Hillingdon Cabinet approves a 70% parking rise for residents, not the “15%” it announced. Email councillors before Friday’s deadline

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned that parking charges for residents are going up by about 73%, although Cabinet was told ‘Parking charges will rise by 15%’. The Cabinet’s schedule of charges (Appendix A) shows an hour on-street rising from £1.50 to £2.60 and two hours from £3.30 to £5.70 for residents, because the resident discount is being cut from around 40% to 10%. Off-street is similar: at Cedars car park in Uxbridge, up to two hours rises from £2.00 to £3.40 for residents (70%). The free 30 minutes stays, but it does not offset the rise for anyone staying longer. I do not think this has been explained clearly enough to the people it affects.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned that the new parking prices were approved before residents were asked anything. Cabinet was told ‘This is not a consultation paper. This is a decision paper.’ The separate parking consultation due to open at the end of October covers how the resident discount is accessed (for example, by phone only), but not the prices or the size of the discount. I would like the prices to be considered together with the consultation results at the December Cabinet.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned that Cabinet was not shown real alternatives for parking. The report lists only three options (a rise in line with inflation, doing nothing, or ending services), yet the consultants’ review the Council relied on raised others, such as a 10% rise, a phased change to the resident discount, and a reset of Hillingdon First cards. The Constitution says decisions must make clear what options were considered and rejected, and why.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned that no equality impact assessment accompanied the parking increases. The Cabinet report says only that the Council “believes” there is no adverse impact on people with protected characteristics. Older people, disabled people and carers often need to park close to where they are going, and I think their needs should be properly assessed before charges rise. At the same meeting, Cabinet was told that a draft equality impact assessment will be published alongside the family hub consultation, so I would expect one here too.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned about residents who cannot, or prefer not to, use a smartphone. Alongside the new parking prices, the Council is consulting on making the resident parking rate available only by phone and replacing the Hillingdon First card with a digital version. Together with much higher charges, I think the effect on older and less digitally confident residents needs to be assessed before decisions are made.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned that the case for cutting the resident discount rests on anecdote. The consultants’ review speaks of “strong anecdotal evidence” of ticket misuse and says it understands “anecdotally” that some Hillingdon First cards are held by people who no longer live here, and it noted a data quality risk in the figures it used. I would like the committee to ask for hard data, and whether a targeted fix, such as reissuing cards, would deal with misuse without a blanket cut for every resident.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am worried about the effect on our local high streets and shops. The Cabinet report says the consultants discussed demand with services, but it sets out no analysis of what these price rises will do to footfall and local traders. The consultants’ review itself assumed resident parking use would fall by 10 to 20% once the resident discount is cut, and I cannot see where the Cabinet report weighs that up.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I cannot see that the combined effect on residents of the parking changes has been tested. The consultants’ review modelled each option separately (a general price rise, a cut in the resident discount, changes to free stays), yet Cabinet has combined a general rise with a deep cut in the resident discount. I would like the committee to ask whether the combined effect on residents and on demand was assessed.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I would like the committee to ask for a breakdown of the £3.3 million that Cabinet expects from the new fees and charges. The report does not say how much of it comes from parking, although the consultants’ summary table suggests parking could be somewhere between 60% and 75% of the extra income they identified. Residents cannot judge whether the parking increases are proportionate without those figures.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I do not think a rise of about 73% for residents is proportionate or tied to any parking policy. The consultants’ review described even a 25% rise in tariffs as “an outlier” that would provoke a significant negative reaction, and said it “would need to be led by traffic management policy”. It also suggested a revised parking policy setting out how car parks and streets are priced, but the Cabinet report refers to no such policy.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The report says the proposed charges were discussed with members who gave feedback on areas that “need more significant correction to bring them closer to market rates”. I would like the committee to ask which charges that covered, who asked for them and on what evidence, so that the reasons for the parking increases are on the public record.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned that Cabinet was told ‘the majority of our parking, from the data we have, is for short periods and for residents’, but I cannot find that data in the report, which only benchmarks against other boroughs. I would like the committee to ask for it, including how many visits fall within the free half hour and how many go on to pay, and how it was used to set the new charges.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I do not understand why the parking prices had to be fixed on 22 October. Cabinet was told parking charges would rise from April 2027, and the consultants’ review modelled the parking changes from 1 April 2027 (and the cut to the resident discount from the third quarter of 2027/28). The report says bringing in some increases before the end of the financial year helps reduce reliance on Exceptional Financial Support in 2026/27, but I cannot see how that applies to parking charges that start in 2027/28. Cabinet was also told that the full details of the Council’s financial plans will come to the December Cabinet. Deciding the parking prices together with the parking consultation in December would let residents’ views shape them before they are fixed.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned that the resident parking discount is being cut in one step. The consultants’ review noted that the reduction “could be phased over a number of years” and warned that it would cause “significant negative public reaction”. Phasing would give residents and local businesses time to adjust, and I would like the committee to ask Cabinet to consider it.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

The consultants’ review said the Council would “need to take a view on any implications around consultation and changes to TROs” for a cut to the resident discount, and the Council’s own parking consultation report accepts that traffic orders may need amending for its proposals. The fees report is silent on this. I would like the committee to ask whether orders are needed for the new charges and, if so, how and when residents can object.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I would like the committee to ask the Monitoring Officer to confirm the legal basis for the parking increases approved on 22 October. The Cabinet report cites only the Council’s power to charge for street parking, and gives benchmarking against other boroughs and the budget gap as its reasons. The Cabinet member said the principle was a 15% uplift reflecting low charges elsewhere and ‘the need to raise further income to close the income gap’. I understand the High Court has found that parking charges cannot lawfully be set to raise general revenue for other spending (R (Attfield) v Barnet LBC (2013), a case about permit charges), so I think the decision should be checked against that.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

Cabinet delegated to Corporate Directors the power to make “minor consequential amendments” to the approved charges, with “material” changes referred back to Cabinet. I would like the committee to ask who decides what counts as material, and for any change to parking charges to be reported back to Cabinet.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am worried that our local shops, cafés and parades will lose customers. Parking costs are part of whether I stop for a short shop or go elsewhere, and a rise of about 70% for residents, together with the proposal to make the resident rate phone-only, will push some of us to supermarkets and retail parks with free parking, or online. The consultants the Council hired expected resident parking to fall by 10 to 20% once the discount is cut, and fewer people parking means fewer customers for local traders. I would like the committee to ask whether traders have been consulted and to ask for the effect on them to be assessed before the charges take effect.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned that higher charges will send shoppers somewhere cheaper or free. Harrow Council’s website says you can park free for up to one hour once per day in its on-street bays and most of its council car parks, and many out-of-town shopping centres and retail parks offer free parking. Hillingdon’s free period is 30 minutes, and the cost of staying longer is going up by about 70% for residents. I would like the committee to ask whether the Council compared its charges with those of neighbouring boroughs and out-of-town centres, which shoppers can choose instead, and what it expects the effect on our local shops to be before the charges take effect.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I am concerned that higher parking charges will push drivers on to residential streets near the shops, adding to congestion and making access harder for residents and emergency vehicles. The Cabinet report on the parking charges contains no assessment of this, and I would like the committee to ask for one.

Suggested wording - edit if you wish:

I would like the committee to ask why the resident rate for parking on Mondial Way, Nobel Drive and Bath Road (between Colnebrook By-Pass and Longford Roundabout) rises by 125% in the Cabinet’s parking schedule, far more than anywhere else in it. The report gives no reason for this.