The Head of Environment and Leisure introduced the report which followed up a discussion at the Economy and Property Committee on the motion submitted at Full Council on 2 April 2025, about transferring free car parks in Sheppey to the relevant town and parish councils.

Councillor Lloyd Bowen moved the following amendment to Recommendation 3 if it was agreed:  That as the Committee could not enforce Recommendation 3 it be amended to state that this would be agreed, subject to the budget and fees and charges being agreed by the Policy & Resources Committee and Full Council in due course.  This was seconded by Councillor James Hunt and on being put to the vote was agreed.

The Chair invited Members to make comments and ask questions, and these included:

·         This should not go out to formal parking order consultation, residents should be consulted informally first;

·         Minster Parish Council had offered to take on a car park, not sure what was happening with progression of this;

·         there was a motion to transfer car parks to parish/town councils, this report was circumnavigating the issue;

·         charging for car parks would result in people avoiding car parks and parking on the roads instead, and could lead to poor parking;

·         parents were being targeted as this would mean they would have to pay when they parked to pick their children up from school;

·         considered the third recommendation in terms of the removal of the 30-minute tariff had ‘crept into’ the report and some people might not have seen it;

·         sought clarification as to whether the parking order consultation included town and parish councils;

·         acknowledged that a lot of people would be against charging for car parking, but a decision needed to be made on what was best for the borough, not just for particular areas;

·         it was unfair that some areas paid, and others did not;

·         this approach would help balance the Council’s budget;

·         considered this to be a bad idea and that the car parks with tariffs would not be used;

·         confirmation sought on how much income would be generated;

·         suggested data was needed in about a year’s time prior to the budget to show what income had been generated;

·         clarification sought as to if the charges went ahead, would the transfer of the car parks halt;

·         in terms of best value, it was important to know what the Council’s assets were worth prior to their disposal;

·         money needed to be generated to help fund other vital services for residents; and

·         the car park charges should be equitable across the borough to help fund Council services.

The Head of Environment and Leisure responded to some of the comments: The offer of transfer from Minster Parish Council would be dealt with as part of the overall asset transfer process; parking order consultation was not normally sent direct to town and parish councils, but their comments would be accepted, and a note could be sent to all parish and town councils when it went live; and a conservative estimate of £35,000 per year would be generated by charging at these car parks, based on other similar car park usage.

Councillor Hunt moved the following motion:  That a report be written reviewing the income generated from levying the charges at the proposed car parks, at a time that was right so it fitted in with the 2027 Council budget.  This was seconded by Councillor Bowen and on being put to the vote was agreed.

A member of the public was invited to speak.  He raised the following points: residents were against the proposals; a petition from people in Queenborough had been submitted; car park charges were lower elsewhere in the Borough; tourists would stop visiting because of the charges; there would be a social and economic impact; volunteers would be put off volunteering because of the charges; and councillors were here for the residents.

A visiting Ward Member spoke against the proposals and presented a petition to the Chair.  He raised the following points:  astonished to see this issue return, it was a bad idea before and was a bad idea now; this would result in a decrease in shoppers; the car parks would have recurring costs, e.g. maintaining the ticket machines; this would not fill the Council’s budget gap; nearby streets would become congested with on-street parking; and questioned the process order as councillors were making the decision now, and then a consultation would take place.

Another Ward Member spoke against the proposals and raised the following points:  this was the third time this issue was being discussed and could not understand the logic of it being considered again; the proposals would have a massive impact on residents; and it was trying to squeeze’ money out of people; there did not seem to be any figures on how much money would be generated; this would cause displacement of vehicles; congestion would increase; detrimental impact on businesses; and better ways of generating money/reducing spend needed to be sought.

Another visiting Ward Member spoke against the proposals and raised the following points:  Halfway car park was busy only when children were being picked up from the nearby school; and parking on the road was already bad and this would get worse.

The Head of Environment and Leisure responded to some of the points raised.  He stated that there were standard car park tariffs across the borough; free car parks already had maintenance costs that were difficult to meet, and there would not be additional costs; acknowledged that there could be displacement of vehicles, but this was time limited as behaviours changed and on-street orders could be placed to counter this if there were safety issues; projected income generated was based on similar sized car parks; parking order consultation would ensure views of local people were taken into account and a final decision would then be made by councillors; subject to the comments received, there could be amendments such as variables of times that charges could be levied.

Members made further comments:

·         Suggested more school children used public transport or active travel if possible to help alleviate parking issues;

·         there should be secure units for bikes in the car parks;

·         an Active Travel Plan should be encouraged;

·         it was important that residents completed consultations; and

·         transferred car parks should not be subsidised by the Council

In response, the Head of Environment and Leisure said that existing revenue had ensured delivery of different services, such as an Active Travel Co-ordinator, but more was needed to continue to be able to fund council services.

Councillor Harrison proposed the recommendations (as amended) and these were seconded by Councillor Hunt.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 3.1.19(2) a recorded vote was taken on the recommendations and voting was as follows:

For: Councillors Bowen, Cheesman, C Gibson, Harrison, Hunt, Jackson, Miller, Perkin and Thompson.  Total equals 9.

Against:  Councillors Jayes, Marchington, Mishchuk, P Stephen and S Stephen.  Total equals 5.

Abstain:  Councillor Wooster.  Total equals 1.

Resolved:

(1)      That charges should be levied year-round at the following car parks, at the standard tariff rate, from 1 April 2026;

a)    Little Oyster, Minster on Sea

b)   Park Road, Queenborough

c)    Library car park, Queenborough

d)   Front Brents, Faversham

e)    Grafton Road, Sittingbourne

f)     Halfway road, Halfway

(2)      That officers proceed to formal Off-Street Parking Order consultation for each of the above.

(3)      That it be agreed to remove the 30-minute tariff for all car parks starting 1 April 2026, subject to the approval of the budget and fees and charges by the Policy & Resources Committee and Full Council in due course. 

(4)      That a report be written reviewing the income generated from levying the charges, at a time that was right, so it fitted in with the 2027 Council budget.