Park cuts will cost more in the long-run

BIRMINGHAM City Council’s budget plans include a 20 per cent cut to parks funding which would mean the loss of park keepers, closure of most rangers’ hubs and restriction of rangers’ activities to essential health and safety issues ( Birmingham Post, December 29).

There would be no supervision for volunteer or community activities or care for local wildlife and natural habitats.

In addition, some parks could be sold for development and lost forever.

While having sympathy for the council – forced into making difficult decisions because of cuts by central Government – this is an area which it can ill afford to decimate.

One of the hallmarks of great cities throughout the ages is provision for the spiritual, physical and mental wellbeing of their citizens.

From London’s Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens to Central Park in New York, city fathers have always recognised the values of open spaces.

We like to think that Birmingham is a civilised place.

Well, the very words ‘civilisation’ and ‘civilise’ mean ‘a high level of cultural and social development’, and ‘make a place more pleasant and acceptable’.

If this seems intangible, then consider the extra costs for health and social services when people are denied access to parks and green spaces and lose opportunities for outdoor activities and contact with nature.

The proposals are the epitome of knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

Now a coalition of Birmingham’s green groups has written an open letter to the council, printed in last week’s Post, drawing attention to the consequences if the cuts go ahead.

It has been said that we are now in a post-truth age.

If these proposals become reality, Birmingham will be entering a post-civilisation age.

But you can have your say. A consultation document is available on the city council’s website and the public can also respond online until January 18 at www.birminghambeheard. org.uk. Peter Shirley is a Midland

based conservationist