Legislative framework

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984), particularly sections 45-55, provides a clear legislative framework governing the implementation of CPZs. The legislation stipulates that parking controls must be introduced specifically to manage parking and traffic issues, not to further broader policy goals unrelated to parking management. 

Under Section 55 of the Act, any surplus revenue generated from CPZs must be allocated exclusively to specific transport-related purposes. Furthermore, Section 122 imposes a duty on the Council to ensure that traffic regulation measures are designed to secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of traffic. 

The Council cannot misapply the purpose of CPZs by using them to implement broader environmental policies and reduce car dependency rather than to address specific, demonstrable parking problems. The misapplication of statutory powers aligns with the legal principles established in Attfield v. Barnet [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin), where the court ruled that parking charges cannot be used to generate revenue for purposes unrelated to parking management. Additionally, Porter v. Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 reinforces the requirement that councils must exercise their statutory powers solely for the specific public purposes for which they were conferred.

We believe that this 2025 consultation policy is the most up-to-date relevant policy document from Barnet Council.  We have also located this question and answer document, this from 2011 on parking standards and this 10-year-old policy document, which we understand is replaced by the 2025 one.  This is the council's engagement toolkit.

A CPZ can be applied unlawfully if the relevant legal procedures and consultation requirements are not followed, or if the restrictions imposed are deemed unreasonable or disproportionate. Residents and campaign groups have challenged CPZs in the past, citing issues with transparency, fairness, and the use of parking revenue. 

Potential issues can include:

1. Failure to follow proper procedures: Authorities are required to consult with residents and stakeholders before implementing a CPZ. If this consultation is inadequate or misleading, the CPZ can be challenged. Clear and unambiguous signage is crucial for the proper enforcement of a CPZ. If signs are unclear, confusing, or missing, it can render the CPZ unenforceable. Councils must use the correct legal powers when implementing CPZs. For example, using Section 106 agreements to restrict parking permits in a CPZ has been deemed unlawful in some cases. In the case of Barnet Council, the council was found to have unlawfully increased parking charges to fund other transport projects, rather than for managing parking. 

2. Unreasonable restrictions: Parking charges within a CPZ must be reasonable. Barnet Council was criticised for increasing charges to disproportionately fund other services. CPZs can disproportionately affect certain residents, especially those with limited mobility or those who rely on visitors. 

There are a number of examples of challenges by residents. Residents can challenge a CPZ through a judicial review, which is a legal process to review the lawfulness of a decision made by a public body. Organized groups, like Say No! to the CPZ, have successfully challenged CPZ proposals by highlighting potential legal issues and organising opposition. In the context of Barnet, Barnet Council's CPZ charges were deemed unlawful in a landmark High Court ruling, highlighting the potential for legal challenges to CPZ implementation and management. 

The Local Government Lawyer website reported on Barnet Council's previous legal battle over CPZ charges. 

While CPZs are implemented to manage traffic and parking, they must be implemented lawfully and reasonably. Failure to do so can lead to legal challenges and the overturning of the CPZ or its restrictions.