Sudbury Town Council demands clarity on new parking charges and potential exemptions from Babergh leadership

A decision has been made, but the debate rumbles on – as town councillors demand clarity on new parking charges in Sudbury, and their impact locally.

Sudbury Town Council aired its frustrations this month at the decision by Babergh District Council’s cabinet to cut free parking and introduce new tariffs from 2025 – despite heavy opposition.

The changes at council-owned car parks in Sudbury, Hadleigh and Lavenham aim to help address the district’s £6.7 million budget gap over the next four years.

Approved in August, they include a new £1 fee for one hour in a short-stay car park, and two hours in long-stay, with an extra 50 pence charged for each extra hour.

But town councillors are now calling on Babergh’s leadership to attend their next full council meeting at Sudbury Town Hall in October, to fully explain the changes and the effect on certain users.

In particular, they want clarity on arrangements for parents dropping children off at schools, patients attending medical appointments, leisure facility users, and residents of the town centre.

Additionally, the town council also agreed to work with the Sudbury Chamber of Commerce and Great Cornard Parish Council to survey businesses and gauge how they are impacted by the charges.

In response, Babergh District Council says it has already offered to work with town and parish authorities to resolve local issues.

A spokesperson added that last month’s decision included a commitment to monitor footfall and high street properties in an attempt to collect data that will inform future parking fee reviews.

At this month’s full Sudbury Town Council meeting, Peter Beer expressed his anger that the final decision was made by Babergh’s cabinet, rather than allowing all district councillors a vote.

“They’re so adamant in bringing this in and they are convinced this will not have an effect on the traders of Sudbury,” he said. “What planet are they on?

“The members of the district council did not have a vote on this. As far as I’m concerned, at every opportunity I get, I will oppose this.

“Footfall will decrease. Any member who thinks it won’t is in cloud cuckoo land.”

Other councillors indicated that, because the decision has already been made, the focus should now be on supporting those most affected by the changes.

As a result, they urged Babergh District Council to clarify who might receive exemptions, and how they will secure them.

Nigel Bennett said: “For us, the decision is made. It’s about, what’s the impact, and then supplying that evidence.

“I want to know what the progress is with exemptions; what would be the charge for parents parking and walking their children to school, and also people going to medical facilities?

“Also, for the Kingfisher Leisure Centre, I assume there will be an exemption for people using the facility. Will the same apply to Roy’s?”

But Melanie Barrett suggested that, by introducing parking charges but having to allow for exemptions, this would “end up with the worst of both worlds”.

“We will have charges in place, but the cost of implementing exemptions will eat up any money they do manage to raise from this scheme,” she said.

“We will have an increased workforce administering that, but we won’t have free parking, so we will lose that vital, unique selling point that Sudbury has.”

Babergh District Council stated it is acting on feedback from local councils, but claimed some were more willing to engage than others.

A spokesperson confirmed that all charges and exemptions will be clearly communicated ahead of their implementation in the new year.

Plans include refund schemes at the Kingfisher Leisure Centre, Hadleigh Pool & Leisure and Lavenham Village Hall, and a possible refund tariff for shoppers at Roy’s in Sudbury.

The district council is also working on virtual permits for visitors to Hadleigh Medical Centre and Lavenham Surgery, as well as permits for drop-offs and collections at two Hadleigh schools.

Deborah Saw, leader of Babergh District Council, said: “We have been open and honest throughout about the challenges we face and how we can no longer afford to subsidise free parking.

“We have been willing and eager to listen to viable alternatives, and have sought extensive feedback.

“Some councils have chosen to engage with us more than others, but every option has been considered, every recommendation actioned, and every step published for transparency.

“There is nothing to now be gained by reopening public debate over a difficult, but democratically-made, decision.”