The Babergh Overview and Scrutiny Committee met to discuss the six-month update bulletin on new car parking charges, hearing questions from the public and committee members. The committee reviewed data on car park usage, income, electric vehicle charging, sustainable transport, and town centre footfall since the implementation of the new charges. They also discussed vacant retail units, parking enforcement, concessions, and the council's parking strategy.

Car Parking Charges: Six-Month Update

The committee reviewed the six-month update bulletin on the new car parking charges implemented in Sudbury, Hadleigh and Lavenham on 13 January 2025. Councillor Michael Holt, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, noted that Lavenham Parish Council had submitted questions regarding the breakdown of car parking income and costs since the charges were introduced. Councillor Holt advised that the answers to questions one and two would be covered in writing by the annual review scheduled for February 2026. The Director of Operations provided a breakdown of the capital and revenue costs associated with introducing the charges in Lavenham.

Councillor Saw, Cabinet Member for People and Place, introduced the report, highlighting the development of the council's parking strategy, promotion of sustainable travel, footfall in key towns, visitor increases, retail vacancy rates in Hadleigh and Sudbury, car park maintenance, redesignation of car parks for short and long stays, reduction in all-day tariffs, increased bus usage, collaboration with Suffolk County Council, blue badge parking provisions, and the parking enforcement partnership with West Suffolk District Council.

Key points from the report included:

• Visitor Numbers: Independent figures indicated increased town centre visitor numbers in Sudbury, Hadleigh and Lavenham year-on-year.
• Vacant Units: The number of vacant units in Sudbury and Hadleigh remained below average, with Sudbury improving by one unit since charges were introduced, while Hadleigh remained the same.
• Dwell Time: Initial figures showed a slight decrease in dwell time, which would continue to be monitored.
• Car Park Usage: Short-stay car park use decreased as intended, with town centre workers and residents encouraged to use long-stay car parks, increasing capacity in short-stay areas. Long-stay car park use significantly increased in Hadleigh but marginally reduced in Sudbury.
• Season Tickets: Season ticket sales increased as customers migrated from short-stay to long-stay car parks.
• Sustainable Transport: Bus usage data suggested more people were using sustainable transport options.
• Concessions: Concessions were in place for leisure centre users, motorists with disabilities, health centre users, and parents during school drop-off times.

Councillor Questions and Discussion

Councillors raised several questions and concerns regarding the report:

• Councillor Leigh Jamieson, Vice-Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, asked about economic data related to footfall data to analyse the impact on local businesses. Councillor Saw responded that the council had various mechanisms for analysing the health of towns, was exploring independent research bids, and that data would be available from the Economic Development team.
• Councillor Jane Carruthers questioned whether the footfall tracking area could be widened to assess the number of people walking into town centres. Councillor Saw said that this would be checked with the data provider.
• Councillor Carruthers also asked about the source of bus usage data. The Director for Operations responded that the data was provided by bus operators to the Suffolk County Council travel team and shared with Babergh's Sustainable Travel Officer.
• Councillor Elisabeth Malvisi, Chair of the Council, enquired if footfall data could be improved through collaboration with local Chambers of Commerce. Councillor Saw responded that regular meetings took place between the council and Chambers of Commerce to assess the economic status of key towns.
• Councillor Jamieson queried the correlation between the reduction in short stays and static data for long stays and footfall. The Parking Manager responded that changes in car park management, such as redesignating car parks and removing free stays, made direct correlations difficult.
• Councillor Bryn Hurren suggested further engagement with the County Council and Town Councils to increase footfall. The Director for Operations said that the council was willing to collaborate with other councils to improve the towns and strengthen economic assets.
• Councillor Paul Clover queried how the current data compared to forecasts made before the tariff increases. The Director for Operations responded that extensive income modelling was undertaken, and current income was on target with previous forecasts.
• Councillor Clover further queried the total reduction in overall stays since the implementation of tariffs. The Director for Operations responded that different kinds of modal shifts needed to be accounted for and that footfall data showed little impact on the number of people visiting town centres.
• Councillor Alison Owen asked about the Girling Street scheme¹, how resident parking schemes worked, and the justification for charges being active until 6pm. The Parking Services Manager responded that under 10 people had taken up the Girling Street scheme, that the residents scheme covered parking overnight and between 8am – 9am and 5pm – 6pm, and that benchmarking found 6pm to be a standard end time.
• Councillor Margaret Maybury raised on-street parking issues in Lavenham and asked where the footfall data started tracking from geographically. The Director of Operations responded that they were unsure of the tracking start point but that the Parking team were aware of the challenges and working with Lavenham Parish Council to resolve them.
• Councillor Clover raised that the take-up of parking season tickets was not as high as a 50% increase suggests. The Director of Operations responded that there had been a significant increase in season tickets being purchased, which were used for a significant amount of stays each year, and that the purchase of season tickets would continue to be promoted by the council.
• Councillor Hurren asked for an operational breakdown of the cost and income generated for each car park, as well as the percentage of these costs due to business rates². Councillor Holt responded that this could be captured in the 12-month review in February 2026.
• Councillor Owen enquired about the take-up of the electric vehicle Car Club in Sudbury. The Cabinet Member for People and Place responded that this had been discussed with Suffolk County Council, who were the operators of the Club, and that figures would be published by them in the autumn.
• Councillor Maybury questioned if the council were recharging Eezy Bikes³ due to the scheme in Lavenham taking up two car parking spaces. The Director for Operations responded that the council would not be recharging, that the loss of two spaces was a good compromise to promote more active travel, and that conversations could be had with Lavenham Parish Council if the location proved to be an issue.
• Councillor Carruthers questioned if the time parking enforcement spend monitoring town centres had changed since the implementation of the new charges. The Parking Services Manager responded that this data would be recorded by the councils in which Babergh have enforcement partnerships with, and that it could be requested.
• Councillor Adrian Osborne queried how the council could ensure that those parking in the Kingfisher Leisure Centre were using the facilities. The Parking Services Manager responded that the council were working in partnership with the Kingfisher Leisure Centre on parking, that it would be down to the Leisure Centre to report any concerns over use of the car park to the council, and confirmed that there had been no concerns reported to date.
• Councillor Clover asked who paid for the barriers in the Kingfisher Leisure Centre's car park. The Parking Services Manager confirmed that this was the Leisure Centre.
• Councillor Jamieson queried if the parking tariffs were being reviewed annually or every other year. The Director for Operations responded that the council's budget and the time taken for any changes to be considered and implemented would be a key factor in deciding the frequency of reviews into the tariffs but did not know yet when this next review would be.

Members debated the item on issues including increased sustainable and active travel, securing bus usage data from bus operators, the development of the Parking Strategy, potential provision for motor home parking, issues with on-street parking, economic impact on local businesses, increasing footfall and visitor numbers to towns, and residential permit schemes.

The committee noted the report.

Public Questions

The committee addressed questions from Lavenham Parish Council regarding car parking income and costs since the implementation of charges. The questions and responses were:

1. Car Parking Income Breakdown: Lavenham Parish Council requested a monthly breakdown of car parking income in each of the two car parks, split into regular fees, penalties, and other income, since the imposition of charges. They also requested disclosure of Lavenham Season Ticket Income.
2. Car Park Costs Breakdown: Lavenham Parish Council requested a monthly breakdown of car park costs incurred in each of the two car parks, split into major category types, identifying non-cash costs and allocated overheads.
3. Costs of Introducing Charges: Lavenham Parish Council requested the amount spent introducing the charges in Lavenham, broken down into major expense types (capital and revenue spend), explaining which costs relate specifically to Lavenham and which are allocated costs.

The Director of Operations provided the following breakdown of the capital and revenue costs associated with introducing the charges in Lavenham:

Capital Costs (excluding VAT)

Revenue Costs (excluding VAT)

Grand Total £15,776.08 £6,655.43