Car parking fees proposed at Silchester Roman Wall

Hampshire County Council’s universal select committee debated on September 10 the introduction of parking fees at countryside parks due to the authority’s financial position, which has forecast a budget deficit of £175m for 2025/26.

The proposal is one of the 13 included in the savings proposals which aims to create £17.5m of savings through service cuts and the imposition of new charges.

READ MORE: Basingstoke's MP votes to cut winter fuel allowance for pensioners

The car parks in Silchester and Stockbridge (Image: Google Street View) One of the locations is Wall Lane car park in Silchester, which is at the entrance to Silchester Roman Wall. 

At the meeting, Councillor Kim Taylor expressed her concerns over the possible loss of visitors to countryside parks due to the fees.

Cllr Taylor said: “I would like to know whether we’re anticipating an impact on visitor numbers to these areas. I think people being able to visit areas at low cost is really quite important.”

She added that if the measure goes ahead, a review should be conducted to determine the consequences of decisions on “our residents’ ability to enjoy our areas”.

Director of universal services Patrick Blogg said he did not anticipate visitor numbers being hit hard since people across the country are already expecting to pay for parking.

Mr Blogg said: “It is now almost expected across the country, where people are paying for parking. So we wouldn’t anticipate a huge amount of impact from these numbers, but I’d also make the point that, in addition to the charges we’re looking to put in, we will be considering other things to improve that visitor experience.

“So part of what we’re looking at across the directory, particularly with the countryside service, is that point around a visitor experience and generating income to make it a good place to visit.”

Cllr Dominic Hiscock highlighted that one of the seven sites where the council is planning to introduce the charges has a “great reputation” for being insecure in terms of cars being broken into.

He asked if any amount of the income generated could be used to install CCTV cameras or other forms of enforcement for the security of the sites.

The director of universal services said that any security concerns that the council may have would be addressed, but at the moment, the income that could be generated would be spent on maintaining the wider countryside services as well as the seven sites.

Mr Blogg said: “At the moment, where we’re looking for the income generated for those sites, it would be around maintaining those sites, but also for the wider countryside services as well.

“If there were concerns for security in those sites, we would look at any measures to try and improve security, one of which may be CCTV. We would have to look quite carefully at the cost of that infrastructure, whether it is there or appropriate to use.

“Any security concerns that we would have generally, we would try to address as part of the management of that service in the management of the sites.”

The committee unanimously supported the recommendation to introduce the fees, although the council has not yet confirmed how much drivers would be charged. In the public consultation, it asked for feedback on how people would feel about a charge of £1.80 to £2.10 or £3 for a two-hour stay.

It was added that the county council would try to maintain fees similar to those charged by the borough and district councils.

Cabinet members will make the final decision on October 14.

These are the locations where fees are set to be rolled out:

A354 Martin Down, near Fordingbridge

Abbots Well Road, Frogham – Hyde Common, Near Fordingbridge

Crab Wood, Sarum Road, Winchester

Danebury Iron Age Hillfort (lower), near Stockbridge

Danebury Iron Age Hillfort (upper), near Stockbridge

Fort Nelson Overflow, near Portchester

Wall Lane, Silchester