cross-party CEC car park charges - parking charges recommenced on 15th June (3) (1)

Dear Editor,
Cheshire East Conservatives, together with cross-party colleagues, rejected proposals to consult on a standardised system of charging ‘zones’ across all the borough’s car parks.

Officers and Deputy Leader and Committee Chair, Cllr Craig Browne (Ind) claimed that the scheme was fairer, as towns where car parking is currently free, would now have to pay.

But it was later confirmed that an anticipated additional £1 million from car-parking income is already included in the council’s budget (MTFS) to fund other transport activities.

Councillors justifiably questioned the value of a public consultation on proposals where the anticipated, additional income is already included in the council’s budget.

The scheme would have imposed the same higher tier charges on many small town car parks as those in Crewe and Macclesfield town centres, with many others charged at a slightly lower rate.

Cllr Don Stockton (Con) stated “Standardisation is not the way forward …”, “Parking isn’t just about car parking charges, it’s about the vitality of towns”.

He went on to ask why the council had not continued with the Town Parking Review process that started with Wilmslow in 2019 – a view supported by Cllr Barry Burkhill (Ind).

Cllr Gage (Con) made it clear that he could not support a scheme that proposed a blanket rise across the borough, without ‘levelling down’ the highest fee structures already paid in Crewe and Nantwich.

But in an extraordinary statement, Crewe Cllr Hazel Faddes (Lab) stated that Crewe residents “are happy to pay” car park charges as they understood that car parks needed financing!

In a lengthy debate, members acknowledged that car park charging is necessary for maintenance, improvement and enforcement, but excessive price hikes would increase on-street parking.

They also questioned claims that standardised higher charges would increase Active Travel, ‘nudging’ residents to change their behaviour to walk and cycle – a claim justifiably challenged by Cllr Williams (LD) in the light of Cheshire East’s ageing population and rural geography and reinforced by Cllr Les Gilbert (Con) who stated that a “One size fits all (scheme) is not adequate”.

Throughout the meeting Cllrs Craig Browne (Ind) and Laura Crane (Lab), suggested a number of ‘friendly’ amendments in, at times, a chaotic attempt to make the proposals acceptable to committee members.

Conservative spokesperson Cllr Mike Sewart later stated: “Common sense has prevailed. Our members have pointed out the flaws in the proposed plans which are aimed to operate car parks at a higher profit to subsidise other council highways activities. Three ruling coalition members also recognised the faults in the proposals and also voted to reject the recommendations by 8 votes to 5.”

Any future strategy must take on board the critical issues highlighted in this debate.


Cllr Janet Clowes
Conservative Group Leader
Cheshire East Council


  1. The Observer says:

    I find it bizzare that councilors from none paying areas vote in rises on paying areas then say don’t charge us.

  2. Martin Bond says:

    The writer is correct in that cars in towns is about the vitality of towns,but then jumps to the wrong conclusions. Cars are deadly for good quality towns,lowering its attractiveness and discouraging visitors.
    When you visit a town what do you find most attractive,walking in peace, free to wander at will, browsing the shop windows, or coralled along a narrow pavement,constantly worrying about the safety of your children, to say nothing about your own safety.
    To put it another way, where do you prefer shopping in Nantwich – High Street and Pepper Street or Hospital Street and Beam Street.
    This is why I was so disappointed when our MP wrote to Nantwich News urging the reopening of the Church Walk car park, and the council unwisely followed his proposal. There are much better uses for this site than dumping lumps of metal on it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By using this form you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website, to learn more please read our privacy policy.


Captcha * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.