Embedded Files
Underhill South Experimental CPZ – Full Council Deputation
Is the Underhill South CPZ a proportionate, evidence-based and legitimate response to parking issues identified, and is Barnet’s CPZ policy robust enough to justify it?
Unlike boroughs that require resident agreement before design, Barnet proceeded despite an overall 85% opposition, with 61% opposed to it in the 16 included roads. Barnet lacks clear, published thresholds for when a scheme should be paused or redesigned based on such definitive rejection.
This decision was made under delegated officer authority, yet it fundamentally affects household finances, local businesses, accessibility and equality impacts - issues that demand full member-level oversight.
The 8:00 to 6:30, Monday to Saturday restrictions mirror the Hospital zone rather than the nearby Chipping Barnet Zone D, which is only for one hour, Monday to Friday. Barnet has provided no evidence justifying this. Parking surveys failed to track user types and their duration and timing patterns and because hospital staff permits are non-zonal, the council can’t prove specific commuter demand in Underhill.
Without this data, these restrictions appear to be arbitrary 'harmonisation' with the hospital zone, rather than a targeted and proportionate response required by the Road Traffic Regulation Act.
Low permit uptake and empty bays suggest overestimated demand, yet essential workers at Whitings Hill are denied access to this surplus space.
Including streets solely to prevent 'displacement' rather than addressing existing stress makes a 'one-size-fits-all' restriction disproportionate. And proposing CPZs because of displacement, risks a self-perpetuating cycle and circular logic where CPZ expansion creates the very displacement used to justify further zones.
New double yellow lines reduced capacity after the initial surveys. If unaccounted for, this change invalidates any direct comparison between pre- and post-CPZ parking stress.
Despite Underhill South’s poor transport access PTAL 1a–b rating (indicating high car dependency), this hasn't informed the scheme’s proportionality assessment. Furthermore, Barnet’s dated, generic 2018 Equality Impact Assessment fails to address local specifics like hospital proximity, school patterns, or digital exclusion impacts. There is no evidence that mitigation - such as School Streets or shorter restrictions - were considered.
Evidence suggests parents are now avoiding permit bays by stopping on corners, pavements and double yellow lines, creating new dangers for children.
The small Mays Lane parade now faces the borough’s highest restrictions and tariffs, a cashless only system and no free grace period. A petition with 1,500 Barnet signatures testifies to the strength of feeling and strain on these businesses.
As the Council seeks to recoup its £1 million parking deficit through an accelerated CPZ roll-out, residents - especially those in Underhill, it seems (2 Underhill Deputations in one meeting!) - deserve full transparency. Without defined success metrics, environmental assessments, or clear triggers for removal (or amendment), neither residents nor Members can see how Officers intend to evaluate the outcome of this ‘experiment’.
We call on the Council to establish clear standards for decision thresholds, engagement, and evidence.
Watch Council meeting deputation online from 23:00
Deputation details (see page 29) or
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse