THE leader of Wiltshire Council says the new parking charges in Salisbury were brought in because no one representing the city disagreed with them.

Cllr Jane Scott said when the parking strategy for the county went out to consultation last year, area boards, the city council and City Centre Management (CCM) were asked for their opinions but no opposition was raised to scrapping one-hour parking in the city.

“The feedback we got was that everyone would prefer to have the two-hour parking,” she said.

“It went to cabinet and it went to full council and no one said anything there. It wasn’t until this was implemented that these issues came up.”

She pointed to a memo written by CCM chairman Ian Newman, in which he said the minimum two-hour charge of £2 – the figure then under discussion – would be “far better than having to face a 28 per cent hike across the board” and said the city council “verbally agreed”.

Mr Newman said that when he wrote the memo in question, he thought he was taking part in an informal exchange of views which had begun with the council suggesting an even higher two-hour charge, £3.20.

CCM says Wiltshire’s formal public consultation did not propose a minimum two-hour stay at all. He pointed out that, in September last year, CCM wrote to the council describing its parking strategy plans as “fundamentally flawed”, disagreeing with the plan to put Salisbury on its own in the highest charging band and warning it would harm businesses.

Cllr Scott said the city was put into its own band because it cannot be compared to small market towns such as Devizes or Trowbridge, where local people are going into the town centres just to go shopping, because Salisbury is a city and attracts many tourists and visitors.

She said 27 per cent of people in Salisbury – more than in any other Wiltshire town – don’t have a car and the council needs parking revenue to subsidise public transport.

To revise the new parking charges now, she said, would mean going out to consultation again, which would cost in the region of £50,000.

She added: “Suddenly changing from something we were asked to do needs careful consideration when you are talking about public money, but that does not mean we are not constantly watching the situation.”