Liverpool City Council propose charging for Park use

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

 

I would class the above as quiet enjoyment whereas I would not put motor racing or pop concerts  in that group.

Having had some unfortunate experiences in this area I would say the  commons that still have commoners are better protected from abuse. In my area those commons that went to councils and private charity are being most abused. In fact the M25 runs through a common and is still registered common land yet the owner of the land (Highways Agency) have never made available alternate exchange land. Indeed much of the rest of the common is council owned and whilst for now open to the public is not protected, the very reason the LA did not register it.

 

I can talk long and hard about the wrong doings of wildlife trusts and Natural England since they became a castrated  version of the countryside commission  and the new green welly booted professional conservationists  eschewed all the past practices of land husbandry  in favour of quick fixes. Some on this forum will have benefited from their naivety.

 

Please don't misunderstand me,  I understand that enclosure and the move away from mediaeval agronomic practices was a necessary part of progress via a capitalist economy but now we are in a mature economy I think we should preserve public rights to what remains. In this vein  it is the public rights for air and recreation on your doorstep that means a lot and it is that that is being steadily eroded with SANGs being created on land already public openspace  in order to "manage" how people access it and vast sums being spent on management and resources to effectively urbanise what was undeveloped open space.

 

[devon TWiG]

Kevin ,  a while back I believe the councils in Cornwall ( N.Coast ) put forward proposals to charge surf schools etc for using the beach and sea for providing a facility , not sure if it came in to effect though , that would have been similar to charging commercial operators for using parks ...

[Mark J]

1 hour ago, openspaceman said:

 

I would class the above as quiet enjoyment whereas I would not put motor racing or pop concerts  in that group.

Having had some unfortunate experiences in this area I would say the  commons that still have commoners are better protected from abuse. In my area those commons that went to councils and private charity are being most abused. In fact the M25 runs through a common and is still registered common land yet the owner of the land (Highways Agency) have never made available alternate exchange land. Indeed much of the rest of the common is council owned and whilst for now open to the public is not protected, the very reason the LA did not register it.

 

I can talk long and hard about the wrong doings of wildlife trusts and Natural England since they became a castrated  version of the countryside commission  and the new green welly booted professional conservationists  eschewed all the past practices of land husbandry  in favour of quick fixes. Some on this forum will have benefited from their naivety.

 

Please don't misunderstand me,  I understand that enclosure and the move away from mediaeval agronomic practices was a necessary part of progress via a capitalist economy but now we are in a mature economy I think we should preserve public rights to what remains. In this vein  it is the public rights for air and recreation on your doorstep that means a lot and it is that that is being steadily eroded with SANGs being created on land already public openspace  in order to "manage" how people access it and vast sums being spent on management and resources to effectively urbanise what was undeveloped open space.

It's a less than ideal state of affairs.  What's a 'SANG'?

 

[openspaceman]

36 minutes ago, Mark J said:

What's a 'SANG'?

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace  a junket paid for by developers with costs passed on as increased  house prices for the benefit of assorted carpet baggers in the local authority and community groups. The idea was to fund the provision of land where inter urban sites were developed and could have been very useful to provide new opportunities in the public rights or way and open land by contracting with local farm and woodland owners but it got hijacked  and tory councils were allowed to interpret the provision of suitable alternative as cramming a quart of new facilities into an existing pint pot, thus destroying two openspaces in one go.

Edited February 10, 2018 by openspaceman
missed word out

[openspaceman]

1 hour ago, devon TWiG said:

Kevin ,  a while back I believe the councils in Cornwall ( N.Coast ) put forward proposals to charge surf schools etc for using the beach and sea for providing a facility , not sure if it came in to effect though , that would have been similar to charging commercial operators for using parks ...

I think it's necessary to  only charge a rate that is commensurate with the business share of the cost of using the publicly funded area, any more would be a tax purely to benefit the councils' coffers. In a public park there are costs associated with grass cutting, leaf collection, path maintenance, litter picking car parking etc. What costs are involved in running a beach?

[Mark J]

Thanks for the explanation and history.   'Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace', it sounds like something a bad salesman would come up with. 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, devon TWiG said:

Kevin ,  a while back I believe the councils in Cornwall ( N.Coast ) put forward proposals to charge surf schools etc for using the beach and sea for providing a facility , not sure if it came in to effect though , that would have been similar to charging commercial operators for using parks ...

Yes, quite so!  I remember the news, don't know how it panned out though...  I'll have a look at that.  Good call!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, openspaceman said:

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace  a junket paid for by developers with costs passed on as increased  house prices for the benefit of assorted carpet baggers in the local authority and community groups. The idea was to fund the provision of land where inter urban sites were developed and could have been very useful to provide new opportunities in the public rights or way and open land by contracting with local farm and woodland owners but it got hijacked  and tory councils were allowed to interpret the provision of suitable alternative as cramming a quart of new facilities into an existing pint pot, thus destroying two openspaces in one go.

Interesting, was it exclusive to Tory councils?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

33 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

I think it's necessary to  only charge a rate that is commensurate with the business share of the cost of using the publicly funded area, any more would be a tax purely to benefit the councils' coffers. In a public park there are costs associated with grass cutting, leaf collection, path maintenance, litter picking car parking etc. What costs are involved in running a beach?

Or, grass cutting and leaf collection are out dated, unnecessary, costly and potentially inappropriate actions which, by their very nature, incur (financial and environmental) "costs" which are poorly considered.....? 

[openspaceman]

2 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Interesting, was it exclusive to Tory councils?

Probably not but our one has a penchant for imaginative accounting