News

Council drops 'Palmers Green East' permit parking zone proposals

Share share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky Article Print View

 

Enfield Council has dropped its plans to create a controlled parking zone in 'Palmers Green East'. The results of a public consultation held last year indicated overwhelming opposition to the proposal, while a residents' group opposed to the CPZ and another planned for Arnos Grove had threatened legal action, claiming that that the proposals were unlawful.

 

Residents who responded to the consultation held last autumn about a proposed "Palmers Green East Controlled Parking Zone" covering streets to the east of Green Lanes were last week informed in an email that "following the comments received, Enfield Council has decided not to proceed with the implementation of the CPZ". Overall, only 13% of a total 975 responses from residents of the area and streets immediately adjacent were in favour of the proposals.

The proposed CPZ would have restricted parking between 8am and 6.30pm in Osborne Road, Windsor Road, Park Avenue, Lightcliffe Road, Kingsley Road, Hazelwood Lane west of the New River bridge and New River Crescent north of Hazelwood Lane (as shown by the shading in the map above). Residents would have had to buy permits for themselves and for visitors, with the prices depending on vehicle size and number per household.

In their message to respondents the council say they remain committed to the use of CPZs and do not rule out future potential CPZ options:

The Council remains committed to Controlled Parking Zones as an important approach for managing car parking demand. CPZs help ensure that parking is allocated fairly, balancing the needs of residents, businesses, and essential services while also reducing congestion and encouraging sustainable transport.

Given the area’s proximity to the town centre, parking pressures may continue to evolve, and if concerns arise in the future, we will consider potential CPZ options. Any future proposals will not be considered any earlier than the start of Financial Year 26/27. Furthermore, any future proposals are likely to include adjustments to the roads covered and the times of operation to better reflect local needs.

An update to the project page on the Let's Talk Enfield website echoes the email wording. An engagement summary report summarizing the consultation findings can be downloaded.

Extracts from the Engagement Summary Report

Overview of feedback

The key question posed was whether, on balance, the household (or business) felt the proposals were a good idea. Across the full set of submissions, the following responses were returned:

Yes: 128 | Not sure: 31 | No: 816

This equates to 13% support for the proposals.

The highest number of supportive submissions came from Windsor Road (26), Park Road (22) and Osborne Road (16) to the north-east of the area. But no street or quarter enjoyed majority support

 

Comments

791 people submitted comments with their responses, with a majority opposing the proposals. To the south and east of the area, in particular, the dominant comment was that the measures were not needed or would be unhelpful.

Greater need for some form of parking intervention was expressed by those living in the north-east corner of the area (where off-street parking options are fewer), however the majority view was that the benefits of the proposals would not outweigh the costs and other drawbacks. A common observation from these streets was that the lack of parking capacity was felt most keenly in the evenings, attributed to a surplus of domestic parking demand that the proposals could do little to address.

Other key concerns raised throughout the comments were:

  • That permit costs were excessive and/or the proposals were motivated by Council revenue generation
  • That the hindrance to visiting activity and care-giving would be unwelcome or damaging to the community
  • That an all-day parking zone would have an excessive impact on customer and staff access to the High Street

Unwanted impacts on the local school was another concern submitted.

Those supporting the proposals mentioned a clear need for better regulation of parking associated with commuting, visitors to the high street, commercial vehicles and other forms of nuisance parking activity that were deemed to be detrimental to the experience of residents.

Opposition to the proposals has come from, among others, the Green Lanes Business Association. In August the GLBA organised a meeting at the Fox, which according to Enfield Dispatch, was attended by "around 100 locals in Palmers Green, a mix of business owners and residents". The Dispatch reported that the GLBA was concerned about the effect on shops and other businesses in Green Lanes:

“What are you doing to your high street? Where are staff and customers supposed to park during the day or people doing pick-ups and drop-offs?”

Kat Georgiou, Green Lanes Business Association, quoted by Enfield Dispatch

The Arnos Grove consultation

proposed revised arnos grove cpzMap showing approximate area included in the August 2024 Arnos Grove CPZ proposals. Purple shading denotes streets in both the current and the proposed revised scheme. Blue denotes streets in the proposed revised zone that are not in the current CPZ. The Minchenden Estate (the shaded area to the north-east of Arnos Park was a "supplementary element" included in the consultation in order to gauge resident opinion (This map has no official status.)

There is no news yet regarding the council's current thinking about a second CPZ proposal that was put out to consultation on the same date as the now abandoned Palmers Green scheme. The core proposal was to extend the hours of operation and extent of the existing Arnos Grove CPZ, something necessitated by the construction of flats on former car parks at the tube station, a project being run by Transport for London as a deliberately low-car development. However, the same consultation also floated the idea of a "supplementary element" extending the CPZ north-east of Arnos Park through the Minchenden Estate as far as Southgate Green:

"The consultation seeks to establish what interest exists amongst residents of the extension area marked 'NE' for zonal parking on their streets. This element is deemed supplementary."

Excerpt from Arnos Grove CPZ consultation, August 2024

This proposed CPZ too has aroused strong opposition, from a group calling themselves Say No! to the CPZ, one of whose leaders is former Enfield cabinet member Daniel Anderson. In September a barrister belonging to the group wrote to the council's chief executive setting out arguments why it would be unlawful for the council to proceed with the proposals and threatening to instigate legal action "forthwith" if it did, stating that "The group is organised and determined to defeat your proposed unlawful acts". 

The legal letter sent in September refers to Say No! as "a residents' group opposing the proposed widening and extension of CPZs within Arnos Grove and Palmers Green". However, a post on the group's website dated 17th December suggests that at that later date the focus of Say No! was still opposition to the Arnos Grove CPZ proposals, though they had "been in contact with the Palmers Green Business Association" (sic - presumably a reference to the GLBA) and "discussions [were] ongoing about the possibility of the two groups joining forces to strengthen our collective response to Enfield Council".

Links

Council consulting on proposals for permit parking schemes in Palmers Green and Arnos Grove

Log in to comment