http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13195576


This is so wrong. They would have paid their taxes to use them anyway.

They pay taxes to use them for recreation. As soon as you want to use them commercially then you pay different fees, as would any other business type being conducted in the park. I went through Hammersmith on the weekend and noticed some park areas in a poor condition, as long as these areas are repaired then I have no problem with it.

Unleash the paper failboat!

Not that they'll be able to catch them if they aren't...

Jon

Yes the police are probably so unfit that the fitness trainers wouild never get caught unless they used police dogs.

So should cars used by businessmen or salesmen pay an extra fee to use the roads? It is the same principle.

As matt says the parks are for recreational uses only. These fitness trainers are conducting a business and therefore are no longer using them as they are provided.

Feature Creep!

How long before they start charging for other things that have been free for centuries?
It's over a grand a year if you want to take groups. They've all paid their taxes and they probably won't use it any more than people who walk their dogs every day.
Yes funds are short, but this sort of thing just leads to more pointless paperwork etc.

I can see the point, but where do you stop? Businesses should pay extra for use of any public service like roads or air traffic control by that logic.

A quick look on the t'internet and it shows Birmingham charge £50 per day for this type of activity.

Any business operating in a park will have to pay the council. Look at fêtes, fairs, markets, circuses, boat hire, ice cream vans etc. Whether it be fees or concessions they all pay extra. It has nothing to do with and cannot be compared to roads.

If it costs the council money for what ever reason as a consequence of that event then yes it should be billed. If you have a fêtes, fairs, markets, circuses then yes it should be billed as there will a cost to the council. As for icecream vans they are generally free but they alloted as and when a space is availble. It adds an amenity to the park. As for the trainers they do not cost the council anything extra, unless they decide to enforce this silly rule. If it is matter of keeping people off the grass fine but that applies to kids as well. Trainers could just as easily do their running in exercises in other public areas, so what then? Since the councils are responsible for most roads then should that mean that sports trainers with their clients on roads be billed? As the exact same principle will apply. Only main roads are the responsibility of the Department of Transport. So will mobile icecream vans be liable for using council funded streets? What about Tesco or Ocado delivery vans for delivering their goods? They are using council funded roads to conduct a business, and they can afford it.

The priniciple of public goods seems lost on you. This is clearly a free rider problem but is it so bad that it has to be billed for?

Roads are a bad example as they are provided for use by private and commercial purposes. Everybody with a vehicle pays road tax (or they are meant to in any case) and different rates of tax apply depending on the vehicle type (buses, light goods and articulated lorries are all charged differently). Business users do pay to make use of the roads for their commercial use.

Parks are provided principally for non-commercial use and therefore if you want to use them to earn money then it's not unreasonable for you make a contribution to cover the additional wear and tear your commercial usage will cause.

Exactly how enforceable it will be to identify & chase down a personal trainer using a park for their job is a somewhat different matter. It's the sort of thing I could see some mad jobsworth at a council spending a stupid amount of money on surveillance for.

In principle I have no problem with personal trainers being charged to make use of the parks. In practice I wonder how much money will actually be recouped if there is any sort of enforcement action required. It smacks of the council 'being seen' to do something whether or not it's actually going to increase revenue (I'm dubious).

Going by the fees charged by BMF and the number of people who are members at Roundhay Park (which is comparable to a London group size).

The company take between £20,000 and £30,000 a month in subscriptions.

Given that there are now 5 different parks in the Leeds area alone (and allowing for people who use more than one) I reckon the Leeds area takes somewhere in the region of £50,000 to £60,000 a month.

I'm sure they can afford the £30 a month charge to run on the park.

As it is a council fee then I guess (if it was introduced in Leeds) that the one fee would cover all parks in Leeds for that company.

The one similarity I can see with cars is this. You buy a car and then as long as it is taxed, tested and insured, can drive where and when ever you want to, on a personal basis. As soon as you start carrying passengers on a commercial basis you then need an extra licence, provided by the local council to do so.

Another thing is with music. If you buy something you have the right to listen to it on a private basis. If you play it in public then you need an extra licence to do so.

All of these are precedents so personal trainers don't really have much to defend against.