Park Run

It would be interesting to see how they would anticipate collecting this charge. Will a council employee be required to attend with a collection pot for runners to pay. How will they differentiate between casual runners in the park and those who are there for the Parkrun?

 

I assume many of the runners are locals who already pay council tax and are therefore contributing to the upkeep of the park. Asking them to pay again is a bit much.

 

The parkruns that I took part in had runners from all over the country and some from around the world and were great events. Really hope they can sort something out so that this can still keep happening.

 

I suspect they thought that Parkrun might get off its harris and agree to some kind of payment that could come from their central funds or a voluntary contribution (as at other Parkruns) by participants.

 

As already repeatedly said - other large groups that use parks (or indeed most other council-run assets) on a regular basis tend to have to pay for them.  That's the norm.

To be accurate, it's a "not-for-profit" company, limited by membership, rather than with shareholders. Paul Sinton-Hewitt who set the whole thing up could have been rather rich I suspect, rather than just having a CBE to polish if he'd been interested in money. Very different from events like London Marathon, Great North Run etc. which make large sums for those behind them. 

 

He'll get a gong, don't worry.

 

And I should say that I'm absolutely on board with the ethos of Parkrun but in this instance I have every sympathy for a bunch of unpaid councillors stuck between a rock and hard place trying to make the best of an obviously difficult situation - and getting screached at by no-marks up and down the country as a result.

He'll get a gong, don't worry.

And I should say that I'm absolutely on board with the ethos of Parkrun but in this instance I have every sympathy for a bunch of unpaid councillors stuck between a rock and hard place trying to make the best of an obviously difficult situation - and getting screached at by no-marks up and down the country as a result.

Comes with the territory. If you're a councillor who makes a decision "no-marks" believe to be so wrong, said "no-marks" will screech at those councillors.

I suspect they thought that Parkrun might get off its harris and agree to some kind of payment that could come from their central funds or a voluntary contribution (as at other Parkruns) by participants.

 

 

You appear to be operating under the assumption that the parish council wants to find a way for the parkrun to continue. The current fuss over charging people to use the park follows on from previous unilateral attempts to stop the parkrun over insurance and then child safeguarding (there is a 2km junior event for under-14s on Sunday mornings).

He'll get a gong, don't worry.

 

He got his CBE a couple of years back.  I've helped at Scouts and a couple of other charities years, all of whom would kill to get the number of volunteer hours that parkrun racks up each week.

 

If the government had spent 0.1% of what was spent on the Olympics on parkrun, our public health would be in a better state and we wouldn't need to be having discussions about who pays to mend asphalt footpaths in parks (where I suspect 99% of damage is due to weathering rather than people & dogs, in any case.)

He got his CBE a couple of years back. I've helped at Scouts and a couple of other charities years, all of whom would kill to get the number of volunteer hours that parkrun racks up each week.

If the government had spent 0.1% of what was spent on the Olympics on parkrun, our public health would be in a better state and we wouldn't need to be having discussions about who pays to mend asphalt footpaths in parks (where I suspect 99% of damage is due to weathering rather than people & dogs, in any case.)

Entirely agree with your second para.

I liked this piece in the Western Daily Press. You do need to read past the headline though.

 

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Stoke-Gifford-parish-council-right-charge-runners/story-29103439-detail/story.html

 

As an aside, I'm glad to live in a country where one of the main news items on tv & radio today has been a spat over a village park.

One you start getting sponsors in, donations and having to fork say £60 per park run, its the start of the slippery slope

 

Park run isn't the same - e.g for the Little Stoke under 18's football club to play football you have to provide a pitch that has to be maintained, presumably free of dog mess. They have to provide a pitch that meets a League's standards?

If a dozen kids want to play on the grass with jumpers for goalposts, then charge them? I'd say no - its the same as park run

Park run doesn't need that infrastructure - its all provided, put up, taken down and hardly any notice, all done by volunteers

We may as well all give up now if people are coming out with the mantra that a couple of hundred shoes on tarmac is going to wear it out.

Charge park runners and you may as well put barriers around every park and charge each single runner and dog walker to enter

 

I'm aware that Little Stoke doesn't get some of the benefits like parking charges or from a café. That's their issue not park runs

 

Take a look at some of the items in the park run newsletter. There are many heart-warming stories from those where park run has given them some well-being and a sense of community. Some run just for the coffee, cake and crack afterwards.

What are the indirect benefits of a heathier lifestyle opportunity that park run provides. Probably conveniently ignored

However, its parkrun that seems to be suggesting that runners be charged. That is surely a decision that parkrun have made in a fit of dummy throwing.

No answer yet as to why parkrun UK isn't a charity. If it's good enough for RSPB, RNLI etc......

 

Why should Parkrun be a charity? 

Park run is brilliant and something like this is only going to threaten its existence.

As somebody else alluded to, how much do councils spend on trying to promote healthy living and exercise to absolutely no effect? Here's something that has got people actually doing exercise and they'll end up ruining it.

Park run is brilliant and something like this is only going to threaten its existence.

As somebody else alluded to, how much do councils spend on trying to promote healthy living and exercise to absolutely no effect? Here's something that has got people actually doing exercise and they'll end up ruining it.

 

The irony here is that in true local government style, the district council provided the initial funding for the parkrun (and is currently making funding available for another nearby.) The district council also owns the park in question, but it is leased to the parish council. I note also that Bristol has just been named European city of sport for 2017.

 

I know some people are trying to make it into a Cameron's big society vs Cameron's austerity type thing, but it really just comes down to the parish council don't want a load of people running in the park on a Saturday morning and after several failed attempts to stop it have found something that works. parkrun should just close this event and work with the district council to find alternative venues.

 

Just read a nice piece on the UK athletics website - about the work the national trust has been doing with parkrun - apparently 24 NT properties have one, with more on the way.

I've been told Nike wanted to buy the parkrun idea from the people/persons that set parkrun up . They refused . If people can make a living from running this fantastic idea , i've no problem . The community spirit on a Saturday morning is worth getting up at 8am after a week at work . Heading over to Poland later in the year to try out a Polish Parkrun with people I didnt know 2- 3 years ago . Long live free parkrun .

The irony here is that in true local government style, the district council provided the initial funding for the parkrun (and is currently making funding available for another nearby.) The district council also owns the park in question, but it is leased to the parish council. I note also that Bristol has just been named European city of sport for 2017.

 

I know some people are trying to make it into a Cameron's big society vs Cameron's austerity type thing, but it really just comes down to the parish council don't want a load of people running in the park on a Saturday morning and after several failed attempts to stop it have found something that works. parkrun should just close this event and work with the district council to find alternative venues.

 

Just read a nice piece on the UK athletics website - about the work the national trust has been doing with parkrun - apparently 24 NT properties have one, with more on the way.

 

My local Park Run is on National Trust land at Fell Foot. Was really flooded over the wet winter and the park rangers were very supportive in helping to organise an alternative course and to repair/make safe the route as necessary. Their café had 9 feet of water in it as a result of Storm Desmond and has only just re-opened (I think).

Hence I joined the National Trust. Win win.

In addition the National Trust will allow free parking for the park run up to a certain time if you display your park run bar code in the car

The irony here is that in true local government style, the district council provided the initial funding for the parkrun (and is currently making funding available for another nearby.) The district council also owns the park in question, but it is leased to the parish council. I note also that Bristol has just been named European city of sport for 2017.

 

I know some people are trying to make it into a Cameron's big society vs Cameron's austerity type thing, but it really just comes down to the parish council don't want a load of people running in the park on a Saturday morning and after several failed attempts to stop it have found something that works. parkrun should just close this event and work with the district council to find alternative venues.

 

Just read a nice piece on the UK athletics website - about the work the national trust has been doing with parkrun - apparently 24 NT properties have one, with more on the way.

 

Don't get me started on the National Trust. 

Park run is brilliant and something like this is only going to threaten its existence.

As somebody else alluded to, how much do councils spend on trying to promote healthy living and exercise to absolutely no effect? Here's something that has got people actually doing exercise and they'll end up ruining it.

 

You'll have the data to back up that Parkrun has reached more people more effectively than anything any council has ever done, ever.

On Radio Five Live now: tax-exile Paula Radcliffe explaining how the council tax payer should pay, and how this is an outrage.

It's a one-off start-up charge to pay for the equipment, increased insurance, additional IT infrastructure and presumably it is also used to cover ongoing and future costs. £3K comes from parkrun themselves (from its sponsors or however else it raises it) and £3K has to be found from elsewhere - usually a council - and this goes to parkrun.

 

Our council found it almost immediately and it was ensuring that all start-up conditions were met (safety, contractual stuff, volunteer training etc.) that took the most time. I believe it was a higher council that provided the original funding for Little Stoke, not the parish council.

 

A lot of parks get money back from charging for car parking and from their cafe (which is usually packed after the event) but Little Stoke has neither of these.

 

I am fully aware that people can travel from miles around to go to different park runs, and in larger areas distances can be quite substantial, though it always strikes me as funny when I turn up to my local parkrun that there are plenty of runners arriving by car.  I do understand why, and I have done before when it has been chucking it down, but I still think it is ironic.

 

On another note, well done Tim (and Saintslass and anyone else helping out), and thanks for your hard work setting these things up.

On Radio Five Live now: tax-exile Paula Radcliffe explaining how the council tax payer should pay, and how this is an outrage.

 

Capped council tax. Grants to councils cut.  That is quite an important bit.

 

But god forbid the well-sponsored, millions-membered organisation step in to make any kind of payment to help manage and maintain the spaces they use.

You'll have the data to back up that Parkrun has reached more people more effectively than anything any council has ever done, ever.

 

Like many things, it depends on how you measure it, but with over a million people in the UK having done a parkrun, off very little public money (hard to get exact figures, but I'd guesstimate about £200k from councils over the space of about five years). It would be quite hard for any council to do better. Arguably, public health is more of a NHS responsibility than local councils and the NHS couch to 5k programme ties in quite nicely with parkrun..

 

(Obviously that million figure will include people who have registered with two different emali addresses, but equally there are people like my wife who have done parkrun a couple of times but never bothered to sign up.)

Don't get me started on the National Trust. 

 

Interesting to compare the people & money the National Trust is able to commit to parkrun events compared with the number of full-time employees that parkrun UK itself has.

Capped council tax. Grants to councils cut.  That is quite an important bit.

 

But god forbid the well-sponsored, millions-membered organisation step in to make any kind of payment to help manage and maintain the spaces they use.

Which organisation is that?  Have you been chatting to the sponsors to find out how much they contribute?  Have you found out how much it costs for 850 parkruns worldwide to provide ongoing signage, hi viz jackets, timing devices (for those who choose to register and have their run/jog/walk timed), insurance costs, website maintenance costs, start up costs?  Pretty impressive research and powers of persuasion there if you have. 

 

Parkrun has no members.  You still haven't grasped its concept have you? 

The advantages of being a charity.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-registering-a-charity/what-are-the-advantages-of-being-a-registered-charity

Why should the National Trust use my subscription so parkrunners can park for less?

I'm a big supporter of things like parkrun and the benefits they bring. I am not a big supporter of wailing and gnashing of teeth from frustrated special interest groups.

Interesting to compare the people & money the National Trust is able to commit to parkrun events compared with the number of full-time employees that parkrun UK itself has.

National Trust contributes nothing. It's members and paying visitors and the taxpayer do, though.

I am fully aware that people can travel from miles around to go to different park runs, and in larger areas distances can be quite substantial, though it always strikes me as funny when I turn up to my local parkrun that there are plenty of runners arriving by car.  I do understand why, and I have done before when it has been chucking it down, but I still think it is ironic.

Given that many of our participants are not runners - ie they consider parkrun as a way of getting fit rather than being out and about every day running their feet off - then although amusing it isn't really surprising they turn up in their cars.  Even so, any congestion caused only lasts an hour or so and occurs at the quietest time on a Saturday morning. 

Like many things, it depends on how you measure it, but with over a million people in the UK having done a parkrun, off very little public money (hard to get exact figures, but I'd guesstimate about £200k from councils over the space of about five years). It would be quite hard for any council to do better. Arguably, public health is more of a NHS responsibility than local councils and the NHS couch to 5k programme ties in quite nicely with parkrun..

 

(Obviously that million figure will include people who have registered with two different emali addresses, but equally there are people like my wife who have done parkrun a couple of times but never bothered to sign up.)

 

It would be an interesting comparison to do.  Is any approach reaching people who are genuinely unhealthy, have genuinely never exercised properly before etc etc?

 

Given that they are in receipt of public money it's probably partially covered in fragments in reports by those bodies (I see it had Change4Life support for a time for example so there will be an impact report about that in some civil servant's drawer).