Birmingham park users ‘paying price for council mismanagement’
A Worcestershire MP has slammed Birmingham City Council’s administration amid plans to introduce new charges at three parks.
Watch more of our videos on ShotsTV.com
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
The financial crisis which engulfed the Labour-run council has seen an enormous wave of ‘savings’ and cuts to local services, impacting bin collections, libraries, street lighting, culture, adult social care day centres and much, much more.
One proposal which has proved particularly controversial is one to introduce parking charges at Lickey Hills Country Park, one of the city’s most picturesque and historic beauty spots.
The council also wants to bring in charges at Sutton Park in Sutton Coldfield and Sheldon Country Park, close to Birmingham Airport.
After the proposals took an important step this week, Conservative MP for Bromsgrove Bradley Thomas hit out at the council for moving forward with the plans despite huge opposition.
A recent council report stated that for Lickey Hills Country Park, 919 respondents of a consultation (78.4 per cent) felt access to the park should remain free.
Mr Thomas added that a petition he launched against the proposals had been signed hundreds of times.
“We’re quite literally paying the price for Birmingham City Council’s financial mismanagement,” he said. “Lickey Hills Country Park is loved by my constituents and the imposing of car parking charges is wrong.
“I fear these charges will deter visitors to the Lickey Hills and reduce people’s access to nature and our beautiful green spaces.”
The Conservatives echoed similar frustration at a cabinet meeting this week, with Councillor Robert Alden highlighting how the proposals were for 365 days a year and therefore “not even allowing free parking on Christmas Day”.
“Some might say that makes a real Scrooge mentality at the council,” he said.
Referring to the results of a consultation, he added: “The public have been very clear they don’t agree with this and the cabinet should drop this policy.”
Councillor Ewan Mackey, deputy leader of the opposition, said: “If you’re going to start putting barriers in the way of people being able to exercise, this is actually not going to be beneficial for those people and detrimental for what you’re looking to achieve.
“The most sensible thing at this moment in time is to withdraw this option and allow people to have unfettered access to the parks that were basically given to them years ago.”
Responding to such concerns, cabinet member for environment Councillor Majid Mahmood stressed the council was not removing access to the parks.
“But we do have to try to bring in revenue to support the maintenance of the parks,” the Labour councillor said.
“I agree that parks are one of our greatest assets in the city,” he went on to say. “The pricing has been reduced significantly than [current charges] at Cannon Hill Park.”
He added: “I asked officers to ensure [the risk register] is as comprehensive as it can be and it is.”
Coun Mahmood also that there would be a grace period of 30 minutes and free parking permits for park volunteers.
‘Reasonable to ask park users to contribute financially’
Acknowledging the opposition to the proposed charges, a council report said: “The introduction of parking charges is often controversial and unpopular as users are asked to pay for something that has previously been free.”
However, it continued that the projected income from the parking charges still falls short of the cost of maintaining the three parks in question.
“Therefore it is deemed reasonable to ask park users to contribute financially to the upkeep and maintenance of these parks,” it said.
“Despite the introduction of parking charges, there will still be a requirement for financial support from the council’s general fund to maintain and manage these parks.”
It went on to say that charges across “destination sites” throughout the UK has become common practice.
“Introducing charges on Birmingham s sites will be in line with national best practice to offset the cost of maintaining these destination sites,” the report said.
It added that there was more support for revised parking charges which were lower than the consulted ones.
Both the original and revised proposed charges for each of the parks can be found below:
Lickey Hills Country Park:
Original proposals:
£2.20 for up to 2 hours, £3.30 for 2 to 4 hours, £5.00 all day
Cost of annual parking permit price to be determined
Chargeable hours of 9am to 6pm, 365 days a year
Revised proposals:
£1 per hour up to 4 hours, £5.00 all day
£52 per annum
No change to chargeable hours (9am to 6pm, 365 days a year); a 30 minute ‘grace’ period is proposed in addition
Sutton Park:
Original proposals:
£2.20 for up to 2 hours, £3.30 for 2 to 4 hours, £5.00 all day
Cost of annual parking permit price to be determined
Chargeable hours of 9am to 6pm, 365 days a year
Revised proposals:
£1 per hour up to 4 hours, £5.00 all day
£52 per annum
No change to chargeable hours (9am to 6pm, 365 days a year); a 30 minute ‘grace’ period is proposed in addition
Sheldon Country Park:
Original proposals:
£2.20 for up to 2 hours, £3.30 for 2 to 4 hours, £5.00 all day
Cost of annual parking permit price to be determined
Chargeable hours of 9am to 6pm, 365 days a year
Revised proposals:
£0.75 per hour up to 3 hours, £3.50 all day
£52 per annum
No change to chargeable hours (9am to 6pm, 365 days a year); a 30 minute ‘grace’ period is proposed in addition
Cabinet ultimately agreed to delegate to the relevant cabinet member the decision to proceed with the Sheldon Country Park and Sutton Park charging schemes and the decision to introduce a scheme for charging and enforcement at the Lickey Hills site “utilising private parking arrangements”.
But both Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors have said they are planning to challenge the decision through a former ‘call-in’ in a bid for further scrutiny.
On the financial turmoil plaguing the council, external auditors recently highlighted several issues including the equal pay debacle, inadequate budget setting, poor service management, demand led pressures and the disastrous implementation of a new IT system.
Labour politicians have also highlighted the impact of funding cuts over the past decade or so on local government.
