Blog Posts

What have we achieved so far? 13th September 2024

  1. Leafleting: We have distributed leaflets throughout the community in Arnos Grove and New Southgate wards to raise awareness of the Council’s proposed CPZ changes and their potential impact.
  2. Press Release: A press release was issued to local media outlets; followed by a conversation with journalist Grace Howarth from the Enfield Dispatch.
  3. A legal letter before action written by Joshua Munro, barrister from Hailsham Chambers, was sent to the Council’s CEO, outlining the potential legal breaches in the Council’s approach, including the misuse of statutory powers under the RTRA 1984.
  4. Held a public led residents meeting, attended by 0ver 200 local residents,our local MP Bambos Charalambos, and our local Councillor Paul Pratt.
  5. Created a step-by-step guide to objecting to the CPZ.
  6. Demonstrated huge support for the No CPZ campaign with the many conversations and outcry in the dedicated WhatsApp group
  7. Collected individual freedom of information requests that clearly show that this CPZ expansion is not needed

What to do if you haven’t yet replied

Send in your objections by end of Friday 13 September to oppose the CPZ widening and extension.
Yes, despite, the flyer we all received, it is in fact by 23:59, end of day, as confirmed by Jonathon Goodson:


But lets not wait, the official route to register your objection is to fill in a council survey which is a little poorly worded and somewhat restrictive, so we are encouraging people to write in and express your view on top of filling in the survey.

Steps to oppose the CPZ expansion

Residents Survey for response to consulation

As you know, dealing with the council’s survey can feel like submitting your views into a black box, with no clear sense of how many people have responded, either through the consultation survey or by writing to the responsible council members.

We want to gather some information to understand the strength of our objection better. Please take 20 seconds to complete this quick survey.

Overwhelming support for the NO CPZ campaign at the public run meeting.

Wow! What a turnout! We knew you all agreed that this consultation is nonsense, and we are overwhelmed by your support and interest in stopping it from becoming a reality.

I want to thank everyone who attended the public meeting on the 5th of September, as well as extend a big thank you to the Walker Cricket Ground for generously allowing us to use their function hall.

Rather than repeat what has already been said, I’d like to share a report written by Ivor Davies, a resident and attendee of the meeting, who I believe captured and summarised the event very well.

First thing to note was how well attended the meeting was, well in excess of 200 people. The function room was full to overflowing, every chair in the building was used and it was standing room only after that.

Daniel Anderson, former deputy leader of Enfield Council, hosted the meeting along with a number of other campaign organisers, barrister Joshua Munro, Arnos Grove Ward Councillor Paul Pratt and Labour MP for Southgate and Wood Green Bambos Charalambous.

Barrister Joshua Munro spoke of the legal implications. Enfield Council has now abandoned seeking resident approval for imposing CPZs and is instead imposing them based on “environmental policy”. According to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 CPZs are only to be used to address parking issues and not for any other purpose. Enfield are therefore acting beyond their powers (the legal term is called acting “Ultra Vires”) and therefore their actions are illegal.

Every person in the room opposed the proposed CPZ scheme and many points were raised from the floor including:
Users of the Arnos Park Bowling Green were concerned there would be no parking for visiting players, some of whom are elderly.
Concern was raised regarding the potential for excessive speeding of cars in Brookdale if parking was discouraged on the road.
Mention was made that there is no documented evidence that imposing a CPZ would result in addressing any of the environmental issues that Enfield Council claim it would.
Everybody who spoke was concerned about the financial impact on residents, and the resulting restricted availability of spaces and spoke of how unnecessary it is to have a CPZ imposed when there are no issues with parking on the Minchenden Estate.

Councillor Paul Pratt and MP Bambos Charalambous declared their full support for the opposition of the proposed schemes and that resident’s concerns would be communicated to those concerned. The barrister Joshua Munro has now written a specific “Legal Concerns” letter to Ian Davis, Chief Executive of Enfield Council, requesting that the council takes immediate steps to rectify their stance, a copy of which can be viewed via the link here. We await their response.

Ifor Davies

Letter by Joshua Munro : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TBqWJEgiyS2wm6vuDY2fmKGWGPP_AB86/view

Letter to Legal Concerns Regarding the Council’s Approach to Controlled Parking Zones

Joshua Munro, a barrister from Hailsham Chambers, himself a resident, acting on behalf of the Say NO! residents’ group, has written on our behalf to Enfield Council’s Chief Executive, Ian Davis, raising legal concerns over the Council’s proposed changes to Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) in Arnos Grove and Palmers Green. He argues the Council’s shift from a reactive to a proactive CPZ strategy, using parking zones to promote broader goals such as reducing car dependency and supporting housing, is unlawful under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984), which restricts CPZs to managing parking issues only. The removal of the CPZ Consultation Charter, which once ensured public input was paramount, but now sees this as no longer the determinant issue in the Council’s decision-making undermines trust and bypasses community needs. Mr Munro highlights the excessive fees that those in the existing Arnos Grove one-hour CPZ, are disproportionate to the enforcement provided and potentially unlawful. He demands a detailed explanation of the council’s strategy, a review of pricing, and a reintroduction of the consultation process. If these issues aren’t addressed, legal action will be pursued.

This is the summary I propose for the print out:

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.