This meeting of the Environment and Place Scrutiny Sub-Committee will centre around a decision made by Councillor Lauren Townsend, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Customer Experience, to alter parking charges in Central Milton Keynes. The Sub-Committee will decide whether to refer the decision back to the Cabinet or to take it to the full council.

Parking Charges

A decision was made on 26 November 2024 by Councillor Townsend to increase parking charges in Central Milton Keynes. The decision has been called in for scrutiny by Councillors Muzammil and Geary.

The report prepared for the 26 November meeting proposed that the two-hour minimum stay in standard tariff parking bays be increased from £1 to £2, that the one-hour minimum stay in premium tariff bays be increased from £2 to £2.50, and that employee parking permits be increased from £2.80 to £3 per day. The report also proposed the scrapping of the Car Share Permit and the introduction of a new yearly parking pass costing £675 for use in standard tariff bays by employees and residents of Central Milton Keynes. The report argues that these changes are necessary to:

Better align the cost of parking to the cost of the bus travel. This is to attempt to shift journeys by them becoming more attractive on public transport.

and that:

additional surplus created will be required to be applied in accordance with Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The report provides a breakdown of parking charges in nearby areas in support of the argument that the proposed charges would be competitive. It claims that:

For most journeys in Milton Keynes the bus fare to the city centre is £2.00 for a single trip, and soon to be £3.00 per single trip.

The report also includes an annex containing a letter of support from Peter Hardy, Chair of the Milton Keynes Bus Partnership.

Finally, the report provides a financial breakdown of the implications of the proposed increases, suggesting that they will generate between £3m and £3.5m of additional surplus.

Councillors Muzammil and Geary object to the decision, arguing that it:

has been poorly thought through, with impacts both intended and unintended not properly assessed, and hence, risk unintended consequences.