Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Clery, Vice-Chair of this Committee who was the Assistant Cabinet Member for Councillor Wilson and, as such, was not able to take part in any discussions relating to that portfolio.  Councillor Grey attended as his substitute. 

Apologies were also received from Councillors Lynch and Jepson with Councillor Robinson attending as Councillor Lynch's substitute.

The Chair reminded the meeting that part of this Committee's remit was to act as a check and balance on the powers of Cabinet through the Call-In process.  He explained that the Committee dealt with call-ins in a non-political way and expressed his disappointment at a Cabinet Member’s Facebook comments.  He stressed that there was no party whip employed on Scrutiny matters.

 The Chair invited Councillor Green to explain the reasons he and Councillor Jepson had called-in Report ES/2213 which had been agreed by Cabinet on 6 January 2025 in relation to Parking Fees and Charges 2025/26.

 Councillor Green stated that they had called-in the decision as they felt the fees should be reconsidered.  He stressed that they understood fees had go up to cover the increasing service costs and they supported the desire to provide improvements from the surplus income generated, however, it was the extent to which the fees had escalated because in some locations the fees had doubled or more than doubled.  The other reasons they were concerned were the lack of prior consultation and consideration with residents and businesses; a lack of a meaningful risk assessment of the economic or environmental impact and scant explanation of the evidence, less than half a page in the original Cabinet papers.  He added that the proposal to increase fees in the newly described ‘seasonal’ car parks were those that were causing the most concern. In the resort towns of Felixstowe, Aldeburgh, Southwold and Lowestoft a 2 hour stay near the beach during the months of April through to the end of October had increased in one jump from £1.50 to £4.00, a 4-hour stay had increased from £3.00 to £7.00, and an all day stay from £4.00 to £10.00. He stated that, before the last 2020 review, an extensive consultation had taken place, a practice extending back to 2016 by the previous two District Councils. Those consultations had mentioned how ‘parking management should be used as part of a package of measures to positively influence the economic success of a town’. For example, questions in the earlier consultation had requested views on;

• How car parking can better support the economy and businesses.
• How car parking can better support tourism.

Councillor Green continued that the recognition that car park fees could influence economic success seemed to have been overlooked in this proposal as no consideration or consultation had been undertaken. There had also been no risk assessment of the new fees on footfall.  Given that KPI figures showed a decline in town centre and visitor footfall, a downward trend in the number of businesses and a drop in employment floorspace in East Suffolk, this seemed to be a dangerous oversight. Tourism was worth £695m to our economy and 14% of people were employed in this sector so it was important that the car parking fees were not modified to such an extent that businesses were negatively impacted. He added that they believed it was important to remain both an attractive place to visit, as well as a being a welcoming place with reasonable car park fees to encourage returners and good reviews.  He stated that, ironically, the power to use car park fees as a tool to drive trade or otherwise was understood by the Cabinet because public car parking at Sizewell Beach would now be subsidised for that very reason this year and every Christmas, and car park fees were suspended on certain weekends to encourage people to shop locally.  Councillor Green added that people might choose to pay a premium for a spot close to the amenities, but this could result in them spending less money at hospitality venues that were already known to be struggling or having less cash for other activities. Spending £10 for a day at the beach parking in Royal Green, Lowestoft might be too much for a family and do little to support the businesses trying to be successful inside East Point Pavilion, many of which had come and gone already.

 Councillor Green indicated that his final point related to the lack of financial data in the Cabinet report.  He explained that the Council had not had a Parking Services Annual Report since 2022 showing income, expenditure and how the surplus was spent (£2.4m in 2022) and there was no information on the comparisons with other resorts in neighbouring areas.  He added that, although our fees might compare favourably now, it was not known whether increases at other places had gone up in ‘steps’ or whether they had been tagged to inflation, nor how often they were reviewed. Some places also had resident discounts and some Councils had deliberate schemes to ensure visitors stayed longer locally which might be worth investigating beyond a quick snapshot, such as West Norfolk District Council's Rover Tickets for visitors that were valid in several of its car parks over 7 days.

 Councillor Green stressed that he and Councillor Jepson recognised the need to generate a healthy income from the car parks so they could be invested in with new facilities. He suggested, however, that this should not be done to such an extent in our coastal communities when there could be a risk of damaging local business and employment opportunities, and potentially increase the number of drivers scouring the side streets for a parking spot, thus creating additional noise and air pollution.

The Chair thanked Councillor Green and invited questions from Members.

 Councillor Ninnmey referred to Councillor Green's comments and asked why there was no balance sheet on parking income and expenditure within the paperwork.  The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development and Transport stated that they were produced at the beginning of each year for the previous one, therefore, the annual report for 2023 should be signed off shortly.

As there were no questions for Councillor Green, the Chair invited Councillor Langdon-Morris, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money and Councillor Wilson, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development and Transport to introduce their Report ES/2260 responding to the call-in.

 Councillor Langdon-Morris stated that his responsibility, working closely with the Finance Team, was to present a balanced budget for 2025/26.  He explained that in the past 10 years, Central Government funding had, by rapid austerity and annual financial settlements, truncated the Council's revenue by between £43-50m.  This had been continued by the current Government. In effect it meant the Council had lost an entire year of General Fund budget over 10 years and these shortfalls had to be funded from our own financial resources.  In relation to fees and charges, these comprised 60 different categories and, as a Cabinet Member he had to take a holistic overview of these revenues. Items included food premises, dog control, fixed penalty notices, premises licenses, caravan sites etc as well as parking services.  General Fund fees and charges revenues were approximately £30m annually which represented approximately 30% of revenues, however, revenue from parking represented less than 1% of the total Council revenues.  He explained that car parking charges were last updated by the previous administration in 2020, and should have been updated annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) but this had not occurred, hence 5 years later and in a new administration the charges needed to be updated.  He referred to the comment by the Local Government Authority Rural Services Network that financial settlements to District Councils had been ‘hugely disappointing’. On average urban councils had received a 6% financial uplift this year, compared to East Suffolk Council with 0%, and this has been going on since 2016.  They also showed Government Funding Spending Power for 2025-26 per person in rural councils was £407 whereas urban spending per person was £574 and yet we faced huge operational cost pressures in large rural areas.  There was also a shortfall of between £300 - £700k for additional National Insurance Contributions, after promised government support. In addition, there had been hefty wage bill increases over the past 5 years which added over £2m to our annual budgets (an average 4-5%). The Council was mandated to charge 2.99% or £5 Council Tax whichever was greater which equated to approximately 10 pence per week per ratepayer. A 1% increase in Council Tax generated approximately £170K for East Suffolk.  These cost increases and reduced revenues all added up but, as a District Council, many mandatory statutory services still had to be provided and funded.  Councillor Langdon-Morris stated that he had authorised the removal of £1.8m from the General Fund revenues because of this call-in process as it had exacerbated the need to use further reserves to balance the 2025-26 budget to £7.4m from the previous £6.6m.  He concluded that he welcomed this Overview and Scrutiny process and looked forward to how the recommendations would assist in achieving a balanced budget that did not entail further recourse to using precious East Suffolk Council Reserves.

Councillor Wilson echoed the Chair’s framing of this Committee’s remit and expressed his support for it as he too wished comments had not been posted on Facebook because it muddied the waters.  He stated that all members of the Administration had been told the dominoes of any change in this decision and they understood the process. He explained that, of the 1% of the Council’s revenue constituted by parking charges, 75% of off street parking revenue came in the 6 months between April to October which indicated it was leisure based.  He asked who should help take care of the fabric and structure of our towns and villages eg should a flat tax be levied on every resident or a referendum be held to put Council Tax up.  He stated that this Administration had felt this was the best choice to keep not just car parks themselves, including signage and other elements within car parks, to be maintained but also other public amenities such as beach safety, sports grounds, parks and open spaces, and the Royal Plain fountains.  He questioned, therefore, who should foot the bill whilst acknowledging that we should pay for some of it.  He pointed out that East Suffolk was lucky with a £700m tourist economy each year but, given what was known about parking behaviours, the data of where that money came from and the impact of changing parking tariffs on footfall, the Administration had taken a long time deliberating the matter and felt this was the right decision and he hoped to provide the Committee with enough evidence to support that decision.

The Chair stated that Members would be able to question the Cabinet Members after hearing from the guest speakers.  He explained that an invitation to address the Committee had been sent to all the coastal Town Councils affected and Aldeburgh and Felixstowe Town Councils had accepted.  He then invited both representatives to give a brief overview of their views:

 Councillor Fox from Aldeburgh Town Council made the following points:

• They understood the principle of increasing charges in line with inflation but objected to seasonal charges and would prefer a flat rate increase across the whole district.
• Car parks were under used, with people preferring to park on side streets and in other residential areas. With some narrow roads, it caused congestion, obstructions and hindered access for emergency vehicles and refuse collections.
• Sizewell C was already having an impact in terms of using up holiday rental accommodation and this would lead to the number of events and festivals, which drew tourists and visitors to the area, to be detrimentally affected impacting on the use of car parks.
• It was believed that the loss of holiday accommodation and the proposed increase to charges would see parking revenue fall and the expected levy not materialise as footfall would reduce.
• Implementing seasonal parking charges would make the situation for Aldeburgh worse.
• Clarification was sought on when the wider Aldeburgh car parking review would take place as they thought no changes would take place until after that.
• Car parks were already under used in the summer as people parked on the streets.
• Concerned that the duration of the seasonal charges was too long as Aldeburgh’s season was perceived to be only 3 months long and tended to be weather dependent.
• Aldeburgh relied on visitors to spend in the shops etc but having higher parking charges could mean they spent less.

The Chair thanked Councillor Fox and she responded to Members questions as follows:

• It was already true that the car parks were under used in summer because people parked on the streets which caused massive problems especially to waste and emergency vehicles.  In York, they put charges up and lost revenue of 70% so in our opinion putting prices up would not encourage people especially if they did not pay now.
• The charging window was too wide as Aldeburgh's season was only 3 months long and during half terms.  It was difficult construct a response to this - if Aldeburgh did not have to cope with Sizewell we would only have been concerned with the seasonal aspect because when people visited the town they visited shops, however, the main problem was Sizewell workers who did not visit shops and the Town Council was concerned that if the parking price increased it would deter day trippers.  Sizewell were aggressively advertising for properties which increasing rents and it was likely they would have different people sharing houses rather than single family units. 
• The Town Council had been surprised there had not been any consultation on the new charges but a general parking review involving on street as well as car parks was needed. 
• It would be very difficult to enforce if people were infringing corners, on street parking caused problems with people with buggies etc but a tourist tax was not a good idea for tourist towns because we relied on them and if they spent £10 on parking they would not want to use shops and restaurants.  
• Visitors who came during private school holidays tended to be second home owners who integrated into the community eg they had boats and used the yacht club and golf club.  
• There had not been a cost benefit analysis yet between the increased cost and well managed car parks but in any case it would need to be counterbalanced if less people used the car parks.
•  It was a misconception that visitors to Aldeburgh were better off as a lot of people came from surrounding towns for a day trip because it was attractive and had nice facilities.  It was an ordinary working town but Sizewell was taking properties and offering inflated wages so we were losing workers and if it continued then seasonality might disappear.  Aldeburgh was different to the other coastal towns.
•  There were seasonable decreases in that shops were reducing their prices in the winter and summer prices were kept reasonable to keep people employed.  A lot depended on the weather eg the last few weeks had been very quiet and Aldeburgh would never get year round visitors.
• Aldeburgh objected in principle to there not being a flat rate of increase.
• People were interested in better and well run facilities, however, Aldeburgh was seeing two unusual things at the moment, firstly the number of empty shops in the High Street which was unprecedented and the impact of Sizewell C.

The Strategic Director clarified that the background to the comments in the paper regarding research carried out by People and Places in 2017/18 was that they had asked, amongst other things, why people came to market towns and indications were that it was well managed and well maintained parking rather than cheap or free parking. 

 The Chair then invited Councillor Rowe from Felixstowe Town Council to address the Committee and he made the following points:

• Felixstowe Town Council had experienced a positive relationship with East Suffolk Council and were disappointed not to have been consulted about the proposed increase to car parking charges
• There had been recent meeting with senior officers and members from East Suffolk Council in which there had been no mention of the proposals.
• The decision fell short of being transparent and undermined trust between the two councils.
• Felixstowe car parks were vital to the town’s businesses, residents and visitors.
• The introduction of seasonal charges, coupled with increased tariffs, risked deterring visitors, diminishing footfall, and placing undue pressure on our local economy.
• Felixstowe relied heavily on day trippers so car parks were vital to its viability and whether people visited.
• It was feared that the increased car parking charges would mean less money would be spent in local businesses.
• There was concern that people would avoid car parks and attempt to find parking in residential roads causing congestion and pollution as people drove around trying to find somewhere.
• It was felt the decision had been made by people without knowledge of the economics of seaside towns because businesses needed a good summer to survive through the winter.
• East Suffolk Council was encouraged to consult with stakeholders and residents.
• The proposal was not based on the number of visitors but if by the sea as the busy market towns that were not seasonal were not being affected.
• Concern was expressed that a lot of damage might already have been done due to the publicity surrounding the proposals in that it would put people off visiting and they would go elsewhere.
• Businesses were concerned that the more money visitors paid in parking, the less they would spend in town.
• Day trippers tended to arrive by car as using public transport was more difficult eg getting the train involved a change in Ipswich.
• The seafront area was designed to attract families so businesses were restricted in when they made their money eg during school holidays.
• It was felt that charges increased in line with inflation would be more acceptable and if they were across the district not just seaside towns.

The Chair thanked Councillor Rowe and he responded to Members' questions as follows:

• The Town Council did not have any official data that an increase in off street parking charges would deter visitors but it was feared that it could stop them spending in businesses. It meant East Suffolk Council would get a bigger amount of income than businesses who are concerned that visitors would not spend any more, so the more they spent on parking, the less they would spend in the town.
• Residents parking was part of the discussions with East Suffolk Council before Christmas eg what the Town Council thought of it, where it would be, and our view was that it was worth consulting residents to see if they wanted it.
• In relation to enforcement, it had got better in the last few years and officers were in the town and down the seafront, particularly on Carnival Day, and around schools so there was no criticism of enforcement.  However, they could only enforce the lines and regulations that were there and Felixstowe had a lot of roads where people could park all day so a lot of people did and walked in.  Drivers circling increased pollution for residents.
• People spent a certain amount of money and businesses were concerned that they would spend less with them.  People tended to stay at the caravan parks for a week or so but Felixstowe relied heavily on day trippers with many coming by car because if they used the train they had to go into Ipswich first.
• No-one wanted to give the impression that visitors were not wanted, therefore, he was unsure why the Council was trying to fleece visitors to the town and those that wanted to come during the peak season when the children were off school.  Having a seasonal charge penalised families because older people could come at any time during the year.
• Felixstowe car parks did not need that much upgrading in terms of potholes etc as they were very well maintained.
• It was possible that increasing tariffs in seafront car parks could encourage day trippers to visit the town centre instead but some of the most vulnerable businesses were those on the seafront eg if they had an awful Easter their season was shortened. Felixstowe was designed to attract families so businesses were restricted on times they could make money.  Ways to attract people from the seafront to the town centre were needed and this increase might do that but if businesses were lost on the seafront they might be lost forever.
• He was unsure businesses were making more because their costs had gone up too and many reluctantly raised their prices.  If the increase was simply going up by the rate of inflation that might be more acceptable but he could not understand why coastal towns had been picked on eg why not market towns too as car parks in Woodbridge attracted visitors but they did not seem to be affected so it seemed to be solely a tax on visitors to the seaside.  If there was a genuine need to increase parking costs then he would have expected an increase to be across the board not just in seaside towns.

The Strategic Director clarified that the car parking revenue had to be non-profit making so it was reinvested into infrastructure and the public realm around town centres, as well as parking enforcement but income generated in a specific location was not ringfenced to that area.  He added that Felixstowe Town Council had raised that campervans was an issue and the cost of the Traffic Regulation Order and enforcement would be covered by the car parking revenue.  Enforcement across the district cost £1m and the cost of maintenance and amenities had all increased over the years.

 The Chair, once again, thanked Councillors Fox and Rowe for attending the meeting to give their views and invited any visiting Ward Councillors of the towns affected to give a brief overview of their views:

Councillor Smithson echoed the comments that had already been made whilst recognising that all Councils were under huge financial pressures.  She stated that East Suffolk was unique in that the impact of all the energy projects on tourism was unknown.  She clarified that it was the dramatic increase and seasonal charges that were being objected to whereas a more gradual increase at a flat rate across the district would have been more palatable.  She stated that a lot of the car parks were empty with people parking badly in residential areas and she referenced the on-going issues with campervans.  She expressed concern regarding the impact of the increases on tourism in Felixstowe.  In response to several queries, she confirmed that enforcement in the area had improved and that she did not object to investment if money was available but clarified that the issue was that there were empty car parks at the moment so hiking prices would not drive up income and the Council was likely to end up with less money.

Councillor Byatt commented that it was the first “Call-In” that had been made since the inception of East Suffolk Council which indicated the weight of the decision and the most important issue to focus on was the seasonal charges.  He acknowledge that a rise with inflation would have been more acceptable but stated that there had been no consultation and a thorough review of all off and on street parking should have been conducted first.  He also suggested that it would have been beneficial to have spoken with Ward Councillors if it was not possible to conduct a full consultation.  He pointed out that this could be seen as a way of getting money out of seasonal visitors which was contrary to the Council’s Strategic Plan to encourage visitors.  He feared it would drive people away from East Suffolk and was concerned at the impact on businesses as they needed visitors and could end up being marginalised.  He suggested residents should be reminded that season tickets were available. In response to several queries, he clarified that his biggest concern was the seasonal charges which appeared to be disproportionately on coastal towns.  He stated that whilst it was a charge on tourists he acknowledged that perhaps "tourist tax" was the wrong term.  He expressed concern that no one had been consulted about the proposal and stressed that businesses needed visitors and that, whilst other areas had different charges, there was a need for a balance and increasing some areas by 150% was wrong.  He clarified that his comments were because he was concerned about East Suffolk and what other places chose to do was up to them but trying to get public transport to go to the beach was not feasible and increasing charges for seaside towns was punitive to families.

The Chair thanked the visiting Members and called for a short comfort break.

The meeting adjourned from 8.20pm to 8.32pm.

The Chair invited the two Cabinet Members to respond to all the points made.  

Councillor Wilson, Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport thanked those who had spoken and pointed out that, whilst no formal consultations had been carried out, Council meetings were held in public session.  He added that there was no consultation requirement to change prices but there was a 21-day notification period to change categories which would be undertaken in response to pleas from Felixstowe residents regarding motorhomes / motorcycles.  He expressed surprise at some of the language that had been used eg fleecing tourists and cherry picking given other Councils were also raising their parking charges.  He also referred, in particular, to a grid included in the papers regarding the seasonal uplift which had guided the selection process for which car parks were chosen.  Councillor Wilson also gave details of the demand in Aldeburgh during August as opposed to January and compared it to Woodbridge and Framlingham which was much lower.  He explained that 15 locations had been used as comparators for benchmarking, most being seaside towns and on average East Suffolk was 19% cheaper to park. He also confirmed that it was not a tax, but payment for a service which was built for convenience and was already subsidised by the Council in terms of 30 minutes free parking.  He suggested that the benefits of seasonal rises should be evident with proposed investments in EV chargers, bike racks in every car park, resurfacing, public conveniences and a fleet of new machines to allow contactless payments. The importance of having well maintained car parks with up-to-date technology to make payments was highlighted.  He stated that he was not averse to softening parts of the plan with elements being open to discussion and was interested to hear the Committee’s views on which elements should not be invested in if charges were reduced and how the budget gap could be made up.  He pointed out that other areas that had higher seasonal charges had still seen their revenue increased and East Suffolk was having to use reserves to balance the budget and these proposals tightened that gap.  He clarified that only 32% of Felixstowe off street parking spaces would be affected by the proposed increase with 10% of all regulated car parks having a seasonal charge.  He concluded that there had been a lot of discussion in Cabinet about where pressures might be alleviated in Felixstowe and he believed that the solution lay with residents parking schemes to address people driving around looking for free parking.

 Councillor Langdon-Morris, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money stated that everyone needed to look at the bigger picture as car parking was a pretty small percentage of all the fees and charges.  He also stressed that he was very clear that this was public money and he was not a venture capitalist.  He concluded that car parking fees should not have been held for so long but should be increased on an annual basis so it was an incremental rise.

The Chair invited any final questions for the Cabinet Members and they responded as follows:

• The cost for providing the first half an hour free was £500K per year which was projected to rise to £900K per year and the costs of this was one of the risks to the Council.
•  If all the car parks had a seasonal charge the income would be £1.5M if everyone bought a ticket so that was the level of subsidy for Council provided for Town Centres and businesses.
•  ESSL were responsible for enforcement and had just employed more officers who patrolled the whole district eg they were in Aldeburgh 4 days per week but almost every day in the summer and 7 days per week in Felixstowe.  Lowestoft had had many more PCNs last year.  Councillor Wilson stated that charging was unpleasant for people but enforcement was worse and he had noted the comment that the Council should discourage people from parking where they shouldn’t be, especially around schools.  Different options had been considered when CPE had been introduced but if the Council had used private enforcement it could have been seen as predatory so it had been decided that ESSL would be responsible, however, this was kept under review as part of the contract.
• The cost to the Council to run the service was just over £1M.  The new unitary council would probably still want the new machines so it was a good investment to install them now.
• The possibility of enabling day tickets to be purchased that could be used in different car parks/towns to give visitors the opportunity to move around the district would be investigated.  
• The number of seasonal spaces proposed was Felixstowe - 535, Aldeburgh - 351, Lowestoft - 430 and Southwold - 592. Another statistic was that per 100 head of population – Aldeburgh had 14 seasonal spaces being proposed, Felixstowe had 2, Lowestoft had 1 and Southwold had 62.
• Cabinet was aware that Government funding was now available for EV charging points and the subsidy was built into our plans.
• Euston Road, Great Yarmouth was a short stay car park but it did permit stays in excess of 2 hours where the normal rate applied, hence why it had been included in the comparator information as it was proposed to have something similar in East Suffolk.  Also included North Drive, Great Yarmouth which was a long stay car park but only operational in summer so those visiting in the winter needed to use the short stay car parks.
• East Suffolk could incentivise or penalise people using seafront or town centre car parks either way but the proposals were based on a lot of experience of how town centres worked.
• All the data, comparisons, experience is that people would not go elsewhere but they would carry on with what they did before although they might grumble it cost extra money.
• There would be an impact to the budget if car parks, such as Convalescent Hill and Manor Terrace in Felixstowe were excluded from the seasonal charge and if the length of season was changed from 1 March to 31 October but this timeframe had been chosen to capture Easter.

Councillor Wilson clarified that if Convalescent Hill and Manor Terrace were removed from the seasonal surcharge with no other changes to the proposed tariffs there would be a reduction in the Council's income of £75K per year.

 The Chair invited any final comments or questions from the guest speakers.

Councillor Fox stated that the last comment that removing those two car parks would lose the Council £75K was just an assumption based on all the money coming in if all the spaces were filled.  She added that one of the big problems with the whole debate was that assumptions made by the Council were treated as verified but what she and the other towns said were just labelled as assumptions.  She stressed that it would have been better to have been consulted before any of this happened because the Town Council knew the effect this would have on Aldeburgh and this kind of debate dumbed down the end result and was not truly evidence based.  Councillor Wilson responded that the proposals were based on not just the last 6 years of evidence of parking behaviours internally but also professionals that worked in the industry, lots of industry and Government papers and benchmarking from across the country so it was very evidence based.  Councillor Fox stated that the Council was comparing apples and pears because they had lumped together 4 seaside towns that had completely different circumstances and had not given any of them the chance to discuss.

 Councillor Rowe stated that it was public money that subsidised car parks so he could not see why the public had not been consulted on whether they wanted them to be subsidised at the levels proposed or pay a higher charge.  He stated that the whole basis of which car parks had been selected was statistically flawed eg in Felixstowe some car parks were hardly used during the winter so it was not difficult to get a seasonal uplift when many more people used them in the summer, whereas car parks in other areas were used across the whole year so would not have a high uplift but might actually have higher usage.  If the Council was saying they had to make more money then he did not see why the burden had to fall mainly on seaside towns but it should be across the whole district which would be fairer.  Councillor Langdon-Morris confirmed that the public were bearing the cost of this but stressed that the  the Council did not have enough revenue to pay for all this so it had to come from reserves. 

Councillor Wilson stated that, due to the comments during the debate, Officers had been able to work out indicative figures for several possible changes as follows:

• Change the charging period to 1 April – 31 October would be a change of £130K to the budget;  
• reducing the 4 hour seasonal charge from £7 to £6 would reduce income by £170K; and
• reducing the 10 hour charge from £10 to £8 would cost £145K from the budget each year.

The Chair reminded the meeting that, under the provisions of the Council's Constitution, the Committee would have to decide if it wished to continue the meeting beyond three hours.

 On the proposition of Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey, it was

RESOLVED 

 That the meeting be extended beyond three hours.

The Committee adjourned from 9.25pm to 9.35pm.

The Chair explained that, under the Constitution, the Committee needed to formally decide if it wished to refer the matter back to Cabinet and, therefore, on the proposition of Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Back it was

RESOLVED

That the matter be referred back to Cabinet.

Having heard the views of all the guest speakers and the responses from the Cabinet Members, the Chair stated that the Committee needed to decide whether it wished to make any formal recommendations to Cabinet.  Various proposals were then put forward and discussed and the following points were made:

• There was general agreement that car parking charges needed to be raised.
• There should have been more public engagement and consultation with businesses or business representatives such as the Chamber of Commerce in particular.
• Some Members felt there should be a district wide flat rate across all car parks to make it fair.
• The opportunity for a day ticket to be used in more than one car park to encourage visits to other parts of the district and provide more value for money for visitors should be explored.

At Councillor Wilson's request, the meeting was adjourned from 10.08pm-10.17pm to enable him and other Cabinet colleagues to discuss the proposals raised. 

On returning, Councillor Wilson stated that he thought Cabinet would be open to shortening the season, reducing the seasonal charges tariffs and removing Convalescent Hill and Manor Terrace from the seasonal category.  He added that he appreciated all the comments made and committed to:

• Listening more to residents and talking to businesses, including the Chamber of Commerce in future;
• Taking forward the Aldeburgh Parking Review;
• Exploring ways to support Lowestoft with their parking issues;
• Looking into the feasibility of a rover day ticket.

On the proposition of Councillor Hammond, seconded by Councillor Bennett, it was

RESOLVED

That Cabinet be recommended to agree the following changes to the Car Parking Fees and Charges 2025/26:

1.  The duration of the seasonal charges from 1 March to 31 October be amended to 1 April to 31 October.

2.  The proposed seasonal charges tariffs be amended as follows:

• 4 hours – from £8 to £6 per hour
• 10 hours – from £10 to £8 per hour

3.  Convalescent Hill and Manor Terrace Car Parks in Felixstowe be withdrawn from the seasonal charges category.

CLERK'S NOTE:

Following the meeting, it was noticed that the tariffs in recommendation 2 should be per session not per hour – Cabinet was notified of this error at its meeting on 4 February 2025 when it considered the Committee's recommendations.  

After the Cabinet meeting, it was noticed that the current 4 hour tariff in recommendation 2 should actually be £7 not £8 and, therefore, the recommendation was to reduce it by £1 per session rather than £2.