Rother Valley Parking Expensive?

[willman 10]

The charge makes it disproportionately harder for poor people to access the leisure facilities.

£5 is irrelevant to some people, but the difference between eating or not for others.

 

So find alternative cheaper facilities?

The park is accessible free quite easily - many of the others mentioned as comparisons aren't. You aren't being forced to pay unless you want to use the facilities(of which most charge to partake) in which case you can obviously afford the fiver.

 

No disrespect here but anyone who finds a fiver the difference between eating and going hungry will find alternatives to go for a stroll or find a playground and park,just as many others who don't want to spend a fiver will do.

 

I've done the same thing,i can walk 4 miles to Poolsbrook, and when i've been broke and out of work thats what i've done ,pushing a buggy.

 

A family of four in a car with a BBQ is a fiver for the day, £1.25 each not exactly expensive.

[Cyclone 10]

The council has an obligation to improve public health, I think it's failing that obligation in this instance, particularly with regards to lower income people, who are at higher risk of health problems in the first place.

 

The park is not free if you approach by the signed main entrance in a vehicle.

Yes, there are alternatives, but they're only available to people who know about them.

[willman 10]

The council has an obligation to improve public health, I think it's failing that obligation in this instance, particularly with regards to lower income people, who are at higher risk of health problems in the first place.

 

The park is not free if you approach by the signed main entrance in a vehicle.

Yes, there are alternatives, but they're only available to people who know about them.

 

Perhaps they are fulfilling the obligation by restricting people driving to visit?

They also provide other local venues that are free to stroll round - use one of those.

 

Or are you insisting that the local communities of poorer people have no access to free walking spaces?

[AmourDesign 10]

The council has an obligation to improve public health, I think it's failing that obligation in this instance, particularly with regards to lower income people, who are at higher risk of health problems in the first place.

 

The park is not free if you approach by the signed main entrance in a vehicle.

Yes, there are alternatives, but they're only available to people who know about them.

 

Perhaps they are fulfilling the obligation by restricting people driving to visit?

They also provide other local venues that are free to stroll round - use one of those.

 

Or are you insisting that the local communities of poorer people have no access to free walking spaces?

 

The original post was about the fact that a flat £5.00 fee regardless of time parked would put people off.

[Cyclone 10]

Perhaps they are fulfilling the obligation by restricting people driving to visit?

They also provide other local venues that are free to stroll round - use one of those.

 

Or are you insisting that the local communities of poorer people have no access to free walking spaces?

 

I didn't say that, so no, I'm not insisting it.

 

I find the argument that restricting access to a public park to only those who can afford it is somehow fulfilling the public health obligations of the council to be rather ridiculous.

[jacks 10]

Went to RV last week (parked near to G&M and walked in) and was totally disgusted by the amount of dog excrement all over. The amount of dogs running off the leash was horrendous ! whilst walking round we saw a couple with there dog (on the leash +poop bags) being hassled by a dog being allowed to run free.The young female who's dog it was grabbed it (did NOT put it on its leash) lead it off about 100yds only for it to turn and run back to hassle the couples dog again. If they fined people for dogs off leash and not picking up its mess, then they could reduce the parking price.

[willman 10]

I didn't say that, so no, I'm not insisting it.

I find the argument that restricting access to a public park to only those who can afford it is somehow fulfilling the public health obligations of the council to be rather ridiculous.

 

As 80% at least of the posters on here are not from within that particular council and they are the ones discussing it, Rotherham have no obligation to provide health benefits to other boroughs, hence the £5 fee perhaps.

They provide adequate free spaces for the health benefits of their population without the requirement of them driving to a park.

 

---------- Post added 21-04-2016 at 14:09 ----------

 

The original post was about the fact that a flat £5.00 fee regardless of time parked would put people off.

 

But it doesn't, in the summer it's rammed. In the winter its like a ghost town, so perhaps they need to make hay whilst the sun shines.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Who pays for the upkeep of RVCP? If it comes from Rotherham council tax payers you could understand their unwillingness to pay for the facilities that loads of Sheffield people use.

[Cyclone 10]

Maybe proof of address should get Rotherham residents a parking discount.

But of course then Sheffield parks and facilities will start doing the same, Ponds Forge will charge £2 extra for non Sheffield residents to have a swim for example...

[willman 10]

Maybe proof of address should get Rotherham residents a parking discount.

But of course then Sheffield parks and facilities will start doing the same, Ponds Forge will charge £2 extra for non Sheffield residents to have a swim for example...

 

So perhaps we should all be emailing all our councils to have parking removed in the cause of health benefits - yet Barnsley charge nothing to park for their swimming baths @ the Metrodome.

 

---------- Post added 21-04-2016 at 14:52 ----------

 

Who pays for the upkeep of RVCP? If it comes from Rotherham council tax payers you could understand their unwillingness to pay for the facilities that loads of Sheffield people use.

 

I can't be 100% certain but i believe since the council took back ownership its fully funded by Rotherham Council again.

[Cyclone 10]

I fail to see how restricting parks to people who live close to them is somehow going to create health benefits and more than charging so much for parking that the poor can't afford to use them...

[JFKvsNixon 11]

I fail to see how restricting parks to people who live close to them is somehow going to create health benefits and more than charging so much for parking that the poor can't afford to use them...

 

Maybe Rotherham Council needs the money?