A COUNCIL today admitted it had made a mistake by saying car parking charges in Burnley were set to rise by 50 per cent.
A typing error on a council agenda said a charge of £1 for two to four hours was to rise to £1.50.
But council bosses said today the figure should have said £1.20 but have refused to apologise after traders and shoppers thought they would be a hit with a huge increase.
Head of engineering for the council, David Wood, confirmed the error but said he would not comment on the matter until after tonight's meeting.
If plans for an increase at the executive committee of Burnley Borough Council are given the go-ahead, shoppers will be paying more for their parking in the new year.
Stops for an hour or less would not be affected, visits from one to two hours would rise from 80p to £1 and stops for four hours plus would remain at £4.
Plans to increase town centre parking in Burnley have met with opposition from traders. Shops and business in Standish Street, which are served by one of the car parks earmarked for the price hike, did not think much of the proposed plans.
Neil Hartley, president of the Burnley and District Chamber of Trade and also runs a men's clothing shop, said: "The council have no consideration over small retailers who rely on people being able to get into the town.
"Shoppers will just go elsewhere. We know they need the revenue, but they could get it elsewhere.
"This would only serve as a deterrent for people. If Burnley Borough Council are looking for increased revenue, I would ask them to consider other means."
Mr Hartley said that, to his knowledge, traders in Burnley have not been consulted by the council.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article