A proposal to turn light-touch parking schemes into full parking zones has been shelved after overwhelming opposition to the idea.
The results of a six-week consultation have yet to be presented councillors but a senior Labour member of Brighton and Hove City Council said that he and his colleagues were listening.
Councillor Trevor Muten told the council’s Transport and Sustainability Committee yesterday (Tuesday 6 February) at Hove Town Hall that there had been “a very clear steer from residents”.
Outside the meeting Councillor Muten said that a detailed report on the consultation responses would be brought before a future meeting of the committee.
The consultation covered zone W, in Wish ward, zone U, the Coombe Road area, zone S, in Hanover and Elm Grove, zone P, in the Hove Park area, and zone L, in West Hove.
Councillor Muten told the meeting that he wanted to thank “the many residents of the five light-touch parking zones across the city for giving such a clear and unambiguous response in the recent public consultation on parking in these areas”.
He said: “When we came to office, our Labour administration spotted that there was a presumption built into the February 2023 budget that all light-touch parking zones would be changed to 8am to 8pm restricted parking, with a plan for a five-year programme of public consultation asking residents in each zone in turn the same question for the remaining duration of our administration.
“This meant that a major budgetary decision was built on a questionable presumption that residents would choose to move to a new scheme.
“We found this unacceptable and, having pledged to be a listening council, we were very keen to find out what residents actually preferred before proceeding further.
“The approval to go ahead with parking consultations in five zones was agreed at this committee in October and consultation took place in December and January.
“In all zones, there was good public engagement and a very clear steer from residents that the February 2023 budget presumption under the previous Green administration was plain wrong.
“Having listened to feedback from residents and small businesses on converting light-touch parking schemes to full schemes, I am pleased that, as a result, we recommend not to implement the proposed changes in parking zones P, L, U, W and S.
“Furthermore, Labour propose to halve the tariff increase as set out in the public consultation for all light-touch parking zones. You said. We did.”
A city-wide parking review is currently under way, which Councillor Muten said aims to make parking “simpler, fairer, more accessible and inclusive”.
Full-year and six-month permit prices in areas with light-touch parking schemes are due to go up by about 25 per cent, with a similar rise for visitor permits.
The cost of a 180-day permit for a vehicle with standard emissions is expected to rise from £69.80 to £88.20.
A 365-day permit for a vehicle with standard emissions is expected to increase from £131.40 to £164.25.
Both types of permit attract a discount for low-emission vehicles and a surcharge for those with high emissions.
The Labour-dominated committee backed a raft of increases in fees and charges which will form part of the budget proposals to go before the full council later this month.
Blackmail and extortion is not a good look for any council in a public consultation. The resident backlash must have been enormous. It is good that they have been forced to backtrack from this monstrous plan. Which area is going to be punished next?
Hopefully, the Transport department
Omg. The council listened to residents for once and set aside their acquisitive obsession with the parking extortion racket
Didn’t you read the article properly? It was the previous (Green) council who wanted to change the zones. The new (Labour) administration have listened to what residents want and are keeping the light-touch schemes.
So pleased you have listened to us.
The way the consultation was presented to the residents were not democratic but a blackmail. Accept the change or you will have an increase of parking permit. At least they’ve started to listen!
Has the council been clever here? The prices have gone up by 25% but people are happy! Yes, it could have been far worse. But this increase is 6 times the current rate of inflation so hardly ideal with all the cost of living pressures we all face.
The rise in visitor permit charges is particularly cruel. This hurts everyone, including those without cars who have to pay for tradespeople etc. Many cities give the first 25 or 50 a year free to every household. B&H charge from the first one….
You give a permit to a tradesperson? What? Why?
Why? Because trades people are still people. Trades get completely hammered with the parking. If you have a client in centre or near centre of town and you want to park for a full 8 hours. First it’s impossible because parking bays are restricted to 2 hours or 4 but not 8 hours. Secondly the rate is extortionate, it may not be your problem but it sure makes it difficult to provide a service to good people in town. And yes they offer a traders permit, but have you seen the price? It doesn’t even cover the area you live in, so you have to get second permit for your home area! Trades people have families, and the ones they make doesn’t go to buying a second home or a Ferrari or stashed away with greed. It usually pays the food, the clothes, the after school program for the families they have.
some local companies may have their own pass (and pay for this in their charges as around £1500 a year). Others state that you have to pay for their parking and so you need visitor permits for them.
Exactly. Council threatened a full beating but have still got away with a financial knee capping.
They have done the area no favours in reality.
As your listening how about ignoring the constant badgering by Transport Officers and listen to the residents of Brighton and Hove and abandon Valley Gardens Phase 3. If you are unsure put it out to consultation and you will get a similar backlash to the proposed, (now abandoned) parking scheme.
VG3.
Will cost the local taxpayer £6m and rising
Will cause horrendous congestion and pollution.
The Council’s own consultants, Mott Macdonald, told BHCC about congestion
Two thirds of the people consulted said keep the roundabout .
Democracy BHCC style
People think a consultation means that there is an obligation to follow what residents say.
So, the Council is free to act against the best interests of residents?
How much do you get paid to be a BHCC apologist? You are frankly, laughable.
Yeah, I’m in total agreement they should explore a comment with merit to it, but they still don’t have to, or they may make a decision that goes against a resident’s thoughts.
Also, a majority of people could still be incorrect, so you can’t really use that as a reasonable argument for the correct thing to do. Take any extreme example, say…bringing back capital punishment.
What are residents best interests? It’s a open and fluid question, with different perspectives. One could argue, for the sake of debate, that the best interests of residents is to make no action on the comments made.
I’ve never make an apology for the council, I typically challenge the logic of people’s opinion, and often, their argument falls apart, devolving into base insults and ad hominem.
Fallacious retorts are the tools of someone who doesn’t have a lot to say. You are usually pretty good with your comments, but here I feel you have let yourself down a bit. I suspect we feel the same way about consultations, Mike. Since this isn’t the Argus, let’s debate with some decorum.
Benjamin – thank you for confirming that the Council works against the best interests and will of it’s residents. You have finally made a useful comment!
Against the will of residents who objected, most definitely in this case evidentially, Silias.
Best interests is debatable. I know you tacked onto Mike, but tell me what you mean by that in your own words. What is the best interest of residents in this instance?
Just a reminder to council spokespeople – councillors are here to serve, not to dictate
The council really should listen to what a consultation says. Yes, they are not obliged to follow it, but the idea that council staff are the only people who have ideas and are correct is a dangerous one. Consultations frequently produce good ideas that are often ignored. In this case, the council has paid for consultants to look at it in detail and they have found issues. The same consultants found issues with the OSR cycle lane. The council went ahead, the issues were shown to be correct and the lane was removed at much expense. Money that could have been better spent elsewhere.
So yes, legally the council doesn’t have to act on consultation views. But the council and transport department have ignored them before and been shown to be wrong.
Does the council really have money to keep wasting? The loan payments for this would surely better be used to fund an on-going programme of pothole repairs. VG3 main claim is for safety, particularly cyclists. But across the city potholes are endangering cyclists – so why not spend there? Likely to have a better return….
I agree shocking cost for visitors and too for short term lodgers….money grabbing council whatever colour,, at least light scheme stays but 25 % rise not acceptable
Oh dear. Head of Transport at BHCC, Mark Prior, will be upset!
Clr Muten – residents gave a ‘clear and unambiguous’ response to VG3, but you and Mark Prior have pushed this thru.
Can you explain this hypocrisy to the people you are supposed to serve?
Nahh VG3 is needed urgently. Area looks like a bombsite currently.
Nah….that’s VG2
Glad to see community expressing frustration at the anti-car policies. I still don’t understand why ‘only’ a 25% increase can be seen as properly listening though! I’m a keen cyclist, but the existing cycle lane scheme Westbound on the seafront in the town centre has already driven a huge amount of additional congestion and therefore pollution and doesn’t seem to have had a net benefit on the community; VG3 will simply introduce more congestion, pollution and economic disadvantage if removing the roundabout. Please, wake up!
Are you kidding,we’ve been conned….everyone in light touch areas are paying well over the odds with a two hour protection limit,are we all thinking that we have won,look at the cost,with no parking wardens to enforce it.I have on good authority that many bird watchers have turned to spotting the rare and shy lesser spotted traffic warden….no spotting yet!!
Just more money grabbing from the council
Bullying residents. No-one I have spoken to in Hove Park Ward wanted a full parking scheme. And elsewhere in the City the majority of residents have spoken likewise. Pure money grabbing by the current administration who also tried & failed, last year to increase parking charges fourfold in parts of the city & failed.
Welcome to Brighton & Hove. The City with no proper Park & Ride scheme, having some of the highest visitor parking charges in the country & a Labour administration who are desperately trying to extort way above inflation parking increases to residents & homeowners whilst simultaneously having roads that have potholes that are not filled.
Ever heard of the saying about councillors in glass houses? Let’s not disingenuously misrepresent regarding the parking charges, because, as you remember, that was put in motion with the previous administration, not the current one that immediately prevented that from going through once it was brought to light.
Word of advice? Smearing is not a good look, Councillor.
Boring Benjy – the Council apologist.
‘Disingenuous ‘ – lol!
Well done Cllr. Thank yu for standing up for the Residents. Now get rid of Valley Gardens 3 and leave the roundabout..
Scrutiny needs to be applied to the actions of the Transport Dept. For too long they have believed they can do exactly what they want without recourse. They are acting contrary to what residents, businesses and tourists want. They need to be taken to task. Shame on Muten for kowtowing to them!
I find it very annoying that there doing all these areas and the only part of brighton not with parking permit is out side there depo in holingdean funny that suits them isn’t it
Unpopular opinion: Standardise charges citywide.
Parking permits are a necessary tax on car ownership because the Council cannot increase Council Tax by much. Every car owner should pay the same citywide. Entry space to a driveway should be charged at the price of a parking permit (if that’s legally possible). Areas can have light-touch hours, but one car == one price.
Hello to a fellow zone Z resident.
Standardise charges LOL, you know they’ll put the charges up to what we pay not down to what the light touch people are on.
I like that we can have a compromise between all or nothing, as it keeps the areas free from people dumping their second home around the city.
Charge residents to access their own property? Good luck with that
you are right that the council is using car charging as an extra tax. They admit it too. The problem is that this isn’t allowed. It’s illegal to make an excess profit on parking. There’s already case law on it but no one has really tested this level of overall excess. The more the council does this (and in this area it leads nationally) the more it risks a legal challenge. That could be devastating to the council as I suspect it would lose and then it’s budget really would have a hole in it. The council is acting above it’s powers. It can’t produce new taxes as it is effectively doing with motorists. The council needs to prepare for this – find other income streams, lower costs, stop some projects.
Interestingly Nick, your comment has some parallels to some discussion around prescription charges over the years.
Everyone, minus age exempt, pays the same amount of £1 still creates more money to the NHS than the current system, and less expense to administrate.
The hard numbers make perfect sense. The issue as a political one thing, that’s the minefield that no-one wants to attempt to cross for fear of being blown up.
Strange way of listening. Ignoring the public consultation and raising the cost of parking.
Goes without saying here that paying that amount to park in my own road is the real extortion.
I also sent several emails to all the councils to ask for a speed mitigation measure on Bear road. They listened so much that never ever bothered to answer
I don’t remember ever being given the option of a light touch parking restriction in my area which is J Zone, currently 8.00 – 20.00 h
would like to be consulted on whether to change our full parking restriction to a light touch in J zone. Currently we have to give out expensive parking permits to builders, friends and family when they may only need to stay a short while.
Clare Gilman Meadows
I was up for anything that would get me, a resident with a permit, a chance to actually get a parking spot in my street. Light touch is only good for people without permits. I’m at work in my vehicle all day and have to pay through the nose for the right to park for ONE hour , five days a week. When I get home from work almost all spaces are taken by cars that move at 6 o’clock. I almost always have to park illegally until non permit holders decide to move. It’s a crsp state of affairs.
Does actually suck, £60-£100 a month? I got one of the BHCC garages eventually, so I pay quite a bit for parking, but the guaranteed space is worth the trouble.
Your situation is why I’m not in favour of certain scheme times, because people will use loopholes if they are available.
Totally agree. Light touch parking for the win.
A wonderful system where residents pay an inflated amount of £ (on a pro-rata basis vs the all-day schemes) for 2 hrs of ‘protected’ parking, which isn’t protected at all. Anybody ever seen a warden at weekends or when the sun is out.
Maybe it suits where the only visitors to the road are occasional and don’t stay long. Not so great closer to the beach where visitors fill the entire road, for 8hrs at a time, at no cost to them. Leaving residents unable to park anywhere near their own home, despite them being the only people actually paying for their parking. And it’s only going to get worse once the new Kingsway park is completed.
Either nobody pays, or everybody does. And given we need people out of their cars and using public transport, it should be the latter.
You are not listening to residents, businesses and stakeholders regarding VG3. Huge opposition here against the project in the city centre but Labour are not refusing to listen. Red is the new Green.
Typo – are refusing to listen 😉
What is the massive increase for? How will residents benefit? This consultation was written so badly it should have been scrapped the second it was sent out. This is not a win for residents and this is not ‘the council listening’.