Minchenden and Arnos Grove Ward
Community against the controlled parking zone expansion
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.
Objections to Arnos Grove CPZ Extension:
Extending the CPZ will harm local businesses and disrupt community and religious events by reducing available parking and increasing costs, thereby negatively affecting the quality of life in the area.
Objections to Arnos Grove CPZ Extension:
The proposed permit fee increases are disproportionate, with costs potentially rising up to 3,850% compared to 1997 prices. These increases are far beyond inflation and impose an unjustified financial strain on residents.
Objections to Arnos Grove CPZ Extension:
The Council has contributed to the parking problems through restrictive policies, such as removing parking spaces for bus lanes on Bowes Road, approving developments with insufficient parking (e.g., Coppice Wood Lodge), and closing Arnos Grove Station car parks. These actions have created the very problems the Council now seeks to address, and the financial burden should fall on developers, not residents.
Objections to Arnos Grove CPZ Extension:
There is no documented evidence of parking problems in the Minchenden Estate that would justify the proposed CPZ extension and the expansion of operating hours to 7 days a week. The current parking situation does not warrant such drastic changes, which would only burden residents without solving actual issues.