Category: Objections to Arnos Grove CPZ Extension:

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

Legal Concerns:

Objections to Arnos Grove CPZ Extension:

The decision-making process may be legally questionable under the Wednesbury Unreasonableness principle and could be challenged as ‘ultra vires’ if the CPZ is used for purposes beyond its original intent, such as enforcing environmental policies. The Attfield v. London Borough of Barnet (2013) case supports the argument that parking schemes should not be used to generate revenue under the guise of environmental protection.