The announcement that £1.5 million of public funding will be used to provide free parking in Peterborough has sparked lively debate.
According to the BBC, the city’s mayor believes removing parking charges will encourage people back into the city centre, boost footfall and support local businesses.

On the surface, it sounds like a welcome gesture, particularly at a time when high streets across the UK are under pressure.
However, as with many well intentioned policies, the reality is more nuanced.

At Gemini Parking Solutions, we spend a lot of time looking at how parking policies affect communities, businesses and accessibility.
Free parking is often presented as a simple fix, but it raises important questions about fairness, safety and long term sustainability.

The appeal of free parking

It is easy to understand why free parking is popular. For drivers, it removes a visible cost at the point of use. For councils and town leaders, it feels like a direct way to attract visitors and compete with out of town retail parks.

For struggling high streets, anything that promises increased footfall can appear worthwhile.

We have previously explored this topic in our article, Should All Parking Be Free?, where we highlighted that free parking can feel inclusive and supportive in the short term. It can encourage longer stays and make town centres feel more welcoming to motorists who might otherwise choose to shop elsewhere.

But parking does not exist in isolation. It is part of a wider transport, access and public space system. When charges are removed without careful planning, unintended consequences often follow.

Who really pays for free parking?

One of the most important points often overlooked is that parking is never truly free. The costs of maintaining car parks, lighting, surface repairs, signage, enforcement, accessibility features and safety measures do not disappear when charges are removed. Instead, they are shifted.

In this case, they are borne by taxpayers. This means residents who may never use the city centre car parks, including those without cars, are contributing to the cost. As one local resident, J. Lowe, commented in response to the news, he feels excluded as someone living in a village with no reliable bus service. From his perspective, funding might be better spent improving public transport rather than subsidising parking for others.

This raises a fundamental question. Is this the most equitable use of public money, or could it unintentionally widen gaps between those who benefit and those who do not?

Safety, security and upkeep still matter

Car parks require active management to remain safe and accessible. When revenue disappears, there is a risk that maintenance and oversight suffer. Poor lighting, neglected surfaces and reduced monitoring can quickly change how safe a space feels, particularly for older people, families and those with mobility needs.

There is also the issue of misuse. Free parking can attract long stay parking by commuters or non visitors, filling spaces early in the day and leaving fewer bays available for those genuinely visiting local shops and services. This can frustrate businesses rather than support them.

At Gemini, we often see that controlled parking, when done ethically and clearly, actually improves access. It ensures spaces are available for those who need them and discourages behaviour that undermines the wider community.

The impact on businesses and local services

Many businesses rely on parking revenue, either directly or indirectly, to help fund clean, safe and well managed facilities. In private car parks, income from parking is often reinvested into lighting, resurfacing, security patrols and accessibility improvements.

Removing charges without an alternative funding model can place pressure on these standards. As highlighted in a Forbes article examining the high cost of free parking, the long term impacts can include reduced public space quality, increased congestion and higher environmental costs.

K. Jackson, another local commenter, suggested that investment in park and ride or improved bus services might offer a more balanced solution. This reflects a growing view that access to town centres should not rely solely on private car use.

Free parking versus accessible parking

There is an important distinction between free parking and accessible parking. Accessibility is about ensuring that people can reach essential services safely and conveniently, regardless of age, ability or income. That may involve short stay free parking, concessions for disabled users, or targeted support at specific times.

Blanket free parking does not always achieve this. Without controls, it can reduce availability for those who most need it and increase congestion, making town centres harder to navigate.

A collaborative approach, combining fair pricing, clear time limits, exemptions where appropriate and good public transport links, often delivers better outcomes for communities as a whole.

A balanced view

It is important to acknowledge the positive intentions behind Peterborough’s decision. Town leaders are under immense pressure to revitalise high streets and support local economies. Doing nothing is not an option, and experimentation can be valuable.

However, free parking should not be seen as a silver bullet. As our earlier article explored, parking policies work best when they are part of a broader strategy that prioritises safety, fairness and long term sustainability.

Well managed parking, whether free or paid, needs investment, oversight and clear communication. It needs to protect access for legitimate users and ensure spaces remain welcoming and secure.

Looking ahead

As this policy unfolds, it will be important to monitor its real world effects. Does it genuinely increase footfall for local businesses, or does it simply shift parking patterns? Are car parks remaining well maintained and safe? Are those without cars seeing benefits elsewhere in the transport system?

At Gemini Parking Solutions, we believe thoughtful parking management should always support communities first. That means looking beyond headline promises and considering who benefits, who pays and how spaces are used day to day.

We would encourage readers to revisit our earlier discussion on whether parking should be free and to reflect on what truly makes a town centre accessible and welcoming for all.

What do you think? Is free parking the right answer, or should the focus be on fair, well managed access that balances the needs of residents, businesses and visitors alike?