Agenda item

A Policy and Strategy for Financial Contributions to Support Parks and Open Spaces

Minutes:

Purpose of Report

 

To propose both a policy and a separate supporting strategy that set a framework for requesting, receiving and accepting financial support from a wide variety of sources that could be dedicated to protect, enhance, and promote the City Council owned parks and open spaces as detailed at Appendix 1 (excluding the Commons which were subject to an Act of Parliament).

 

Decision

 

That the policy and strategy for financial contributions to support parks and open spaces be approved.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

a) All uses, including for any events/activities - free. In the current economic climate this was not a sustainable approach and it would do nothing to promote investment in the parks and open spaces.

 

b) All uses, including events/activities charged. This would not be practical to administer, would deter use and be counter-productive to Council aims to encourage residents and visitors to use our parks.

 

Reasons for the Decision

 

The parks and open spaces of Lincoln had a vital part to play in supporting many of the Council’s future ambitions for the city.

 

To realise that potential, and so maximise the benefits open spaces could provide always required more funding. In the current economic climate, allocating greater City Council resources to further increase spending on open spaces was very challenging.

 

There were a wide range of potential income streams for parks and open spaces such as grants, sponsorship, advertising income, and bequests. It was therefore essential that the Council did not overlook opportunities to generate funds that could be dedicated to support the city’s parks and open spaces. It was also recognised that it was important to consider any such opportunities carefully so as not to inadvertently or unintentionally impact park/open space users negatively.

 

The proposed policy and supporting strategy were intended to provide a framework for staff/volunteers/residents/third parties, under which an opportunity was provided to contribute financial support for a site.

 

It was not the intent of this policy to seek to redefine any casual activities such as dog walking, jogging, running, playing football (or any such similar casual use), as events or activities that might fall subject to a direct charge. This policy related to many opportunities for income, and specifically aims to do this without deterring fair and legitimate use.

Section 3 of the officer’s report set out the importance of parks and open spaces to the city, the Council’s aspirations for the important roles these spaces would play in the future of the city and the need to encourage public use.

 

The policy acknowledged the complexity of trying to set rigid rules where each site was different, each income opportunity was different, and the context of each case may vary considerably. For this reason, the policy was careful to identify clear policy where that was possible, but where it was not, it established guidance and a suitable decision-making route with accountability.

 

As owners of the sites the Council recognised its responsibility in ensuring all income opportunities that might be considered were done fairly for users, and included within its scope reference to the key partners of Park Advisory Groups

 

It was the intent of the policy to provide opportunities to generate income in support of parks and open spaces, that it enthused stakeholders to generate income for parks initiatives, and that it did not deter use.

 

It was important that any charges were promoted as voluntary contributions to be ring-fenced for the future up-keep of parks and open spaces

 

Whilst such a flexible policy required use of delegation, it was recognised that this must not take decisions beyond any scrutiny. Any Chief Officer decisions would therefore be subject to appeal to the Portfolio Holder.

 

As this was the Council’s first policy for such a diverse area of work, it was anticipated that it would require regular review, at least initially. It was intended that, subject to its early adoption, review would be aligned with the annual Portfolio Holder report.

Supporting documents: