Should we charge children to play in Adventure Playgrounds?

Rachel021967

I have mixed feelings about this. Could this be setting a precedent to charging children to use any play equipment? Also people who bring their children into the park from other areas are bringing money into Battersea by using their shops and public transport. My husband is unemployed so we will be spending a lot of time in the park this summer.

adandem

The trouble is, so many people want to see public sector cuts it's hard to justify the cost of building and maintaining facilities like this from the public purse.
I have seen many threads on MSE which positively praise the public sector job cuts, this is just the start I think and we have seen nowhere near the true effect these cuts will make.

blue_monkey_2

Are there no other parks in the area at all?

Outpost

blue_monkey wrote: »

And coucil run swimming pools? People seem quite happy to pay for those. And council run car parks? People pay for those too.

You genuinely believe that a swimming pool requiring money for staff wages and pensions etc, lighting, heating, all sorts of water-purification equipment, numerous insurances and all the other associated costs is in any way comparable to a park?

You're comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid and I think you probably know this. Completely different beasts to the point where even making the comparison is redundant.

Outpost

vixki wrote: »

Well, you must be pleased by the new cuts then! From now on, any new park built won't be paid for by your tax.

Why would this please me? What a ridiculous and unfounded statement to make.

trinidadone

blue_monkey wrote: »

Are there no other parks in the area at all?

Yes there are other parks in the London Borough of wandsworth. If you mean, are there any other Adventure Playgrounds in the area, the answer is no. Children / Families would need to use public transport.

The Adventure Playground is housed within Battersea Park, which is one of the main parks in the borough

blue_monkey_2

OK, so it's not like there is no-where else for kids to play, just that this requires more looking after and offers more specialised equipment.

I think it's fair enough to be honest. They could have just not built it.

When we were kids we made do with just swings, slides, big rocking horse thing and a roundabout. If we wanted to go to bigger and better places you got in your car, drove and paid for it. Why should it be any different?

blue_monkey_2

Outpost wrote: »

You genuinely believe that a swimming pool requiring money for staff wages and pensions etc, lighting, heating, all sorts of water-purification equipment, numerous insurances and all the other associated costs is in any way comparable to a park?

You're comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid and I think you probably know this. Completely different beasts to the point where even making the comparison is redundant.

Yes, the park has to be staffed, no doubt they would also need to pay a huge amount of Public Liability insurance and also have to pay for specialised maintenaince of the equipment because of the kind of park it is. It is comparable I am afraid, both are council run, both incur extra costs, both are visited by people outside the area.

Our council run leisure centre charges for using the gym. Should they? Should it not be free as well? There has always been a charge. And what about charging for fishing on the council lake here. Should that be free too? There are loads of things we pay for that by that reasoning should be free.

Labour has bred a generation of 'want it for nothings' - hence Red Ken going on about it being shocking that they are charging kids to play. Hello, kids already get charged at places like Soft Play centres. You could go to the park but you want more so you go to soft play. If you want your kids to go to the park for nothing, go to a smaller and free one instead. Easy done, stop moaning about it. Someone else has already said there is more in the area.

If our disabled kids have to pay for a specialised play area then so should other kids and this is what this is, a specialised play area. If I want to take my kids to a free park then I have that choice also.

Here is the thing, you either choose to go or your choose not to go, and pay for using better equipment. It is easy. Leave it as a general park then it'll be a few weeks before some moron sets fire to it and the kids have nowhere to play. Just as happened around here.

JodyBPM

I actually think it would be reasonable enough to make a charge for using these facilities, but I do like the idea of a annual permit at low cost for local residents as someone else suggested and perhaps the option for non residents to purchase an annual permit at slightly higher cost if they wish.

I have 2 children BTW, and would be happy to pay £2.50 a child for a facility like this on an occasional basis. I do think that £5 a visit (for the 2) would put me off using it as often as I would if it was free if I lived very locally to it, though.

I think the comparison with local leisure centres is perfectly reasonable TBH. I don't expect to take my children swimming at the local leisure centre for free, and nor would I expect to be able to use something like this for free. I do think it would be wrong to start charging entrance fees to simple unmanned playground with just a swing/slide etc though. Having said that, I'd rather pay for them, then have them removed because the LA cannot afford to keep them maintained due to cuts.

Dave101t

its not a playground, its a super duper fantasy adventure park, all singing, all dancing. charge a fiver a head i say.