I am writing on behalf of Anglian Water, to give the company's side of the story in relation to your "fight over parking at reservoir" (Mercury, last week).

I apologise that this is a lengthy letter, but obviously there are several issues to consider.

Anglian Water's recreation sites have to be maintained using money generated at the sites: We are simply not allowed to use money from water bills to do this, our industry regulator Ofwat does not allow it.

This is because an Anglian Water customer in, for example, Scunthorpe, Colchester or Lowestoft, can not be expected to contribute to the upkeep of a reservoir there is no reasonable likelihood of them ever visiting. I am sure your readers will understand the logic behind this and would feel much the same.

Last year Anglian Water generated £160,000 from car parking at Rutland Water. Upkeep of Rutland Water alone cost Anglian Water more than £300,000.

This figure includes grounds maintenance and repairs and the cost of running the nature reserve at Egleton. This does not include staffing or energy costs.

Clearly Anglian Water therefore needs to generate some additional revenue to contribute to this considerable shortfall, to ensure the site remains in its current condition and with its current level of access.

The £30 annual parking ticket offers exceptional value for money and I do hope your readers will consider this option. If you visit the reservoir just once a week, this equates to 57p per visit. This means that local people can still enjoy the benefits of the reservoir at minimal cost, while visitors from further afield, who are not likely to have a season parking ticket, will help contribute more.

Anglian Water believes that removing the short-stay parking fee but encouraging residents who visit the site regularly to consider a season parking ticket, means local people can get exceptional value for money.

Anglian Water will continue to subsidise the site, using money generated elsewhere in the business, but as costs of maintenance go up, so must the amount of money the company generates from the site. Surely your readers must consider this to be fair?

Of course, as some of your readers have pointed out, other sites around the region which perhaps have lower running costs or a different degree of regulation do charge less for car parking.

But you only need to look a little further afield to find that Rutland Water's car parking rates are still among the lowest in the country.

Finally, to briefly answer some specific comments from readers who have written to you: Richard Birch expresses "disgust and anger at the cost of taking his dog for a walk at Rutland Water" – assuming he walks his dog more than once a fortnight, the season ticket would offer him and other regular dog walkers a considerably lower rate than the £1 for 1 hour charge.

Tim Harris suggests Anglian Water "doesn't value local people" – you'd only need to consider the millions of pounds generated for the local economy through tourism at events such as the BirdFair, the hugely successful osprey project and new events such as Rutland Day (none of which we are obliged to support, but all of which we are delighted to) to realise this statement is a little harsh.

And Sharon Watret describes Anglian Water as "greedy" – as described above Anglian Water in fact spends more money than it generates at Rutland Water and is trying to find a fair way to reduce this shortfall.

£30 for a year of unlimited visits to a site with all that Rutland has to offer is surely not "greedy".

Anglian Water will continue to communicate with businesses based on site at Rutland, and will consider a review of the situation in the autumn.

Anglian Water has enjoyed an excellent relationship with the people of Rutland, conscious that our reservoir is at the very heart of the county.

I hope this goes some way to answering the concerns of readers.

Dan Baker
Anglian Water



They'll lose out

Further to your article regarding the parking fees at Rutland Water: I wrote to Anglian Water about the increase in the annual bill from £20, for Rutland Water only, to £30 for all the reservoirs.

I pointed out that as a pensioner, I am unable to travel to these other sites and thought that the £20 annual fee for just Rutland Water a fair price to pay.

I received the usual platitudes from an anonymous person telling me that the increase in price was reasonable taking into account the extra sites available to view and enjoy.

This makes me believe that either they did not read my letter, or they chose to ignore the point. Instead of gaining a money-grabbing £10, they have lost £20.

It makes you wonder who does their accounting?

JE Ellis
Braunston Road,
Oakham



Unnecessary

I think that increased charges like this are totally out of order and unnecessary.

Surely Rutland Water belongs to the people and while the managers have to manage it, that is no licence to gouge the public.

A reasonable charge was being made and to triple the charge is nothing less than criminal.

OK, prices increase over time and a reasonable increase would perhaps be acceptable, say £1.25.

With the increase they have made there will be less people using it and most likely a loss of revenue at the end of the day so where is the logic in that?

George Morley
Petitcodiac,
Canada
(message posted on the Mercury's website)