Message to Cabinet Member

6 November 2025

We have today written to Barnet Council Cabinet Member Alan Schneiderman:

"In relation to the Underhill South CPZ, we are outraged that you have allowed officers to act in a way that completely ignores resident feedback on multiple fronts.  The lip service paid to residents in consultation is palpable and we do not believe that the response is legitimate.

We understand that the Environment and Climate Change Committee was terminated after the Cabinet system was created in May 2023 and that now all responsibility rests with yourself.  We are led to understand that scrutiny of what you do is virtually non-existent.

It is our understanding that area committees have been terminated, apparently to save money, stopping any local engagement and discussion of local issues.  Even so, you appear to have found a spare £85K to force a controlled parking zone on an area where, even in the roads selected, more than 60% said they didn't want it.

When was the consensus principle abandoned?

You are operating in an opaque environment that lacks transparency and accountability and does not command widespread support.  Almost 750 people have signed our online petition against the zone and whether or not you respond, we will update them accordingly. It will therefore become less easy to ignore us."

UPDATE - 23 December 2025

The following is extracted from the response received from Cllr. Schneiderman:

"I know that ward councillors and senior council officers have been regularly engaging with residents regarding the CPZ proposals and that there have also been face to face meetings to discuss the concerns that have been raised.

As you are aware, the council has switched from a committee system to a Cabinet system. Policy decisions that would have been made by the Environment and Climate Change Committee are now taken at Cabinet meetings (made up of all of the council's Cabinet members). This change was primarily made to enable quicker and more joined-up decision making as many issues cut across different areas of the council. It is possible for members of the public to ask questions and make comments at every Cabinet meeting, in addition to the online cabinet question time events that have been held.

Although the policy for CPZs is set by Cabinet, the implementation of specific proposals, such as Underhill South are signed off by the council's Director of Highways and Transportation in line with council policy and the delegation of decision making set out in the council's constitution.  However, these decisions are made after consultation with residents and ward members - and I have discussed the Underhill proposals with officers to ensure that this has happened.

It is always very difficult to get a consensus on CPZ proposals. These often originate from  resident requests to deal with parking problems, but also include a data led multi-criteria analysis (MCA) study which takes into account a range of factors, including vehicle ownership, on-street parking demand, capacity and occupancy as well as accident data and a review of why people may be parking in the area. The result of the MCA study indicated Underhill South as being a high priority for introducing a CPZ. 

As you know, as a result of consultation with residents, the number of roads in the proposed zone was reduced to focus on those where there is the most parking stress. However, this is not the end of the consultation period as the CPZ is being introduced using an experimental traffic order. This means that the first 6 months of its operation count as a formal consultation period and a decision will then be made on whether or not to make the zone permanent and whether to make any amendments."

Our response - 8 January

Thanks for responding, albeit more than three months after the original communication.  You say that ward councillors and officers have been 'engaging', but it is clear from what ward councillors tell us that it is the officers who call the shots with little regard to the feedback they receive.  It seems as though our MP Dan Tomlinson has engaged on the issue and he seems more focused on the optics electorally.

The headline outcome of the informal parking engagement in the original configuration was that 85% of residents opposed the proposal and more than 70% reported no parking problems.  This shows that whatever parking stress results are reported, the proposed solution is not what residents wanted.  Even in the area selected, only 35% approved of the proposal.  That is certainly not consensus for the measure.

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 like the M1 (responsible for 14% of emissions by itself) managed by National Highways; the A1, A41 and A406 run by Transport for London and major roads like the A5 and A1000 managed by the Council.  We have now had confirmation that officers can provide no direct evidence that CPZs in the borough improve air quality and cannot point to any academic or commissioned study of the impact on reducing pollution or other environmental benefits. It is therefore incongruent that the Council puts focus on its self-declared climate emergency, especially in a suburban area that does not host the major roads.  It is not a convincing argument that this measure would influence a shift towards less polluting modes of transport in Barnet.  Indeed, it seems ironic and counter to the Council’s approach that it’s the busier roads where people generally don’t park that are likely to be the most polluting.

In the same vein, it is unclear why Underhill should be such a high priority for introducing a CPZ.  Where is the comparison data? Did the MCA cover all of Barnet to determine that Underhill South should be prioritised? It is not clear how one of the quietest areas within the entire borough has been shown to be the most in need of a CPZ.  It just doesn't make sense.

The link between parking controls and sustainability, including around trip habits, appear to be tenuous and based on assumptions rather than hard data.  Whether Underhill is well-linked by public transport is up for debate.  Certainly, there is evidence of need for residents using their cars in this outer London area.  Information on the type of parking problem the Underhill South CPZ is seeking to address seems to be catch-all – commuter parking, visitor and short-term parking.  In terms of hours of operation, officers have completely ignored the feedback about operational hours (see 7.17 of the officer decision).  Indeed, we noted early in the consultation process a maximalist approach which is likely driven by issues of administrative convenience rather than local need or demand.

It is not evident that Barnet Council avoids a piecemeal approach (pushing the issue to the next street), nor that it addresses anticipated displacement proactively. Indeed, we have live examples of where the scheme has done just that and the response has been anything but proactive.  If the Council prioritises the five complainants referenced in the Agreed CPZ Mini Programme for 2024/25 or the 24 residents  referenced regarding the review of Highways correspondence over the 50 that oppose the scheme in the 16 roads, it fails to do right by the majority of residents.  There are several roads located within the area where the Council identified lower levels of parking stress, but they are nevertheless sucked in to the few roads that the Council say have some indicators of parking stress.

The exclusion of people living in private roads is problematic as the CPZ is likely to have negative consequences for them.  Along the same lines, the different treatment for Underhill and Whitings Schools is problematic because the latter is clearly impacted by the Council’s decisions.  Officers claim, without providing any evidence, that the impact on elderly people would be ‘small’.  We have seen feedback that people are concerned about elderly relatives living in the zone area, including about potential for social isolation.  What equality impact assessments have been made that enable officers to draw such conclusions and what evidence do they draw upon?

Extract from our 28 January 2026 communication

I look forward to your substantive response on my 8 January email but have to express a concern here: I am not convinced that the work of officers is scrutinised to the extent it should be.  Furthermore, I am concerned about a narrow approach taken where a more multi-disciplinary approach might have more creative and economically viable outcomes.  You should be concerned about the people who may not be as vocal or expressive as we are and who feel ignored.  You should also be concerned about the immediate effect of this, such as on the school and on nurses and hospital staff, and other hastily implemented zones such as the Chipping Barnet D one, which is having a negative impact on the small parade of shops there.

With respect, nobody you speak to will buy the idea that the zone is truly 'experimental' - we have evidence of officer responses, which tale a very narrow approach; if indeed it were that experimental, you would be able to give me an example of a zone that was removed as the result of such an experimentation, which you will be unable to do.

Extract from response from Cllr. Schneiderman dated 10 February 2026

The zone is genuinely experimental and we do want to hear the feedback over the initial 6-month period. There are several examples of changes being made to CPZs following experimental periods, particularly to the operational hours. And there are examples of other highways schemes such as school streets which have been removed after an experimental period.

It is always difficult (or even impossible) to get a consensus around CPZs and the council uses parking stress surveys and the multi-criteria analysis data alongside resident consultation and engagement. I won’t repeat the data, which I know you have seen. The data shows a high level of parking stress and that the area is a high priority for CPZs based on the MCA. In addition, the feedback received from the informal parking engagement showed a cluster of 16 roads located in the south-western corner of the informal parking engagement area, which is closest to Barnet Hospital as being the most problematic for parking than others. Some roads are included as they are very likely to suffer from displacement parking if they were excluded. The council has no power to be able to implement a CPZ in private roads.

With regards to air quality, this is likely to be worse by busy roads. But CPZs can help improve air quality by reducing the number of cars coming to the area just to park, basing permit charges on emission levels and encouraging sustainable travel.

With regards to the operational times of the CPZ, the council generally tries to match these to the neighbouring CPZ, which in this case is the existing Barnet Hospital CPZ. The purpose of this is to create consistency, prevent displaced parking, and simplify enforcement. This coordinated approach is designed to ensure that the parking management strategy works effectively across a wider area. Shorter hours may prevent commuters parking and then travelling to work, but do not stop those parking who work in the area.

There is some availability to park free of charge on uncontrolled roads close to both Whitings Hill and Underhill primary schools, but officers are liaising directly with representatives from both.

I don’t want to see any elderly people suffering from social isolation. There has been an equality impact assessment for the council's CPZ programmes, and it possible or residents with a blue badge or carers to park free of charge - and visitor permits are available.