Jump to content


Rother Valley Parking Expensive?

Recommended Posts

Killamarsh isn't in the council area - which was the start of your issue over health benefits.Rotherham has none of the duty to provide me with health benefits that you mentioned. Oh and Killamarsh is the closest , i walk 1/2 a mile from my home and i'm in the park, 3 miles later i've done a full circuit and then back home.

 

All of the above areas have quite significant areas of natural beauty and archeaological interest which are free to park at and receive the health benefits you feel the council should provide.

 

There is nothing additional at RV, apart from the facilities, if they want the facilities then they'll be able to afford them so can afford the £5.

 

"I fail to see how restricting parks to people who live close to them..." part of your quote. I don't see how Woodsetts,Dinnington and Laughton are local in any definition of the word.

 

I don't feel that the council should provide them. The law requires that they do.

 

You seem a bit confused about your argument. Dinnington is in the Rotherham council area. It's clearly too far to walk to RVCP from Dinnington, and a high parking charge restricts access to the park to those who can afford it and are willing to pay for it.

 

So a high parking charge DOES restrict the park access, with the exception of those who can walk to it (whichever council area they live in), which is not in line with the duties of the council regarding health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't feel that the council should provide them. The law requires that they do.

 

You seem a bit confused about your argument. Dinnington is in the Rotherham council area. It's clearly too far to walk to RVCP from Dinnington, and a high parking charge restricts access to the park to those who can afford it and are willing to pay for it.

 

So a high parking charge DOES restrict the park access, with the exception of those who can walk to it (whichever council area they live in), which is not in line with the duties of the council regarding health.

 

It's odd really that Rotherham council has clung on to rvcp, it's right on the fringe of their borough and a heft percentage of its users will be from SCC or NEDDC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading that Oak Holdings who owned a lease on the park had that agreement terminated by Rotherham Council in 2011.

At that time Oak quoted 900,000 visitors a year and that it "believes there is considerable scope to increase the current profitability of the operation through some modest investment in additional and enhanced facilities".

So, at that time, prior to Rotherham Council taking it back, it would appear to have been run at a profit.

It would be interesting to know if that is still the case and if that profit is ploughed back into the park or, possibly, used to help finance other council amenities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume that the golf course car park is for users only. It's a bit strange that there are no signs at the entrance saying so, none I've seen anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/04/2016 at 17:27, wrinkly67 said:

I'm reading that Oak Holdings who owned a lease on the park had that agreement terminated by Rotherham Council in 2011.

At that time Oak quoted 900,000 visitors a year and that it "believes there is considerable scope to increase the current profitability of the operation through some modest investment in additional and enhanced facilities".

So, at that time, prior to Rotherham Council taking it back, it would appear to have been run at a profit.

It would be interesting to know if that is still the case and if that profit is ploughed back into the park or, possibly, used to help finance other council amenities.

Old post, I know, but I had a look at Companies House.   The last accounts filed for Rother Valley Country Park Ltd (a subsidiary of Oak Holdings) are dated 16 Aug 2011, representing business up to 31 October 2010, which as the accounts say was the first full year of RVCP running the park.

 

Turnover had increased from £756, 784 in 2009 to £1, 135, 930 in 2010.    But costs were also up, and in the end the loss for the year was £68, 042, worse than £15, 803 in 2009.

 

So no, they weren't making a profit before Rotherham Council terminated the contract.

 

Edited by Dannyno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.