Parking charges motion amended

Liberal Democrats joined councillors of other parties in supporting the principle of not charging for car parking at sports facilities, but made clear that pressure on the council’s finances would need to be considered in relation to whether this could be afforded in the future, with other essential services such as social care and education having to be prioritised.

A Labour councillor proposed a motion regarding free car-parking at a meeting of the Full Council on Thursday 20 March. The ruling Liberal Democrat group noted that there were no plans to proceed with any of the charges the motion identified, and these were not included in the 2025/26 budget.

The motion asked the council to agree that it believes certain car parks, including those whose primary purpose is for active involvement in sport or recreation, and smaller car parks which serve local shops and community facilities, should remain free to use in perpetuity.

Deputy Leader, Councillor Prue Bray, proposed an amendment to the motion, stating that the council notes that in future years we will have to consider the financial situation when we look at free car parks.

Executive Member for Finance & Governance, Councillor Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, said:

“Free car parks do incur costs for maintenance and this petition is not suggesting a time limit. It forever intends us to prioritize free parking over the needs of the elderly and disabled, children in care and children with special educational needs. These are the main areas of financial pressure for this council and amount to around 70% of our budget. 

As our budget pressures get tighter, we are going to have to take adult decisions and look at some of the less desirable choices. Exploring the feasibility of charging for these car parks is sensible and responsible. We should not at this point, hold any future council to financial commitments that could become unreasonable. Rest assured, adding parking fees to these car parks is certainly not something the current administration would want to do, if it has a choice that does not affect those with the greatest needs.”

Leader of the Council, Cllr Stephen Conway said:

“Imagine a point in the future when there was not enough money to pay for both our statutory responsibilities to help disabled children and to retain free car parking in all the places the motion mentions. If we passed the motion unamended, we would be saying that, in all circumstances, now and forever, we regard free car parking as more important than anything else"

 “We will be engaging with user groups to see whether we can reach agreement on ways to cover the considerable running costs of facilities such as Cantley Park. Our hope is that this engagement will uncover viable alternatives to charging for car parking, which none of us want to introduce.”