Parking income looks like being more than £1 million under budget this year despite higher charges.
As a result, the council’s Labour cabinet is looking to make a series of changes aimed at bringing in more money while preparing the way for more red routes.
Brighton and Hove City Council makes more from parking than almost every other council in the country and has employed consultants to help tackle the projected shortfall.
But car park charges are also among the highest and over the past three years all council-run car parks have suffered “a steady decrease” in demand.
A newly published report to the council’s cabinet said: “Parking can be a controversial policy area with significant impact on the daily lives of residents, businesses and the 11 million visitors who visit the city each year.
“While visitor numbers are growing again, parking revenues are not matching this increase.
“It is recognised that over the past five years parking tariffs in Brighton and Hove have increased to the extent they have become more of a deterrent than an incentive and prohibitively expensive for some visitors.
“This has led to fewer cars coming into the city centre to park.”
“The number and extent of controlled parking zones (CPZs) have also increased over time as greater pressure on neighbouring areas have led to new CPZs being requested by residents.
“This has led to a knock-on effect where further parking pressures have rippled out from the centre, affecting outlying parts of the city.
“Over several decades, at least 200 different tariffs have been established, which include high, medium and low-emission tariffs for resident permits and visitor on-street parking.
“As a result, there is now a complex array of parking tariffs that are likely deterring visitors and residents alike.”
A review was ordered after higher charges failed to bring in as much extra money as expected and next week the cabinet is expected to agree a series of changes.
The report to the cabinet said that parking was expected to bring in £45.5 million in the 2024-25 financial year but was expected fall short by £1.156 million.
Opposition councillors Samer Bagaeen and Steve Davis proposed a city-wide parking zone but this was dismissed because it was feared that it would fuel “internal commuting” by car.
The cabinet is being asked to approve short and long-term plans – and the latter include the possible merger of some parking zones.
The short-term action plan 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
The report said: “Trialling reduced or discounted tariffs do have a risk because if parking demand does not increase, income may reduce from the lower tariffs introduced.
“However, it is anticipated that these measures would stimulate demand and generate increased paid parking income.”
Cabinet members are also being asked to approve the medium to long-term plans for changing parking up to 2030.
Before the end of 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 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,
The cabinet is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm next Thursday (26 September). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Fact file
More than 26 parking zones currently cover 1,057 streets, with 46,728 on-street parking bays. Of these, 65 per cent are for permit holders only and 27 per cent are shared permit or pay bays.
Demand for on-street parking is highest in controlled parking zones covering the centre of Brighton and reduces in parking zones further out.
In the busiest zones, in the centre of Brighton, resident parking permit uptake is 100 per cent but in outlying zones the uptake is 80 to 90 per cent.
The average cost of resident and business permits across all zones and for all emission categories in Brighton and Hove is higher than most similar cities.
The average hourly on-street parking tariff in the centre of Brighton and along the seafront is higher than in most other cities.
The average hourly parking charge for off-street parking in the centre of Brighton is higher than in most cities.
Council car parks in the centre of Brighton have a higher occupancy rate than those further out. London Road car park is “significantly” underused.
Since 2021, fewer drivers have parked in council-operated car parks.
Surplus income from parking charges is legally ringfenced and, among other things, funds bus passes for older people and the disabled as well as subsidising some bus routes.
It also funds some road improvements and maintenance as well as air quality and environmental measures.
They have squeezed the goose and now it’s dying, personally I avoid Brighton just on how much parking costs and the wardens are like vultures.
And the word has got out.
Councils are there to help not penalise us.
I wonder how much that cycle lane is costing in Madeira drive in lost revenue at least a million.
Well we’ve seen such good evidence that “Labour will listen” like they promised in their 2023 Brighton manifesto… Wonder how that park and ride they always bang on about is progressing too… lol
They haven’t included an obvious reason. Stop removing parking bays. Even now the council is proposing removing about ten parking bays near the aquarium. The city has lost high numbers on the seafront etc. People now prefer catching taxis or buying on amazon than driving into town and parking as the parking charges are shockingly high.
I think the elephant in the room is the loss of parking spaces. The green administration nibbled away at existing parking all over Brighton, but the biggest loss was on Madeira drive. Add in the closure of black rock car park while the protracted development is going on and you have the answer. On top of that Brighton now has a national reputation for high charges and not enough parking and is regarded as an anti-motorist city. A triumph of dogma in a place that is reliant on tourism. As an aside if the council is down on parking revenue imagine what is happening to the traders that rely on visitors that park.
The real danger here is that the council will seek to bolster their self imposed shortfall by milking the captive population by increasing residents permit costs, already some of the highest in the UK.
Also you need to factor in the increase in disabled parking bays. Who don’t pay to park in them.
The times my husband’s been out, he’s had difficulty finding a disabled parking bay, sometimes not at all. He’s just bought a folding disability scooter, which he can’t lift in and out of his car. He’s exploring an option of having a hoist fitted to his car, so he can park further away. Using the scooter from home is not an option for him. I do wonder at times, if people manipulate the blue badge. Hopefully with this patient summary my husband had to go through to renew his badge, this may possibly reduce the blue badges.
Oh, people absolutely use their permits of all kinds to their advantage, not just blue badges.
They are not some of the highest in the UK. They are the highest in the whole of Europe.
Let’s face it – BHCC Transport Dept , aided and abetted by the Greens, have caused this themselves through their morbid hatred of the motorist. So many spaces have been removed to be replaced by thoroughly underused cycle lanes. Traffic has been deliberately slowed. Parking prices are ridiculous. Quick solution – sack all the sustainable transport zealots at BHCC!
They are milking our from the very floor. What level of incompetence and corruption must their be to have a shortfall when they generate huge amounts of money from the local residents just for owning a car. How is it possible there is a shortfall in revenue when they make eye watering amounts of money from each road per year. Residents permits alone guarantee a fixed income for almost every road that has restrictions. Then there’s the insane amount of money made from fines and pay and display.
No residents want red routes. This is not London. Give us back our own identity, stop trying to exploit the local population and make it so much more stressful to live round here if you own a vehicle. Which many people need for their livelihood. Me included. I was born in this city and intent to live here most of my life. I resent the council for what they have done to make life so complicated and expensive when using my vehicle for work.
It is not necessary it is greed driven. Something corrupt is happening if £45 million is not enough anually to operate the ridiculous parking restrictions across the city without requiring additional funding.
We must stop any additional red routes. They have ruined London road and lewes road and the red lines look so ugly.
You’re very wrong. Many residents want red routes in order to stop the constant blocking of pavement and cycle route my inconsiderate drivers. Speaking a resident of lewes road, it has help a lot.
Most of the blocked pavements are from wheelie bins. We have pavements where wheelie bins make it almost impossible for wheelchair users, and this has nothing at all to do with cars.
You are just making stuff up.
Arguing the aesthetics of a red line versus a yellow line as a reason to remove them is a bit odd.
Red routes are a perfectly viable and useful tool for traffic management, particularly when previously that road was not great to travel along due to parking up on the sides, blocking the road, and subsequently causing congestion. Not to mention, cyclists can use the cycle lane in its entirety now, which they couldn’t before for the same reason.
I have wanted a red route up to A&E, in line with every other hospital in the South East; it’s not just a London thing as you are insinuating.
Maybe the appalling customer service at the parking department is fuelling lost revenue from this “second” vehicle tax.
I’ve had a residents permit at a basement flat in Brighton for the last 10 years. This year they refuse to renew the permit because they wanted the flat number to be “B” and not “basement flat”. It’s taken them six weeks to come to this conclusion. I’m keeping my van at a friend’s garage now. Council loses out on £330.
ha, nice one. I gave up my car this year because of the permit hike and government road tax rises and now borrow a friends when I need it. More people are following this route..
I am not a consultant but I would like to point out two things: Firstly it is not a shortfall it is that the amount of money coming in falls under the expected prediction: This is why all businesses do cashflow forecasting; it is a forecast and therefore subject to change. Secondly, if you use the dynamic pricing theory, if you raise prices to such an extent that your consumers no longer buy the product the easy solution is to reduce the price to the point whereby they start to buy the product again.
Why BHCC are employing consultants that have failed to tell them this is beyond belief!
I would now like BHCC to forward me a huge consultancy fee!
Totally correct. I stopped paying for a traders permit as they were simply too expensive.
I work from home now and don’t do work in Brighton. It became impossible to justify to expense.
I did try visiting clients by bus, but they didn’t like the bill when based upon hourly rates, so I gave it up. I just get in the car now and head north most days.
You raise a good point that when some areas parking for the day is getting close to equal to a PCN notice, there’s an incentive to gamble and potentially get away it, and if you don’t…well, you’ve paid the same if you were to park and pay. It’s a mindset we see for flytipping as well.
It seems if you are losing revenue it’s a simple matter of increasing the parking fees
Steven.
If you read the article that is exactly what they have already done.
I quote : “It is recognised that over the past five years parking tariffs in Brighton and Hove have increased to the extent they have become more of a deterrent than an incentive and prohibitively expensive for some visitors.”
It’s backfired miserably.
This was predicted some time ago and I did laugh when the ‘Greens’ were shocked and surprised revenue had declined when they closed MD.
It has reached that point where they have now priced it beyond what is acceptable and people are going elsewhere.
The consultancy report is very poor. Doesn’t give any answers, just a timeline for areas to work on further (mainly spring 2025 and beyond)
It doesn’t address key operational issues, such as the problems and delays with resident and visitor permits. Amusingly it also lists new potential zones as “low revenue” despite zones being the cause of virtually all of the revenue
It doesn’t look at price vs avoidance (people taking the risk to park as prices so high vs fines) or the inability to pay to park (removal of parking meters and likely revenue loss from this)
It doesn’t look at Laffer curve-type issues (falling tax take as prices rise too high)
It certainly isn’t the answer. Just more questions
And for those of us wanting answers (eg. what will happen in my zone? why is my car now so expensive? Will where I live become a zone/what will happen about all these vans/campers/cars from outside my area using it as free parking etc etc). All these questions go unanswered. It’s a delay and a subset of the questions we all had anyway repeated back (true consultancy work!).
A failure and a waste of our money. How about rejecting the report and getting the consultants to provide real answers with tangible actions/decisions?
Some really good points there Nick. There’s also another point to add to that, and that’s falling car ownership in Brighton, and it’s generally effective public transport system which incentivises not driving.
I agree with a lot of comments here, and if they want the parking spaces back then pulling out the duplicated seafront cycle lane would be a good idea, allowing cars to park next to the promenade again.
It must be so annoying trying to unload your kids and beach picnic gear in the middle of the road – and we can see why visitors in cars might choose to go elsewhere.
We’d still have the seafront cycle lane on the prom – which could be widened – plus most cyclists are happy to share Kings Road as a dual lane seafront boulevard, just as we continue to do, to the west of the King Alfred.
The elephant in the room here is that the council still have a plan to go carbon neutral by 2030 and there have been incremental tactics used to discourage motorists, mostly by reducing parking spaces, narrowing roads, and by slowing up any junctions. The removal of the Palace Pier roundabout is the next part of this self-harm masterplan.
And note that creating traffic gridlocks does not actually help any carbon neutral aim.
A better aim would be to ensure that public transport flows more freely.
The irony is that our council has come to rely on the income from parking which they need for these self harm schemes. This is a bit like when Mars bar reduced the size of their chocolate product while continually wanting to charge more for it. There came a point where they lost their customer following, and their net income declined.
The council either need a new source of revenue or else they should scale back on costly road plans, to suit the reduced budget. But to stop what they are currently doing would require an about turn in their misguided collective thinking. It’s another bubble of fake-green thinking that needs bursting.
As an experiment why not try removing all parking restrictions for a Saturday and Sunday to see how the footfall increases.
It’s a good question Chris, one that has been studied before in other areas of the country. The consensus was that parking availability had very little impact on local business trade, interestingly.
Anything to do with the hundreds of spaces the council are removing using every conceivable excuse from cycle hangars to bins, red routes, cycle lanes, pocket gardens, school streets and extended yellow lines?
The previous Labour administration took out more than half the parking in Madeira Drive several years ago losing £800k a year and now intend to remove the rest of the parking in Madeira Drive and Marine Drive and also extend the cycle lane along Kingsway removing large areas of street parking The the VG3 project which will be an economic disaster for the city and take out EVEN MORE PAID PARKING. Added to the mix you have bus gate fine, extortionate prices and no means of paying cash and this city is screwed going forwards. Even deliveries and service vehicles are going to give up and many contractors are already moving out of town or refusing work here. They can’t connive a car-free city by stealth and then moan they aren’t getting enough parking revenue. Moronic.
Mutenic
I agree with your first point. The removal of parking spaces for various reasons must have some level of impact moving forward, simple mathematics will support that theory.
Cash is a fading thing, unfortunately. Martin Lewis, an expert, mentioned this fairly recently in an answer to a cash-only/card-only legal question, although he suggests we have another 20-30 years yet until that happens.
You have a point that progressing towards an active-travel city puts itself at odds with maximising parking revenue.
This is evidence of success! Visitors numbers are up whilst car use is declining!
To roll back on this by finding ways to encourage motorists back into the city is a disaster. We are facing a climate emergency, and transport is one of the most stubborn areas to shift. Yes, it is hard on the city as the policies to reduce city centre congestion and promote modal shift fall in direct conflict with the need to maximise parking income, but the council just needs to find other ways of funding things.
We need fewer private cars in our cities, the policy is working to achieve this.
Anarkish, I think it’s a bit too easy to get into that way of thinking, and that’s part of the problem.
Yes there’s a climate emergency, and yes we’d all like to see less cars on the road, but the question is really about how we go about solving these things.
Creating traffic jams does nothing for climate change. Slowing up public transport does nothing to help the city commuters – or to help us towards being carbon neutral.
It’s too simplistic an argument that if you close roads, remove parking places, and then tax the local motorists more, that you are somehow helping the world climate crisis.
In Brighton and Hove we also have the conflicting interests of needing day trippers, weekend visitors, and to hold events. We should also be planting trees, rather than building high rise blocks of flats, but we also have a housing crisis as never before.
We have to be careful of fake-green ideology which does not add up, and then there’s the institutional stupidity brought on by bubble group thinking. You might remember that the previous Green-led administration wanted to close Madeira Drive to all traffic, losing ALL the parking spaces there. And then it was pointed out by the business in the area that they still needed deliveries and that 80% of their customers come from out of town, and can only get there by car.
Why there’s no seafront bus service along Madeira Drive we can only guess. The strategic thinking about all forms of transport is a complete mess.
We’re not creating traffic jams. We are seeing voluntary modal shift as people take other options.
To take steps to deliberately encourage cars into the city against this backdrop is ridiculous. If the council create more spaces and reduce costs to make this happen, it is the worst case of denialist, future wrecking thinking there is. We can’t afford to run mass mobility via private car.
Well, as a van driver for my work, I can tell you they are definitely creating more unnecessary traffic jams, and the removal of the Palace Pier roundabout will – according to traffic consultants – inevitably lead to more congestion and a further slowing of bus services from the east.
As a walker, cyclist and regular bus user, I can also tell you city mobility has got no better for all user groups, and the real issue is that we are not investing in proper public transport – despite a big increase in the city population, and despite the increasing need for workers to commute from outside the city.
If you look at modern cities across Europe, they only create a pedestrianised city centre where they have alternative ring roads for commuter traffic and delivery vehicles, and where they have efficient public transport.
Oh, for a tram service that runs along the coast to Shoreham!
People can’t actually change their journeys if no alternative options are offered. For example, it’s a tragedy that the Beryl bike hire service is unaffordable for commuter journeys.
the council hasn’t got a strategy for transport and parking – and this report makes it clear once again. If there was a strategy to reduce cars while still encouraging tourists we’d have proper park and ride as virtually every other city has. We don’t.
The council has tens of millions in parking revenue each year, much of which is excess or “profit” and is used for bus fares, cycle lanes etc. In theory the council isn’t allowed to make a profit but, as no one has funding to legally challenge, this continues. It has already declined and will likely decline further. Worst case it could collapse if challenged (or perhaps the best case for residents as resident parking fees are many times larger than similar cities)
Anarkish
We’re not creating traffic jams. Is that right, not sure how long you’ve lived here but I can assure you over the last decade, this congestion HAS been created deliberately. Re-working of Brighton Station, created congestion and at 7 Dials, Lewes Road and narrowing of North Street impacting buses.
Removing two lanes to one, 20 MPH zones have all had impacts, traffic lights at Elm Grove, hold traffic needlessly, increase congestion, so does it on New England where traffic lights just change colour down the hill while you sit further back on a red, and the go red when you get a green, poorly phased.
Some people are making shifts, some are going elsewhere too.
You need to understand you need more than just walking and cycling to draw people away from their cars. This city needs it’s tourist to survive and a compromise has to be made. BHCC under ‘Green’ have been trying to run before they could walk, it’s all very well doing this and doing that but they need the full package, not just cycle lanes every where.
I don’t want to be rude, but you’re comments are right to a point, but you don’t give us your thoughts on what will help this city move forward, yes we need the revenue, yes the tourist, yes less traffic, but what exactly can we do if there’s no park and ride, rapid cheep and frequent bus services to name just one.
Indeed, just on the point of housing, by tackling the challenge of homelessness and lack of housing stock, income is generated differently; through rents; taxes; and increased individual spending; meaning there is less of a need for parking revenue.
Interesting point you make about housing and less need for parking revenue.
As we know, parking revenue is used to fund other transport modes, walking and cycling high on the lists, improvements to bus shelters and dropped kerbs and information boards following close behind.
Loss of parking revenue, means effectively less money in the pot for other projects, so I think we need to get the balance right.
There’s an article elsewhere in a local paper about B&H buses new electric depot due in about 18 months, a great move forward we would all agree. But the downside is as a passenger, I don’t care what powers the bus, I want the bus to turn up on time, take me to its intended destination in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable and affordable price.
Various Traffic improvement schemes have done nothing to improve bus services over the last decade, in fact made them even worse. I used to bus to Lewes twice a week, but increases to the fare and alterations to the service that connects with the service meant I now have to use my own car and it’s actually cheaper.
Parking in Brighton is also very expensive, I no longer take on any jobs within the City because of the pricing hikes and the time it takes getting in and out the town centre by both car or public transport.
Anarkish
This is evidence of success! No it’s not, don’t believe the rubbish spouted by BHCC, have you not learned that yet.
Visitors numbers are up, says who ?
Visitors were at a height of almost 12million 2013 but declined year on year to just 9million by 2019.
Latest figures show an increase in numbers but still 27% down on 2019 data, but these figures now include venues not included before therefore made to look better.
This city thrives on it’s tourist attractions, yet BHCC policies increasing prices, reducing space and refusing to back a proposed park and ride have all caused a decline, even the Palace pier needs to charge due to lower than expected revenue.
These policies and restrictions without alternatives suitable to the majority is a disaster.
Another who quotes climate emergency, there is no emergency. We didn’t cause the climate to change and we can not stop the climate from changing, it happens naturally and has done since times began.
Transport, those of us who can remember the ‘Greens’ first term of office recall they wanted a London type congestion charge back in 2011, but this was voted down as not needed in Brighton.
Strange then, that from 2011, various road ‘Improvement’ schemes were put in place year on year that have actually made things worse and the situation continues right up to this day. Also strange are the visitor numbers that dropped once these schemes came on line, with 12 million recorded 2012/13 down to a mere 9million 2019, a coincidence ? I don’t think so.
Public Transport, these various schemes have also impacted local Bus services and at each ‘Improvement’, has caused delays, variations, cancellations, re-timing, re-routing in an effort to make services more reliable. Journeys taking much longer, before VG2, St Peters to Old Steine, 3 – 4 minutes been 7 minutes on a good day since.
Talking of St Peters, congestion and chaos order of the day, never been that bad since VG2, created by poor planning by a council with just a one sided agenda who would rather introduce a congestion charge to fill the revenue than address the poor management system that is flawed all over the city. If the ‘Greens’ were really interested in improving all our lives, where’s the park and ride, where’s the traffic light sequence that clears roads instead of holding it on red lights for no reason.
No, they want the revenue and created the situation to make a claim for introduction of CC, but only the blind can’t see it.
This cities residents and visitors alike have dug hands deep into their pockets and it’s reached breaking point, I haven’t gone into the City center for years due to the high parking costs, I found Worthing and Eastbourne more friendly if I have to use my car. Brighton is the highest City for parking fees outside London and tells you something.
Correct, we need fewer private cars in our cities, the policy is working to achieve this, but it’s not though is it ?
Declining retail, shops closing not all caused by parking fees but a steady drop year on year.
Policy has been, reduce road space, make Public Transport suffer as a result, increase fees and provide little in the way of alternatives, bike lanes and hubs are well ahead in this, but where’s the alternatives for those who can not make use of such facilities?
A success, no a man made disaster born over the last 11 years.
If there was a real climate emergency there would be massive fines for chopping down the trees that eat the CO2.
This is the most damaging thing happening in our city.
Fines do exist, Barry.
They exist, but rarely applied as I know from experience.
Any attempt to introduce a park and ride is frustrated by the usual anti-car brigade. It’s all very well suggesting that families take the train. Not everyone lives close to a railway station and in any case the cost of the tickets is obscene.
The council own a number of sites which would be idea for a park and ride, but members shy away, terrified by a small but vocal minority, They also have to battle council officers who have their own agenda.
The obvious solution would be an underground car park somewhere around the junction of the A23 and A27, served by a tram line. Of course that would be too ambitious.
It needs local politicians with the drive and foresight to get things done.We once had a few who managed to rescue the Albion against the odds, but I don’t see anyone of that calibre in the current crop.
We have one of the worst train services in the country! People have lost jobs and livelihoods trying to rely on the Brighton and Hove train service, which stops at the drop of a hat and pretty well every bank holiday, just when the tourists rely on it. How dare the anti-car brigade consider the train service is an acceptable alternative to the car. It is not.
Vince.
A very good scheme was proposed by B&H buses. It was based on their excellent Football Park and Ride operating from Mill Lane. The company were prepared to run it as an experiment for 6 months with an contribution from BHCC (Green) of a solitary 100K, easily funded from the Millions allocated for Active Travel or excess profits from Parking revenue.
The excuse from one green councillor were they and I quote, “we’re worried in case local people use it.”
Trains are really unaffordable at the moment, I completely agree. I’d like to see a good park-and-ride scheme that visits our big employers’ buildings, or even a continuation of bus routes to comprehensively service those buildings, such as what we see at the hospital.
Don’t bother going into Brighton, it’s a cesspit.
Spend your money elsewhere.
Brighton Council succeeds yet again in creating its own problems, Valley Gardens 3 will make the situation worse and yes if you keep removing parking bays you will reduce revenue – not rocket science is it.