Author: pm

Update on the SAY NO! to the CPZ Campaign – December 2024

Dear Supporters,

As we approach the end of the year, we wanted to provide you with the latest developments regarding the Say No! Campaign and our continued efforts to oppose the proposed extension of the Arnos Grove CPZ. We apologize for the delay in providing this update, but we have been frustrated by the lack of communication from Enfield Council, despite several attempts to get them to respond to the concerns we have raised. That said, we didn’t want to wait any longer to keep you informed.

Council’s Response to Objections

With the invaluable support of barrister Joshua Munro, the Council was contacted regarding the legal concerns raised in our objections. On 10th October, Enfield Council responded, acknowledging that a high volume of responses had been received. However, despite earlier assurances of a substantive reply to the legal issues raised, the Council has now deferred addressing these points until the publication of their response report, which is expected in the coming weeks. (Please see the proposed Next Steps and Timeline section for details)

Through Councillor Pratt, we have secured a commitment from the Head of Traffic and Transportation that the analysis of consultation responses will be completed by the end of the calendar year. However, it remains unclear how soon after this the Council’s response report will be published.

Joshua has firmly expressed to the Council that their delayed response may constitute an abrogation of the duty to conduct a proper consultation. He has also made it clear that if the Council decides to proceed with their proposals, the matter will be challenged in the courts.

Collaboration with Palmers Green

The Say No! Campaign has also been in contact with the Palmers Green Business Association, who are similarly opposing CPZ extensions in their area. Discussions are ongoing about the possibility of the two groups joining forces to strengthen our collective response to Enfield Council.

A joint approach offers significant benefits:

  • Strength in Numbers – Presenting a united front will amplify our voice and make it harder for the Council to ignore community opposition.
  • Cost Sharing – Pooling resources would enable us to share the costs of any necessary judicial review, ensuring funds are used efficiently to fight the case.

The Palmers Green Business Association are already pushing ahead with preparations for a legal/judicial review. To support their efforts and strengthen their case, we propose sharing our objections that have been submitted to the Council. These will be anonymised to ensure privacy and shared with their legal team, who are carrying out preemptive legal work. This collaboration not only strengthens their position but could ultimately pave the way for a joint objection, should legal action become necessary.

There are several potential outcomes to consider, and we will carefully evaluate the situation once we have more information. It is possible that legal action may not be necessary. However, establishing a fighting fund is a precautionary measure, intended only as a last resort. While being prepared for the worst-case scenario is important, our primary focus is on achieving a resolution through dialogue and collaboration, without the need for legal proceedings. That said, recent reports of other councils facing legal challenges over similar issues of poor CPZ planning highlight why it is essential to remain prepared.

Next Steps and Timeline

Here’s an outline of the realistic timeline we are currently working towards:

  • Mid-January 2025 – Await the Council’s formal response.
  • Early February 2025 – Submit a joint response from Say No! and Palmers Green.
  • February 2025 – If the Council moves forward with formal consultation, we will coordinate a robust response.
  • March 2025 Onwards – Consider establishing a fighting fund to support a judicial review, should this become necessary.

We remain committed to holding the Council accountable and ensuring they act in the best interests of the community. Your continued support is vital as we move into the next phase of this campaign.

Thank you for standing with us. Together, we can ensure our voices are heard.

From

Diljeet Singh, Daniel Anderson, Phil Mariutto
Say No! Campaign

Get Involved

How to get involved

Steps to oppose the CPZ expansion

It can be a little confusing figuring out exactly what to do when opposing the CPZ expansion in your area.
Here are a few steps that will hopefully help to clarify what to do.
This guide is aimed at the Arnos Grove ward consultation, other wards may vary.

  1. Complete the official survey that Enfield Council has distributed. This can be found here. If you do nothing else, this is the action you must take to oppose the proposal.
    • The survey is poorly worded and not the easiest to make a strong NO objection.
      Follow these guidelines as to how to objects in the most impactful way.
      • Fill out questions 1-4 identifying yourself
      • Q5 – answer NO
      • Q6 – Answer “other” and explain why – some help is in the “What should I write” section below.
      • Q7 – Do you have any other comments? YES please fill the comments section with why this is a terrible idea for Arnos Grove Ward.
        There are plenty of supporting arguments on this site to help you write a response, please check the “What should I write” section below
  2. Write to the council executives to express your concern and CC to your local councillor on messages sent to the council
    cc’ing your councillor, Clllr. Paul Pratt (Cllr.paul.pratt@enfield.gov.uk) This ensures your concerns are registered as an officially tracked concern.

What should I write in the “other” section to strengthen my objection?

You can write any reason that impacts you and shows the CPZ as having the opposite effect of helping you. The main point of your writing is to show that you DO NOT support it nor have asked for it to be considered.
Under the rules to implement the CPZ, many residents must have asked for the CPZ for it to be considered.

If you are still not sure there are plenty of examples on this website you can use, but be careful not to copy exactly as this could take away from the impact.

Recent posts on the site also help with reasons why the CPZ expansion is a bad idea – https://www.nocpz.uk/posts/ 

Some examples given on the website are:

• Lack of Genuine Local Need: Quoting ‘The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984’, Sections 45-46, which state that parking controls must be introduced based on specific, proven parking issues, not as a blanket measure to pursue other strategic goals, such as environmental policy objectives as stated in the Council’s 2024 Report ‘Future Approach to Controlled Parking Zones.’

• Imposing a CPZ for wider purposes: You can refer to Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation, 1948), which established that a decision is considered unreasonable (and thus unlawful) if it is so irrational that no reasonable authority would have made it. A decision to impose a CPZ without resident consent with significant permit costs, but as part of a wider policy agenda, could be challenged under this principle as irrational.

• Failure to consult transparently: Refering to Procedural Fairness. Councils are required to carry out genuine consultation with affected residents before implementing CPZs. Failing to do so can render the decision procedurally unfair and open to legal challenge. Again, the Council’s 2024 Report ‘Future Approach to Controlled Parking Zones’ indicates that CPZs now serve a wider policy agenda, that they have discarded their CPZ Charter, and stated that resident feedback is no longer the determinant factor

• The Misuse of Statutory Powers (Ultra Vires): Quoting Attfield v. London Borough of Barnet (2013), which established that a council must not use parking charges as a means to generate revenue for unrelated purposes. The court ruled that councils must only impose charges that are necessary for covering the costs of operating the parking scheme. 

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, specifically Section 122, which mandates that traffic regulations, including CPZs, must be implemented to secure the expeditious, safe, and convenient movement of traffic and NOT for revenue generation.

Failure to Consult Transparently

Refering to Procedural Fairness. Councils are required to carry out genuine consultation with affected residents before implementing CPZs. Failing to do so can render the decision procedurally unfair and open to legal challenge. Again, the Council’s 2024 Report ‘Future Approach to Controlled Parking Zones’ indicates that CPZs now serve a wider policy agenda, that they have discarded their CPZ Charter, and stated that resident feedback is no longer the determinant factor.

Imposing a CPZ for wider purposes

You can refer to Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation, 1948), which established that a decision is considered unreasonable (and thus unlawful) if it is so irrational that no reasonable authority would have made it. A decision to impose a CPZ without resident consent with significant permit costs, but as part of a wider policy agenda, could be challenged under this principle as being irrational.

Lack of Genuine Local Need

Quoting The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Sections 45-46, which state that parking controls must be introduced based on specific, proven parking issues, not as a blanket measure to pursue other strategic goals, such as environmental policy objectives as stated in the Council’s 2024 Report ‘Future Approach to Controlled Parking Zones.’

The Misuse of Statutory Powers (Ultra Vires)

Quoting Attfield v. London Borough of Barnet (2013), which established that a council must not use parking charges as a means to generate revenue for unrelated purposes. The court ruled that councils must only impose charges that are necessary for covering the costs of operating the parking scheme.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, specifically Section 122, which mandates that traffic regulations, including CPZs, must be implemented to secure the expeditious, safe, and convenient movement of traffic and NOT for revenue generation.

Attend the Arnos Grove Ward Meeting

Attend the Arnos Grove Ward Neighbours Meeting

Join us for an in-person event at The Walker Ground to discuss the proposed extension to the Arnos Grove CPZ. Your voice matters, we have listened and residents have many questions which need answering before responding to the consultaion. Closer to the date, an agenda will be issued.

In order to attend this meeting you must be a resident of Arnos Grove Ward or be invited by the organisers.

Date: Thursday, 5 September at 7:30pm
Reserve Your FREE Ticket: Get Your Ticket