Little Stoke, Big Joke
I wish it was a joke, but apparently it’s not.
It’s no secret that I’m a runner, a running evangelist even. I like running. I like other runners. I like talking about running. I often try to persuade non-runners to run. And one of the weapons in my ‘anyone can run’ arsenal is parkrun, the free, timed, weekly run in the parks of the UK and the world. Parkrun makes running accessible, inviting even, to many people for whom running, or physical exercise of any kind, may previously have been anathema. I’ve completed 29 parkruns, and I have volunteered at parkrun. Lots of my friends – running friends and ‘normal’ friends – have run and volunteered.
It’s no surprise then, that my reaction to Stoke Gifford Parish Council’s recent decision to charge parkrunners for the use of Little Stoke Park, was instinctively, even viscerally, negative. Like many of my running friends, my initial response was one of shock and disgust. You can read for yourself – in the press and on social media – the similar responses of thousands of parkrunners and many past and current professional athletes, as well as many others concerned with the physical well-being of would-be couch-potatoes turned parkrunners. Parkrun free, forever, is the cry.
I haven’t seen too many social media comments in favour of the council’s decision, and those I have seen are indistinguishable from satire: step forward Giles Coren and the Western Mail.
Part of me rebels against the kneejerk response. If it is so obvious that a council charging runners to run in a park is ludicrous, there must be solid arguments to support that position. Parkrun HQ’s measured response seemed too conciliatory and evidence-lite, to make those arguments – not dissimilar to the government’s pro-EU pamphlet. That is not a comparison one should welcome.
So here are my arguments against the Stoke Gifford Parish Council decision.
The principle of charging users of council provided facilities for wear and tear leads to absurd consequences. In the same September 2015 meeting of the Stoke Gifford Parish Council Finance and General Purposes Committee in which it was agreed to charge £1 per adult parkrunner, the committee also noted that work was about to start on play equipment in Little Stoke Park. Given that many residents of Stoke Gifford will never use that play equipment, the parkrun decision suggests that children or their parents should pay to use it. I hope I don’t need to explain the absurdity of this extension of consumerism to all aspects of civic life.
The decision runs counter to the council’s own efforts to encourage volunteering. While the council is right to point out that parkrun has paid directors and staff (it is a global organisation, with hundreds of thousands of participants every week), that doesn’t apply to individual parkruns. The people who organise and run Little Stoke parkrun each week are volunteers. They are members of the Stoke Gifford community, giving up their time for free, to encourage others to adopt a healthy lifestyle in the form of a weekly run. In the same meeting as previously described, the council approved a £500 grant for the local Volunteer Centre, to ‘support the development of volunteering locally’. Again, I hope I don’t need to explain the absurdity of these two self-defeating council motions.
Comparisons with local football clubs are spurious. Even if I agreed that children’s football clubs should pay to use council facilities (What would you want those children to do instead? Play video games at home or stand on street corners intimidating their elders?) football differs from parkrun in that it is exclusive. Not everyone can take part in an Under-15 football match. Pretty much anyone can take part in parkrun, if they wish. When a football match is in progress, pedestrians and dog walkers are not welcome on the pitch. In contrast, parkrunners are always reminded that they do not have exclusive access to park facilities. Even for that single hour (for those walking, not running) on a Saturday morning, parkrunners will give way to other park users. One might argue that parkrunners reduce the utility of the park for other users. But that principle, taken to its natural conclusion, becomes absurd. Dog walkers reduce utility for those who don’t like dogs. Shall we charge them? Boisterous children reduce utility for those seeking tranquillity. Shall we charge them? People sitting on park benches reduce utility for other people who want to sit on the same bench. Shall we charge them?
Of course, Stoke Gifford parish councillors are perfectly within their rights to hold, express, and act on their opinions. Just as the residents of Stoke Gifford are perfectly within their rights to elect different councillors when the opportunity arises. I’m almost as big a fan of freedom of speech and expression, and representative democracy as I am of running. So let it be known, that I won’t be voting for any councillors who vote to charge my local parkrun to use my local park. I’m not joking.
I hope all my fellow runners will make the same pledge and all potential councillors will take note.
