Revealed: consultation responses to new Harpenden parking fees

19 Jun 2025

The strength of opposition to plans to charge for on-street parking in Harpenden have been revealed as new figures show the fees are generating a huge income for SADC.

In ploughing ahead with the scheme, district councillors ignored overwhelming local opposition from residents and retailers alike.

Out of the 1,199 individual responses received during last year’s public consultation, 95 per cent were in opposition to SADC’s proposals, with the majority saying they feared a negative impact on local businesses.

But the actual comments on the consultation have remained unseen while council staff redacted personal information about respondents – until now.

Hundreds of pages of responses have now been published for the first time, and they paint a grim picture about SADC’s decision to ignore the weight of public opinion condemning the scheme.

We cannot publish these responses in full, but can offer a snapshot of what people thought about the initial proposals and the subsequent modifications.

Meanwhile, new figures released by SADC show the revenue generated by car parking charges in the town is far in excess of the income predictions included in the budget.

The total income received over the seven week period from February 17, when the charges were implemented, to the end of the financial year was £38,739 against expected income of £28,000 (£4,000 per week). In addition, a further £10,900 has been received from parking fines as of June 10.

The costs of purchasing and installing the pay and display machines was £38,304, with £12,930 spent on signage and £15,500 paid to consultants advising on the scheme.

Some of the comments made in the consultation include:

• “Attempting to meet the current council debt and the continuing calls on the public purse is a hard square to round but I believe the proposals being forwarded will will have a severe detrimental effect on Harpenden town centre if implemented.”
  
  

• “This appears to be a badly thought out proposal that is a money spinner for the council and will be the death of our High Street, which will then see less business rates, a worse high street and will actually see less money coming into the council, this needs a serious rethink.”
  
  

• “This proposal will fail to realise the benefits claimed. It is clearly a means to raise money and represents an unashamed attack on the motorist. any additional revenue required should be raised through council tax so that everybody has to pay their share.”
  
  
• “There is absolutely no impact assessment associated with the proposed changes! What impact on business rates collection when shops fold? What impact on the type of unique local shops available to residents if only big chains can afford to continue? What impact on the elderly…etc etc? Any decisions made could be considered to be negligent without an impact assessment if the proposed plans to charge for parking have a disastrous long term impact on the type of shops and services available in Harpenden and may ruin the community and town.”
  
  
• “However laudable it may be to encourage walking and cycling, I don’t think policy makers have thought over much about the people who have for decades popped down to the High Street without jeopardising the flow of traffic or overstated the permitted time periods. It is either about raising cash for the council, or a naive gesture about the environment. It is not community led, and does not support local business. Who exactly in Harpenden has asked for this change to be imposed on our town?”
  
  
• “At a time when everyone is financially struggling, and town centres and high streets are dying across the country, is it fair to impose another money grab on people which will no doubt result in less customers for local businesses and less foot traffic through town? The attack on motorists both practically and financially needs to stop. If council finances are not managed properly to the point they need to impose these new taxes on people then maybe look in-house at what can be improved with the ever-increasing council taxes and how they are spent.”
  
  
• “As a keen cyclist and walker, I am no supporter of our car-dependent culture. Indeed, I would like to see towns like Harpenden and St Albans liberated from the traffic that fills them everyday and makes them less pleasant places to be. However, even I am struggling to understand the thinking behind the parking proposals for Harpenden town centre.”
  
  
• “It is pity that local residents, welcome visitors and ultimately our retailers in the town are expected to foot the bill for council incompetence.”
  
  
• “In my opinion this is the single biggest issue affecting Harpenden at the moment, and at the next elections I will support ANY party who promises to revoke this situation.”
  
  
• “It is apparent that SADC are simply using the introduction of parking charges as a revenue raising opportunity to plug a hole in their finances, which is wholly due to their incompetence and poor financial management. The council leader, Paul de Kort, has been quoted in the local press as saying this is purely a revenue raising measure and that it is definitely going ahead, which makes the consultation process a shameful sham.”
  
  

• “This proposal will deter people from going to Harpenden and damage local businesses. It is pure insanity to even contemplate such a moronic policy.”
  
  
• “When I chose to move to Harpenden, the high street was a huge factor, and with two small children – it is now key to our sense of belonging. To have no free parking will be a travesty. I will no longer have any reason to use the high street for ad hoc items, rather I will go to Luton retail parks which are free.
  
  
• “Indeed, this is particularly discriminatory to the large population of people with young children or those in their older years, whereby walking to and from town with bags of shopping just isn’t realistic. You will isolate these vulnerable people and take away our independence and sense of community. I feel utterly let down by this proposal and will be gutted to see us lose even more businesses as a result. You will be ruining a wonderful hub and town, and making us all feel unwelcome in the process.”
  
  
• “I find this a wholly discriminatory approach to the council’s financial situation, putting it on the residents of Harpenden to suffer and not looking at whatever root cause it is that has put them in a position where they are desperate to raise funds.”
  
  
• “The environmental aims of the scheme are laudable but you can hardly expect most octogenarians to ride a bicycle and carry the weekly shopping up the hill home!”
  
  
• “You forget, this is our town, councillors should be doing what we want and want is best for us, not abusing us to fill your depleted coffers.”
  
  
• “In what way does this proposal support a ‘vibrant High Street’ and ‘thriving businesses’ both of which the council claim are their objectives?”
  
  

• “If this proposal goes through, the Liberal Democrats will be marked as failing to protect Harpenden’s unique high street, decreasing the quality of living in the town and inconveniencing its residents. Harpenden is not an instinctive Lib Dem area. They have lent you their vote due to their abhorrence at the last 8 years of the Conservative government. You now have the opportunity to prove you can act in Harpenden’s best interest and increase the quality of life here, if you fail in this act by imposing these charges, I predict your political tenures will be very short lived and the Lib Dem council will be blamed.”
  
  

Of the hundreds of responses received, only a handful agreed with the plans, the rest being firmly opposed to them.

Some of them also pointed to failings in SADC’s consulation process.

• “Many customers are saying the consultation site wasn’t working or they couldn’t work out how to respond. Part of your analysis should be to look at how many aborted attempts there were, as the strength of response will have been diluted by this very complicated and glitchy system. And secondly, once again the consultation was conducted online, thereby excluding anyone who isn’t comfortable with technology which is discriminatory to those more vulnerable in society.”
  
  
• “It appears this website form has been designed to be extremely unaccessible for completing which in itself is extremely disingenuous and it appears to be strategically designed to minimise the number of objections raised.”
  
  We showed the responses to Elaine Bradford, a local businesswoman who has been leading the campaign against the charges.
  
  She said: “It is clear that [SADC leader Cllr] Paul de Kort and [lead on parking Cllr] Helen Campbell have been derelict in their duty to the people who elected them, and they have to go. I am calling for them to resign with immediate effect for what is clearly duplicitous and unacceptable behaviour in a public office with no regard for the electorate they serve.
  
  “They have bullied their way into having this decision imposed on Harpenden, and have continually gaslit anyone who stands up to them, shooting down clear evidence this is not working and ignoring all the objections and warnings that were very clearly and articulately laid out for them in the consultation process.”
  
  Turning to the revenue made from the scheme, she highlighted how the figures were from the initial teething period when the town was empty, so were probably much higher now.
  
  She added: “The council must be congratulating themselves on finding Harpenden to be the ATM they needed, but my question will remain – at what cost to local independent business, the vulnerable and the town in general.
  
  “We have 50 businesses trying to get the council’s ear to explain the devastating effects on the independent businesses in the town and currently being ignored, we have older people and young mums isolated because they either don’t understand how to use the new system, or can’t afford to use it. The town has lost its buzz with even charity shops suffering from lower sales and donations.
  
  “I hope now they will be able to lend themselves to listening to those that are struggling as a result of the changes to the parking charges.
  
  “I have been writing to the council since April to try and failing to secure a meeting for those businesses whose revenue has been directly hit by these charges, with a lot of hospitality businesses having their day time trade all but wiped out. These are independent businesses whose families depend on these businesses to succeed, but the council has been unwilling to meet with us to hear how the charges are negatively impacting trade.
  
  “I hope they will also consider returning to the one hour free parking, with a smaller parking charge for the second hour so that it can open the town up again.”
  
  Addressing last week’s meeting of SADC’s public realm committee, Cllr Ed Moore said: “Even in the early stage of the scheme we’re running at 38 per cent more income than we were anticipating… so can the price per hour and the length of free time allowed in the scheme be revisited to bring the numbers more in line to each other?
  
  “If we don’t do if we do not do this we may give the impression that Harpenden is subsidising the rest of the district for parking on the street given Harpenden High Street alone will be bringing in as much income as the rest of the district combined.”
  
  Assistant director Robin Ray responded to address the issue of excessive income being generated.
  
  “I suppose the most important factor here is this isn’t a financial scheme. The Statement Of Reasons [for the fees] sets out why we’re doing it and it isn’t to generate a load of income that we can squirrel away somewhere else…
  
  “The second thing is that we review our parking fees at all times. Harpenden has a more generous tariff than the rest of the distrct already than the rest of the district with the 30 minute free period which doesn’t exist in other pay-and-display streets…
  
  “We’d need to consider any modifications as to whether it still would meet [the Statement of Reasons] or whether it’d undermine them in some way, but yes, we’ll look at it.”
  Following the meeting, Conservative group leader Cllr Matt Cowley offered his own thoughts on the consultation responses and the revenue generated from the charges.
  
  He told the St Albans Times: “It has never been clearer that this scheme is bad for Harpenden. The consultation responses are stark reading. It is clear that the district council pushed ahead with a project that Harpenden residents did not want and which they were warned would damage our High Street.
  
  “And the new parking figures make that picture even clearer. Despite the frightening reduction in footfall on our High Street, the parking scheme is bringing in revenue well above the budgeted figure. That means the council’s original modelling for our High Street involved even fewer people spending time in our shops and with their friends and family on our High Street.
  
  “It is just not right that Harpenden residents and businesses should have to pay the price to subsidise the Liberal Democrats’ mismanagement of our council. Paying to subsidise a parking department that managed to make a loss employing people to issue fines. It must end. We must restore some common sense.
  
  “The local Conservative Group on the district council will continue to fight for a better, more pragmatic solution where residents don’t have to pay the price for a failing council.”
  
  
  You can see the full responses to the original consultation and the amendments here:
  https://www.stalbans.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Appendix%201%20-%20Responses%20-%20Harpenden%20(002).pdf
  
  https://www.stalbans.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Appendix%203%20-%20%20Modification%20Responses_.pdf