Councillors have voted to back controversial plans to introduce parking charges on the promenades in West Kirby, Hoylake, Meols and New Brighton – sparking an angry response from campaigners.
At a highly-charged meeting at Wallasey Town Hall – and despite impassioned pleas from organisations concerned about the impact – councillors approved the recommendation after being warned it would mean savings having to be found elsewhere if they did not give it the green light.
Following the decision, one member of the public shouted: “You have just voted to wreck West Kirby”, and the progress of the meeting was delayed for a short time as others also expressed their frustration.
Drivers now face having to pay £1.20 an hour to park on the promenade, up to a maximum of £6, and there will also be a fee of £1 to park overnight, from 6.30pm to 8am.
Charges are also to be introduced at car parks on Charles Road and Market Street in Hoylake, the ‘park and ride’ facility at Hoylake railway station on Carr Lane, and at Thurstaston Common. All were previously free.
There will also be a 20p per hour increase in areas where there are already charges.
Iona Horsburgh, from community group One West Kirby, told West Kirby Today afterwards: “We are so incredibly disappointed with the vote this evening as we know how strongly businesses and residents feel about the proposals.
“At the Committee meeting this evening it felt like our concerns about the impact on our town, along with the thousands of names on the petitions, were irrelevant, except to our local Cllrs who voted against.
“Whilst we appreciate that WBC are in financial trouble, the charges here won’t help as they’ll have to spend £1 million putting the infrastructure in along the planned coastal areas which will take 10 years to pay off.
“It would have been more beneficial for the council to look at how they could increase car park users in the town, which is only at 53% capacity, to increase real income for their bottom line.
“We’re hopeful that there may still be a legal challenge given the lack of evidence for the TRO [Traffic Regulation Order] in the council’s own documentation.”
Conservative councillors opposed the introduction of charges
A report prepared by officers showed the vast majority of respondents to the consultation were against the proposals, whilst local Conservative councillors had gathered a petition with thousands of names on.
Before the vote, Hoylake and Meols councillor Max Booth said he had been contacted by South Parade residents who don’t have a drive, who face having to pay to park outside their own house.
He added he was concerned that high streets will “shoulder the burden” of the decision, and urged councillors to put aside party allegiances before voting.
However, committee chair, Labour’s Cllr Liz Grey, warned that £300,000 of additional savings would have to be found from other parts of the budget if they did not agree the proposal, arguing the council can’t afford to continue subsidising the service.
Labour’s Cllr Steve Foulkes said he believed the charging plan would “pale into insignificance” compared to other decisions the cash-strapped council – which is £21 million overspent this year, largely due to the cost of social care – faces when it sets its budget next March.
In a report, council officials said that the charges will improve traffic management, turnover of spaces and encourage motorists to consider other forms of transport.
They cited a 14 year-old study by the Transport Research Laboratory which found the introduction of charges does not affect businesses because customers consolidate trips, and another by the Welsh government in 2017 which found free parking can have a negative affect, as it is used by local residents or nearby workers.
They also noted that the introduction of parking charges at Wirral Country Park had not significantly affected visitor numbers.
An amendment put forward by Cllr Booth to reject the introduction of coastal charges and decide on the introduction of fees in car parks that are currently free on a case-by-case basis was rejected by seven votes to four, with the vote in favour approved by the same margin.