Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Head of Legal and Democratic Services in writing or by e-mail indicating the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 11 January 2019). Enquiries can be made through the telephone number/e-mail address below.
Minutes:
There were 5 public participants and 3 written submissions in respect of Item 5 - Call-In of the Cabinet Member Delegated Decision on the Proposal to Introduce Parking Charges at Worcester Woods Country Park
Public Participants
1. Claire Pezzini-Rhodes
Claire explained her view that £60 per year for only 2 hours parking was a dreadful deal for a small community park! It was a flawed plan that would cause harm to the community and it was based on strategically selected half-truths.
The Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for Communities Report attempted to justify the charges by comparing with 7 other attractions including the Malvern Hills, Wyre Forest, Clent Hills and Coombe in Warwickshire, but there were some astonishing omissions. For example, the Report didn’t state that local residents could park for free at any of the Malvern Hills car parks for a twelfth of the price – only £5.20 per year or that the Wyre Forest was 60 times the size of Worcester Woods nor that a £30 per year pass would allow free parking at Wyre Forest and all Forestry commission sites. Half the price for 57 parks.
The CMR Report didn’t say that:
· National Trust members could park at the Clent Hills for free, alongside free parking and entry to 500 sites
· Coombe Park in Warwickshire offered local residents a substantial discount on parking charges, was five times bigger and designed by “Capability” Brown
· Waseley Hills was the only Worcestershire local authority park mentioned in the Report. It was 50% bigger than Worcester Woods and Worcestershire County Council charge £27 per year for an annual pass. In a local context, this was expensive.
Claire had researched 23 local authority owned parks and green spaces within Worcestershire and all had car parks which were free. None of these made the list within the Report! Not even Arrow Valley in Redditch which was 10 times the size of Worcester Woods and was free to park.
She didn't know of any other park that prevented an annual pass holder from parking all day. The 2-hour time restriction significantly reduced the value of the annual pass and didn’t seem to meet the needs of park users.
Claire said she was aware of 100's of people who used Worcester Woods for 3-5 hours at a time on a weekly basis. Those people were all part of communities that positively impact the health and wellbeing of 1000's. The charges proposal would significantly harm than good work.
The Report stated that the County Council had failed in its attempt to manage staff parking on the Country Park, so the high charges and 2-hour time restriction was designed to deter them and Claire suggested that if this was the rationale, why were the restrictions and high charges proposed for early mornings, evenings and weekends?
A 2 hour time restriction would not stop them. Many staff come to County Hall for a couple of hours at a time as they work out in the community. The staff have insufficient parking, so they have little choice. The charges would have little effect deterring County Hall staff but would be very effective at deterring Country Park users.
Local public health reports state that Worcestershire had one of the lowest proportions of people using the outdoors for health and exercise reasons and there was a year on year downward trend. Parking charges would reduce this even further.
Charges would exacerbate existing health inequalities in Worcestershire between rich and poor and would go against current local health advice that inactivity caused many avoidable health issues and prevention was better than cure. The plan was flawed; it was based on strategically selected half-truths and would cause harm to the community.
2. Brian Stanton
Brian talked about the potential impact of introducing charges at the Countryside Centre on the residents of Spetchley Road. He explained that at the moment residents suffered parking issues during the week at term time and looked forward to the respite at weekends when they can easily access their properties. If parking charges were introduced at the Countryside Centre this could change and there would be no respite for the residents of Spetchley Road.
3. Hazel Hyman
Whilst Hazel acknowledged that the Council needed to find extra funding, she explained that she had been visiting the park for 30 years and that the park appealed to all generations. Hazel thought that parking charges at the Countryside Centre were not appropriate, as families were hard pressed enough.
Hazel talked about her role as visitor to Centre and Woods and the length of time spent at the woods partaking in various activities and thought that family activities were mainly under 4 hours.
Hazel suggested that the first 3 hours of parking (if not all) should be free! Many in the community couldn't afford more charges and expecting parents to pay for children to play in a public park or walk in a public wood was not acceptable.
4. Janet Jarvis
Janet talked about how in this day of confusion and uncertainty about our future, it was good to have a refuge where we can find relative peace, which is so important in soothing our minds and relieving our stress. Such a place was Worcester Woods and what was left of the surrounding countryside. How sad, then, for the benefit to the Council per annum of a price equal to that of a small to average-sized house in Worcester, it had been deemed necessary to introduce parking charges for the privilege of driving to this pleasant location and parking in order to enjoy a walk with the children or the dogs.
This charge would undoubtedly hit the less well-off families who used the facility very regularly to provide exercise and fun for the children and relaxation for the parents, knowing that the children were safe and happy. Elderly people used the car in order to have a little gentle exercise and meet people for a chat. It gets them out of their home, which was such a good thing if they lived alone. Even disabled people would travel to the Countryside Centre and the Woods, and have a jaunt in their buggies, giving themselves a whole new look on life.
The runners visited every Saturday morning for their weekly hurtle in the wood. They were just another group of people who relied on the area to increase their health which was so essential to all ages. Walking and running being two of the most effective methods of warding off heart disease and for some people, lessening stress and mental health issues.
The introduction of these charges would have several adverse effects. The livelihood of the Café would be threatened, the ability for less well-off people to visit the location would be reduced at best and the possibility of neighbouring residential roads, primarily Spetchley Road, may well be used for parking, especially during the weekend. Overall, not a great plan.
5. Carl Freeman
Carl explained that he was not directly affected by this himself as he lived a ten minute walk away but that he could be indirectly affected as he began park running last year (walking there and back) and had significantly improved his health and fitness. He had lost two stone in weight from doing so and was no longer at high risk of various disabling conditions. If it became too expensive for the volunteers who gave up their time each week to bring equipment and set up etc, the parkrun facility may be lost to him and others. There was a huge social return for the Council from this voluntary initiative and yet the Council paid nothing towards it. Waiving parking charges could be its contribution.
Carl said he fully understood the difficult position given the impact of austerity on councils for the past eight years and sympathised and was supportive and would be happy to participate discussions alongside other citizens to try and find alternatives to the proposals as they stood.
Carl shared his views on behalf of other residents of the area who would be negatively affected by this policy and had given up time from work to do this.
Additional questions
1) In terms of the research carried out to provide insight for the policy, Carl asked
a) how many individuals completed comment cards at the visitor centre?
b) how many submitted comments using the Q-code option?
c) how many visitors (including those using meeting rooms of the café) gave verbal feedback?
2) Given the Council’s acknowledgement that the introduction of parking charges would affect some groups more than others, what steps were taken to ensure that representatives of those groups were included in the research?
3) Furthermore, how many responses were obtained from visitors to the Country Park who a) belonged to one or other of the groups with protected characteristics that were highlighted in the documentation? And b) who would be classified as having low income?
4) Comparisons had been made to other locations such as the Malvern Hills and Wyre Forest as justification for introducing parking charges. What evidence if any did the Council have that the frequency of visits to those places by individuals mirrored that by visitors to Worcester Country Park? Whilst that might seem a strange question, it could well be that vast majority of people going to those other places were only occasional visitors or people passing through. For those people a parking charge would represent a one-off expense. Whereas the majority of people driving to Worcester Country Park may well be regular visitors from the local community. For them, car parking charges would be an additional and frequent expense.
5) When plans for the new hospital were published at a public meeting someone commented that there were clearly not enough parking spaces for staff or visitors. Those behind the plans refuted this, stating confidently that people would use public transport and would be encouraged to car share. The papers accompanying the agenda for this meeting suggested that in the wake of parking charges, some visitors may decide to travel by public transport or may be encouraged to car share. Could the council please outline what had changed in the last 20 years in order to give them the confidence that such predications would be realised this time?
6) Guidance from the National Institute for Care and Health Excellence (NICE) referred to the need for councils to work in partnership with local voluntary groups in “designing and managing pubic open spaces” as part of its responsibilities in delivering health and wellbeing. The car park was clearly an integral part of this community asset. Could the Council please explain why choose not involve the community in the formulation of the car park charging policy?
7) NICE, Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care expect councils to reduce health inequalities, particularly in relation to people on low incomes. The Public Health Impact Assessment includes acknowledgement that low income families will be particularly hit. Even a modest car parking charge could be a barrier to taking advantage of this green space for such people. Does the Council honestly believe that such families would have the finance available to purchase a £60 annual permit or indeed be able to afford any of the other potential “mitigating” factors that it had outlined?
8) If this new system was introduced, could the Council guarantee that monitoring of its impact would be seen to be independent or would it be undertaken by the same people who are supporting its introduction?
Written Submissions read out by Democratic Governance and Scrutiny Manager
1. Councillor Lynne Denham, Worcester City Council
"Dear Officers
I understand that a decision has been taken by a Cabinet Member of Worcestershire County Council to impose car parking charges at Worcester Woods Country Park. I am surprised that this could be done without public consultation and consideration of the potential impact of the decision.
· I have been contacted by a number of local residents, expressing concern about the proposed charges. Please could the following be considered by the Scrutiny Board who will be looking at this decision at a meeting on 14th January 2019.
· Many Worcester people, including myself, have happy memories of playing with our children and family days out at this park. Although my youngest daughter is now 23, it remains an excellent children's playground. Children can play and run around safely, and meet their friends. Parents can also meet and socialise. It is a free day out in the country on the edge of the city, for hard-pressed families.
· Worcester Woods is the home of the original Parkrun. A community of runners, entirely organised by volunteers, which has a crucial role in encouraging physical activity. This supports the Council's own Public Health Prevention Strategy.
· Other community organisations are provided from the Orchard Café and Worcester Woods site - including cubs, scouts and explorer scouts. These activities are also run entirely by volunteers and provide positive activities for young people, including looked after children (LAC). These should be priorities to be supported by the County Council. The imposition of car parking charges could put at risk the pool of volunteers who are able be part of these activities, as well as challenge the ability of some families to continue participating.
· Worcester Woods provides free open space which is enjoyed by many people - mums, dads, children, runners, scouts, cubs, dog walkers, ramblers and nature walks. It is of enormous benefit to health and well-being and educational progress.
· Worcestershire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for population health shows a large disparity in lifespan, and years of living in poor health, between people living in areas of economic deprivation and more affluent areas. Charging for access to a free, health promoting environment is likely to worsen such health inequalities.
· The original decision notice only appears to consider income generation and parking problems on the County Hall and Wildwood sites. There is no reference to the communities who love and use the park and therefore no assessment of the possible impact of the proposed car park charges on these activities.
As the Chair of Healthy Worcester and a member of the County Health Improvement Group, I am conscious that Worcester Woods has a significant role in the health and well-being of Worcester and surrounding areas. Any decision which may affect this must be adequately scrutinised so the full risks and benefits can be fully examined.
best wishes
Lynn"
2. Amanda Bonnick
"To impose car parking charges at Worcester Woods Country Park is extreme short-termism. The benefits of free parking for the community far outweigh any miserly income the Council may get. In a topsy turvy world where it is being envisaged that doctors will have to ‘prescribe’ country walks and visits to the theatre, you are making it more difficult for those in need to access those life-giving and life-affirming activities. Worcester citizens (those who vote in Local elections and remember such betrayals) learn and enjoy so much from this place. It is a haven for wildlife, a place for children to safely explore the natural world and a joyous encounter with a certain freedom that city living does not provide. If children are not encouraged to play and run here, the long-term probable consequence is unfit adults (the rise of diabetes and obesity contribute to those money-swallowing hospitals, do they not?). Please stop acting like ‘politicians’ who are in it for the quick buck and start acting like responsible, thoughtful representatives who have their voters’ interests at heart.
Thank you"
3. Barbara Hopper
"The Lyppard Grange Walking for Health Group use the Countryside Centre as a starting point for walks about every six months. There can be anything between 20 and 35 people. After the walk we use the Orchard Café for refreshments. Some people have their lunch there. We may have a rethink about using the Countryside Centre in future. I am in touch with other walks leaders and we shall have a discussion on the subject. I have omitted the Countryside Centre as a starting point in our rota up to May. If every person spent between £3 and £5, that is quite a loss of income by Orchard Café. One of our leaders has already suggested that we go to the new pub over the ring-road where we can park for nothing and have our refreshments there instead.
Barbara Hopper"
The Chairman thanked the speakers for their contributions