A long-promised city-wide parking review is due to go before Brighton and Hove City Council cabinet members next month.
Senior councillors will consider a report following a review of parking undertaken by an external consultant, according to the council’s “forward plan”.
At a meeting on Thursday 26 September, the 10-member cabinet is expected to be asked to approve a way forward.
Labour announced the review in July last year, after halting planned parking charge increases which would have trebled prices around the Royal Sussex County Hospital, by London Road railway station and in central Hove.
Councillor Trevor Muten said in January that the review was intended to create “a more equitable parking service for residents, visitors and businesses alike”.
Councillor Muten, the cabinet member for transport, parking and the public realm, was speaking at the now defunct Transport and Sustainability Committee which he chaired.
At the January meeting, councillors agreed to keep light-touch schemes where, twice a day for an hour at a time, parking is restricted to those with a resident or visitor permit.
A public consultation rejected proposals to turn these areas into full parking zones, with restrictions from 9am to 8pm.
Councillor Samer Bagaeen first raised the issue of a city-wide parking zone scheme when the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee meeting in March.
He said that the current incremental approach to parking zones had not worked because it just “pushes the problem along”.
Councillor Bagaeen said: “We’ve seen that at Surrenden and at the top of Dyke Road (and) in Wayland Avenue which, we said, when it came to committee, would move the parking problem to Westdene.
“May I suggest parking permits across the whole city up to the boundary – and if that’s something that the strategic review will recommend, I really think that’s the way forward.”
He was backed by Councillor Steve Davis, the Green opposition leader, who also called for a city-wide parking zone. He said that whenever a new residents’ parking area was created, parking problems were displaced, usually to a neighbouring area.
Councillor Davis said: “We recently had a parking zone in Surrenden, and this was voted through in a minority administration, and now the residents of Patcham, in particular, Withdean Court Avenue and The Cedars, are struggling a lot.
“Residents can’t wait. It’s an onslaught. What would the administration’s view be on having a city-wide parking zone?”
Councillor Muten agreed that when a new zone was created, many drivers parked in nearby non-permit areas, sometimes for weeks at a time.
Brighton and Hove’s parking problems could not be solved by adding more parking zones “patched on to the end” of existing ones, he said.
One measure already announced is the reintroduction of card-only pay and display machines at a small number of locations for a trial period.
The cabinet is due to meet at 2pm on Thursday 26 September at Hove Town Hall. The agenda should be published at least five working days before the meeting which is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
‘Parking service’ !!! Not sure there is a service rather an extortion racket. Time to slash the cost of parking across our city and halt this regressive stealth tax.
then who pays for subsidising 21 bus routes and the concessionary and disabled bus pass use ?
Why should non motorists not contribute toward these public services? They should be funded by all. An increase in council tax would be a fairer way of doing this.
It’s only right that people wishing to store their private property on public land should continue to be openly and transparently charged.
It’s only right then, that those who store other modes of transport on public land should also be charged.
they do
Both motor and pedal cyclists frequently leave their contraptions blocking pavements, chained to street furniture or even impeding access to pedestrian crossings.
I don’t believe that they are charged to store their private property on this public land…
Yep – charge by the kg.
Higher charges for vehicle owners who do not already contribute via VED.
EV owners do not pay VED but the batteries mean their vehicles tend to weigh a lot
We already pay for this ‘public land’ through vehicle, fuel and other taxes/duties.
Back in your box.
Those are central government taxes and duties. The public streets here are owned by the city council.
“Now defunct” is a term that could be applied to many council related processes. Am not convinced this current lot will take into account anything residents (or opposition councillors say) now they’ve shoe-horned in their Cabinet processes. No doubt they’ll have a press statement lined up to press send on before any decision has actually been made anyway…
I can see this is an emotive issue, but let’s stand back and try and put a detailed view here.
1) Charging people to park cars outside their own homes – or making them pay for a hard-won space nearby – is never going to be popular.
2) This charge is however not about subsidising public buses or road repairs, but is now a major source of council income. There seems to be little benefit to local residents from this parking permit charge, except where it keeps those from outside your area from taking your space.
3) You can live in a modest city centre flat or bedsit and your parking permit can now cost as much as a quarter of your annual council tax bill. In recent years our council tax has gone up by the maximum amount each year and we’re told that is just 5%, and yet if you include the amount now charged for parking that local tax has effectively gone up by 30% or more. Obviously the actual figure will vary from person to person, according to your parking zone, and with the vehicle you have. Plus some people with bigger houses will pay a higher council tax charge, and their permit charge is then a lesser percentage of that. But in my case, with a modest one bedroom flat, and a van needed for work, this is just one of the many ways my life has become unaffordable in recent years. All other basic living costs – like food costs and energy costs – have similarly affected those of us on more modest incomes the most.
4) This current tax system is very regressive, as it affects those parking vans for work the most, or those who can’t afford new and expensive modern low energy use cars, and because it’s a massive increase in overall local tax for those of us living in the more modest homes. Those in bigger houses, with their own driveways and maybe with two cars parked up, don’t have to pay this permit fee at all.
5) I’m guessing from the article the council will look at a lot of things, such as which zones are oversubscribed, but no doubt the plan will also be to increase charges further – to help solve the council’s other budget shortfalls.
Nobody will find their bill has gone down.
6) We are often told that parking revenue is ring-fenced, in terms of where it can be spent. And that stupid stupid rule seems to then mean we get road works which are often entirely unnecessary, cycle lanes where they are not wanted, and yet the crumbling road surfaces are not quickly repaired. It’s like the traffic and transport department has a unique slush fund to keep flaunting their own wasteful ideological ideas.
7) I hope the current council will also take anther look at parking revenue that comes from visitors to the city. The previous administration seemed to want to remove seafront parking spaces where ever they could, plus they made it difficult to pay when you finally found a space, and this has resulted in a huge loss in council income.
8) It would be nice to hear that visitor park and ride schemes are back on the agenda.
2) It is about supporting buses in that the surplus pays for shelters, bus time displays and, most importantly, the concessionary passes for people with disabilities, children and senior citizens, all of which make the buses easier to use so there are fewer cars getting in the way of trades and emergency vehicles.
3) This administration has reduced the length of protected cycle lanes, increasing the risk for people riding bicycles. You may not want cycle lanes but others do and, like you, they want potholes fixed because they’re downright dangerous.
Hi Max. That is an interesting comment.
Do you think that if someone gives up their car and takes up cycling (assuming this is practicable in terms of their occupation), that they should also give up their social responsibility to contribute toward bus passes for the elderly and disabled? If the answer is yes, I wonder what else they could give up to avoid contributing to the many other public services?
The costs of providing concessionary bus passes should be decoupled from parking income. It’s a significant reason for the Council to depend on parking income.
Great reply, Max.
But I probably need to say I totally support better public transport as a regular bus user, and I am aware of the council’s financial responsibilities about bus shelters, and bus time displays. (which are seldom altered, or maintained, so the budget there is tiny.)
As someone with a bus pass, for which I’m grateful, I also understand the financial costs to the council there, which have not actually changed beyond the rate of inflation – whereas parking permit revenue to the council has risen by 80% in recent years? I guess that depends how far you go back with those figures.
But the council can’t actually argue that car parking permits now produce the sole income that keeps bus passes going, so that’s emotional fake news, like a Daily Mail headline.
I am also a cyclist, and a weekly or sometimes daily user of my local bike lanes, and I know when they are empty – and where these lanes are misplaced or too wide, and cause unnecessary traffic jams.
As far as emergency vehicles go, the road changes during Covid (under the Greens) made the emergency vehicle access far worse – with the duplicated seafront cycle lane being an obvious example.
If only the current council would rethink the previous administration’s lobbyist-lead crass stupidity.
I personally love the idea of cycle lanes, but only those in the right place, logically using limited available space to suit all road and pavement users – and again, as a daily walker, I’m in all user categories.
We might argue that the Greens used the ideological need for new cycle lanes as an excuse to close roads and to lose visitor parking, and simply as an act of car-hatred. As such, it was a city-wide act of self-harm.
I’m glad we agree that maintenance of road surfaces affects everybody – and especially me on my 20inch wheel city push bike which has no fake-green electric assistance. The smaller the wheel, the smoother the road surface needs to be.
Most of us use all types of transport and the mistake any council can make s to virtue signal one type of traveller over another. I certainly wouldn’t own a vehicle if I didn’t need one.
It’s common for people to say they’re in favour of cycle lanes “in the right place”, without being able to identify where the right places are, and objecting to any new cycle lane plans. Where would *you* introduce cycle lanes in the city?
What is the evidence that the seafront cycle lane has “made the emergency vehicle access far worse”?
I can certainly attest that the seafront is unique when it comes to emergency driving conditions, with reduced offside opportunities due to the central furniture, especially close to the pier, and a number of choke points where there’s not a lot traffic can legally and safely do to assist.
The secondary cycle lane makes westbound travel harder, because it turns a two lane into a single for a large majority of it.
I am also a driver, and a user of my local roads, and I know when they are empty – and where these roads are misplaced or too wide, and cause danger, pollution, divide communities and urban blight.
Remember when it didn’t feel like you were being milked from the moment you woke up to the moment you went to sleep.
To be fair, you DID fall asleep in the barn where the cows were…
Don’t forget that the government reimbursed councils for the concessionary bus passes. Last year they didn’t fully reimburse but before then the councils got their money back. So where is all the surplus going???
Councils have been paying the costs for years.
You can read the parking reports on the councils website and that will show you where the money is going.
Also £450m gap in funding – which isn’t new and has been getting wider and wider for years.
https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/future-local-buses-risk-councils-face-ps450-million-bill-prop-national-free-bus-pass
The majority of B&H residents don’t own a car but we are expected to give car owners free parking?
Gareth, that’s perhaps a twisted view on what is being said here.
I think the days of free parking in Brighton and Hove have long gone, and the only people who still ‘expect’ a free space will probably live elsewhere, in smaller towns where free parking is still the norm.
For sure there is still some free but temporary parking to be found in the ‘light touch’ zones.
It must be great to live in the city and not need a car, but people who need a vehicle for work, in my case a van, cannot avoid having to park it somewhere. I pay for the permit to park mine at home, and then I pay for parking a second time for most jobs I have to do.
As worker access and parking become more and more costly we can expect that getting any job done on your home will become more and more expensive, and there are already areas where I won’t take on a job – because I can’t offer an efficient service if I can’t park close by.
It’s equally unfair to guilt trip those families who need a car to transport their kids to the beach, or to visit grandma, when those journeys are often not possible by bike or on public transport.
Other people who absolutely need their cars are those with mobility issues.
I’m always a bit shocked when non-drivers don’t seem to understand these basic truths.
Claimable expenses though, so you can offset that against your tax bill, at least the business proportion.
But that just means you save the tax proportion which is only around 20%, or 40% for some.
Muten needs to screw the motorist out of more money, to help to subsidise his baby, VG3
Where is the public consultation and how will it be listened to?
You have a council which wants to ultimately ban motor vehicles from Brighton and Hove which doesn’t give a crap about how the city would survive or function socially and economically if it achieves this.
They are there to serve the public and need reigning in.
I think that more and more people are sharing this view Barry.
Wasn’t this review actually prompted originally by a resident?