A six-year plan to make changes to parking prices and strategies more sustainable has secured backing from council cabinet members.
In the short term, Brighton and Hove City Council’s focus is a forecast deficit of £1 million in parking revenue from its projected £45.5 million income.
It aims to tackle this in part by reducing fees in some council-owned car parks where demand has dropped.
A report to the council’s cabinet meeting yesterday (Thursday 26 September) proposed changing tariffs.
It said that visitor numbers had risen to 11 million a year but parking income had not increased to match.
Opposition councillors and campaigners criticised the council for releasing details of the lower prices on Tuesday (24 September), two days before the meeting
Brighton Active Travel said that it was disappointed to see the changes announced before the cabinet had made its decision.
The campaign group said: “We know a resident who’d submitted a question for cabinet. They’re wondering if they should bother.
“We too are disappointed but when democracy and transparency get binned it’s not surprising that the public has no confidence in its elected representatives.”
Green opposition leader Steve Davis,who used to chair the now-defunct Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee, said that the situation was “anti-democratic”.
He said: “I’ve seen people from Bricycles and other outside pressure groups bemoaning the fact they write questions to come to committee when decisions are clearly already made.
“I’m a massive proponent of the committee system because it gives people a bigger voice to be heard and decisions can be changed.
“It’s anti-democratic. We need a more open and more transparent administration.”
Councillor Davis said that more time was needed to read the cabinet papers because opposition councillors and the public did not have enough time to scrutinise the reports which came out late on Wednesday 18 September.
The council’s cabinet member for transport, parking and the public realm, Trevor Muten, said that there was a four-week lead in to implement the tariff changes, depending on the outcome of the meeting.
Councillor Davis asked about the cost of external consultants used for the parking review and the costs of bringing back pay and display machines. The consultancy fee was £60,000 and the machines cost £6,000.
The Greens also criticised the reduced parking charges, saying that they wanted to see fewer cars coming into Brighton and Hove.
Outside the meeting, Councillor Davis said: “I felt a bit confused. I read the opening paragraph (of the report) and it said visitor numbers are up.
“What local councillor in a seaside resort doesn’t want to hear that after the years we’ve suffered with the pandemic and the recession.
“As a Green, hearing the phrase people are coming to the city and not coming as much in cars is fantastic because parking fee charges are down.
“We’re in a climate emergency, we’ve got roads that are full of potholes, we’ve got air that’s full of pollution, we’ve got people that are scared to let their children cycle to school, so that’s fantastic news.
“What really confuses me is the report says high charges have been a deterrent to people coming to the city. Those two statements contradict themselves. We can’t have more visitors with less cars?”
When introducing the parking review, Councillor Muten said that drivers were treated as “cash cows” to “milk” at every opportunity.
He reminded the cabinet that in July 2023 the new Labour administration scrapped the trebling of parking charges around the Royal Sussex County Hospital. The higher charges hit key workers and people visiting sick relatives during the “cost of living crisis”.
He said: “Parking prices have increased year upon year, notably steeply rising over the past five years.
“Now seen as one of the most expensive local authorities on average parking fees, yet strikingly no previous administration stepped back to see how parking citywide fits together. It’s time for a reset.”
The deputy leader of the council, Jacob Taylor, said that the review was an important piece of work for the visitor economy.
Councillor Taylor, who leads on finance, said: “The flaw in the previous policy – to put up parking fees exponentially every year and then be shocked when the revenues fall and we no longer have the revenue.
“It’s interesting to me that Green councillors in the city are being quite transparent that they wanted to do that to stop people coming and parking.
“Of course, you’re not stopping people who have large incomes and posh cars coming in. You’re stopping people who can’t afford it. It’s a flat tax. There’s no progressivity in a flat rate of parking.”
The short-term action plan approved includes
- review signs to promote PayPoint
- reduce fees for underused parking areas
- introduce paid parking in some light-touch areas
- bring in weekend parking tariffs
- ensure charges in parks are similar to surrounding parking zone
- continue with financial recovery plan
In the medium term 2025, the council is considering a trial of virtual permits and offering “displacement permits” for use in neighbouring parking zones.
Proposals also include renaming car parks after nearby attractions and trying to attract commuters to the under-used London Road car park.
By 2027, the council is looking to reduce the number of emission categories for all permits to two.
The council hopes to be able to enforce pavement parking rules if the government changes the law and to align on-street and off-street charges.
By 2030, the aim is to explore charges based on vehicle size, create or merge new parking zones, simplify restrictions and bring in more red routes.
And what about resident permits? Will they reduce these and stop using residents as cash cows?
I feel sorry for the Trader’s Permits. Some of those are eye watering.
Not exactly news or a surprise though it went through, as the council issued the press release before the actual meeting took place. Not a good way to encourage resident participation at council meetings if decisions are predetermined. It makes public questions pointless and suggest they are just for show as an attempt to pretend councillors are facilitating community participation.
Whether people are for or against the proposal, the handling of these decisions under the new Cabinet system is very questionable!
Wasn’t the initial phases of a Parking Review originally triggered at an area panel by a resident after the announcement of the Green’s tripling of parking costs in various zones?
Its the ultimate dichotomy for the Greens – funds from the transport department can pay for acrive travel schemes , (and have), and car parking charges contribute hugely with this. Simply detering cars will only lesten those funds which will be squeezed further bu necessary repairs to roads and the ever expanding concessionary travel cost. As Labour quite rightly identified at the local elections public transport idsthe way forward cycling/ walking really drops off when the weather is bad.
I agree. It’s a fine balance as well, because you’ll always have people who need cars for work or accessibility, or do not wish to use public transport.
The city’s topography, especially it’s hills, also detract from cycling as it’s okay down, but a lot harder going up.
Although regarding road repairs, I remember reading that this was not a cost issue, but a manpower one?
Meanwhile, we have VG3, which will completely screw through traffic in the middle of ‘our city’. This is going to cause enormous congestion (just like council consultants said) .Thank you so much, cllr Muten! You will be remembered.
Love your ironic use of “our” in quotes, because of course by “us” you mean car drivers (only); nobody else counts, do they? They’re not “us”.
It’s just so entitled.
Teach more people to drive !
Good, good… Let the hate flow through you 🙂↕️
Teach more people to drive cars !
This is such poor policy, carried out to appease a loud minority of motorists and happy to pass the buck to future generations.
Why no sustainability section in the report to cabinet? Because it is a completely unsustainable policy which bucks the trend of every significant city in Europe by encouraging modal shift to private car. Welcoming congestion, pollution and road danger into our city
Rather than bribing people to use underperforming car parks, how about finding a better use for them? London Rd carpark is not needed, with a better placed facility on Blackman St and free short term parking at Sainsbury’s directly opposite. The council housing above it is of terrible quality, and the school won‘t be using its playground anymore since labour shut it down. (Falling pupil numbers shut it down, falling car numbers rush to subsidise. Cars more important than children it seems.)
There are better uses for all of the failing carparks – uses fit for the future, not for the mistakes of the last century. Our city deserves better than this.
You do realise that without the parking revenue there will be fewer active travel schemes and ultimately a council that goes bust? You may not like cars but around 44% of tourists use them to visit the city and obviously they are essential for some in society. Cars are also getting greener and by 2035 all cars sold will be electric. Active travel is preferable but not always practical or relevant this arguement of all cars bad simply is short sighted.
That is the same last ditch argument the tobacco lobby used – “without tobacco taxes the health service will collapse” – and it is just as disingenuous and self serving. That you think is a good rebuttal shows the paucity of your response. It is also completely missing the point.
Pretty bad analogy tobacco usage has been on the decline for years and will eventually disappear car usage is still on the up and getting cleaner that is a fact. Parking revenue of over £40 million is a fact. How will you make up the £40 million shortfall if cars are actively discouraged from coming to the city? I totally get the idea that you wish to prohibt traffic in some central areas, (with allowances for those blue badge users), but actively saying no cars don’t come to Brighton is financial suicide and obviously this administration sees the issue. Park and Ride would be the sensible solution but a suitable, large enough area on the cities edge is probably never going to be found. Compromise is the key. For context in 30 years of working in Brighton I have driven in twice and usually cycle but bus it in the poor weather. I do understand though just banning cars will not work financially or prectically.
Teach more people to drive cars !
Councillor Davis is the saviour of the planet !
Bernard Manning was woke !
Are they finally realizing that there is a collation between transport and the commercial success of the city?
Have they at last twigged that people from outside Brighton want to drive to the city for the facilities found here?
Has it dawned on them that they’ll never let all the empty shops they own as no one is willing to take them because there are no customers to serve?
If this city want to be a financial success it needs to be seen as THE place within the surrounding 40mile to shop, eat etc etc etc.
Crucifying drivers means they go elsewhere as they have choice and mobility..
No – we must listen to Bricycles, Cycling UK, and Brighton Active Travel who are obsessed with promoting walking and cycling and don’t care about the effect on local businesses, the city economy, or the opinions of anybody else.
That they have failed miserably with this and they ignore the truth that cycling in the city continues to decline post-Covid and most return to their nice warm cars when it rains.
That Brighton and Hove has become the place to avoid for anyone outside the area is of no consequence to them in their blinkered echo chambers.
Poor Cllr Davis!
How does he sleep at night in the knowledge he is training up more people to drive their cars around ‘our city’. Hilarious!
This article says nothing about the commercial impact on driving, which, academia would tell us, has little to none.
In fact, we can confer that since visitor numbers are increasing, driving is not the primary driver, if you pardon the pun. What is changing seems to be the mode of transportation, or there is a lot more fee-dodging.
The problem with excessively high costs for parking is that drivers perceive the likelihood and cost of being fined as lower than the cost of parking, so they may take the risk, seeing it as the more rational or advantageous choice.
No mention of removing rusty old defunct parking machines then ? They must have a scrap value?
Green councillor Steve Davis complains that decisions are already made prior to consultation, and that it’s undemocratic.
I laughed so much I nearly fell off my chair. What gall to publicly display his hypocrisy and think that no one will notice. Is he actually this arrogant or just mentally fragile?
My experience of the gentlemen is that he is quite prideful. Ironically, he taught me how to drive many years ago. Really good instructor.
Finally someone at the council has heard of the Laffer curve