South Lakeland parking fees - council leader answers questions

South Lakeland District Council leader Coun Peter Thornton answers a series of questions about parking charges in the area:

Question: How much money does South Lakeland District Council earn from car parking fees each year? How is the money earned from car parking charges spent?
Answer: Income is approximately £4 million, of which about half is spent on running the car parks leaving around £2 million surplus. This reduces the average SLDC council tax bill by about 25 per cent (around £40).

Question: Many people complain that car parking charges are too high. Why can’t you reduce the fees?
Answer: We could reduce the fees but then we’d need to increase council tax or reduce services else-where. We are experimenting with lower fees in selected car parks and the new machines give us improved management information to be able to judge their effectiveness.

Question: The council has spent £340,000 on new pay-and-display machines. People now have to key in their registration numbers. Is the only aim of these new machines to stop people passing on partially-used parking tickets?
Answer: Absolutely not! These machines were introduced because the old machines had come to the end of their life. They would not take credit cards, were increasingly difficult to adapt to new coinage and could not be used to issue things like weekly passes, which we intend to introduce shortly. I’m sure that most of our local traders are not using the same till that they were 20 years ago!

Related links

Question: How do you respond to traders in Kendal who say that high parking fees and dislike of the new pay-and-display machines are driving customers away?
Answer: Our parking fees are similar to our competitors. Barrow is identical, Lancaster is 20p more than Kendal and Carlisle is 20p less. Most other areas, including Barrow, have the same type of machines which require registration number to be entered.

Question: How quickly do you expect the new pay-and-display machines to pay for themselves?
Answer: The 66 new machines should last 20 years or more which is a depreciation of £257 a year per machine. They will enable our service to be run more efficiently, reduce theft and cash handling charges due to an increasing proportion of money collected by credit cards, enable the issue of longer term (weekly) permits and reduce maintenance costs. They should pay for themselves in five years.

Question: Wouldn’t the £340,000 have been better spent on other council services – for example, on keeping open public toilets?
Answer: The £5,100 per machine is an investment in a business producing a surplus which is invested in services. It is good business sense to invest in profit-making services and running our old machines into the ground would not have benefited anyone.
Question: What is so wrong about passing on a partially-used parking ticket to another motorist? Is there a law that allows SLDC to punish some-body who passes on a ticket?
Answer: Our tickets have always made it clear that they are not transferable. Should we question this? Yes, we should and we are looking at this issue in the light of the public response. There’s no law against passing on a ticket but the ticket would then not be valid for the person who receives it.

Question: Why didn’t you introduce a pay on exit system so people could pay only for the time they park?
Answer: We do prefer pay on exit systems as they are much fairer all round. The problem is that they require either barriers or complex number plate recognition systems and are currently not practical for our smaller car parks.

Question: Why were traders and residents not consulted before the new system was introduced? Is there a chance the machines will go away?
Answer: The rules and the charges haven’t changed, only the machine to collect the fees. No we won’t be taking the machines away because they are very flexible. However, we’ll be reviewing how they are configured.

Question: Some towns in the UK and abroad have free parking. Do you accept that high parking fees put off tourists?
Answer: Tourists appreciate that South Lakeland is an exceptional place and they recognise that our car park fees are comparable to other tourist areas. Free parking would result in our car parks being continually full and would increase SLDC council tax bills by about 50 per cent. It would mean our residents were subsidising the tourists who use our services.

Question: Are you just anti-motorist?
Answer: No I’m not anti-motorist and neither is the council. If you live in my ward (Whinfell) then you probably have no bus service and depend upon your car.
We’d love there to be a better public transport network so that we could reduce the number of cars coming into our towns, but for the foreseeable future the car is an essential part of life.

We are always ready to listen to all points of view. Let me know what you think on p.thornton@southlakeland. gov.uk

Comments(19)

snuggle-bunny says...
4:48pm Thu 4 Oct 12

Let them eat cake. Im off to the bank with my council taxpayer funded salary- does this sound fammiliar

Ben Berry says...
5:02pm Thu 4 Oct 12

"Barrow is identical, Lancaster is 20p more than Kendal and Carlisle is 20p less."

Lancaster is not more than Kendal:
http://www.lancaster
.gov.uk/GetAsset.asp
x?id=fAA3ADYANwA0AHw
AfABUAHIAdQBlAHwAfAA
wAHwA0
£1.20 for the first hour.

I note Peter does not mention Eden (where his County Council patch is in Kirkby Stephen) where several car parks are free and most ar £1.90 for two hours (as opposed to £2.20 in kendal).

Although the article is about Kendal, dont forget Windermere, Ambleside, Grasmere, Bowness SLDC car parks cost 25% more per hour than even kendal.

Sources:
http://www.barrowbc.
gov.uk/default.aspx?
page=108
http://www.eden.gov.
uk/transport-and-str
eets/parking/car-and
-vehicle-parking/par
king-charges/
http://www.southlake
land.gov.uk/pdf/xCar
%20Parks%20Tariffs%2
02012%20-%202013.pdf

http://www.lancaster
.gov.uk/GetAsset.asp
x?id=fAA3ADYANwA0AHw
AfABUAHIAdQBlAHwAfAA
wAHwA0

onelocal says...
6:02pm Thu 4 Oct 12

snuggle-bunny wrote:
Let them eat cake. Im off to the bank with my council taxpayer funded salary- does this sound fammiliar
Council taxpayer funded salarIES - plural. He has more than one. My, but he represents so many of us.
I like the "we are always ready to listen to all points of view". Those who attended the meeting requesting a further review of the LDP, where the plan was bulldozed through, will probably not agree with that statement.

Ben Berry says...
6:21pm Thu 4 Oct 12

onelocal wrote:
snuggle-bunny wrote:
Let them eat cake. Im off to the bank with my council taxpayer funded salary- does this sound fammiliar
Council taxpayer funded salarIES - plural. He has more than one. My, but he represents so many of us.
I like the "we are always ready to listen to all points of view". Those who attended the meeting requesting a further review of the LDP, where the plan was bulldozed through, will probably not agree with that statement.
"Bulldozer Pete"

Geoff103 says...
6:35pm Thu 4 Oct 12

It's perfectly reasonable to levy charges for parking and it's perfectly reasonable to replace end-of-life machines with new ones.

What was totally unacceptable in this instance was the mean-spirited and officious decision to impose machines that required the input of a registration number in order to 'combat' the loss of revenue from ticket transfers.

There is no way the council could know what this sum amounted to and as with all parking machines that fail to give change or reject all known coin combinations there was always an element of aggregated over-paying.

Any reasonable body would have accepted this 'windfall' (to which it wasn't really entitled) and replace the machines with much simpler ones that did not require registration number input.

No doubt these would have been much cheaper and no less effective for another 20 years.

The addition of payment by credit card has some merit, but these machines are extraordinarily slow if that is the method chosen. On that count alone they are inadequate.

Better yet would have been to provide the option of paying by mobile phone, a solution that is likely to prove a much longer lasting solution for those without the ready amount of coinage.

cm1988 says...
8:06pm Thu 4 Oct 12

I find it quite sad that people are making such a fuss about the new parking machines.

For a start I find it ridiculous that people do not know their vehicle registration number. What would happen if you lost your car...the police are really going to take you seriously if you go and report it and you don't even know your reg!!

We are living in a modern world and technology has evolved. Replacing old and obviously well used machines with newer machines is perfectly acceptable and obviously parking machines have evolved with time too. Go to a city and they're all over!

The shopkeeper who has been 'forced' to give discount back to customers who spend over £10 in her shop...I'd say you are using thisexcuse to your advantage!!

People just aren't used to changes and the council are an easy target to pin the blame on.

All these people complaining need to go and get a life. As far as I'm concerned, there are far more bigger thigs to worry about in life!!

boris plasticmac says...
8:36pm Thu 4 Oct 12

cm1988, there are enough minor irritations in my life without me having to pay South Lakeland District Council to provide more.
As ever I think the Council is asking the general public to jump through hoops to obtain a service which can be provided simply and efficiently in most places.

Ladyxxmacbeth says...
8:56am Fri 5 Oct 12

I agree with cm1988 seems to be a lot of whinging over something pretty trivial.
I would like to see parking fees so they are all day. Plenty of car parks in the south are now 1-3 hours 1-6 hours and 12 hours + personally this is a great way of making people stay longer in towns and encourage browsing and hopefully buying. Compared to the rest of the UK our car parking charges are very reasonable. If you want a shock go for a holiday in Norfolk !!!

jd@jdifa.co.uk says...
10:03am Fri 5 Oct 12

How much income is lost to the council from empty shops?

Could the narrow parking places in the Multi Story Car Park, and the cost of parking be contributing the loss of shops?
Why having paid for the use of a space can it not be gifted to someone else?

boris plasticmac says...
12:45pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Nobody likes paying for parking but it's a fact of life which we've got to live with it.
However, the process of paying should be made as simple and efficient as possible just out of courtesy to the person doing the paying.

Grammers says...
4:46am Sun 7 Oct 12

I do believe this is a slight over reaction to a system employed in towns all over the UK...What, as inhabitants of Kendal, we should be getting in a lather about is where any governing body is taking the town over the next couple of decades...If anyone can point me to a 5/10/12/20 year plan that lays out what is to be done to promote growth and investment from business and industry in a town that is rapidly becoming an annexe to Grange or a 'Brighton of the North' with reference to it's aging population I'd be very interested...At the moment people are getting into a fuss about parking ticket machines and blaming them for a reduced footfall and drop in business...They are aiming their vitriol at the council for this and thats fine but lets go one step further and challenge the councillor that a fall in visitors could be because in Kendal town centre people are not coming as they don't want to pay to look at rows of empty and/or charity shops! (And replacing paving slabs although welcome isn't the answer to a town's rejuvination).

boris plasticmac says...
12:13pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Recently British Cycling had great success using a 'Marginal Gains' strategy.
It could be argued that the Highgate improvements are providing a marginal gain for the town. I don't think however, you can find any gain, marginal or otherwise, from installing an over complex payment method for parking.

furthersouth says...
10:02pm Sun 7 Oct 12

We don't shop anymore, we do everything online and get it delivered, usually free and a lot less than fuel or parking fees. If we have to go to Kendal or elsewhere, usually it's to the supermarket as that is free to park. Parking in Ambleside, Windermere, Grasmere? Easy, park in a residential area. Free. Don't worry about blocking the roads or parking outside folks houses, in Ambleside you can even park on the pavement in some areas!

jazzactivist says...
4:13pm Mon 8 Oct 12

Cllr Peter Thornton is disingenuous to present SLDC's decision to impose the new parking meters on the public as a straight choice between increasing revenue from parking or increasing Council Tax or cutting essential services.

The parking issue has become serious, as paying more for parking along with the high cost of fuel and our draconian parking wardens is making both local people and tourists rethink day trips or holidays to our towns. This shortsightedness by SLDC will lead to an economic drain from our towns, as people choose to by-pass them in favour of ordering goods on the internet and choosing to parking in remote areas for just a walk and a picnic.

My partner and I have both made choices based on parking costs this week. He was dropped off and collected from the street in Kendal, instead of paying to park there all day, and I ordered printer cartridges on the internet instead of going into Kendal to buy them from my usual shop. Both choices were due to the expense of parking in Kendal and fear of parking wardens which makes going there an unpleasant experience, and life's just too short for that!

There are always other ways for the Council to create revenue - one of which could be for SLDC to add another few bands to the top of the Council Tax, and also make second home owners pay the full amount. As we all know, property in the Lakes area is expensive, so there is a higher percentage of large, high priced homes in comparison to small, affordable ones. There is no need to increase the Council Tax or parking fees at al when it would be possible to tap this rich resource of local income.

One thing that we could do about the parking problem is to hoist SLDC by its own petard and start a website 'Park at my Place' - where people can be matched up to park for free or at a nominal cost at one another's homes.

furthersouth says...
6:20pm Mon 8 Oct 12

could charge second home owners the full rate of council tax, that would surely make more than the parking.

onelocal says...
6:52pm Mon 8 Oct 12

I believe there is a proposal on the table to charge full council tax on second homes, to fund the council tax rebate for the less well off. Adding bands to council tax is a government decision and not in the remit of the local council.
It's simple really, reduce parking fees, get more people shopping in Kendal and help local shopkeepers, reduce the empty shops which pay no rates or taxes, and everyone will be happy. Unfortunately our local council are very short term in their thinking, and someone has to fund the new marina that they are planning as part of the Glebe Development at Bowness.

Gingery says...
8:36am Tue 9 Oct 12

It's ok discussing parking fees but there are still times when town car parks are full. Many in certain areas get very full at night, often with residents and visitors to the Brewery and other social centres.

I haven't seen evidence that the charges are putting anyone off, or stopping them from coming into town.

I occasionally visit Manchester and other large towns, not to mention parts of the Lake District where parking fees really put Kendal into perspective.

I'd prefer creation of more parking for both visitors and residents(lots of flats and houses in Kendal do not have any provision for parking and residents if they chose to have a car have to pay to park it 365), and a clamp down on those who don't park legally like others manage to do.

Kent123 says...
5:18pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Peter Thornton's attitude has convinced me, not that I really needed convincing, that SLDC and the 'big players' in Kendal have their own secret agenda which the public is unable to change.

Businesses are now being urged to support a Business Improvement District which, because of this secret agenda, will be a complete waste of time and money as evidenced by this http://wp.me/p16x9M-
Jz

Kent123 says...
5:20pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Kent123 wrote:
Peter Thornton's attitude has convinced me, not that I really needed convincing, that SLDC and the 'big players' in Kendal have their own secret agenda which the public is unable to change.

Businesses are now being urged to support a Business Improvement District which, because of this secret agenda, will be a complete waste of time and money as evidenced by this http://wp.me/p16x9M-

Jz
The link is http://www.3caonline
.com/why-the-kendal-
bid-business-improve
ment-district-is-a-w
aste-of-time-and-mon
ey/

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree