hard to construct more extreme examples that make absolutely no sense.
Legislation is too blunt an instrument. This should be left to local authorities to determine. If you don't agree with a decision, legislation isn't the answer: lobbying your local council is. Once something is in law, it can't be easily changed. This legislation has very little chance of being passed soon given the full schedule for repatriation of EU law over the next two sessions of Parliament.
No one organisation should benefit from these proposals. Providing it free for one organisation risks putting more of the cost on to those organisations that are still able to be charged, meaning orienteering might be asked to shoulder even higher costs than now. Most people would say park run is a good thing; it's not the only thing.
The government should instead issue guidance on best practice for charging for events - suggesting perhaps that zero cost would be ideal - rather than removing any discretion from local government. Consideration should be given to factors such as:
1. the number of users,
2 the intensity of use (e.g. same course every week vs different routes once a year),
3. the profit motive,
4. the inclusiveness of the sport (e.g. open to all on the day like orienteering or closed user groups like team sports)
It frustrates us that large scale events with a commensurately high budget appear to have put some areas beyond regular light use – think of Battersea Park in London, which was used for a World Cup sprint event, and which is swamped by 30k runners each paying about £30 for the annual corporate challenge. We now can’t get sensible costing for a 100-150 person park race every two years. Having a properly defined framework for charging might make these area accessible again.
So, in response to the questions:
Question 1: No. To create a sustainable framework, local authorities should be free to charge for use of their parks, but should consider a wider range of criteria than simply number of people attending (examples outlined below) when assessing the charge and follow government guidance.
Question 2: Special dispensation should not be given to any one organisation. A consistent range of criteria for assessing each request is more flexible than singling out specific organisations.
Question 3: No, per above. Guidance criteria should include how to differentiate between commercial and not-for-profit organisations, and those which include open access at the point of delivery (i.e. entry on the day for us) vs those which require membership (consider team sports like football vs individual participation like orienteering), etc.
- healthilyskeptical
- string
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:16 am
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
Yes, healthilyskeptical, some good points and much to agree with. The consultation, relating to parkrun was a bit odd; and just too good an opportunity not to throw orienteering 'into the ring'.
Interestingly, my MP Greg Clark, current government Business Secretary, was previously, Secretary for Communities and Local Government - the department carrying out the consultation. He is a keen parkrun competitor - often seen (in front of me it must be said), at the Tunbridge Wells parkrun!![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Interestingly, my MP Greg Clark, current government Business Secretary, was previously, Secretary for Communities and Local Government - the department carrying out the consultation. He is a keen parkrun competitor - often seen (in front of me it must be said), at the Tunbridge Wells parkrun!
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
-
DaveK - green
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 5:28 pm
- Location: The garden of England (too many gardens though and not enough forest).
Re: government's Parkrun consultation
healthilyskeptical wrote:I don't think organised events should expect free access to public land like parks.
In Scotland, legislation allows free access for orienteering in public and private land. However, it is normal for events to give some "sensible and proportionate" money to landowners because that is the fair and courteous thing to do. We do also still tend to ask for permission, rather than just notifying the owner of our intention to exercise legal rights.
In fact, this latter arrangement would have benefits to the landowner. Often landowners are more bothered about getting sued and extra administration than about having people on the land - especially if they bother to find out that our environmental impact is near-zero. If landowners do not give formal permission (because permission isn't required), then their liability is much reduced.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
13 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 193 guests