Controversial parking charges set for beauty spots
Controversial plans to introduce parking charges at three Birmingham and Worcestershire beauty spots are set to go ahead.
Birmingham City Council said it will implement the charges - despite a "significant" proportion of residents who took part in a consultation not being in favour of it - at a meeting on Tuesday.
The council has slightly revised part of the original proposals, to be introduced at Sutton Park, Lickey Hills Country Park, and Sheldon Country Park.
Residents told the BBC they were concerned visitors of the parks will avoid the charges by parking in the local area and "clog up the roads".
The original proposals said all three parks would cost visitors £2.20 for up to two hours, £3.30 for two to four hours, and £5.00 all day between 09:00 BST and 17:00 BST, 365 days a year.
The revised plans for Sutton Park and Lickey Hills Country Park have now changed to £1 per hour up to four hours and £5.00 all day.
Sheldon Country Park has been decreased to £0.75 per hour up to three hours and £3.50 all day.
The new proposal also stated that a yearly pass will cost £52.00 for all three parks, alongside the introduction of a 30-minute "grace" period.
The BBC spoke to concerned park-goers and residents who live nearby to Lickey Hills Country Park about the charges.
Paul Lowe called the move "disappointing". He said: "I'm here most days in the morning and evening. So to be charged - I wouldn't come here anymore.
"Charging people to walk around parks defeats the object."
Gregg Fanning, a resident of Monument Lane, said he understood why the council needed the money, but it will make the area "dangerous".
He said: "The problem will be people will just start parking on the road. Its a narrow road and its a 40-mile-per-hour speed limit - its going to be dangerous and completely clog up this road."
Mr Fanning added that he hoped the council will stick to their word during the consultation process that local roads would have double yellow lines installed.
But resident Bob Suggitt says, even if the council did, they would not make a difference unless policed by enforcement officers.
He added: "The car parks are used comprehensively during the summer. All the people will avoid the charges and park on the roads.
"It's already a problem but it'll be far worse when the charges come in."
Councillor Majid Mahmood, cabinet member for environment, said the charges for the three beauty spots were "modest".
"This project is about our ability to invest in our parks so that they are fit for the future," the Labour councillor said.
He went on to say the council has "listened carefully to the community" by revising the charges.
But opposition councillors called for the Labour administration to rethink its plans, with Robert Alden highlighting how the proposals were for 365 days a year and therefore "not even allowing free parking on Christmas Day".
He continued: "There's recognition in the report that [Sutton Park and Lickey Hills] are located in wealthier neighbourhoods.
"Of course, the people who will actually drive to those parks are not the people who live right next door to them.
"It is in fact them being hit with the charge, not the wealthiest people in the city."
Referring to the results of a consultation, he added: "The public have been very clear they don't agree with this and the cabinet should drop this policy."
A council report stated that for Lickey Hills Country Park, 919 respondents of the consultation (78.4 per cent) felt access to the park should remain free.
For Sheldon Country Park, that figure was 120 respondents (65.9 per cent), while for Sutton Park it was 2,741 respondents (68.2 per cent).
But both Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors plan to challenge the decision through a formal "call-in", hoping to convince the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to reverse Labour's decision.
This news story has been gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Plans for parking charges at beauty spots 'unfair'
Birmingham City Council
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Eurostar says there's no room for rivals at its depot – I went to judge for myself
'I think of it as like entering Hagia Sophia for the first time,' says Gareth Williams, Eurostar's General Secretary, as we enter the main shed at Temple Mills. There's more heavy machinery, fewer intricate mosaics, sure, but I get his point. This depot, fringing the east side of Hackney Marshes in East London, is vast: more than a quarter of a mile long, wide enough to house eight Eurostar trains side-by-side, tall enough to hoist them high up into the air. For around 400 people, this temple of engineering is the office. Every day of the year (Christmas Day included), Eurostar trains roll in and out for maintenance. Toilets are deep cleaned, lights tinkered, electrics rewired, wheels replaced. Sometimes, damage caused by foxes or wild boars must be attended to. Nowhere else in the country is equipped to service high-speed trains, and throughout its 18-year history, the Temple Mills depot has slipped happily under the radar (previously, Eurostar's trains were serviced at North Pole depot in West London, before operations moved from Waterloo to St Pancras). But recently, Temple Mills has been making headlines. In the last 12 months, a suite of rival rail operators – including Virgin Trains, Gemini (a start-up that plans to co-brand with Uber) and the state-owned FS Italiane Group, alongside Spanish operator Evolyn – have launched bids to run trains through the Channel Tunnel. All of these bids hinge on an important question: where will their trains be stored and serviced? So all eyes, naturally, are on Eurostar's existing depot at Temple Mills, but there is disagreement as to whether there is capacity for any more trains. The future of cross-Channel rail travel lies within these walls. My tour of Temple Mills begins on a mezzanine walkway overlooking the main shed. On this Wednesday evening there are five trains being serviced across eight roads. Between now and midnight another six will roll in. Eurostar has drivers whose sole job is to move the trains in and out of the facility, a process described as 'train Jenga' and choreographed in a small nerve-centre control room. Running this depot is a logistical undertaking for one rail firm, let alone two, but this week the Office of Road and Rail gave a preliminary verdict that there's potential capacity at Temple Mills for one more operator 'at most', or for Eurostar to grow. 'Today's report is great news for passengers on both sides of the Channel,' Virgin Trains responded. 'It confirms what we already knew – that there is the capacity Virgin needs at Temple Mills – bringing the Group even closer to unlocking competition on the cross-Channel route.' Evolyn, Gemini and FS Italiane Group declined the opportunity to respond, but Mark Smith, the Man in Seat 61, says: 'Evolyn/Trenitalia seem front runners as Trenitalia have some Hitachi Frecciarossa 1000s in the pipeline, which could be added to or diverted for this service. The other contenders are starting from scratch.' The message from Eurostar, however, is quite different. 'The depot is essentially full,' Gareth Williams says, as we walk past a series of pink bikes used by depot staff to travel around the vast complex. 'If you move the furniture about, what the report says is that one, maybe one and a half of these roads will be potentially available.' It is thought that these 1.5 roads could handle an additional fleet of five trains at most, but Virgin Trains plans to invest in a dozen trains and the other operators are likely to put in orders for at least ten. Eurostar has 17 e320 trains that are serviced at this depot, while its eight e300s are serviced at Le Landy depot near Paris. We enter a warehouse store room described as the 'Ikea Zone' with more than 80,000 components stacked on high shelves. Nuts, bolts, windscreens, coffee machines. If another operator moves in, they will need their own warehouse space. Another canteen. More trains. More blocks in the game of Jenga. This store room is an example of what moving another operator into Temple Mills would entail. There are other nuances in the discussion of capacity at Temple Mills. There are two 'Cripple Roads' at Temple Mills that house old Eurostar trains that are stripped for parts, and the ORR's initial report suggested the roads in the reception area could plausibly be put to more effective use. But when the independent regulator says there's potential space for another operator to squeeze in, this is not the same as saying such a squeeze is practically viable for all parties. And anyway – Eurostar has its own plans for expansion. The French-owned firm plans to invest up to £1.5bn in a new 50-train fleet and new facilities at Temple Mills, as well as increasing capacity at stations including St Pancras International. They say that there are a number of other suitable sites available for competitors, including one at Stratford not far from Temple Mills. 'There's got to be an answer that gives everyone else who is prepared to invest the same opportunity to build their own facilities,' says Williams. 'A solution needs to be found, but it's not going to be found on one road in this shed.' For passengers, the sooner things get sorted in Temple Mills, the better. Competition would likely mean more destinations on the map. All of the rival firms have hinted at plans beyond the current Eurostar map featuring Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Lille, which has seen stops like Lyon, Marseille and Disneyland Paris crossed out over the years. Potential new routes to Bordeaux, Milan, Zurich and Frankfurt are all on the table. Even Eurostar agrees competition is no bad thing: 'It's not competition that kills companies, it's stagnation,' says Gareth Williams. Tickets could become cheaper too. The infrastructure consultancy firm, Steer, predicts that growth in capacity in the Channel Tunnel (from 11m to 35m by 2040) could see ticket prices go down by up to 30 per cent. There is also the potential that the overall service would be improved as well. Eurostar has had a monopoly on the line since 1994. Any new pretenders will be keen to offer unique services, whether it be quicker Wi-Fi, more leg-room, greater eco-credentials or finer dining options, to set them apart. For now, that's all hypothetical, as the rail firms have this week been ordered to file final submissions 'at pace' to allow the ORR to make a decision, by October, as to whether they will be granted access to Temple Mills, or if Eurostar will be given the nod to expand. As I left the Temple Mills complex, something about its carbuncular boxy exterior made me reflect on the Hagia Sophia comparison once again. For the first thousand years of its existence, Istanbul's most iconic holy building was used as a church, before being converted into a mosque in the 1300s, a museum in the 20th century, and more recently, a mosque once again. It is an example of how buildings can be repurposed and adapted through the ages as dynasties rise and fall. In a matter of months, we will know whether the throwaway comparison was more prescient than Eurostar's General Secretary intended. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Is the end of the dreaded airport queue in sight? Not quite
Last week, British passengers arriving at Tenerife South Airport reported 'inhumane' conditions after queueing for more than two hours without access to water or loos. 'We couldn't move our arms, we could barely breathe, and people were sweating. Some parents lifted their children onto their shoulders to stop them from suffocating,' one passenger told local media. It's a frightening image, and one that has become more common at European airports since British air passengers became 'third-country nationals' after Brexit. This effectively gives us the same rights as arrivals from, say, Venezuela, banishing us to the often snail-paced 'All Passports' queue to get a stamp on arrival. When flying home we must also pass through border control to get a second exit stamp before proceeding to the gate. This can lead to scenarios where passengers are kettled at the gates with no access to refreshments if a flight is delayed, and no way to go back to the main terminal area. Change, it seems, is on the horizon. The Labour party has struck a deal with the EU to allow British passport holders to pass through e-gates, and the introduction of the Entry/Exit System (EES) in October will automate identity checks and remove the need for manual passport stamps. So will these images of British passengers snaking out of arrival halls at European airports soon be a thing of the past? Yes, but it may take a while. When it first rolls out, EES will require British (and all non-EU) travellers to provide fingerprints and facial images when entering or exiting the Schengen Area. This process has been much-delayed, not least because implementing it requires a continent-wide tech overhaul. And as we all know, airport IT systems, often operated by third-party firms and alongside multiple other systems, have a tendency to buckle at inopportune moments. If the new tech doesn't create hold-ups, the data capture process could. Pressing thumbs on sensors and having a photograph taken may sound like a simple process, but how many times have you seen somebody push their passport into the e-gate sensor the wrong way up? Such are the fears of hold-ups that airports are planning 'safety valve' procedures, where the requirement to capture everyone's data will be temporarily waived if a checkpoint gets too busy. On e-gates, I have found this new Labour/EU e-gates 'agreement' to be somewhat smoke and mirrors. The wording in the relevant document says that 'British passengers will be able to use more e-gates in Europe'. But this does not necessarily mean we will be able to use fast-track EU e-gates. Instead, it might be that we remain in the naughty ('All Passports') queue that happens to have an e-gate at the end of it. This will ultimately be up for individual countries and airports to decide. I will allow you to decide whether we are likely to receive sympathy on this matter, or not. Perhaps I'm being overly negative. Let's say that the EES roll-out isn't as clunky as feared, and that through some miracle the majority of European airports do kindly allow Britons to use their fast-track e-gates. Surely the airport queues will have simmered down by next summer? Maybe. But we will still face the additional border check when flying home (albeit with biometrics rather than a passport stamp). And hold-ups like those seen in Tenerife are as much to do with poor scheduling as anything else. I checked the arrivals board on Tuesday June 2, and at 10.40am there were scheduled flights from Manchester (Jet2), Liverpool (Jet2), East Midlands (Tui) and Bournemouth (Ryanair). Ten minutes later, flights from Birmingham and Leeds (both Jet2) were scheduled to land, plus another from Paris. That's seven 180-or-so capacity flights touching onto tarmac, one after the other, in the space of ten minutes, at a single-runway, single-terminal airport. Even the sleekest, AI-powered biometric arrivals system would struggle to process all those passengers without the formation of a queue. There are some changes to the airport process that we can feel optimistic about. Soon, we'll be able to take greater quantities of liquids through security at all UK airports. A shake-up of UK flight paths promises to reduce air traffic delays before the end of the decade. And yes, all this new tech will eventually reduce friction at borders. But when you are stuck in a packed arrivals hall with a child on your shoulders and no access to water, you will be praying for progress now – not at some ambiguous point in the future. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new ban dodges pitfalls faced by last attempt, experts say
US President Donald Trump has issued a sweeping new travel ban for people from 12 countries, revisiting a hallmark policy of his first term in office. There are some key differences, however. The original travel ban suffered a series of legal defeats. This time, the policy appears to have been designed to avoid the same pitfalls. Its predecessor, which targeted seven predominantly Muslim countries and was dubbed the "Muslim ban" by critics, was ordered just a week after Trump took office in 2017, during his first term in the White House. The ban was amended twice to overcome court challenges, after opponents argued it was unconstitutional and illegal because it discriminated against travellers based on their religion. A scaled-back version was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018, which this new ban closely resembles. Legal experts told the BBC that it appeared Trump had learned lessons from his first attempt. Christi Jackson, an expert in US immigration law at the London firm Laura Devine Immigration, said the new ban was more legally robust as a result. While the first lacked "clarity", the new restrictions were "wider in scope" and had "clearly defined" exemptions, she said. While there are some similarities in the nations chosen by the 2017 ban and the 2025 ban, Muslim-majority states are not the express target of the latest order. Barbara McQuade, professor of law at the University of Michigan and former US attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told the BBC World Service's Newshour programme that, on this basis, it seemed likely to win the approval of the Supreme Court, if it was ever referred up to that level. Trump's travel ban: Follow live updates Everything we know about the ban so far Why are these 12 countries on the list? Trump suspends foreign student visas at Harvard The 12 countries subject to the harshest restrictions from 9 June are mainly in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean, including Afghanistan, Iran and Somalia. There will be partial restrictions on travellers from another seven countries, including Cuban and Venezuelan nationals. Trump said the strength of the restrictions would be graded against the severity of the perceived threat, including from terrorism. But besides Iran, none of the 12 countries hit by the outright ban are named on the US government's state sponsors of terrorism list. In a video announcing the ban posted on X, Trump cited Sunday's incident in Boulder, Colorado, in which a man was accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at demonstrators attending a march for Israeli hostages. The alleged attacker was an Egyptian national. However, Egypt does not appear on either list. Trump also specified high rates of people overstaying their visas as a reason for listing certain countries. However, Steven D Heller, an immigration lawyer based in the US, said there was a "lack of clarity" over what threshold had to be met by a country's overstaying rate in order for that country to be placed on Trump's ban list. That could be the basis for a successful legal challenge, he suggested. "If they're relying on this notion of excessive overstay rates... they have to define what that actually means," he told the BBC. Unlike the first ban, which was to last for only 90 to 120 days, today's order has no end date. It has been met with dismay in the targeted countries. Venezuela has described the Trump administration as "supremacists who think they own the world", though Somalia has pledged to "engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised". The original ban spurred mass protests and sowed chaos at US airports. It was repealed in 2021 by Trump's successor, President Joe Biden, who called the policy "a stain on our national conscience."
