SECRET talks have taken place about bringing back parking machines and permits on busy streets across Cumbria – four years after they were killed off.

The bitterly-opposed county council proposals were scrapped in November 2014, following a huge backlash, but have now been rehashed.

Senior council bosses have toured fresh proposals around Cumbria for behind-closed-doors discussions with councillors, the Local Democracy Reporting service has learned.

County council local committees have been told they could keep some of the income to spend on traffic management in their towns.

The 2014 proposals suggested bringing in charges on busy streets in 11 towns – Ambleside, Bowness, Barrow, Windermere, Carlisle, Penrith, Workington, Whitehaven, Maryport, Keswick and Cockermouth.

But campaigners who organised petitions and protests said they were “horrified” the idea has been brought back to life.

Leaked documents estimate that £700,000 could be generated every year from on-street parking charges across South Lakeland, Eden, Barrow, Carlisle, Allerdale and Copeland.

A single parking machine servicing 10 spaces could generate £31,000 a year. It would mean a £20,000 “surplus” once the £11,000 cost of the machine had been deducted, council documents show.

It has been suggested parking permits could be issued for residents, visitors, guest houses, businesses and second homes owners – with the council charging between £10 and £50 for the service.

More traffic wardens could also be hired to enforce new restrictions and issue penalty charge notices which would generate income, the documents state.

The county council confirmed it had sought “preliminary views” but stressed that no decisions had been taken and the public would be fully consulted if the plans come to fruition.

The proposals – billed as a “discussion topic” have been presented to councillors on local committees. Cumbria has six local committees which consist of cross-party county councillors. Their meetings are usually open to  press and public, but the discussions have taken place off the agenda.

In a change to the 2014 plans, local committees, rather than the county council’s ruling Labour and Liberal Democrat cabinet, would be responsible for deciding if machines should be introduced and on which streets.

The move would need a change in the council’s constitution.

Four years ago it was proposed the parking machines would be installed in Kendal on Allhallows Lane, Stramongate, Maude Street, Gillinggate and Dowker’s Lane. They were also proposed for the Glebe in Bowness.

Local committees would be allowed to keep any revenue raised but it would have to be ringfenced for spending on highways issues, the documents show.

The costs faced by the county council to give out parking permits would be covered through any money raised from the scheme.

Any surplus cash would go into county council coffers, the proposals show.

In November 2014, council leader Stewart Young (Lab) announced the scrapping of the proposals after a loophole was identified during a public consultation which could have exposed the council to a legal challenge.

He said at the time: “Whilst we can’t say that this will never come back given the financial pressures caused by government cuts, I can say that we have no immediate plans to do so and any proposals in the future would be preceded by public consultation.”

Commenting on the revival of the idea, Cllr James Airey, leader of the Conservative opposition, and a member of the local committee for South Lakeland, said the plans had been “toured backstage” to soften up county councillors with “sweeteners.”

He said: “They have tried to do this secretly and it’s an appalling way to behave. The upper tier of the council clearly wants on-street parking charges brought back so they have sent officers out round the county to discuss it behind closed doors.”

“Why are they not having this out in public? Why not put it in open papers before the council or the cabinet so we can have that discussion?”

“Cumbria is not like Kensington and Chelsea where people expect and can afford to pay for parking. We’re a rural county where driving and parking is a necessity, not a luxury.”

The Windermere and Bowness Action Group (WABAG) spearheaded a campaign in 2014 to oppose the charges. It drew more than 300 people to a meeting and there were also marches, a mass protest on Glebe Road and angry confrontations with local councillors.

Member Susan Wales said she was “horrified” the plans were being reconsidered. She said the public had sent a clear message in 2014 that on-street parking charges were not welcome. – and she would expect the same response today.

The county council documents said: “Good parking provision is a customer service providing access to our towns. Parking is an asset which needs to be managed.”

But it added: “On-street parking charges may deter some motorists from parking in certain areas which could have a negative impact on local businesses. (It) may push parking problems from one area and create parking issues where there are no charges.”

It also said on-street parking could encourage the turnover of parking spaces to “benefit local economies.”

The county council said it had sought “preliminary views” but said the plans were not advanced.

A spokeswoman said: “Members on local committees have asked that they have more influence and control over decisions made in their area, in particular decisions relating to highways and traffic management.

“Any major decisions relating to highways, including any potential proposals on parking, would be subject to extensive public consultation and engagement before the local committee could make any final decision.

“The recent discussions with local committees relating to parking have been to ensure the council has the correct governance in place to allow local committees to make local decisions.”