Plans for the introduction of yet another CPZ for High Barnet has provoked furious response among Mays Lane residents

1 Aug 2025
Written by Nick Jones

A mass protest is being organised by residents of Mays Lane and surrounding roads in opposition to the introduction of a new and additional controlled parking zone which is being proposed by Barnet Council.

A campaign to force the council to abandon the idea was launched at a public meeting attended by around 170 residents.

Organisers and over 50 supporters of the protest met again at the junction of Mays Lane and Mayhill Road – see above – to discuss how best to rally further support and keep up the pressure.

The proposed Underhill South CPZ would take in 29 roads – including several cul-de-sacs – which are on either side of Mays Lane, extending from the junction with Manor Road all the way westwards to the junction with Shelford Road.

Residents say a CPZ over such a wide area – extending south from Barnet town centre to the Dollis Valley riverside walk – is completely unnecessary and would become extremely expensive for residents.

Barnet Council’s highways department says it began consultations over a new CPZ for Underhill South because of complaints from residents and businesses about excessive parking in the roads south of Barnet Hospital.

A survey had shown that there were “extremely high levels of parking stress” in most of the roads surrounding Mays Lane caused by the extra demand for spaces caused by hospital staff, patients and visitors.

The new CPZ would operate at the same time – Monday to Saturday, between 8am and 6.30pm – as the existing and much larger Barnet Hospital CPZ which takes in roads in the hospital’s immediate vicinity.

Feedback from the initial consultation is due to be considered in September.

The two leading organisers of the protest – Gina Theodorou, chair of the Quinta Village Green Residents Association and Jon Woolfson, founder of the Underhill Residents Group – said opposition to a new CPZ was overwhelming.

“There might be some residents who might have an issue with hospital parking but the vast majority of people who live either side of Mays Lane do not experience any difficulty in parking and have not complained to the council.

“We are very concerned about the accuracy of the council’s claim that there are ‘extremely high levels of parking stress in most roads within the proposed area’ and we care calling on the council’s highway department to publish details of their survey.”

After conducting his own street-by-street by inquiries, Mr Woolfson was convinced the council’s survey findings were flawed and that there was no evidence to support their assertions about extreme parking stress. Of equal concern, he said, was the evidence he had found suggesting many residents had not received any official notification from the council.

Dan Tomlinson, MP for Chipping Barnet, has told the campaign that he will be submitting an objection given the clear strength of feeling among the residents.

He intends to support Underhill ward councillor Zahra Beg who is hoping to arrange a meeting to see if the Royal Free Hospital Trust will examine possibilities for a multi-storey car park at Barnet Hospital.

“If Barnet Hospital could be persuaded to take some responsibility and invest in a pop up multi storey it would do so much to relieve parking pressures around the hospital,” said Ms Theodorou.    

Opponents of the scheme include Whitings Hill Primary School and Underhill Primary School which both say teaching and support staff often commute from outside the area and many rely on nearby on-street parking.

Underhill had a particularly wide catchment area and public transport was inadequate. Families would be inconvenienced and both schools feared that a CPZ would have an adverse impact on support for after-school and community events.

Barnet Smiles Dental Care feared that staff and patients at their dental practice in Cedar Lawn Avenue would face unnecessary expense if the CPZ went ahead.

“We have never experienced any parking difficulties that would justify a CPZ. There is sufficient turnover and availability of parking spaces through the day for residents, visitors and local businesses.”

The prospect of the expense of parking permits and vouchers for visitors was a source of considerable anguish.

Richard Hockings ( above,far right) proprietor of a small business, said that to park his van outside his house would cost him £243 a year – a considerable financial burden. Charges for commercial vehicles depended on emissions – hence the height of the charge for van with a two-litre diesel engine.

Another angry resident, Gloria Jones (above), said the introduction of a CPZ on her road would just add to the additional expense she was already having to face.

“This will be the fourth CPZ around here and it’s already a nightmare.

“I have to pay when I park outside my parents in the hospital CPZ; then outside my sister’s house in the town CPZ; and at the doctor’s surgery in another zone – and now this will be the fourth.

“Barnet Council are just out for the money. Why can’t you park in all the CPZ areas once you have signed up for a permit.”

Jenny Pymont, who lives in a warden assisted property in Mayhill Road, said that she and the other residents in the flats and bungalows believed the CPZ would be very unfair on their visitors and carers.

“We rely on people coming to see us – and now they are going to be clobbered with a parking charge.”

Residents living around Mays Lane organise mass protest at plans for a new controlled parking zone in local roads

Gina Cornock thought the wide sweep of the CPZ was quite unnecessary. “We live in a cul-de-sac and there is no problem with parking. This is just a money- making exercise for the council.”

8 thoughts on “Plans for the introduction of yet another CPZ for High Barnet has provoked furious response among Mays Lane residents

  1. Completely greedy and cynical idea. It makes me angry that there’s a pretence from the council trying to justify something completely unnecessary. They imply they’ve arrived at this through a survey though they are completely unforthcoming regarding what they’ve found. I’m sure that’s because there’s no need at all for cpz in over 90% of these roads. An irrational, though fashionable, dislike of cars coupled with the desire for easy revenue drives resident unfriendly ideas like this.

  2. The latest level of charges for residents’ parking are counter-productive, and may, in fact, be increasing car usage. My latest bill for residential parking was £176.60, and the restriction applies for an hour (2-3pm) Monday to Friday. This sum equates to 133 litres of petrol, or about 29 gallons. My car does 30 miles per gallon, so this sum would allow me to drive 870 miles. 250 working days per year equates to 3 1/2 miles per day, so driving up to Barnet for an hour in the afternoon is, effectively FREE! I appreciate this doesn’t allow for the associated costs of driving, but most of these are FIXED (insurance, V.E.D. for example) so are reduced the more one drives. In short, a clearly anti-car policy could be ENCOURAGING car usage!

  3. Good proposal. Why should residents have the right to park on the road and clutter up the street for pedestrians, buses and everyone else? If you can’t fit your car on your own property/driveway then consider reducing the number of vehicles you own.

    1. It’s an appalling idea and a money making scheme from the council. If your road isn’t congested and there is ample parking why so you need a cpz???!I get it on busy roads but residential roads not near the hospital, shops or tube absolutely not.

    2. The council doesn’t enable every property to have off street parking, this isn’t just about being able to park excessive vechiles on the road this is also about those who live in the community/wider community being able to park outside friends or careers homes. Being able to conduct daily tasks without being penalised for it.

      Plus the council prohibits new builds from parking spaces and actively asks developers as per planning to limit car parking spaces.

      For roads you say are cluttered with cars, if that was the problem the council could enable drop kerns to be installed without a £4k+ free fee on top of the work to create a driveway and that would assist residents with the cluttering of cars.

      I was always under the impression roads were also for cars… who pay council tax to maintain the roads.

  4. This seems to be just one more example of an ideologically driven council, intent on making it as difficult and expensive as possible to own a car. On balance I’m against this CPZ, although there might be a need in the future when the flats are built at Barnet Underground station and residents there are not allowed parking permits.

  5. The council is attempting to use a city centre style restriction to sledgehammer a problem solely within their imagination. No one would park in many of the roads included, to walk to the hospital. A fact that one of the planners when asked said she was unaware where the hospital was from Alan Drive (24 mins walk) I realise there are problems in some roads closer to the BH CPZ. But this is a problem of the over reaching BH zone and the extraordinary times it is active. The hospital parking totally inadequate for the numbers of staff and patients and at such cost for the full 24 hours a day, no wonder people park outside the site.
    The side roads off Mays Lane are not near any destination areas that would attract long term parking, so I can only conclude this is a money grab by a council that are not protecting local residents.

  6. I live in Valley View, EN5 and there has never been any problems with parking it is unbelievable that the council would introduce these measures. This would be a nightmare for the small businesses in Mays Lane and detrimental to the schools there. It is a money grab and nothing else!

Write Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *