The price of parking in Brighton and Hove is likely to go up from April as cycle lanes and other “active travel” measures make a dent in the council’s revenues.
Brighton and Hove City Council has proposed putting up prices after struggling to make as much money from parking as it had expected.
A report to councillors said: “It is becoming increasingly difficult to attain income targets from increased prices over the last few years and the city is losing parking spaces as a result of active travel measures.
“The underachievement … is likely to be partly as a result of the significant estimated loss of £858,000 following the reduction of permit and paid parking spaces due to active travel measures (eg, Madeira Drive, Old Town, A259 – eastern section) introduced over the last two years.
“There will be further reductions in parking spaces following the introduction of schemes on the A259 seafront cycle lane (western section), A23 cycle lane, liveable neighbourhood, communal bins, school streets, Valley Gardens Phase 3, Madeira Terraces and the cycle hangar programme.”
The price increases are among of a raft of changes to fees and charges due to be considered by the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee tomorrow (Tuesday 17 January).
A report to the committee said that 36,000 resident permits a year were sold as well as 15,000 permits for traders, businesses, doctors and schools. Permit holders also bought 360,000 visitors permits a year.
The report to the committee said: “Resident permits are declining in certain controlled parking zones.”
The council proposes to raise the price of a one-year permit in most parking zones for a vehicle with standard emissions by £18.45 from £175 to £193.45 – just over 10.5 per cent.
In zones with a light-touch scheme, the council proposes putting up a one-year permit by £11.40 from £120 to £131.40 – or 9.5 per cent – for a standard emission vehicle.
In “high demand” zones, the council wants to put up permit prices by £17.23 from £220 to £237.23 – or 7.8 per cent – for a standard emission vehicle.
Families with low incomes who receive council tax reductions or universal credit are exempt from additional vehicle surcharges.
Annual trader and business permits are expected to go down in price by a few pence although a 90-day trader permit will increase by £36.70 – or 15 per cent – from £245 to £281.70.
Any surplus from parking charges, permits and fines must be used for transport and highways-related projects, including concessionary fares and subsidised buses.
The council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 4pm tomorrow (Tuesday 17 January). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
It’s interesting to see that they are finally admitting to their own acts of self harm.
By duplicating cycles lanes they have not actually done anything to help ‘active travel’ and indeed it’s difficult to see how any of their spending measures have helped towards the city becoming carbon neutral.
What we do know is the green cycle ‘motorway’ on Madeira Drive is generally empty and the tourist parking places have been lost, with the result that the parking revenue has fallen.
They now intend to duplicate the seafront cycle lane further – along our Hove beachfront section – with the loss of the last remaining beachside parking used by visitors or by locals needing easy access.
That loss of seafront parking spaces will in turn affect residents parking, in an area which is already over subscribed.
And so this latest meeting is to reclaim that lost revenue from us residents, the voters who’s interests they are supposed to serve.
It’s like a bunch of teenagers were put in charge of the household budget and they all rushed out and bought new trainers or other treats they wanted. And now they complain that there’s no money left to put food on the table.
How did they not see this coming?
And how did this lot end up in charge in the first place?
A councillor is supposed represent the interests of the residents and to run the city for everyone’s benefit. This lot seem to be on a mission to selfishly ruin whatever they can and then charge residents for that.
They aren’t duplicating it – government guidance dictates the width of a cycle lane for one-way traffic. See page 43 of this LTN https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951074/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf
I find it infuriating that this is about the fifth time I’ve commented the same thing and nobody ever listens.
Some Guy, thanks for replying.
I’m not complaining about the width of a cycle lane I personally use. The one on Hove prom is empty most of the time anyway.
I’m complaining that they give fifty percent of the road space over to 2% of the traffic, and the chosen design means they lose parking spaces next to the beach – parking which suits families with kids, sporty people with paddle boards, and disabled people unable to walk far.
I’ll add that, as as a cyclist, I can also use road space if I want to.
A decent cycle lane is actually off-road and away from the traffic. With the ‘Kingsway To The Sea’ project they could easily have had a bespoke section of the cycle lane running through Hove and away from the road.
We can see that there is no joined up government here. Some stupid decisions are being made and any extra budget that comes from the government entails the council wasting more of their own money in admin costs. It’s a mess.
“A decent cycle lane is actually off road”. That’s total nonsense. For cycle lanes to be used they need to be on all the most direct, main routes, across the whole of the city. Directing them through parks or away from roads makes them totally useless as they become disconnected to users from adjoining streets and only suitable for leisure users. A decent cycle lane is simply segregated from traffic, such as the London cycle super highways. The seafront route, whilst not perfect, is significantly better now there is extra space. It was dangerously overcrowded at peak times previously.
“For cycle lanes to be used they need to be on all the most direct, main routes, across the whole of the city”
That is your opinion. I know the council has listened to many of the cycling campaign groups saying just the same. But no one seems to speak to occasional cyclists or, even more importantly, those who would switch to cycling from cars etc. The talk is all about more active travel, yet the “voice of cyclists” seems to be the most active.
I cycle occasionally (as well as drive, bus and walk). I have driven into the city centre a handful of times in over 20 years. I prefer cycling away from traffic. If that involves slightly longer time, then fine. I’m not cycling to get maximum speed from a to b (if I did that I probably wouldn’t cycle!) but to get there safely, enjoyably and to exercise healthily (which means not next to busy roads ideally)
Hi Billy, you’re very welcome. Sorry for my peevish tone!
Clearly there’s a need for a cycle lane along the seafront. It can either be 4m wide and monopolise the pavement, or it can take some space off the road. There’s only a finite amount of space, and that’s that.
All that being said, you’ve touched upon the other seldom-mentioned truth of local government. When there’s money from on high for something, there is little reason to turn it down. Councils can offset wage bills and all sorts of ancillary costs with it, even if the project itself is questionable (though I don’t think the cycle lane is).
Some Guy
Thank you for providing the link.
It made some interesting points.
Duplicating is exactly what has happened here in Brighton despite the width’s as per the link.
As far as I can see, lanes under the guidance are supposed to be joined if operating on the same side, but two way. What we actually have is a two separate lanes both on Madeira drive and A259 West Street towards Hove that are divided by street furniture that the guidelines state should be removed, but hey lets not argue the finer points because the rules/guidelines don’t actually say they can’t do what they’ve done either.
However, those same rules state that ALL access should be considered and schemes should not impact Disabled or the vulnerable under the Active Travel for all guidelines, we could state that has been the case with Disabled parking either being removed, accesses denied or positioning causing potential risk.
Well the Greens proved they don’t care about the disabled by banning them from Gardner St – against the advice of their own Equalities advisers
Would you really want a 4m wide cycle lane on the pavement? Obviously not, and in places that would scarcely be possible. And so, half on the road with segregation, half on the pavement. Sensible.
Some Guy, it’s guidance. The guidance needs to be applied with common sense. Sadly, common sense seems to be in short supply around here. The seafront cycle lane is an unnecessary duplication. The Old Shoreham Road cycle lane was a disaster. I love cycling, but I also choose to drive, mostly for practical reasons. I’d cycle more if there were fewer potholes on our roads. I’d also cycle more if the traffic flowed more freely, because the artificially engineered traffic jams generate unnecessary pollution.
Well said Billy.Exactly what the Greens want.This May they have to go.Vote more Independents on the Council.Residents for Residents.
Greens out!
This is getting ridiculous! BHCC has potentially lost almost £1 million revenue, because of Green dogma. Now they want residents and traders to pay for their financial mismanagement.
This Green led Council is a bunch of clueless idiots
In spades, Mike. But what would you expect from a bunch of loons, most of whom have never done a real job for many years (i.e. hard graft in the real world, earning their bucks properly, in their lives.) Their voters must be similar.
Simple answer – get rid of the Madeira Drive cycle lanes/ Kingsway cycle lanes / Imbecile council officers and Greens
Well… Given that we have elections in May, it would be political suicide for Labour councillors to vote with the Greens on this!
It’s as though the Greens know they’re getting the boot in May, so they are intent on doing as much damage as possible and screwing ordinary residents and businesses financially before they kicked out.
And we’re all getting screwed already because of cost of living increases.
What a nasty bunch of deluded zealots
Agreed. But, because of major Labour failings, they got back in when they shouldn’t have done, and they are doing hideous damage with their bog-eyed ealotry. And their total incompetence, of course.
This really does beggar belief!
Roll-on the local elections in May.
VOTE CONSERVATIVE!
It’s the only way to remove this ‘looney-left’ alliance.
If you vote Labour, nothing will change.
For the people who brought us austerity? For the party that when last in power locally, got rid of all the grit lorries because it never snows round here, right? No thanks!
Here’s an idea… stop the Hanover LTN. That’ll save a few hundred thousand. This council needs to go. Please vote them out in May.
Simple solution – bring in cycle licencing! Say £100 per bike a year…
Great idea! You’d just need primary legislation in Westminster and an enormous costly bureaucracy to administer it.
So yeah, dead simple …
Much of the revenue lost along the seafront would have been revenue brought to the city by tourists. These poorly considered parking changes have lost us this revenue and potentially much more if the tourists don’t return. Jobs, business rates and rents all at risk.
So to make up for money coming from outside the city, the naive greens are looking to take more money from people who live in the city. More cost of living pains. This is wrong. We need to cut expenditure. If that means fewer green schemes, cancelling VG3 etc, then so be it. If the green revenues have gone down, then so should green spending. Taxing hard-working families isn’t the answer for political failure and naive incompetence. Removing income streams to duplicate cycle lanes has consequences.
With the cost of living crisis, I wonder how many councillors will stand with pledges to increase parking costs again and again? So far, all parties have done so. But a good chance now for some, especially the independents, to break away and offer something.
The Greens need to go ASAP, Labour are complicit in the mess they have caused meaning that the only possible vote to ensure they do not continue this madness is for Conservatives. As it goes the local Conservative councillors actually seem pretty good, its just central government that I have really issues with. Its a pity the Lib Dems are not stronger as that would’ve been a nice option, although from a tactical voting perspective it would not make sense, same with the independents sadly.
This is Labour’s big chance to redeem themselves and vote against
Yes, you do wonder if Labour is going to use voting against all these mad green ideas (others include getting rid of field officers and closing lots of public toilets) as a way of getting votes for Labour in May 2023. Surely the greens wouldn’t be naive enough to fall for that? Oops….
The parking on Kingsway opposite Brunswick Terrace is allocated to zone M permit holders as a quid pro quo for the loss of parking space in the Terrace and Square when communal bins were added.
The council already issues more residents permits than there are spaces.
Whilst not a driver, ai do wonder how councillors see this as being of benefit to residents by increasing the cost of a permit and reducing the number of parking spaces you can use it in.