Response to consultation - June 2026

Introduction

The Underhill Residents Group wishes to make the following representation in relation to the Underhill South Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).  This should be considered alongside all other correspondence sent during the consultation period.  We are an unconstituted grouping concerned with the interests of residents of the Underhill area of Barnet.

Together with the Quinta Village Green Residents Association, we made a deputation to Full Council in March 2026.

We note that the key result of the original Underhill South CPZ engagement was that 85% of respondents opposed a CPZ and more than 70% said that they had no parking issues.

Legislative background

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984), specifically sections 45 to 55, establishes the precise legislative framework governing the implementation and management of CPZs. While local authorities possess discretionary powers to regulate parking, these powers must be exercised strictly within the boundaries set by Parliament and clarified by the courts.

Under Section 122 of the RTRA 1984, the Council is bound by a statutory duty to "secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic" and to provide "suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway." While Section 122 allows the Council to consider the effect of traffic on local amenities and the environment, it does not grant an unfettered mandate to use parking controls as a primary mechanism for broader social engineering or economic deterrence. The implementation of a CPZ must be fundamentally justified by demonstrably clear traffic management or parking pressure requirements within the specific locality, rather than being deployed as a blanket tool to advance external policy objectives, such as car ownership reduction.

Furthermore, the financial mechanisms of a CPZ are strictly restricted. Section 55 of the Act explicitly dictates how any surplus revenue generated from parking charges must be allocated, confining expenditure to specific transport-related purposes such as highway maintenance or public concessionary travel.

The boundaries of these powers have been firmly established through landmark judicial precedents:

Attfield v. London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin): The High Court explicitly ruled that the RTRA 1984 is not a revenue-earning statute. A local authority acts unlawfully if it intentionally sets or increases parking charges with the primary purpose of generating a financial surplus, even if that surplus is earmarked for permitted transport projects under Section 55. Parking schemes must be designed to manage parking, not to generate income to balance wider corporate or environmental budgets.

Porter v. Magill [2002] 2 AC 357: This House of Lords judgment reinforces the administrative law principle that public authorities must exercise their statutory powers solely for the specific public purposes for which Parliament originally conferred them. Using parking restrictions as an indirect punitive measure to deter vehicle ownership, in the absence of acute localised parking stress, would constitute an improper use of statutory power.

A CPZ may be deemed unlawful if the Council fails to follow proper procedural requirements or if the restrictions imposed are unreasonable and disproportionate.

The Council is under a strict obligation to conduct fair, transparent and meaningful consultations with residents and local stakeholders before implementing a CPZ. If the consultation process is misleading, fails to provide adequate information, or predetermines the outcome based on pre-existing environmental strategies rather than local feedback, the decision-making process is legally flawed. Furthermore, clear and unambiguous signage is a mandatory requirement for enforcement; inadequate signage renders the restrictions legally unenforceable.

The Council's standard parking charges and permit fees must be reasonable and justified by the administrative and operational costs of managing local parking. As established in the Attfield ruling against Barnet Council, disproportionate increases designed to penalise motorists or subsidise other activities fail the test of lawfulness.

The Council must demonstrate that it has fully assessed the discriminatory impact of the restrictions on vulnerable groups, such as low-income households, those with limited mobility and residents reliant on essential visitors, to ensure the measures are truly proportionate.

Where the Council fails to balance its environmental aspirations with its primary statutory duties under the RTRA 1984, residents and campaign groups retain the right to challenge the validity of the CPZ through a Judicial Review in the High Court. Public authorities must act lawfully, rationally and proportionately; a failure to do so leaves the resulting traffic orders vulnerable to being overturned.

Assessing the Underhill South CPZ

We are aware of more than 30 parking consultations in the London Borough of Barnet since 2019.

By the Council's own criteria, the Underhill South Controlled Parking Zone cannot be viewed as a success:

avoid a piecemeal approach (kicking the issue to the next street)

The Underhill South Controlled Parking Zone has been piecemeal and kicks the issue to Mays Lane and numerous roads in the vicinity.  Residents in these areas have expressed concern that the Council will use this as an excuse to further expand the zone.  This would correspond with the senior officer’s expressed ambition to have controlled parking zones in built up areas across the borough.

address anticipated displacement proactively

There has been nothing observably proactive about the Council’s anticipation of displacement.  The Council appears, on the contrary, to actively create displacement as this creates a reason to propose more zones.

address safety concerns such as sightline issues

It has been highlighted that sightline issues have worsened, especially around the primary school, where little thought has been given to how things work in the real world.

be as simple as possible and harmonised – intuitive

On this, the Council may have on the face of it seemed to have succeeded, but it has created a ‘neat’ area at the expense of residents who have no need to be within the zone.  The Council seems to have exploited issues in one or two roads and, rather than finding pragmatic solutions for these areas, have imposed a one-size-fits-all approach.

The Council is creating more problems than it is resolving within the zone and around its boundaries.  This seems to be in line with seeking expansion of controlled parking zones and creating new ones even where they are not wanted.

Council officers have not evidenced ‘complaints and petitions received’ from Ward Members or local businesses.  This is clearly generic text and we know this to be an officer-led exercise.

On an informal count of available parking spaces on Wednesday 30 July 2025 between 5.30-6.30pm, 19 were found on Stanhope Road and 3 on Chesterfield Road.

We believe that the timing of the Underhill South Controlled Parking Zone is more for operational convenience than for local need or preference.  However, because the Council has not properly identified the specific nature of parking issues, it keeps referring to a catch-all which it claims necessitates the current hours, despite evidence to the contrary.  Indeed, this is one of the areas where the Council has already over-ruled the input provided to the parking engagement, where more than half preferred less restrictive hours.

Because the Council is not acting in a joined-up way, it claims that parking controls could ‘help promote use of sustainable travel modes’ but makes no commitment whatsoever to influence the improvement of local public transport links, which are poor, according to PTAL ratings.

The Officer Decision report made a recommendation that a new CPZ called Underhill South (US) be introduced in 16 of the 41 roads engaged with, based on what the officer says are the:

a) outcome of the informal parking engagement.

b) results of the parking stress surveys.

c) the multi criteria analysis results.

d) the benefits of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

e) the opportunity of using the experimental TMO to co-design in the live environment and conduct enhanced consultations with the public as a result; and

f) the councils’ commitment to further influence a shift towards less polluting modes of transport in Barnet with the wider objective of improving air quality.

There are a number of issues with the parking stress surveys.  The number of counted spaces in some roads appear to be inaccurate and the methodology for calculating these is not explicitly clear.  We would invite the Council to recount the number of enforceable spaces in Greenland Road and Howard Way, for example.  Furthermore, in roads with few counted spaces, the parking stress is always going to be exaggerated. 

Council engagement with stakeholders

Because the Council failed to engage properly with a housing association with stock in the area, the provider sent letters to residents living in roads where the Council clearly couldn’t enforce parking.  

It is understood that the housing manager at this housing association was only made aware of the enforcement when residents contacted them.  That implies that the Council didn’t recognise them as a stakeholder.  Indeed, in a subsequent freedom of information response, the Council only referred to “the Barnet Homes Group, which includes any housing associations that fall within their remit” and seemingly failed to recognise housing associations that did not come under the Barnet Homes umbrella.

The Council’s engagement with Whitings School was similarly sub-optimal and appears to have been no more than a tick box exercise.  The school has expressed concern about wider policy, design, mitigation and equality issues arising from the experimental CPZ and associated parking decisions.

In the officer decision report, the Council acknowledged meetings held with the Quinta Village Green Residents Association and Underhill Residents Group and claimed that questions had been answered.  The experience of this and responses to freedom of information requests broadly is that the Council often make circular arguments, referring back to the same documents which have catch-all approaches, such as the type of parking being addressed.  These meetings being held should not be mistaken for consensus achieved or indeed agreement to the measures imposed.

Complaint reference IC-480847-F9G0 was lodged with the Information Commissioner's Office in February 2026 with supporting information about Barnet Council’s handling of requests for information.  This relates to dissatisfaction with the Council’s handling of requests and subsequent internal reviews, which we believe reveals a pattern of incomplete, evasive and inconsistent responses that undermine the presumption in favour of disclosure required by the Environmental Information Regulations.

CPZ rationale and approach

The Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) is presented in a complex way with little explanation.  The Council says that MCA scores are not used to determine if it will proceed with CPZ proposals or not.  The Council has failed to provide any examples of where an MCA score was low, or indeed to provide such data in ascending order.  Even if the MCA data is methodologically sound, it is contextually limited.

The ‘benefits’ of a CPZ are a subjective matter and there are numerous disadvantages, including increased social isolation, which have either not been fully considered or been dismissed as likely to have a ‘small’ impact.

The Council claimed, without providing any evidence, that:

“Although there may be a small impact on elderly residents as a result of the introduction of controlled parking zone, the benefits of being able to buy the permits on offer as well as expected easing in parking pressure will go a long way to address any negative impacts.”

We do not believe that this is the experience for the elderly resident, an ex-NHS nurse, who relies on regular visitors for care and assistance and now has no reliable place to park her own vehicle.  Or the 88-year-old lady living in the area on her own whose daughter is concerned that she will get fewer visits now.  In her own words, the zone is 'expensive', 'unnecessary' and 'alienating'.  Another person says that they are being priced out of visiting elderly relatives. 

We would also like to know what the Council would tell the individual awaiting their disabled badge with three chronic health conditions.  Or the single parent of three children already navigating significant financial pressures.

Officers are encouraged to share details of such cases with our ward councillors so that they can consider what support such individuals may require and assess for themselves how ‘small’ the impact is.

The Council appears to rely on a highly generic and not especially up-to-date equality impact assessment that is not tailored to individual circumstances.  We understand that a complaint was made about there being no designated spaces for staff, partners and visitors to the Hope Corner community centre (not even disabled spaces) in the nearby Chipping Barnet Zone D.

There is nothing further from co-design that has been forced on people in the area.  This is not the definition of co-design. Co-design is a collaborative process where stakeholders, such as end-users, community members, and professionals, work as equal partners to create or improve products, services, or policies.

The Council has no baseline data for air quality in the Underhill South Controlled Parking Zone area and is completely disjoined from TfL’s services, making no commitments whatsoever to improve on the connectivity of the area. 

The climate emergency claims are a red herring.  Barnet Council’s own Transport Decarbonisation study showed that 71% of transport emissions are from 'through' journeys which neither start nor end in Barnet. Most use the major roads passing through the borough.  The Council can provide no direct evidence that CPZs in the borough improve air quality.  An internal review by the Council confirms this.  Because the Council has no baseline air quality data for the Underhill South area, it therefore cannot rationally monitor or prove that the CPZ achieves its stated environmental objectives under Section 122 of the RTRA.

Claims made about ‘unsafe parking’ in the officer decision are unsubstantiated and there is no evidence that the zone will have improved this.

Claims that ’24 residents’ have ‘raised concerns’ mean that the views of 50 opposing the scheme have been dismissed.  Roads that have had no parking issues have been sucked in due only to proximity to others.  Only 35% of residents in the zone approved the measure.

Implementing local parking restrictions that penalise parked resident vehicles is therefore an irrational and disproportionate response.

We have observed that a clear majority of parking spaces in the area now appear to be unused.  This casts doubt on the claims by officers about demand from residents for parking.  It is also now a huge waste of available parking space.

The Council unfairly excluded responses received from those outside the immediate area.  It should be stressed that there are no clear criteria or principles expressed in the Council's engagements and consultations and such a failure could lead to a loss of public confidence in the process.  This is especially important in light of the Council’s claim that it is seeking to avoid passing problems to the next street.  The Council seems to have been inconsistent in terms of where responses to the engagement were considered invalid.

On the one hand the Council says that during informal parking engagements they ask whether a respondent is a resident or business etc. but don't request the details.  On the other, the Council is saying that it excludes responses where clarification of identity cannot be confirmed.  The Council has insisted that it doesn't know the identity of businesses that have requested parking controls.  The terms of reference for the consultation do not appear to be outwardly transparent.  Documents laying out the underlying principles for the Council's approach to consultation and engagement, including what leads to responses not being considered, should be provided.

The Council has claimed both of the following:

“…during informal parking engagements we ask whether the responder is a resident / business / place worship / school etc. Highways do not ask for the name of the business as part of this process. The businesses name/address details are not requested and are therefore not held.”

and

"It is standard practice for local authorities to exclude responses from informal parking engagements, where clarification of their identity cannot be confirmed. Due to the fact the response the council received did not identify the respondent as a representative of the church it was therefore eliminated"

Without understanding underlying principles for the Council's approach to consultation and engagement, including what leads to responses not being considered, people might think that the Council makes it up as it goes along.  We believe that this is a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The Council's continued insistence that businesses have requested parking controls comes across as absurd.  The Council has relied on the outcome of an engagement for claims made in a letter sent at its start.  The Council may not have found any maladministration, but the information provided is incredibly vague and somewhat ridiculous.  The only indication that it has given for the claim about businesses made in the 7 July 2025 letter is relating to information supposedly gathered during the engagement which ended on 28 July 2025, so after the letter was sent.  This strongly indicates a predetermined outcome, which is a legally recognised ground to overturn a public consultation.

Complaint reference IC-503399-D9W9 was accepted by the Information Commissioner’s Office in April 2026 and relates to the Council's insistence in freedom of information responses that businesses have requested parking controls.

Barnet Hospital

The Council says that it has discussed what it describes as 'residents’ parking concerns regarding staff/visitors to the hospital parking in residential streets with representatives from Barnet Hospital', but it cannot point to notes of meetings held.

It is understood that the hospital is planning for fallow land usage (initial estimate now around 100 spaces), an increase in spaces in the current patient parking areas (initial estimate is 50-70) and, longer term, for a multi-storey car park.  However, it is not currently clear how much this would cost and how it would be funded.

We call on the Council to fully document future meetings held with the hospital and for a more constructive approach to be taken, involving councillors and Member of Parliament where appropriate.

Remedies sought

We call for the following:

·         Immediate suspension of the experimental CPZ pending a transparent, independent review

·         Clarification on the specific nature of parking issue that the Council believes that it is addressing

·         The publication of formal criteria outlining how consultation responses are validated or excluded

·         Full justification for over-riding existing engagement feedback regarding hours of zone

·         The documenting of meetings with stakeholders, including Barnet Hospital

Conclusion

There is a clear democratic deficit in terms of how decisions are made about controlled parking zones in the London Borough of Barnet.  There has been very little scrutiny on them in the last few years. The imposition of the these and road alterations in Underhill stems from the Improving Barnet’s Roads additional investment and action plan from the Cabinet meeting on 18 July 2023, which states:

“That authority be delegated to the Director of Highways and Transportation, in consultation with the (Cabinet Member) Portfolio Lead for Environment and Climate Change, to sign off the additional programme of schemes for implementation on the highway network, commencing with the programme for the 2023/24 financial year.”

“That authority be delegated to the Director of Highways and Transportation, in consultation with the (Cabinet Member) Portfolio Lead for Environment and Climate Change, to alter the programme as necessary to ensure the efficient delivery of schemes across the network.”

This means that consultations will be considered, but any scheme can be signed off by the Highways Director and Cabinet Member. This practice allows the Council to effectively ignore the outcome of a consultation or pay lip-service to it.

Delegating unchecked power to a single Director and Cabinet Member to sign off or alter schemes creates a system where local public consultation is reduced to a rubber-stamping exercise, undermining the statutory intent of consultation requirements.