Watford Borough Council approves Cassiobury Park revamp plans ahead of lottery funding application

Cassiobury Park revamp plans revealed

Cassiobury Park revamp plans revealed

First published in News
Last updated
Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

Proposals to transform Cassiobury Park with a £6.6 million makeover have been unveiled as part of a bid to win lottery funding for the project.

Watford Borough Council released designs including a refurbishment of the paddling pools, a new bandstand, plans for a new community centre, improvements to the Cha Cha Cha tea pavilion as well as a host of other works.

However the scheme also includes proposals to start charging for the currently-free Gade Avenue car park.

Last night the council’s ruling Liberal Democrat cabinet approved the plans ahead of submitting the application to the Heritage Lottery Fund and Big Lottery Fund next month.

The council hopes to win £4,534,900 form the lottery’s Parks for People programme to fund the lion’s share of the regeneration project.

One of the most eye-catching elements of the plans is for a two storey "community hub", which will provide new changing cubicles for the pool and sports events, a larger cafe and a space for exhibitions and school events.

The paddling pools will be redesigned to retain the basic three pools but with additional play fountains.

The bandstand, currently outside Watford Town Hall, will also be moved to the back of the park near the pools and be set on a grass mound rather than a stone plinth.

Cha Cha Cha is also set for a makeover under the scheme with a refurbishment and the restoration of its garden area with a new paved veranda and drinking fountain.

The lottery bid also includes plans to improve the entrances with the Rickmansworth Road one due for new landscaping, trees and granite setts and a theme linking it to the historic Cassiobury Park gates.

Other entrances will have new paving and a "bespoke obelisk".

The scheme includes proposals to rebuild the water wheel on the River Gade at the site of the old Mill House and there will be upgrades for the paths around the park.

Watford Observer:

At last night’s meeting Elected Mayor Dorothy Thornhill lauded the designs describing them as "fabulous". She also highlighted the "softer" elements to the projects such as a meditation area and a community garden that she said would enhance the park.

Under the scheme the council also mooted plans for a £150,000 refurbishment of the Gade Avenue car park but also introducing parking charges.

A report to the cabinet said a flat £2 charge could generate around £70,000 a year.

Labour leader Nigel Bell described the designs for the park as "fantastic" but queried the plans to start charging for the Gade Avenue car park.

Mayor Thornhill said the council wanted to deter commuters using the car park.

She said the council had also looked at the possibility of charging for the paddling pools, but "firmly ruled out that idea".

The mayor added: "If you come to the park and pay for parking but everything else is free it is a good day out for a few quid."

Comments (75)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:00pm Tue 21 Jan 14

WatfordBandB says...

Is there any chance, whatsoever, of sorting out the pot holes is our roads first...?
Is there any chance, whatsoever, of sorting out the pot holes is our roads first...? WatfordBandB
  • Score: 27

12:29pm Tue 21 Jan 14

TRT says...

I'm really torn over this. On the one hand, there are a few rough edges of the park, and investment is always welcome. On the other, the useful things WBC has done in the last 20 years, the things that really make a positive difference, you can count on the fingers of one hand.
The monstrous two storey "community hub" can take a running leap as far as I'm concerned. Visually intrusive and destined for dereliction in 10 years. Why put the band stand on a "grassy knoll"? It's wooden. It needs to go on a well drained concrete/stone flat paved area well away from trees. Do they still do deck chair hire? I'm thinking of people wanting to sit around the band stand. Have they tied its use in to the prestigious Music School not half a mile away?
And paying for the car park? What a joke! The last vestige of free parking in Watford. It's hardly a very grand car park in the first place. Mind you, it'll be oversubscribed once they shut the Met station. And that Shepherd's Road entrance will become as nothing when the station closes too, so I don't hold out much hope for Cha Cha cafe being able to build its trade on the back of its proximity to that gateway.
I like the idea of replacing the water wheel... linked to power generation?
The park as it is is mostly naturalistic and beautiful. It is actually a lovely place, and is so because it's remained untouched by the planners. The 80s huts are a bit rough and ready now, and terribly dated, but modern design is for a hidden oasis - see Snowdon's new visitor centre.
I'm really torn over this. On the one hand, there are a few rough edges of the park, and investment is always welcome. On the other, the useful things WBC has done in the last 20 years, the things that really make a positive difference, you can count on the fingers of one hand. The monstrous two storey "community hub" can take a running leap as far as I'm concerned. Visually intrusive and destined for dereliction in 10 years. Why put the band stand on a "grassy knoll"? It's wooden. It needs to go on a well drained concrete/stone flat paved area well away from trees. Do they still do deck chair hire? I'm thinking of people wanting to sit around the band stand. Have they tied its use in to the prestigious Music School not half a mile away? And paying for the car park? What a joke! The last vestige of free parking in Watford. It's hardly a very grand car park in the first place. Mind you, it'll be oversubscribed once they shut the Met station. And that Shepherd's Road entrance will become as nothing when the station closes too, so I don't hold out much hope for Cha Cha cafe being able to build its trade on the back of its proximity to that gateway. I like the idea of replacing the water wheel... linked to power generation? The park as it is is mostly naturalistic and beautiful. It is actually a lovely place, and is so because it's remained untouched by the planners. The 80s huts are a bit rough and ready now, and terribly dated, but modern design is for a hidden oasis - see Snowdon's new visitor centre. TRT
  • Score: 12

12:35pm Tue 21 Jan 14

1982WFC says...

"Mayor Thornhill said the council wanted to deter commuters using the car park"

By the time the works are complete the Met station will have closed, how many commuters will there be? Just yet another money making scheme.
"Mayor Thornhill said the council wanted to deter commuters using the car park" By the time the works are complete the Met station will have closed, how many commuters will there be? Just yet another money making scheme. 1982WFC
  • Score: 9

12:43pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Maclanx says...

Please don't charge for using the car park.
£2 will not put off commuters but it will visitors.

Like TRT some positive suggestions aome not so good.

I quite like the old mill island as it is - paddling across was like going to a secret place no else can get to. A wheel would be interesting but I would prefer the natural areas to be maintained as such.
Please don't charge for using the car park. £2 will not put off commuters but it will visitors. Like TRT some positive suggestions aome not so good. I quite like the old mill island as it is - paddling across was like going to a secret place no else can get to. A wheel would be interesting but I would prefer the natural areas to be maintained as such. Maclanx
  • Score: 15

12:44pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year.

Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this.
Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year. Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 10

12:54pm Tue 21 Jan 14

TRT says...

Is it just me, or is Dotty fixated on the idea of public exhibition space?

What's the point of concreting half the Pond to make a public exhibition space if there's a plan to do this to the park too? And will that reason be trotted out when it's time to move the bandstand? "Oh! The space there we can use for public exhibition space now the lady in her pool has moved..."

And no doubt they've put a "public exhibition space" or "community hub" on the plans for in the Health Campus too... it's like that little bit of garnish, that bit of parsley that Harvester puts on every dish in the belief that it turns regular day-to-day slops into irresistible "haute cuisine".
Is it just me, or is Dotty fixated on the idea of public exhibition space? What's the point of concreting half the Pond to make a public exhibition space if there's a plan to do this to the park too? And will that reason be trotted out when it's time to move the bandstand? "Oh! The space there we can use for public exhibition space now the lady in her pool has moved..." And no doubt they've put a "public exhibition space" or "community hub" on the plans for in the Health Campus too... it's like that little bit of garnish, that bit of parsley that Harvester puts on every dish in the belief that it turns regular day-to-day slops into irresistible "haute cuisine". TRT
  • Score: 11

1:27pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Mrs Droftaw says...

Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free!
Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free! Mrs Droftaw
  • Score: 30

1:58pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Mrs Droftaw wrote:
Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free!
You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking.

It's just greed and charging people just because they can.

Shameful.
[quote][p][bold]Mrs Droftaw[/bold] wrote: Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free![/p][/quote]You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking. It's just greed and charging people just because they can. Shameful. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 6

2:12pm Tue 21 Jan 14

TRT says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Mrs Droftaw wrote:
Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free!
You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking.

It's just greed and charging people just because they can.

Shameful.
They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs Droftaw[/bold] wrote: Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free![/p][/quote]You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking. It's just greed and charging people just because they can. Shameful.[/p][/quote]They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations! TRT
  • Score: 4

2:33pm Tue 21 Jan 14

jasonwatford says...

God you lot are so boring , live in the real world will you for once. A flat £2.00 charge for however long you want to be in the park is a small charge to be able to take a family for a nice day out. If you don't want to pay the charge then walk from wherever you live.
God you lot are so boring , live in the real world will you for once. A flat £2.00 charge for however long you want to be in the park is a small charge to be able to take a family for a nice day out. If you don't want to pay the charge then walk from wherever you live. jasonwatford
  • Score: -5

2:48pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

jasonwatford wrote:
God you lot are so boring , live in the real world will you for once. A flat £2.00 charge for however long you want to be in the park is a small charge to be able to take a family for a nice day out. If you don't want to pay the charge then walk from wherever you live.
What do you have against things being free, like parking?

It's a small sum, yes, but free is better. The council doesn't need the money, it has plenty of profit from parking already..
[quote][p][bold]jasonwatford[/bold] wrote: God you lot are so boring , live in the real world will you for once. A flat £2.00 charge for however long you want to be in the park is a small charge to be able to take a family for a nice day out. If you don't want to pay the charge then walk from wherever you live.[/p][/quote]What do you have against things being free, like parking? It's a small sum, yes, but free is better. The council doesn't need the money, it has plenty of profit from parking already.. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 9

3:18pm Tue 21 Jan 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year.

Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this.
Hang on. Firstly I think you are an imposter.

People alos need to think about the revenue the council raises as a positive. The more money they have from parking charges the less money they have to charge for council tax. I'm all for that.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year. Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this.[/p][/quote]Hang on. Firstly I think you are an imposter. People alos need to think about the revenue the council raises as a positive. The more money they have from parking charges the less money they have to charge for council tax. I'm all for that. CaptainPC
  • Score: -5

3:24pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

CaptainPC wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year. Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this.
Hang on. Firstly I think you are an imposter. People alos need to think about the revenue the council raises as a positive. The more money they have from parking charges the less money they have to charge for council tax. I'm all for that.
keep thinking, it's good for you.

While you're at it, find out what parking money can and cannot be spent on. It's ring-fenced.

I agree wholeheartedly that lower council taxes are something to aim for.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year. Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this.[/p][/quote]Hang on. Firstly I think you are an imposter. People alos need to think about the revenue the council raises as a positive. The more money they have from parking charges the less money they have to charge for council tax. I'm all for that.[/p][/quote]keep thinking, it's good for you. While you're at it, find out what parking money can and cannot be spent on. It's ring-fenced. I agree wholeheartedly that lower council taxes are something to aim for. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -3

4:01pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Cuetip says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
CaptainPC wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year. Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this.
Hang on. Firstly I think you are an imposter. People alos need to think about the revenue the council raises as a positive. The more money they have from parking charges the less money they have to charge for council tax. I'm all for that.
keep thinking, it's good for you.

While you're at it, find out what parking money can and cannot be spent on. It's ring-fenced.

I agree wholeheartedly that lower council taxes are something to aim for.
There is almost a creeping commercilisation in all this for what is supposed to be a peoples' park and the question is where will it end as it becomes more and more acceptable to pay eg charging summer play schemes for visiting the park's paddling pools or play areas,

If the numbers rise, the minature railway and ice cream vendors might make more money which would encourage the council to charge more 'rent' leading to price hikes which then becomes not a cheap day out to a park.

The way costs at Kew gardens has increased over the years means that some groups have been priced out especially if you sample the variety of tea rooms.

The future might well see some areas / activities being earmarked for charges or commercial events as the need to make money plays an increasingly attractive role in the development of the park.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year. Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this.[/p][/quote]Hang on. Firstly I think you are an imposter. People alos need to think about the revenue the council raises as a positive. The more money they have from parking charges the less money they have to charge for council tax. I'm all for that.[/p][/quote]keep thinking, it's good for you. While you're at it, find out what parking money can and cannot be spent on. It's ring-fenced. I agree wholeheartedly that lower council taxes are something to aim for.[/p][/quote]There is almost a creeping commercilisation in all this for what is supposed to be a peoples' park and the question is where will it end as it becomes more and more acceptable to pay eg charging summer play schemes for visiting the park's paddling pools or play areas, If the numbers rise, the minature railway and ice cream vendors might make more money which would encourage the council to charge more 'rent' leading to price hikes which then becomes not a cheap day out to a park. The way costs at Kew gardens has increased over the years means that some groups have been priced out especially if you sample the variety of tea rooms. The future might well see some areas / activities being earmarked for charges or commercial events as the need to make money plays an increasingly attractive role in the development of the park. Cuetip
  • Score: 14

5:05pm Tue 21 Jan 14

sue truscott says...

Personally, I can't see anything wrong with the park as it is. There are two new play areas, and the paddling pools for the children. If I have to pay £2 (will we end up win another Watford General Hospital rip-off?) every time I walk my dogs there (not spend the day as someone said) I will not visit at all. There is no shortage of places to walk the dogs. Shame though, as I don't live near enough to walk to the park, and I have made some nice friends there over the years. I agree with whoever suggested that it is just greed.
Personally, I can't see anything wrong with the park as it is. There are two new play areas, and the paddling pools for the children. If I have to pay £2 (will we end up win another Watford General Hospital rip-off?) every time I walk my dogs there (not spend the day as someone said) I will not visit at all. There is no shortage of places to walk the dogs. Shame though, as I don't live near enough to walk to the park, and I have made some nice friends there over the years. I agree with whoever suggested that it is just greed. sue truscott
  • Score: 13

5:10pm Tue 21 Jan 14

phil mitchel says...

How much longer must we put with the cross eyed buck toothed monster in the town hall ?
She won't be happy until they charge us for walking down the street, I'm surprised these Lib dem numpties aren't going to charge us an entrance fee to the park.....or have I given them an idea ?
How much longer must we put with the cross eyed buck toothed monster in the town hall ? She won't be happy until they charge us for walking down the street, I'm surprised these Lib dem numpties aren't going to charge us an entrance fee to the park.....or have I given them an idea ? phil mitchel
  • Score: 13

5:12pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Isn't it funny how the council have banned parking on the roads on the cassiobury estate thus removing the obvious alternative to the car park, is expanding the car park and now going to charge for parking there?

Do the Watford LibDems think of anything else apart from restricting our liberties and charging us for everything?

Time for UKIP!
Isn't it funny how the council have banned parking on the roads on the cassiobury estate thus removing the obvious alternative to the car park, is expanding the car park and now going to charge for parking there? Do the Watford LibDems think of anything else apart from restricting our liberties and charging us for everything? Time for UKIP! Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 1

5:13pm Tue 21 Jan 14

phil mitchel says...

sue truscott wrote:
Personally, I can't see anything wrong with the park as it is. There are two new play areas, and the paddling pools for the children. If I have to pay £2 (will we end up win another Watford General Hospital rip-off?) every time I walk my dogs there (not spend the day as someone said) I will not visit at all. There is no shortage of places to walk the dogs. Shame though, as I don't live near enough to walk to the park, and I have made some nice friends there over the years. I agree with whoever suggested that it is just greed.
I agree, it'll become a park for those that live nearbye and not for everyone. Just another example of brown nosing that this lot are so good at.
[quote][p][bold]sue truscott[/bold] wrote: Personally, I can't see anything wrong with the park as it is. There are two new play areas, and the paddling pools for the children. If I have to pay £2 (will we end up win another Watford General Hospital rip-off?) every time I walk my dogs there (not spend the day as someone said) I will not visit at all. There is no shortage of places to walk the dogs. Shame though, as I don't live near enough to walk to the park, and I have made some nice friends there over the years. I agree with whoever suggested that it is just greed.[/p][/quote]I agree, it'll become a park for those that live nearbye and not for everyone. Just another example of brown nosing that this lot are so good at. phil mitchel
  • Score: 9

5:48pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Leavesdenlad says...

With all this money slushing around, it would be wonderful if they could hurry up and sort out the parking problems in Haines Way which have been dragging on for years with both the borough council, county council and social housing group continually passing the buck.

£10,000 per space sounds an over-estimate to anyone in the real world but be that as it may, it pales into insignificance compared to all these repeated and unnecessary high-street renewals and now works on a park.

Come on council, do something to help your residents which causes problems and aggravations on a daily basis rather than endless white-elephant projects.
With all this money slushing around, it would be wonderful if they could hurry up and sort out the parking problems in Haines Way which have been dragging on for years with both the borough council, county council and social housing group continually passing the buck. £10,000 per space sounds an over-estimate to anyone in the real world but be that as it may, it pales into insignificance compared to all these repeated and unnecessary high-street renewals and now works on a park. Come on council, do something to help your residents which causes problems and aggravations on a daily basis rather than endless white-elephant projects. Leavesdenlad
  • Score: -2

6:03pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Harold Hornet says...

£2.00 to park in year one, £2.50 in year two, £3.00 in year three.........

It's a public park and there is no need to charge people to park there!
£2.00 to park in year one, £2.50 in year two, £3.00 in year three......... It's a public park and there is no need to charge people to park there! Harold Hornet
  • Score: 12

6:38pm Tue 21 Jan 14

WatfordAlex says...

TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Mrs Droftaw wrote:
Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free!
You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking.

It's just greed and charging people just because they can.

Shameful.
They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations!
You know full well that's nonsense - one station is closing but 2 new ones are opening. The Ascot Road station will be a 5 minute walk from the south-western corner of the park and will be better connected to the wider rail network.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs Droftaw[/bold] wrote: Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free![/p][/quote]You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking. It's just greed and charging people just because they can. Shameful.[/p][/quote]They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations![/p][/quote]You know full well that's nonsense - one station is closing but 2 new ones are opening. The Ascot Road station will be a 5 minute walk from the south-western corner of the park and will be better connected to the wider rail network. WatfordAlex
  • Score: -1

6:43pm Tue 21 Jan 14

WatfordAlex says...

Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ,
Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ, WatfordAlex
  • Score: -6

8:02pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Nascot says...

TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Mrs Droftaw wrote:
Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free!
You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking.

It's just greed and charging people just because they can.

Shameful.
They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations!
TRT says...
Shameful.They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations!

Don't forget the extra ones they are opening before you write such comments
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs Droftaw[/bold] wrote: Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free![/p][/quote]You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking. It's just greed and charging people just because they can. Shameful.[/p][/quote]They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations![/p][/quote]TRT says... Shameful.They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations! Don't forget the extra ones they are opening before you write such comments Nascot
  • Score: -1

8:36pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ,
You can't walk to it from all the borough in 20 minutes. People from Watford drive there, I know that for a fact as I have been one of them.

Parking there is free now, it should stay free.

UKIP would keep Cassiobuty Park parking free.

WatfordAlex's assumptions are just made up to suit his LibDem argument. It's shameful the lies and half-truths the LibDems come up with just to justify their greedy and dotty schemes.

Vote UKIP in the local elections in 2014 and let's stop this nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ,[/p][/quote]You can't walk to it from all the borough in 20 minutes. People from Watford drive there, I know that for a fact as I have been one of them. Parking there is free now, it should stay free. UKIP would keep Cassiobuty Park parking free. WatfordAlex's assumptions are just made up to suit his LibDem argument. It's shameful the lies and half-truths the LibDems come up with just to justify their greedy and dotty schemes. Vote UKIP in the local elections in 2014 and let's stop this nonsense. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -2

9:44pm Tue 21 Jan 14

WatfordAlex says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
WatfordAlex wrote:
Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ,
You can't walk to it from all the borough in 20 minutes. People from Watford drive there, I know that for a fact as I have been one of them.

Parking there is free now, it should stay free.

UKIP would keep Cassiobuty Park parking free.

WatfordAlex's assumptions are just made up to suit his LibDem argument. It's shameful the lies and half-truths the LibDems come up with just to justify their greedy and dotty schemes.

Vote UKIP in the local elections in 2014 and let's stop this nonsense.
Reading isn't your strong point is it Phil? I said 'most' of the Borough and walk OR cycle. As you know, I only comment on transport stuff and support whichever politicians promote stuff I agree with, which is everyone but UKIP. If your transport manifesto did not look it was written by senile fan of Jeremy Clarkson then I might support you too! Anyway, I recommend you do some more walking - it helps control anger...
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ,[/p][/quote]You can't walk to it from all the borough in 20 minutes. People from Watford drive there, I know that for a fact as I have been one of them. Parking there is free now, it should stay free. UKIP would keep Cassiobuty Park parking free. WatfordAlex's assumptions are just made up to suit his LibDem argument. It's shameful the lies and half-truths the LibDems come up with just to justify their greedy and dotty schemes. Vote UKIP in the local elections in 2014 and let's stop this nonsense.[/p][/quote]Reading isn't your strong point is it Phil? I said 'most' of the Borough and walk OR cycle. As you know, I only comment on transport stuff and support whichever politicians promote stuff I agree with, which is everyone but UKIP. If your transport manifesto did not look it was written by senile fan of Jeremy Clarkson then I might support you too! Anyway, I recommend you do some more walking - it helps control anger... WatfordAlex
  • Score: 2

9:59pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

I read exactly what you wrote and saw how "cloudy" the wording was and how it was based on worthless assumptions.

What's wrong with free parking at Cassiobury park. It doesn't see mt ohave done any harm over the last 50 years, why start charging now?

I dislike councils who charge just because they can. It shows a contempt for the electorate, like that shown by the LibDems to Watford motorists.
I read exactly what you wrote and saw how "cloudy" the wording was and how it was based on worthless assumptions. What's wrong with free parking at Cassiobury park. It doesn't see mt ohave done any harm over the last 50 years, why start charging now? I dislike councils who charge just because they can. It shows a contempt for the electorate, like that shown by the LibDems to Watford motorists. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -3

10:04pm Tue 21 Jan 14

sambora says...

I am gobsmacked by the idiotic comments here! Get in the real world! Read the article! The council is securing millions of pounds of lottery money to improve this wonderful park! Lottery money!!! Remember the 2 quid we happily pay for tickets each week! Well it looks like we are getting some of this back!! Do you really think that parks pay for themselves? That parks don't need investing in and looking after and improving? Hark back to the beginning of the 20th century when the people of Watford were asked when cassiobury became available whether they wanted it for a public park..... They said no but the council went ahead and bought it! Thank god! But it costs to manage and maintain! Take a good look at the pools and those horrid white buildings!! Horrid! This revamp conserves this wonderful park but brings it up to date! And what do you lot whine on about.... Paying 2 quid to park your car! Get a life . We are all happy to get in our cars and clog the roads around the park and fill the car park. It doesn't pay for itself so pull your heads out of the sand, ignore the ukip propaganda and be thankful the council are keen to protect and enhance cassiobury park and are bold enough as they were when they bought it for us all!!
I am gobsmacked by the idiotic comments here! Get in the real world! Read the article! The council is securing millions of pounds of lottery money to improve this wonderful park! Lottery money!!! Remember the 2 quid we happily pay for tickets each week! Well it looks like we are getting some of this back!! Do you really think that parks pay for themselves? That parks don't need investing in and looking after and improving? Hark back to the beginning of the 20th century when the people of Watford were asked when cassiobury became available whether they wanted it for a public park..... They said no but the council went ahead and bought it! Thank god! But it costs to manage and maintain! Take a good look at the pools and those horrid white buildings!! Horrid! This revamp conserves this wonderful park but brings it up to date! And what do you lot whine on about.... Paying 2 quid to park your car! Get a life . We are all happy to get in our cars and clog the roads around the park and fill the car park. It doesn't pay for itself so pull your heads out of the sand, ignore the ukip propaganda and be thankful the council are keen to protect and enhance cassiobury park and are bold enough as they were when they bought it for us all!! sambora
  • Score: -9

10:43pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Andrew1963 says...

I presume the £70,000 is the profit after the cost of maintaining machines, collecting money and enforcement. I think the charge would gain support if the council agreed to ring fence the money for improvements to the park(s) rather it being used to fund current maintenance budgets. What are the capital costs of introducing the machines etc to collect the money. Personally I would remove the car park altogether from its present situation which is a potentially better location for sports pitches. Golders Hill park in Golders Green is very busy and has a tiny car park for Blue badge holders only. The main argument for the car park is the very poor public transport links to the park from the majority of Watford, making driving the only practical way for Watford residents to get there. Without catastrophically high subsidies that won't change. Why not run a 6 month trial. Close the car park altogether April to November and see how usage of the park changes.
I presume the £70,000 is the profit after the cost of maintaining machines, collecting money and enforcement. I think the charge would gain support if the council agreed to ring fence the money for improvements to the park(s) rather it being used to fund current maintenance budgets. What are the capital costs of introducing the machines etc to collect the money. Personally I would remove the car park altogether from its present situation which is a potentially better location for sports pitches. Golders Hill park in Golders Green is very busy and has a tiny car park for Blue badge holders only. The main argument for the car park is the very poor public transport links to the park from the majority of Watford, making driving the only practical way for Watford residents to get there. Without catastrophically high subsidies that won't change. Why not run a 6 month trial. Close the car park altogether April to November and see how usage of the park changes. Andrew1963
  • Score: -6

10:55pm Tue 21 Jan 14

TRT says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
TRT wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Mrs Droftaw wrote:
Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free!
You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking.

It's just greed and charging people just because they can.

Shameful.
They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations!
You know full well that's nonsense - one station is closing but 2 new ones are opening. The Ascot Road station will be a 5 minute walk from the south-western corner of the park and will be better connected to the wider rail network.
Glad to hear that it's nonsense that they are closing Watford Met.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs Droftaw[/bold] wrote: Get rid of the Mayor - that will save over £70k a year and then the car park can be free![/p][/quote]You miss the point. We don't need to save £70,000 when we have a spare £1,000,000 each year on parking. It's just greed and charging people just because they can. Shameful.[/p][/quote]They want to encourage us to use public transport... by closing down stations![/p][/quote]You know full well that's nonsense - one station is closing but 2 new ones are opening. The Ascot Road station will be a 5 minute walk from the south-western corner of the park and will be better connected to the wider rail network.[/p][/quote]Glad to hear that it's nonsense that they are closing Watford Met. TRT
  • Score: -2

10:59pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

sambora wrote:
I am gobsmacked by the idiotic comments here! Get in the real world! Read the article! The council is securing millions of pounds of lottery money to improve this wonderful park! Lottery money!!! Remember the 2 quid we happily pay for tickets each week! Well it looks like we are getting some of this back!! Do you really think that parks pay for themselves? That parks don't need investing in and looking after and improving? Hark back to the beginning of the 20th century when the people of Watford were asked when cassiobury became available whether they wanted it for a public park..... They said no but the council went ahead and bought it! Thank god! But it costs to manage and maintain! Take a good look at the pools and those horrid white buildings!! Horrid! This revamp conserves this wonderful park but brings it up to date! And what do you lot whine on about.... Paying 2 quid to park your car! Get a life . We are all happy to get in our cars and clog the roads around the park and fill the car park. It doesn't pay for itself so pull your heads out of the sand, ignore the ukip propaganda and be thankful the council are keen to protect and enhance cassiobury park and are bold enough as they were when they bought it for us all!!
So am I and yours is I am afraid one of them.

Parks do not pay dor themselves and please don't be under any illusion that this £70,000 will make any difference. We pay council tax, and that pays for the park and much else besides, so the park is in some way "getting something back" for taxes we already pay.

There are many people who like the park, pools and buildings, the ones you so disparagingly call shabby.

UKIP would do all that the council are doing to upgrade the park, perhaps in a more tasteful way, AND make parking free in the car park.

I urge other parties to make the same commitment to free parking if it is something they believe in, or is UKIP the only party that believes car parking at the park should be free?

This is the real world. Yours seems to be some money-grubbing world dreamt up by LibDems who just want to relieve us of as much money as possible and to disparage those who believe there is a better way. So LibDem, so dotty.
[quote][p][bold]sambora[/bold] wrote: I am gobsmacked by the idiotic comments here! Get in the real world! Read the article! The council is securing millions of pounds of lottery money to improve this wonderful park! Lottery money!!! Remember the 2 quid we happily pay for tickets each week! Well it looks like we are getting some of this back!! Do you really think that parks pay for themselves? That parks don't need investing in and looking after and improving? Hark back to the beginning of the 20th century when the people of Watford were asked when cassiobury became available whether they wanted it for a public park..... They said no but the council went ahead and bought it! Thank god! But it costs to manage and maintain! Take a good look at the pools and those horrid white buildings!! Horrid! This revamp conserves this wonderful park but brings it up to date! And what do you lot whine on about.... Paying 2 quid to park your car! Get a life . We are all happy to get in our cars and clog the roads around the park and fill the car park. It doesn't pay for itself so pull your heads out of the sand, ignore the ukip propaganda and be thankful the council are keen to protect and enhance cassiobury park and are bold enough as they were when they bought it for us all!![/p][/quote]So am I and yours is I am afraid one of them. Parks do not pay dor themselves and please don't be under any illusion that this £70,000 will make any difference. We pay council tax, and that pays for the park and much else besides, so the park is in some way "getting something back" for taxes we already pay. There are many people who like the park, pools and buildings, the ones you so disparagingly call shabby. UKIP would do all that the council are doing to upgrade the park, perhaps in a more tasteful way, AND make parking free in the car park. I urge other parties to make the same commitment to free parking if it is something they believe in, or is UKIP the only party that believes car parking at the park should be free? This is the real world. Yours seems to be some money-grubbing world dreamt up by LibDems who just want to relieve us of as much money as possible and to disparage those who believe there is a better way. So LibDem, so dotty. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -3

11:00pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Andrew1963 says...

Ascot Road is nearer to Morrisons than Cassiobury Park. No doubt they will decide to introduce charges at their car park as soon as the station opens. I think not. It is certainly an option to walk from Ascot Road to the park, but it is nearer 15/20 minute walk to the Gade road car park not 5 minutes.
Ascot Road is nearer to Morrisons than Cassiobury Park. No doubt they will decide to introduce charges at their car park as soon as the station opens. I think not. It is certainly an option to walk from Ascot Road to the park, but it is nearer 15/20 minute walk to the Gade road car park not 5 minutes. Andrew1963
  • Score: 0

11:03pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

These comments seem to agree that improvements to the park are welcome but the LibDem plan to start charging for car parking is splitting the comments.

It seem people are either in favour of free parking or they are not.

UKIP are in favour of free parking.
These comments seem to agree that improvements to the park are welcome but the LibDem plan to start charging for car parking is splitting the comments. It seem people are either in favour of free parking or they are not. UKIP are in favour of free parking. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

11:04pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

I think we pay enough in council taxes already, no need for an additional charge just for using something we have already paid for and then some.
I think we pay enough in council taxes already, no need for an additional charge just for using something we have already paid for and then some. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -7

11:38pm Tue 21 Jan 14

The Rover says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
WatfordAlex wrote:
Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ,
You can't walk to it from all the borough in 20 minutes. People from Watford drive there, I know that for a fact as I have been one of them.

Parking there is free now, it should stay free.

UKIP would keep Cassiobuty Park parking free.

WatfordAlex's assumptions are just made up to suit his LibDem argument. It's shameful the lies and half-truths the LibDems come up with just to justify their greedy and dotty schemes.

Vote UKIP in the local elections in 2014 and let's stop this nonsense.
Charge for parking between 11am and midday, Monday to Friday. That will stop the commuters parking there, and the car park remains free for a majority of users.

I live in North Watford and take my dog for a walk before work (and after work in the summer). It's too far to walk, and to pay £2 a day to use the park is ridiculous.

Why are the council obsessed with charging for parking? Even the parking spaces behind the new restaurants in the high street are now pay and display with an hours parking limit, so you cannot park there to use the restaurants. I bet the restaurant owners were not told that there customers would not be able to park near there restaurants when they took out their leases. All the parking restrictions are affecting small, local businesses, as their customer cannot park near their premises. Why pay to park at a local shop when you can park for free at a supermarket?

To spend £6.7 million on improving the park is an absolute joke. First it was the bridge over the pond and now this. If the council have money to burn then maybe they should be charging less for their services instead of wasting money.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ,[/p][/quote]You can't walk to it from all the borough in 20 minutes. People from Watford drive there, I know that for a fact as I have been one of them. Parking there is free now, it should stay free. UKIP would keep Cassiobuty Park parking free. WatfordAlex's assumptions are just made up to suit his LibDem argument. It's shameful the lies and half-truths the LibDems come up with just to justify their greedy and dotty schemes. Vote UKIP in the local elections in 2014 and let's stop this nonsense.[/p][/quote]Charge for parking between 11am and midday, Monday to Friday. That will stop the commuters parking there, and the car park remains free for a majority of users. I live in North Watford and take my dog for a walk before work (and after work in the summer). It's too far to walk, and to pay £2 a day to use the park is ridiculous. Why are the council obsessed with charging for parking? Even the parking spaces behind the new restaurants in the high street are now pay and display with an hours parking limit, so you cannot park there to use the restaurants. I bet the restaurant owners were not told that there customers would not be able to park near there restaurants when they took out their leases. All the parking restrictions are affecting small, local businesses, as their customer cannot park near their premises. Why pay to park at a local shop when you can park for free at a supermarket? To spend £6.7 million on improving the park is an absolute joke. First it was the bridge over the pond and now this. If the council have money to burn then maybe they should be charging less for their services instead of wasting money. The Rover
  • Score: 4

11:44pm Tue 21 Jan 14

TRT says...

Be interesting to see who these plans were drawn up with/by. And who would undertake the work. OK, so the bulk of the outlay MAY come from a couple of lottery funds, if approved, but the council still has to chip in, and still has to pay for the designs and consultations etc etc.
You can bet your last £2 that someone, somewhere is making money off this scheme.
Be interesting to see who these plans were drawn up with/by. And who would undertake the work. OK, so the bulk of the outlay MAY come from a couple of lottery funds, if approved, but the council still has to chip in, and still has to pay for the designs and consultations etc etc. You can bet your last £2 that someone, somewhere is making money off this scheme. TRT
  • Score: 2

12:11am Wed 22 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

The Rover wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
WatfordAlex wrote: Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ,
You can't walk to it from all the borough in 20 minutes. People from Watford drive there, I know that for a fact as I have been one of them. Parking there is free now, it should stay free. UKIP would keep Cassiobuty Park parking free. WatfordAlex's assumptions are just made up to suit his LibDem argument. It's shameful the lies and half-truths the LibDems come up with just to justify their greedy and dotty schemes. Vote UKIP in the local elections in 2014 and let's stop this nonsense.
Charge for parking between 11am and midday, Monday to Friday. That will stop the commuters parking there, and the car park remains free for a majority of users. I live in North Watford and take my dog for a walk before work (and after work in the summer). It's too far to walk, and to pay £2 a day to use the park is ridiculous. Why are the council obsessed with charging for parking? Even the parking spaces behind the new restaurants in the high street are now pay and display with an hours parking limit, so you cannot park there to use the restaurants. I bet the restaurant owners were not told that there customers would not be able to park near there restaurants when they took out their leases. All the parking restrictions are affecting small, local businesses, as their customer cannot park near their premises. Why pay to park at a local shop when you can park for free at a supermarket? To spend £6.7 million on improving the park is an absolute joke. First it was the bridge over the pond and now this. If the council have money to burn then maybe they should be charging less for their services instead of wasting money.
Well said, apart from the parking charges which I disagree with. If it becomes a problem with commuters then your suggestion does seem a reasonable compromise although there are other measures available.
[quote][p][bold]The Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: Regarding car parks: most public parks in towns that I can think of don't have them because local people simply walk there. Clearly, Cassiobury attracts people from much further away and is more like a country park. You can walk or cycle to it from nearly all the Borough in under 20 minutes, so the bulk of the people driving are presumably from out of town and do not pay council tax for maintaining the park. In that context the idea of a £2 charge is actually not a bad idea (assuming there is free parking for disabled local people who have to drive). In any case, there are a bunch of places a dog walker can park for free at the northern end of the park beyond the CPZ,[/p][/quote]You can't walk to it from all the borough in 20 minutes. People from Watford drive there, I know that for a fact as I have been one of them. Parking there is free now, it should stay free. UKIP would keep Cassiobuty Park parking free. WatfordAlex's assumptions are just made up to suit his LibDem argument. It's shameful the lies and half-truths the LibDems come up with just to justify their greedy and dotty schemes. Vote UKIP in the local elections in 2014 and let's stop this nonsense.[/p][/quote]Charge for parking between 11am and midday, Monday to Friday. That will stop the commuters parking there, and the car park remains free for a majority of users. I live in North Watford and take my dog for a walk before work (and after work in the summer). It's too far to walk, and to pay £2 a day to use the park is ridiculous. Why are the council obsessed with charging for parking? Even the parking spaces behind the new restaurants in the high street are now pay and display with an hours parking limit, so you cannot park there to use the restaurants. I bet the restaurant owners were not told that there customers would not be able to park near there restaurants when they took out their leases. All the parking restrictions are affecting small, local businesses, as their customer cannot park near their premises. Why pay to park at a local shop when you can park for free at a supermarket? To spend £6.7 million on improving the park is an absolute joke. First it was the bridge over the pond and now this. If the council have money to burn then maybe they should be charging less for their services instead of wasting money.[/p][/quote]Well said, apart from the parking charges which I disagree with. If it becomes a problem with commuters then your suggestion does seem a reasonable compromise although there are other measures available. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

8:46am Wed 22 Jan 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
CaptainPC wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote: Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year. Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this.
Hang on. Firstly I think you are an imposter. People alos need to think about the revenue the council raises as a positive. The more money they have from parking charges the less money they have to charge for council tax. I'm all for that.
keep thinking, it's good for you.

While you're at it, find out what parking money can and cannot be spent on. It's ring-fenced.

I agree wholeheartedly that lower council taxes are something to aim for.
If people don't want to pay to park then they don't have to, no one has a choice on council tax. Isn't it fairer that those who use a service pay for it, rather than it being taking from everyone?
There's loads of public transport options to get to Cassio and I can't think that anyone in the borough is outside of cycling distance If the council intends to charge disabled people then this should be addressed, but I doubt they do.

Why should we encourage and subsidise laziness?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Charging for parking will bring in £70,000 per year. Parking already makes a £1 million SURPLUS for Watford Council. The Council doesn't need the money. This is just stupid and greedy and the LibDems should hang their heads in shame over this.[/p][/quote]Hang on. Firstly I think you are an imposter. People alos need to think about the revenue the council raises as a positive. The more money they have from parking charges the less money they have to charge for council tax. I'm all for that.[/p][/quote]keep thinking, it's good for you. While you're at it, find out what parking money can and cannot be spent on. It's ring-fenced. I agree wholeheartedly that lower council taxes are something to aim for.[/p][/quote]If people don't want to pay to park then they don't have to, no one has a choice on council tax. Isn't it fairer that those who use a service pay for it, rather than it being taking from everyone? There's loads of public transport options to get to Cassio and I can't think that anyone in the borough is outside of cycling distance If the council intends to charge disabled people then this should be addressed, but I doubt they do. Why should we encourage and subsidise laziness? CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

9:33am Wed 22 Jan 14

S/O man says...

phil mitchel wrote:
How much longer must we put with the cross eyed buck toothed monster in the town hall ? She won't be happy until they charge us for walking down the street, I'm surprised these Lib dem numpties aren't going to charge us an entrance fee to the park.....or have I given them an idea ?
For however long you vote for her to stay in for, dont vote for her and she wont be elected mayor
[quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: How much longer must we put with the cross eyed buck toothed monster in the town hall ? She won't be happy until they charge us for walking down the street, I'm surprised these Lib dem numpties aren't going to charge us an entrance fee to the park.....or have I given them an idea ?[/p][/quote]For however long you vote for her to stay in for, dont vote for her and she wont be elected mayor S/O man
  • Score: 5

9:36am Wed 22 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

S/O man wrote:
phil mitchel wrote: How much longer must we put with the cross eyed buck toothed monster in the town hall ? She won't be happy until they charge us for walking down the street, I'm surprised these Lib dem numpties aren't going to charge us an entrance fee to the park.....or have I given them an idea ?
For however long you vote for her to stay in for, dont vote for her and she wont be elected mayor
I would add to that - you should also vote for someone else!
[quote][p][bold]S/O man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil mitchel[/bold] wrote: How much longer must we put with the cross eyed buck toothed monster in the town hall ? She won't be happy until they charge us for walking down the street, I'm surprised these Lib dem numpties aren't going to charge us an entrance fee to the park.....or have I given them an idea ?[/p][/quote]For however long you vote for her to stay in for, dont vote for her and she wont be elected mayor[/p][/quote]I would add to that - you should also vote for someone else! Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: 2

9:39am Wed 22 Jan 14

TRT says...

Utter tosh, Captain PC. The park is used by all sorts of people. Are you suggesting that a mother should pack up a five year old and a three year old and all their associated gubbins and a picnic and walk from, say, Garston to Cassiobury Park in the height of summer in 30°+ temperatures to go to the paddling pool and see one of these kids shows they put on? Or they should catch a bus? Or two buses? Or three? Or the tube which will no longer be anywhere near the park or at least to get into the bottom corner at Swiss Avenue will involve crossing two major roads at roundabouts?
Don't be absurd. Or perhaps it would be cheaper to add back in the local green spaces all across the Borough so that no-one lives more than 5 minutes walk from a park, then abandon the idea of providing anything more in a park than trees, grass and air? They are planning to increase the number of attractors to the park. They want more visitors, it seems. So they will end up with displaced parking onto nearby streets to avoid charges, and then a CPZ extension will be called for...
Utter tosh, Captain PC. The park is used by all sorts of people. Are you suggesting that a mother should pack up a five year old and a three year old and all their associated gubbins and a picnic and walk from, say, Garston to Cassiobury Park in the height of summer in 30°+ temperatures to go to the paddling pool and see one of these kids shows they put on? Or they should catch a bus? Or two buses? Or three? Or the tube which will no longer be anywhere near the park or at least to get into the bottom corner at Swiss Avenue will involve crossing two major roads at roundabouts? Don't be absurd. Or perhaps it would be cheaper to add back in the local green spaces all across the Borough so that no-one lives more than 5 minutes walk from a park, then abandon the idea of providing anything more in a park than trees, grass and air? They are planning to increase the number of attractors to the park. They want more visitors, it seems. So they will end up with displaced parking onto nearby streets to avoid charges, and then a CPZ extension will be called for... TRT
  • Score: 0

10:03am Wed 22 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

TRT wrote:
Utter tosh, Captain PC. The park is used by all sorts of people. Are you suggesting that a mother should pack up a five year old and a three year old and all their associated gubbins and a picnic and walk from, say, Garston to Cassiobury Park in the height of summer in 30°+ temperatures to go to the paddling pool and see one of these kids shows they put on? Or they should catch a bus? Or two buses? Or three? Or the tube which will no longer be anywhere near the park or at least to get into the bottom corner at Swiss Avenue will involve crossing two major roads at roundabouts? Don't be absurd. Or perhaps it would be cheaper to add back in the local green spaces all across the Borough so that no-one lives more than 5 minutes walk from a park, then abandon the idea of providing anything more in a park than trees, grass and air? They are planning to increase the number of attractors to the park. They want more visitors, it seems. So they will end up with displaced parking onto nearby streets to avoid charges, and then a CPZ extension will be called for...
There is a lot of utter tosh talked about this, Captain PC is but one of the experts when it comes to that.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Utter tosh, Captain PC. The park is used by all sorts of people. Are you suggesting that a mother should pack up a five year old and a three year old and all their associated gubbins and a picnic and walk from, say, Garston to Cassiobury Park in the height of summer in 30°+ temperatures to go to the paddling pool and see one of these kids shows they put on? Or they should catch a bus? Or two buses? Or three? Or the tube which will no longer be anywhere near the park or at least to get into the bottom corner at Swiss Avenue will involve crossing two major roads at roundabouts? Don't be absurd. Or perhaps it would be cheaper to add back in the local green spaces all across the Borough so that no-one lives more than 5 minutes walk from a park, then abandon the idea of providing anything more in a park than trees, grass and air? They are planning to increase the number of attractors to the park. They want more visitors, it seems. So they will end up with displaced parking onto nearby streets to avoid charges, and then a CPZ extension will be called for...[/p][/quote]There is a lot of utter tosh talked about this, Captain PC is but one of the experts when it comes to that. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -6

12:04pm Wed 22 Jan 14

CaptainPC says...

TRT wrote:
Utter tosh, Captain PC. The park is used by all sorts of people. Are you suggesting that a mother should pack up a five year old and a three year old and all their associated gubbins and a picnic and walk from, say, Garston to Cassiobury Park in the height of summer in 30°+ temperatures to go to the paddling pool and see one of these kids shows they put on? Or they should catch a bus? Or two buses? Or three? Or the tube which will no longer be anywhere near the park or at least to get into the bottom corner at Swiss Avenue will involve crossing two major roads at roundabouts?
Don't be absurd. Or perhaps it would be cheaper to add back in the local green spaces all across the Borough so that no-one lives more than 5 minutes walk from a park, then abandon the idea of providing anything more in a park than trees, grass and air? They are planning to increase the number of attractors to the park. They want more visitors, it seems. So they will end up with displaced parking onto nearby streets to avoid charges, and then a CPZ extension will be called for...
Erm yes..I am suggesting that that maybe should walk or use public transport, or pay the parking charge. Don't see why it's absurd.
What you are suggesting is that I should subsidise people who are too lazy to walk for half an hour or too dumb to work out a bus route. What am I getting on the deal.....?
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Utter tosh, Captain PC. The park is used by all sorts of people. Are you suggesting that a mother should pack up a five year old and a three year old and all their associated gubbins and a picnic and walk from, say, Garston to Cassiobury Park in the height of summer in 30°+ temperatures to go to the paddling pool and see one of these kids shows they put on? Or they should catch a bus? Or two buses? Or three? Or the tube which will no longer be anywhere near the park or at least to get into the bottom corner at Swiss Avenue will involve crossing two major roads at roundabouts? Don't be absurd. Or perhaps it would be cheaper to add back in the local green spaces all across the Borough so that no-one lives more than 5 minutes walk from a park, then abandon the idea of providing anything more in a park than trees, grass and air? They are planning to increase the number of attractors to the park. They want more visitors, it seems. So they will end up with displaced parking onto nearby streets to avoid charges, and then a CPZ extension will be called for...[/p][/quote]Erm yes..I am suggesting that that maybe should walk or use public transport, or pay the parking charge. Don't see why it's absurd. What you are suggesting is that I should subsidise people who are too lazy to walk for half an hour or too dumb to work out a bus route. What am I getting on the deal.....? CaptainPC
  • Score: 2

1:56pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Andrew1963 says...

I suppose the argument is based on the fact there are not any buses to the park from the town. Most buses in Watford are empty because the service is poor. The counter argument is what do you lose out from people parking in the park for free? It ios true providing the car park at all means there is less actual park land. But that applies to a free or charged for car park.
I suppose the argument is based on the fact there are not any buses to the park from the town. Most buses in Watford are empty because the service is poor. The counter argument is what do you lose out from people parking in the park for free? It ios true providing the car park at all means there is less actual park land. But that applies to a free or charged for car park. Andrew1963
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Wed 22 Jan 14

WatfordAlex says...

TRT: Posting a comment about 'closing stations' when 2 new ones are opening to replace 1 would be ignorant. However, having seen your comments on articles about the Croxley Rail Link, it's clear you knew that anyway and you are just poo stirring!

Andrew: The south-western corner of the park is a 5 minute walk from Ascot Road. Clearly other bits of the park are further away, but that's how space works.

UKIP Phil: Thanks for accepting that you did not read my post properly. The fact that your inability to read it completely invalidated your response is just one of those things you have to get used to with your interminable rants. No less than 13 posts by you on this story and all you have done is moan; providing no intelligent insight and offering your ubiquitous 'ukip will oppose everything but deliver everything fantasy'. Still, just like your BNP predecessors, I can't fault your enthusiasm.
TRT: Posting a comment about 'closing stations' when 2 new ones are opening to replace 1 would be ignorant. However, having seen your comments on articles about the Croxley Rail Link, it's clear you knew that anyway and you are just poo stirring! Andrew: The south-western corner of the park is a 5 minute walk from Ascot Road. Clearly other bits of the park are further away, but that's how space works. UKIP Phil: Thanks for accepting that you did not read my post properly. The fact that your inability to read it completely invalidated your response is just one of those things you have to get used to with your interminable rants. No less than 13 posts by you on this story and all you have done is moan; providing no intelligent insight and offering your ubiquitous 'ukip will oppose everything but deliver everything fantasy'. Still, just like your BNP predecessors, I can't fault your enthusiasm. WatfordAlex
  • Score: 2

10:26pm Wed 22 Jan 14

TRT says...

I think it's perfectly rational to point out that public transport to the park is poor and set to get worse with the closure of Watford Met station. You are quite right that I know about the other stations. It's not at all inaccurate that Watford Met will close to passenger traffic from 2017 (revised date).

The 'Ascot Road' that you mention is properly going to be named Cassio Bridge, according to the TfL managing directors report 18th October 2013. Again, it's right and proper when talking about public transport access to the park to point out that the station is separated from the nearest park access point by two large roundabouts and two major roads; that access point being a rather pleasant nature walk near a weir under the tube viaduct. It's not an insignificant detour, nor is it as pedestrian friendly as the under 50 yard walk from the present station to the Shepherd's Road entrance where Cha Cha cafe is. I believe Cassio Bridge will not be regarded as "the tube station for Cassiobury Park" for many, many years, if ever! Now if you want to talk about a design for the park that incorporates welcoming gateway features and encourages the use of public transport, why isn't there any mention at all of the Gade Avenue nature walk entrance being enhanced, or made more push-chair friendly etc? That entrance isn't even shown on the display boards. The furthest west that display board shows is the 'wet meadow'.
I think it's perfectly rational to point out that public transport to the park is poor and set to get worse with the closure of Watford Met station. You are quite right that I know about the other stations. It's not at all inaccurate that Watford Met will close to passenger traffic from 2017 (revised date). The 'Ascot Road' that you mention is properly going to be named Cassio Bridge, according to the TfL managing directors report 18th October 2013. Again, it's right and proper when talking about public transport access to the park to point out that the station is separated from the nearest park access point by two large roundabouts and two major roads; that access point being a rather pleasant nature walk near a weir under the tube viaduct. It's not an insignificant detour, nor is it as pedestrian friendly as the under 50 yard walk from the present station to the Shepherd's Road entrance where Cha Cha cafe is. I believe Cassio Bridge will not be regarded as "the tube station for Cassiobury Park" for many, many years, if ever! Now if you want to talk about a design for the park that incorporates welcoming gateway features and encourages the use of public transport, why isn't there any mention at all of the Gade Avenue nature walk entrance being enhanced, or made more push-chair friendly etc? That entrance isn't even shown on the display boards. The furthest west that display board shows is the 'wet meadow'. TRT
  • Score: -2

9:10am Thu 23 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

A UKIP council will provide FREE PARKING at the park. IF the LibDems put in parking charges, a UKIP council will remove them.

UKIP is for FREE PARKING at the park. You can't get any clearer than that.



As for WatfordAlex's, he is clearly one of the dinosaurs who thinks that others are stupid enough to believe his lies about UKIP. That boat of lies has long gone and if you still think you can fool people into believing it, more fool you WatfordAlex.

Just to repeat, one more time for the dinosaurs among us, UKIP has never had connections with the BNP. It will not accept members who used to be in the BNP.

One has to wonder at the motivation of an individual like WatfordAlex. He supports the councils dotty policies every time. He hates UKIP. He's a liar. Hmm, probably a councillor then, we've had them before on this forum, too scared to post their ill-informed or deliberately misleading posts under their own names. Cowards.

Incidentally, UKIP is the only party that refuses membership to ex-BNP members. WatfordAlex's own party does not even ask the question.
A UKIP council will provide FREE PARKING at the park. IF the LibDems put in parking charges, a UKIP council will remove them. UKIP is for FREE PARKING at the park. You can't get any clearer than that. As for WatfordAlex's, he is clearly one of the dinosaurs who thinks that others are stupid enough to believe his lies about UKIP. That boat of lies has long gone and if you still think you can fool people into believing it, more fool you WatfordAlex. Just to repeat, one more time for the dinosaurs among us, UKIP has never had connections with the BNP. It will not accept members who used to be in the BNP. One has to wonder at the motivation of an individual like WatfordAlex. He supports the councils dotty policies every time. He hates UKIP. He's a liar. Hmm, probably a councillor then, we've had them before on this forum, too scared to post their ill-informed or deliberately misleading posts under their own names. Cowards. Incidentally, UKIP is the only party that refuses membership to ex-BNP members. WatfordAlex's own party does not even ask the question. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -6

10:31am Thu 23 Jan 14

CaptainPC says...

TRT wrote:
I think it's perfectly rational to point out that public transport to the park is poor and set to get worse with the closure of Watford Met station. You are quite right that I know about the other stations. It's not at all inaccurate that Watford Met will close to passenger traffic from 2017 (revised date).

The 'Ascot Road' that you mention is properly going to be named Cassio Bridge, according to the TfL managing directors report 18th October 2013. Again, it's right and proper when talking about public transport access to the park to point out that the station is separated from the nearest park access point by two large roundabouts and two major roads; that access point being a rather pleasant nature walk near a weir under the tube viaduct. It's not an insignificant detour, nor is it as pedestrian friendly as the under 50 yard walk from the present station to the Shepherd's Road entrance where Cha Cha cafe is. I believe Cassio Bridge will not be regarded as "the tube station for Cassiobury Park" for many, many years, if ever! Now if you want to talk about a design for the park that incorporates welcoming gateway features and encourages the use of public transport, why isn't there any mention at all of the Gade Avenue nature walk entrance being enhanced, or made more push-chair friendly etc? That entrance isn't even shown on the display boards. The furthest west that display board shows is the 'wet meadow'.
These people who can't walk 400 yards....What are they going to do when they get to the park?

Watford town centre is a public transport hub and the park is 10 minutes walk away. There's a pedestrian underpass at the top of the town.

Or you can take your car and pay £2 to park.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I think it's perfectly rational to point out that public transport to the park is poor and set to get worse with the closure of Watford Met station. You are quite right that I know about the other stations. It's not at all inaccurate that Watford Met will close to passenger traffic from 2017 (revised date). The 'Ascot Road' that you mention is properly going to be named Cassio Bridge, according to the TfL managing directors report 18th October 2013. Again, it's right and proper when talking about public transport access to the park to point out that the station is separated from the nearest park access point by two large roundabouts and two major roads; that access point being a rather pleasant nature walk near a weir under the tube viaduct. It's not an insignificant detour, nor is it as pedestrian friendly as the under 50 yard walk from the present station to the Shepherd's Road entrance where Cha Cha cafe is. I believe Cassio Bridge will not be regarded as "the tube station for Cassiobury Park" for many, many years, if ever! Now if you want to talk about a design for the park that incorporates welcoming gateway features and encourages the use of public transport, why isn't there any mention at all of the Gade Avenue nature walk entrance being enhanced, or made more push-chair friendly etc? That entrance isn't even shown on the display boards. The furthest west that display board shows is the 'wet meadow'.[/p][/quote]These people who can't walk 400 yards....What are they going to do when they get to the park? Watford town centre is a public transport hub and the park is 10 minutes walk away. There's a pedestrian underpass at the top of the town. Or you can take your car and pay £2 to park. CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

10:40am Thu 23 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Or you can take your car and pay nothing to park.

What would you rather do?


I must confess I have never heard anyone say "I wish they would start charging me to park my car when I come to the park."

Maybe WatfordAlex and CaptainPC should stop talking amongst themselves and talk to other people, perhaps get out more. They seem to have a tax tax tax, charge charge charge mentality. It's time we got away from that.

That's why we have UKIP. Free parking at the park, yet another example of common sense and decency.
Or you can take your car and pay nothing to park. What would you rather do? I must confess I have never heard anyone say "I wish they would start charging me to park my car when I come to the park." Maybe WatfordAlex and CaptainPC should stop talking amongst themselves and talk to other people, perhaps get out more. They seem to have a tax tax tax, charge charge charge mentality. It's time we got away from that. That's why we have UKIP. Free parking at the park, yet another example of common sense and decency. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

11:01am Thu 23 Jan 14

justan54 says...

how about the council just charge dog walkers !!! iam in favour of that !!! the dogs cause more mess,damage,disrupti
on,noise than anything else. So yep use the lottery funding to improve the park, good idea, bring back the gates too !!!! but make it dog free or charge all dog walkers for every visit.
how about the council just charge dog walkers !!! iam in favour of that !!! the dogs cause more mess,damage,disrupti on,noise than anything else. So yep use the lottery funding to improve the park, good idea, bring back the gates too !!!! but make it dog free or charge all dog walkers for every visit. justan54
  • Score: 2

1:26pm Thu 23 Jan 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
Or you can take your car and pay nothing to park.

What would you rather do?


I must confess I have never heard anyone say "I wish they would start charging me to park my car when I come to the park."

Maybe WatfordAlex and CaptainPC should stop talking amongst themselves and talk to other people, perhaps get out more. They seem to have a tax tax tax, charge charge charge mentality. It's time we got away from that.

That's why we have UKIP. Free parking at the park, yet another example of common sense and decency.
I'm in favour of charging for use of an amenity and against taxing everyone to subsidise those few that use the amenity in question.

The amenity in this case is parking at the park, rather than the park itself.

I've never heard anyone say, "I wish they would start charging me to park my car when I come to the park." either. It's not unusual to hear people moaning about how much council tax they pay though, is it?

You drive to the park because you are too lazy to walk/cycle there, so it's only fair you should contribute more to the upkeep of the parking area than someone who doesn't use the facility, isn't it?

For the record I have no idea who WatfordAlex is, although, strangely my ame is Alex too.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: Or you can take your car and pay nothing to park. What would you rather do? I must confess I have never heard anyone say "I wish they would start charging me to park my car when I come to the park." Maybe WatfordAlex and CaptainPC should stop talking amongst themselves and talk to other people, perhaps get out more. They seem to have a tax tax tax, charge charge charge mentality. It's time we got away from that. That's why we have UKIP. Free parking at the park, yet another example of common sense and decency.[/p][/quote]I'm in favour of charging for use of an amenity and against taxing everyone to subsidise those few that use the amenity in question. The amenity in this case is parking at the park, rather than the park itself. I've never heard anyone say, "I wish they would start charging me to park my car when I come to the park." either. It's not unusual to hear people moaning about how much council tax they pay though, is it? You drive to the park because you are too lazy to walk/cycle there, so it's only fair you should contribute more to the upkeep of the parking area than someone who doesn't use the facility, isn't it? For the record I have no idea who WatfordAlex is, although, strangely my ame is Alex too. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

justan54 wrote:
how about the council just charge dog walkers !!! iam in favour of that !!! the dogs cause more mess,damage,disrupti on,noise than anything else. So yep use the lottery funding to improve the park, good idea, bring back the gates too !!!! but make it dog free or charge all dog walkers for every visit.
What a strange thing to say. Dogs are a part of British heritage, we have always had dogs and dogs have always been taken to parks for walks.

Why charge anyone anything for access to a public park? It is paid for by the council tax of EVERY taxpayer, not just ones with children, dogs or footballs, so why charge anyone anything for simple access? After all, a visit to the park is generally a healthy and pleasurable thing to do available free of charge to all, which is as it should be.

We really should have a friendlier and more tolerant society than that proposed by some on these comments. The air is free. Why shouldn't parks be free also?

If a dog or it's owner causes nuisance there are laws against that. Surely that is sufficient?
[quote][p][bold]justan54[/bold] wrote: how about the council just charge dog walkers !!! iam in favour of that !!! the dogs cause more mess,damage,disrupti on,noise than anything else. So yep use the lottery funding to improve the park, good idea, bring back the gates too !!!! but make it dog free or charge all dog walkers for every visit.[/p][/quote]What a strange thing to say. Dogs are a part of British heritage, we have always had dogs and dogs have always been taken to parks for walks. Why charge anyone anything for access to a public park? It is paid for by the council tax of EVERY taxpayer, not just ones with children, dogs or footballs, so why charge anyone anything for simple access? After all, a visit to the park is generally a healthy and pleasurable thing to do available free of charge to all, which is as it should be. We really should have a friendlier and more tolerant society than that proposed by some on these comments. The air is free. Why shouldn't parks be free also? If a dog or it's owner causes nuisance there are laws against that. Surely that is sufficient? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -6

2:24pm Thu 23 Jan 14

TRT says...

I read that charging dog walkers comment with a heavy tone of sarcasm. When it comes to public amenity, you can go too far with the concept of those that use it should pay for it. For example, I always take my litter home, should I therefore get a refund proportionate to the street cleaning bill? Extensis ad absurdum, I join in with the Friends Of Oxhey Park litter picks, and I've done the same at Garston and Cassiobury, so should I claim a rebate? I've also ended up driving back to School Lane/ Bricket Wood with bin bags and litter pickers after getting so upset by the amount of rubbish just dumped there I saw when taking a walk. Should I claim a rebate for that too? I don't think so. I see it as civic duty and putting back into the community.

Regarding parking, I have driven to the park, yes. I drive when I take my friend there who has a mild medical condition meaning she finds it painful to walk a long distance, roughly a mile, without a rest. It's not serious enough to warrant a blue badge or stop her from working or risk surgery, but it's enough to take the fun out of a stroll to the park, as she'd never get there! If I take my son or go on my own, I sometimes walk, sometimes take the car if I have to be somewhere at a certain time. There are times when the car park is overflowing, there are times when it's nearly empty. If I had to pay to park, I'd probably go there only a fraction as much as I do - there are parks closer to me, but who wants to go to the same park all the time? I go to Aldenham too. That's too far to walk, but it offers different photographic opportunities, different facilities, different environs.
I read that charging dog walkers comment with a heavy tone of sarcasm. When it comes to public amenity, you can go too far with the concept of those that use it should pay for it. For example, I always take my litter home, should I therefore get a refund proportionate to the street cleaning bill? Extensis ad absurdum, I join in with the Friends Of Oxhey Park litter picks, and I've done the same at Garston and Cassiobury, so should I claim a rebate? I've also ended up driving back to School Lane/ Bricket Wood with bin bags and litter pickers after getting so upset by the amount of rubbish just dumped there I saw when taking a walk. Should I claim a rebate for that too? I don't think so. I see it as civic duty and putting back into the community. Regarding parking, I have driven to the park, yes. I drive when I take my friend there who has a mild medical condition meaning she finds it painful to walk a long distance, roughly a mile, without a rest. It's not serious enough to warrant a blue badge or stop her from working or risk surgery, but it's enough to take the fun out of a stroll to the park, as she'd never get there! If I take my son or go on my own, I sometimes walk, sometimes take the car if I have to be somewhere at a certain time. There are times when the car park is overflowing, there are times when it's nearly empty. If I had to pay to park, I'd probably go there only a fraction as much as I do - there are parks closer to me, but who wants to go to the same park all the time? I go to Aldenham too. That's too far to walk, but it offers different photographic opportunities, different facilities, different environs. TRT
  • Score: -2

3:42pm Thu 23 Jan 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
justan54 wrote:
how about the council just charge dog walkers !!! iam in favour of that !!! the dogs cause more mess,damage,disrupti on,noise than anything else. So yep use the lottery funding to improve the park, good idea, bring back the gates too !!!! but make it dog free or charge all dog walkers for every visit.
What a strange thing to say. Dogs are a part of British heritage, we have always had dogs and dogs have always been taken to parks for walks.

Why charge anyone anything for access to a public park? It is paid for by the council tax of EVERY taxpayer, not just ones with children, dogs or footballs, so why charge anyone anything for simple access? After all, a visit to the park is generally a healthy and pleasurable thing to do available free of charge to all, which is as it should be.

We really should have a friendlier and more tolerant society than that proposed by some on these comments. The air is free. Why shouldn't parks be free also?

If a dog or it's owner causes nuisance there are laws against that. Surely that is sufficient?
You are deliberately missing the point.

No one is talking about charging for access to the park, they are talking about parking charges.

In my mind this is just subsidising the lazy.

You won't actually address any of the points that are made in rebuttal you just keep up with your everything should be free at point of use argument.

All these ex tories who have joined your party must be well chuffed with the socialist rhetoric you spew. (Sarcasm).

If the council creates income from fat idlers there may be more funds available to help the genuinely needy who have to sleep rough in the park.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justan54[/bold] wrote: how about the council just charge dog walkers !!! iam in favour of that !!! the dogs cause more mess,damage,disrupti on,noise than anything else. So yep use the lottery funding to improve the park, good idea, bring back the gates too !!!! but make it dog free or charge all dog walkers for every visit.[/p][/quote]What a strange thing to say. Dogs are a part of British heritage, we have always had dogs and dogs have always been taken to parks for walks. Why charge anyone anything for access to a public park? It is paid for by the council tax of EVERY taxpayer, not just ones with children, dogs or footballs, so why charge anyone anything for simple access? After all, a visit to the park is generally a healthy and pleasurable thing to do available free of charge to all, which is as it should be. We really should have a friendlier and more tolerant society than that proposed by some on these comments. The air is free. Why shouldn't parks be free also? If a dog or it's owner causes nuisance there are laws against that. Surely that is sufficient?[/p][/quote]You are deliberately missing the point. No one is talking about charging for access to the park, they are talking about parking charges. In my mind this is just subsidising the lazy. You won't actually address any of the points that are made in rebuttal you just keep up with your everything should be free at point of use argument. All these ex tories who have joined your party must be well chuffed with the socialist rhetoric you spew. (Sarcasm). If the council creates income from fat idlers there may be more funds available to help the genuinely needy who have to sleep rough in the park. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Thu 23 Jan 14

CaptainPC says...

TRT wrote:
I read that charging dog walkers comment with a heavy tone of sarcasm. When it comes to public amenity, you can go too far with the concept of those that use it should pay for it. For example, I always take my litter home, should I therefore get a refund proportionate to the street cleaning bill? Extensis ad absurdum, I join in with the Friends Of Oxhey Park litter picks, and I've done the same at Garston and Cassiobury, so should I claim a rebate? I've also ended up driving back to School Lane/ Bricket Wood with bin bags and litter pickers after getting so upset by the amount of rubbish just dumped there I saw when taking a walk. Should I claim a rebate for that too? I don't think so. I see it as civic duty and putting back into the community.

Regarding parking, I have driven to the park, yes. I drive when I take my friend there who has a mild medical condition meaning she finds it painful to walk a long distance, roughly a mile, without a rest. It's not serious enough to warrant a blue badge or stop her from working or risk surgery, but it's enough to take the fun out of a stroll to the park, as she'd never get there! If I take my son or go on my own, I sometimes walk, sometimes take the car if I have to be somewhere at a certain time. There are times when the car park is overflowing, there are times when it's nearly empty. If I had to pay to park, I'd probably go there only a fraction as much as I do - there are parks closer to me, but who wants to go to the same park all the time? I go to Aldenham too. That's too far to walk, but it offers different photographic opportunities, different facilities, different environs.
With respect, and this is a serious question, what does your friend, who can't walk a mile, do when he/she gets to the park?
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I read that charging dog walkers comment with a heavy tone of sarcasm. When it comes to public amenity, you can go too far with the concept of those that use it should pay for it. For example, I always take my litter home, should I therefore get a refund proportionate to the street cleaning bill? Extensis ad absurdum, I join in with the Friends Of Oxhey Park litter picks, and I've done the same at Garston and Cassiobury, so should I claim a rebate? I've also ended up driving back to School Lane/ Bricket Wood with bin bags and litter pickers after getting so upset by the amount of rubbish just dumped there I saw when taking a walk. Should I claim a rebate for that too? I don't think so. I see it as civic duty and putting back into the community. Regarding parking, I have driven to the park, yes. I drive when I take my friend there who has a mild medical condition meaning she finds it painful to walk a long distance, roughly a mile, without a rest. It's not serious enough to warrant a blue badge or stop her from working or risk surgery, but it's enough to take the fun out of a stroll to the park, as she'd never get there! If I take my son or go on my own, I sometimes walk, sometimes take the car if I have to be somewhere at a certain time. There are times when the car park is overflowing, there are times when it's nearly empty. If I had to pay to park, I'd probably go there only a fraction as much as I do - there are parks closer to me, but who wants to go to the same park all the time? I go to Aldenham too. That's too far to walk, but it offers different photographic opportunities, different facilities, different environs.[/p][/quote]With respect, and this is a serious question, what does your friend, who can't walk a mile, do when he/she gets to the park? CaptainPC
  • Score: 2

3:53pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

CaptainPC wrote:
Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
justan54 wrote: how about the council just charge dog walkers !!! iam in favour of that !!! the dogs cause more mess,damage,disrupti on,noise than anything else. So yep use the lottery funding to improve the park, good idea, bring back the gates too !!!! but make it dog free or charge all dog walkers for every visit.
What a strange thing to say. Dogs are a part of British heritage, we have always had dogs and dogs have always been taken to parks for walks. Why charge anyone anything for access to a public park? It is paid for by the council tax of EVERY taxpayer, not just ones with children, dogs or footballs, so why charge anyone anything for simple access? After all, a visit to the park is generally a healthy and pleasurable thing to do available free of charge to all, which is as it should be. We really should have a friendlier and more tolerant society than that proposed by some on these comments. The air is free. Why shouldn't parks be free also? If a dog or it's owner causes nuisance there are laws against that. Surely that is sufficient?
You are deliberately missing the point. No one is talking about charging for access to the park, they are talking about parking charges. In my mind this is just subsidising the lazy. You won't actually address any of the points that are made in rebuttal you just keep up with your everything should be free at point of use argument. All these ex tories who have joined your party must be well chuffed with the socialist rhetoric you spew. (Sarcasm). If the council creates income from fat idlers there may be more funds available to help the genuinely needy who have to sleep rough in the park.
I can't think of a single time I have agreed with anything you have said, but let's pretend for a minute you are right, it is lazy people who drive to the park.

How's this for a piece of logic?

Surely it's better for them to be able to go to the park than for the parking charge to put them off and they get even lazier? At least then they will get a bit of exercise and fresh air.

Or do you think they will still go but the charge will act as a fine on people who you consider lazy?

I really don't understand the LibDems obsession with charging for everything, particularly parking. Is there an anti-car agenda here with the LibDems? I know there is with the greens, but are the LibDems at it as well?

We should be told.

I look forward to the day when UKIP in council will hold the LibDems to account when they come out with such dotty ideas.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justan54[/bold] wrote: how about the council just charge dog walkers !!! iam in favour of that !!! the dogs cause more mess,damage,disrupti on,noise than anything else. So yep use the lottery funding to improve the park, good idea, bring back the gates too !!!! but make it dog free or charge all dog walkers for every visit.[/p][/quote]What a strange thing to say. Dogs are a part of British heritage, we have always had dogs and dogs have always been taken to parks for walks. Why charge anyone anything for access to a public park? It is paid for by the council tax of EVERY taxpayer, not just ones with children, dogs or footballs, so why charge anyone anything for simple access? After all, a visit to the park is generally a healthy and pleasurable thing to do available free of charge to all, which is as it should be. We really should have a friendlier and more tolerant society than that proposed by some on these comments. The air is free. Why shouldn't parks be free also? If a dog or it's owner causes nuisance there are laws against that. Surely that is sufficient?[/p][/quote]You are deliberately missing the point. No one is talking about charging for access to the park, they are talking about parking charges. In my mind this is just subsidising the lazy. You won't actually address any of the points that are made in rebuttal you just keep up with your everything should be free at point of use argument. All these ex tories who have joined your party must be well chuffed with the socialist rhetoric you spew. (Sarcasm). If the council creates income from fat idlers there may be more funds available to help the genuinely needy who have to sleep rough in the park.[/p][/quote]I can't think of a single time I have agreed with anything you have said, but let's pretend for a minute you are right, it is lazy people who drive to the park. How's this for a piece of logic? Surely it's better for them to be able to go to the park than for the parking charge to put them off and they get even lazier? At least then they will get a bit of exercise and fresh air. Or do you think they will still go but the charge will act as a fine on people who you consider lazy? I really don't understand the LibDems obsession with charging for everything, particularly parking. Is there an anti-car agenda here with the LibDems? I know there is with the greens, but are the LibDems at it as well? We should be told. I look forward to the day when UKIP in council will hold the LibDems to account when they come out with such dotty ideas. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

4:02pm Thu 23 Jan 14

TRT says...

"With respect, and this is a serious question, what does your friend, who can't walk a mile, do when he/she gets to the park?"

At Cassiobury? Same as I do. Walks round the nature reserve, sits at the lock to watch the boats, buys an ice cream, rides on the train, has a picnic, looks at the carvings on the bridge, flies a kite, strolls around a bit... what else does one do in Cassiobury park? I didn't say they *couldn't* walk to a mile - stop putting words in my mouth!
"With respect, and this is a serious question, what does your friend, who can't walk a mile, do when he/she gets to the park?" At Cassiobury? Same as I do. Walks round the nature reserve, sits at the lock to watch the boats, buys an ice cream, rides on the train, has a picnic, looks at the carvings on the bridge, flies a kite, strolls around a bit... what else does one do in Cassiobury park? I didn't say they *couldn't* walk to a mile - stop putting words in my mouth! TRT
  • Score: -2

4:55pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Andrew1963 says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
TRT: Posting a comment about 'closing stations' when 2 new ones are opening to replace 1 would be ignorant. However, having seen your comments on articles about the Croxley Rail Link, it's clear you knew that anyway and you are just poo stirring!

Andrew: The south-western corner of the park is a 5 minute walk from Ascot Road. Clearly other bits of the park are further away, but that's how space works.

UKIP Phil: Thanks for accepting that you did not read my post properly. The fact that your inability to read it completely invalidated your response is just one of those things you have to get used to with your interminable rants. No less than 13 posts by you on this story and all you have done is moan; providing no intelligent insight and offering your ubiquitous 'ukip will oppose everything but deliver everything fantasy'. Still, just like your BNP predecessors, I can't fault your enthusiasm.
Just back from walking from site of ascot road station to entrance to cassiobury park as described on Watford councils land register. It is 8 minutes to the river Gade path. To the first part of open space (the parkland) is 14 minutes. A park is not a footpath along a river I looked up definition in a dictionary. The fact that the riverside footpath joins the park land does not make it part of the park .
Anyway I would take away the car park altogether as it is an ugly intrusion into the parkland.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: TRT: Posting a comment about 'closing stations' when 2 new ones are opening to replace 1 would be ignorant. However, having seen your comments on articles about the Croxley Rail Link, it's clear you knew that anyway and you are just poo stirring! Andrew: The south-western corner of the park is a 5 minute walk from Ascot Road. Clearly other bits of the park are further away, but that's how space works. UKIP Phil: Thanks for accepting that you did not read my post properly. The fact that your inability to read it completely invalidated your response is just one of those things you have to get used to with your interminable rants. No less than 13 posts by you on this story and all you have done is moan; providing no intelligent insight and offering your ubiquitous 'ukip will oppose everything but deliver everything fantasy'. Still, just like your BNP predecessors, I can't fault your enthusiasm.[/p][/quote]Just back from walking from site of ascot road station to entrance to cassiobury park as described on Watford councils land register. It is 8 minutes to the river Gade path. To the first part of open space (the parkland) is 14 minutes. A park is not a footpath along a river I looked up definition in a dictionary. The fact that the riverside footpath joins the park land does not make it part of the park . Anyway I would take away the car park altogether as it is an ugly intrusion into the parkland. Andrew1963
  • Score: -2

4:58pm Thu 23 Jan 14

justan54 says...

How about a system where local people park for free and visitors pay? Or charge all those dog owners! I would actually pay to go to a dog free park ,,,,
How about a system where local people park for free and visitors pay? Or charge all those dog owners! I would actually pay to go to a dog free park ,,,, justan54
  • Score: 3

5:09pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Andrew1963 says...

TRT wrote:
I think it's perfectly rational to point out that public transport to the park is poor and set to get worse with the closure of Watford Met station. You are quite right that I know about the other stations. It's not at all inaccurate that Watford Met will close to passenger traffic from 2017 (revised date).

The 'Ascot Road' that you mention is properly going to be named Cassio Bridge, according to the TfL managing directors report 18th October 2013. Again, it's right and proper when talking about public transport access to the park to point out that the station is separated from the nearest park access point by two large roundabouts and two major roads; that access point being a rather pleasant nature walk near a weir under the tube viaduct. It's not an insignificant detour, nor is it as pedestrian friendly as the under 50 yard walk from the present station to the Shepherd's Road entrance where Cha Cha cafe is. I believe Cassio Bridge will not be regarded as "the tube station for Cassiobury Park" for many, many years, if ever! Now if you want to talk about a design for the park that incorporates welcoming gateway features and encourages the use of public transport, why isn't there any mention at all of the Gade Avenue nature walk entrance being enhanced, or made more push-chair friendly etc? That entrance isn't even shown on the display boards. The furthest west that display board shows is the 'wet meadow'.
It is not true that the Croxley rail link adds two stations for the loss of one, as actual three stations will be replaced by two. Watford West, Croxley Green and Watford. Met. The first two closed because Herts County Council said they would pay for the Croxley Arbil link instead of reinstating a bridge over the new ascot road which severed the Croxley Green bridge. The Hagden Lane area of West Watford has lost two stations within walking distance. The fact is non of the rail enhancements will provide a station as near as Watford Met, but the connectivity via Watford Junction and Watford High Street does improve rail journeys to Ascot Road station for most Watford residents, as in reality Watford Met serves Croxley, moor park and the London Boroughs. The main point is bus services are poor to the park area. ascot Road station will not be a gateway to the park it is primarily there to serve the local businesses.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I think it's perfectly rational to point out that public transport to the park is poor and set to get worse with the closure of Watford Met station. You are quite right that I know about the other stations. It's not at all inaccurate that Watford Met will close to passenger traffic from 2017 (revised date). The 'Ascot Road' that you mention is properly going to be named Cassio Bridge, according to the TfL managing directors report 18th October 2013. Again, it's right and proper when talking about public transport access to the park to point out that the station is separated from the nearest park access point by two large roundabouts and two major roads; that access point being a rather pleasant nature walk near a weir under the tube viaduct. It's not an insignificant detour, nor is it as pedestrian friendly as the under 50 yard walk from the present station to the Shepherd's Road entrance where Cha Cha cafe is. I believe Cassio Bridge will not be regarded as "the tube station for Cassiobury Park" for many, many years, if ever! Now if you want to talk about a design for the park that incorporates welcoming gateway features and encourages the use of public transport, why isn't there any mention at all of the Gade Avenue nature walk entrance being enhanced, or made more push-chair friendly etc? That entrance isn't even shown on the display boards. The furthest west that display board shows is the 'wet meadow'.[/p][/quote]It is not true that the Croxley rail link adds two stations for the loss of one, as actual three stations will be replaced by two. Watford West, Croxley Green and Watford. Met. The first two closed because Herts County Council said they would pay for the Croxley Arbil link instead of reinstating a bridge over the new ascot road which severed the Croxley Green bridge. The Hagden Lane area of West Watford has lost two stations within walking distance. The fact is non of the rail enhancements will provide a station as near as Watford Met, but the connectivity via Watford Junction and Watford High Street does improve rail journeys to Ascot Road station for most Watford residents, as in reality Watford Met serves Croxley, moor park and the London Boroughs. The main point is bus services are poor to the park area. ascot Road station will not be a gateway to the park it is primarily there to serve the local businesses. Andrew1963
  • Score: -2

5:26pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

justan54 wrote:
How about a system where local people park for free and visitors pay? Or charge all those dog owners! I would actually pay to go to a dog free park ,,,,
Kew Gardens, lovely place. Go as often as you like. No dogs but guide dogs.

How are you with squirrels and birds? Wildlfe in general?
[quote][p][bold]justan54[/bold] wrote: How about a system where local people park for free and visitors pay? Or charge all those dog owners! I would actually pay to go to a dog free park ,,,,[/p][/quote]Kew Gardens, lovely place. Go as often as you like. No dogs but guide dogs. How are you with squirrels and birds? Wildlfe in general? Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -7

7:04pm Fri 24 Jan 14

watfoid says...

Rebuild Cassiobury House!! A gem of English architecture bulldozed in 1927 to make way for a bloomin' golf course!
Rebuild Cassiobury House!! A gem of English architecture bulldozed in 1927 to make way for a bloomin' golf course! watfoid
  • Score: -4

3:27pm Sat 25 Jan 14

justan54 says...

Phil Cox (UKIP) wrote:
justan54 wrote:
How about a system where local people park for free and visitors pay? Or charge all those dog owners! I would actually pay to go to a dog free park ,,,,
Kew Gardens, lovely place. Go as often as you like. No dogs but guide dogs.

How are you with squirrels and birds? Wildlfe in general?
wildlife obviously is fab !!! dogs are not !!! dogs destroy wildlife and wildlife habitat ! hence i would love to see Cassibury and indeed The Aquadrome in Ricky made totally dog free !!!
I didnt know Kew was dog free !!! i will investigate that - thank you
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox (UKIP)[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justan54[/bold] wrote: How about a system where local people park for free and visitors pay? Or charge all those dog owners! I would actually pay to go to a dog free park ,,,,[/p][/quote]Kew Gardens, lovely place. Go as often as you like. No dogs but guide dogs. How are you with squirrels and birds? Wildlfe in general?[/p][/quote]wildlife obviously is fab !!! dogs are not !!! dogs destroy wildlife and wildlife habitat ! hence i would love to see Cassibury and indeed The Aquadrome in Ricky made totally dog free !!! I didnt know Kew was dog free !!! i will investigate that - thank you justan54
  • Score: 3

5:24pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Dogs on the whole do not destroy wildlife as most wildlife can outsmart or outrun a dog any day.

It's cats that really cause the problems with wildlife, they are such fantastic hunters.

Enjoy Kew Gardens, it's a fantastic place to visit.
Dogs on the whole do not destroy wildlife as most wildlife can outsmart or outrun a dog any day. It's cats that really cause the problems with wildlife, they are such fantastic hunters. Enjoy Kew Gardens, it's a fantastic place to visit. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

5:31pm Sat 25 Jan 14

justan54 says...

sorry i disagree, cats cannot be contained - and i have never seen a cat chase the ducks from the river !!! or attack visitors, or generally create trouble !!

anyway i will try Kew, has to be better as no dogs

i still hold with the charging of dog walkers though !!!
council would make a fortune !! maybe that would enable the Hospital to be built !!!!
sorry i disagree, cats cannot be contained - and i have never seen a cat chase the ducks from the river !!! or attack visitors, or generally create trouble !! anyway i will try Kew, has to be better as no dogs i still hold with the charging of dog walkers though !!! council would make a fortune !! maybe that would enable the Hospital to be built !!!! justan54
  • Score: 4

5:59pm Sat 25 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

justan54 wrote:
sorry i disagree, cats cannot be contained - and i have never seen a cat chase the ducks from the river !!! or attack visitors, or generally create trouble !! anyway i will try Kew, has to be better as no dogs i still hold with the charging of dog walkers though !!! council would make a fortune !! maybe that would enable the Hospital to be built !!!!
You're wrong about cats, they are the biggest killers in the UK of wildlife.

You're wrong about (almost all) Dogs, it's very rare that anyone gets attacked by a dog, particularly if the owner is kind and responsible. Dog's can't catch ducks because on the whole ducks fly better than dogs.

You're wrong about the council, they cannot build hospitals with their (our) money.
[quote][p][bold]justan54[/bold] wrote: sorry i disagree, cats cannot be contained - and i have never seen a cat chase the ducks from the river !!! or attack visitors, or generally create trouble !! anyway i will try Kew, has to be better as no dogs i still hold with the charging of dog walkers though !!! council would make a fortune !! maybe that would enable the Hospital to be built !!!![/p][/quote]You're wrong about cats, they are the biggest killers in the UK of wildlife. You're wrong about (almost all) Dogs, it's very rare that anyone gets attacked by a dog, particularly if the owner is kind and responsible. Dog's can't catch ducks because on the whole ducks fly better than dogs. You're wrong about the council, they cannot build hospitals with their (our) money. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -7

10:27am Sun 26 Jan 14

justan54 says...

If you have never seen a domestic dog 'attack' then iam very surprised - but iam not against dogs , iam against the irresponsible owners who ' allow' their dogs to behave in a threatening an d dangerous manner.
I think this has gone off track somewhat and you are obviously a dog owner ! I still hold by my idea of charging dog owners to use all public spaces as I believe this would make the open spaces cleaner safer and generally more pleasant for the public and wildlife as only responsible dog owners would pay! Keep you dog on a lead! In all wildlife areas !! Pick up its mess!! Clean the area it has just urinated on! Stop it jumping at me, stop it growling at me ! Keep it away from my children ! When you can show me a flock of ducks petrified by a domestic cat I will maybe think again !
All in all I think Cassibury Park is lovely as it is, it does not need developing. However our Hospital does! Lottery money should go to local amenities ie Hospitals! Not wasted on developing an area which is good as it is, it's bad enough the money being spent on the 'pond'!!!! Totally crazy.
Councils should be thinking of how they can increase their revenue fron various means, car parking is an idea, but I still stand by my idea of charging dog owners!!! Responsible people would be happy to contribute to the upkeep of an area they use constantly.
If you have never seen a domestic dog 'attack' then iam very surprised - but iam not against dogs , iam against the irresponsible owners who ' allow' their dogs to behave in a threatening an d dangerous manner. I think this has gone off track somewhat and you are obviously a dog owner ! I still hold by my idea of charging dog owners to use all public spaces as I believe this would make the open spaces cleaner safer and generally more pleasant for the public and wildlife as only responsible dog owners would pay! Keep you dog on a lead! In all wildlife areas !! Pick up its mess!! Clean the area it has just urinated on! Stop it jumping at me, stop it growling at me ! Keep it away from my children ! When you can show me a flock of ducks petrified by a domestic cat I will maybe think again ! All in all I think Cassibury Park is lovely as it is, it does not need developing. However our Hospital does! Lottery money should go to local amenities ie Hospitals! Not wasted on developing an area which is good as it is, it's bad enough the money being spent on the 'pond'!!!! Totally crazy. Councils should be thinking of how they can increase their revenue fron various means, car parking is an idea, but I still stand by my idea of charging dog owners!!! Responsible people would be happy to contribute to the upkeep of an area they use constantly. justan54
  • Score: 5

11:52am Sun 26 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Responsible people already contribute to an area that they use or have use of. It's called tax and it's a pretty fair way of doing things, all paying towards the greater good.
Responsible people already contribute to an area that they use or have use of. It's called tax and it's a pretty fair way of doing things, all paying towards the greater good. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -4

12:30pm Sun 26 Jan 14

justan54 says...

You are obviously a dog owner, so there is no point in continuing with this really. I am just trying to give a different view point - not all of us are dog owners !!! and when i go for a walk in my local park, and it is spoilt by irresponsible dog owners, i have a right to feel aggrieved. I was just thinking that a way of making extra revenue would be to charge you lot !!!! why not !!!! you dont have a right to allow your dog to mess up my park !!! so charging you may make you think twice before you unleash your dog and allow it to frighten wildlife, children, other dogs etc etc., and to mess the areas i want to walk and picnic on.
Just saying !!
You are obviously a dog owner, so there is no point in continuing with this really. I am just trying to give a different view point - not all of us are dog owners !!! and when i go for a walk in my local park, and it is spoilt by irresponsible dog owners, i have a right to feel aggrieved. I was just thinking that a way of making extra revenue would be to charge you lot !!!! why not !!!! you dont have a right to allow your dog to mess up my park !!! so charging you may make you think twice before you unleash your dog and allow it to frighten wildlife, children, other dogs etc etc., and to mess the areas i want to walk and picnic on. Just saying !! justan54
  • Score: 5

1:06pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Intolerant and selfish people do not have exclusive use of the park, thankfully. The UK is a pretty tolerant place with great traditions of tolerance. It is also a nation of animal lovers, particularly dogs.

The park upkeep is paid for by all taxpayers equally for the use of all taxpayers equally, whether they have children, wheelchairs, pushchairs, bikes, snow sledges, dogs, picnics or anything else that is legal.

Live and let live, you will find the world a better place for it.
Intolerant and selfish people do not have exclusive use of the park, thankfully. The UK is a pretty tolerant place with great traditions of tolerance. It is also a nation of animal lovers, particularly dogs. The park upkeep is paid for by all taxpayers equally for the use of all taxpayers equally, whether they have children, wheelchairs, pushchairs, bikes, snow sledges, dogs, picnics or anything else that is legal. Live and let live, you will find the world a better place for it. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -5

1:13pm Sun 26 Jan 14

justan54 says...

iam neither selfish or intolerant - thank you .
i just object to selfish intolerant dog owners !!
iam neither selfish or intolerant - thank you . i just object to selfish intolerant dog owners !! justan54
  • Score: 4

2:12pm Sun 26 Jan 14

brianwfc says...

Well done justan54 excellent idea I have just been attacked by a dog in King George fields this lunch time with the usual comment of 'it won't hurt you' a tax would be a justifiable cost as the owners now no longer have to pay for a licence.
The Park is fine as it is ...Many people enjoying the winter sun shine including an artist which I noticed as I walked through it yesterday and the only issue is the dog mess which is a major issue in this country !
Well done justan54 excellent idea I have just been attacked by a dog in King George fields this lunch time with the usual comment of 'it won't hurt you' a tax would be a justifiable cost as the owners now no longer have to pay for a licence. The Park is fine as it is ...Many people enjoying the winter sun shine including an artist which I noticed as I walked through it yesterday and the only issue is the dog mess which is a major issue in this country ! brianwfc
  • Score: 7

8:36pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Phil Cox (UKIP) says...

Why punish innocent dog owners for the crimes of a few? Should we not just punish the guilty where there are laws to do just that?

£1000 for not picking up dog mess. The law is there, it just needs to be enforced.

Dangerous dogs and being attacked by a dog, there are laws against that too.
Why punish innocent dog owners for the crimes of a few? Should we not just punish the guilty where there are laws to do just that? £1000 for not picking up dog mess. The law is there, it just needs to be enforced. Dangerous dogs and being attacked by a dog, there are laws against that too. Phil Cox (UKIP)
  • Score: -4

2:17pm Mon 27 Jan 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil
Phil CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Mon 27 Jan 14

justan54 says...

I am not suggesting any one is punished !!!!!!!! strange comment !
The reality is that a large amount of dog owners do not abide to the laws iam afraid, hence that is why i am suggesting some kind of payment to cover the costs dogs create in public places - which would be charged in a similar way to parking - you bring a dog , you pay !!! simple !!!
not rocket science is it !!
just as i said, an idea to help with the costs of keeping up our locals parks, rather than charge everyone !!
I personally think its a great idea , although a difficult one to enforce - maybe an idea would be to have dog wardens - now thats a good idea !!! but not cost effective !!
I am not suggesting any one is punished !!!!!!!! strange comment ! The reality is that a large amount of dog owners do not abide to the laws iam afraid, hence that is why i am suggesting some kind of payment to cover the costs dogs create in public places - which would be charged in a similar way to parking - you bring a dog , you pay !!! simple !!! not rocket science is it !! just as i said, an idea to help with the costs of keeping up our locals parks, rather than charge everyone !! I personally think its a great idea , although a difficult one to enforce - maybe an idea would be to have dog wardens - now thats a good idea !!! but not cost effective !! justan54
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Mon 27 Jan 14

TRT says...

justan54 wrote:
I am not suggesting any one is punished !!!!!!!! strange comment !
The reality is that a large amount of dog owners do not abide to the laws iam afraid, hence that is why i am suggesting some kind of payment to cover the costs dogs create in public places - which would be charged in a similar way to parking - you bring a dog , you pay !!! simple !!!
not rocket science is it !!
just as i said, an idea to help with the costs of keeping up our locals parks, rather than charge everyone !!
I personally think its a great idea , although a difficult one to enforce - maybe an idea would be to have dog wardens - now thats a good idea !!! but not cost effective !!
Pay to poop? Officially sanctioned flags to stick in the dirt to show you've paid?
[quote][p][bold]justan54[/bold] wrote: I am not suggesting any one is punished !!!!!!!! strange comment ! The reality is that a large amount of dog owners do not abide to the laws iam afraid, hence that is why i am suggesting some kind of payment to cover the costs dogs create in public places - which would be charged in a similar way to parking - you bring a dog , you pay !!! simple !!! not rocket science is it !! just as i said, an idea to help with the costs of keeping up our locals parks, rather than charge everyone !! I personally think its a great idea , although a difficult one to enforce - maybe an idea would be to have dog wardens - now thats a good idea !!! but not cost effective !![/p][/quote]Pay to poop? Officially sanctioned flags to stick in the dirt to show you've paid? TRT
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree