We asked, you said, we did

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed Adult Social Care Fees and Charges.
These proposals include the introduction of charges, or an increase in charge, to the following areas:

• A yearly fee for appointeeship services for residents with savings over £3,000.
• A weekly fee for assistive technology services for all residents using these services.
• Cost recovery for arranging care for people above the capital/savings threshold: A yearly £2,000 fee for residents who have their care arranged by council and pay for it themselves.
• Increasing the weekly fee for respite care services to £250.

You said

We received 279 responses across all 4 consultations. This included 9 paper copy responses:

Proposal 1 – Appointeeship

• 13% (3) agreed with the proposal
• 57% (13) disagreed with the proposal
• A further 13% (3) disagreed with the proposal and offered an alternative suggestion. Alternative suggestions included:

1. Implementing a one-off fee
2. A financial assessment and means tested approach to billing.

Proposal 2 – Assistive Technology

• 33% (12) selected £5
• 6% (2) selected £10
• 61% (22) selected ‘Other’ and provided feedback such as:
  1. £0 (the majority response from 16 respondents, 73%)
  2. £2.50
  3. £3
  4. A monthly £10 fee
  5. Miscellaneous

• Although more respondents stated that they considered a zero charge to be reasonable, there was some support for introducing the lowest weekly charge proposed of £5 a week.

Proposal 3 – Cost recovery for arranging and administering care for people above the capital/savings threshold

• 54% (30 respondents) disagreed with the charge
• 21% (12 respondents) disagreed with how high the increase in fee was, citing the £300 one off bill to £2000 annual charge.
• 7% (4 respondents) suggested an alternative lower charge and/or method of charging.
• 7% (4 respondents) did not object to the annual fee
• 11% (6 respondents) provided ‘other’ feedback such as:

1. Complaints around the current billing system
2. Will seek alternative arrangements of care

Proposal 4 – Respite

• 92% (12 respondents) commented that the increase was too high.
• 8% (1 respondent) commented that the increase was fair.

We did

Based on results of the consultation and alternative options considered by the council, the council have decided to implement three of the proposals in full:

• Appointeeship
• Assistive technology
• Respite care

With regards to the fourth proposal, the council have decided to reduce the annual charges to £1,851 in relation to cost recovery for arranging and administering care for people above the capital/ savings threshold of £23,250.

The Adult Social Care fees and charges were authorised under the delegated authority of the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships, Economy and Effective Council and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the live ‘School Street’ which is a controlled pedestrian and cycling zone during school pick up and drop off hours on the following roads:

• Bethune Avenue/Crescent Road (between The Ridgeway and The Crescent)
• Hemington Avenue.

The proposed times are 8.00-9.00am and 2.45-3.45pm, Monday to Friday, term time only.

You said

We received 77 responses to this engagement. This included 28 pupil responses, 31 through Engage Barnet responses and 18 responses via email:

• 24.68% of respondents were supportive of the measures
• 57.14% of respondents were opposed to the measures
• 18.18% of respondents neither support nor opposed.

Only adult responses were analysed in terms of themes. This showed:

• 61.3% of respondents were just highlighting their opposition to the scheme.
• 16.1% of respondents were happy with the school street.
• 6.5% of respondents stated it pushes congestion and traffic onto neighbouring roads.
• 6.5% stated they wanted the School Street extending.
• 3.2% of respondents stated it impacted parking in the surrounding area.

We did

Based on results from the engagement and reviewing traffic counts and parking stress Officers have decided to retain the School Street and make it permanent.

Traffic count data on Bethune Avenue/Crescent Road at pre and post School Street showed that traffic volumes at morning and evening restrictions reduced by about 75% and 80% respectively. Traffic on Ridgeway reduced by 70% both westbound and eastbound during the school street operation time. This shows that the scheme has reduced rat running along neighbouring roads.

Parking Survey undertaken before and after the installation of School Street on Hemington Avenue and Bethune Avenue / Crescent Road showed that both roads had about 15 - 20% reduction of cars parked during the School Street operation time (8-9am and 2.45– 3.45pm).

Parking has increased on Glenthorne Road (by 10-15%), The Ridgeway (by 20%) and The Crescent (between 65-310%) however there are still parking space available on each of these roads during School Street operation times.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the live ‘School Street’ which is a controlled pedestrian and cycling zone during school pick up and drop off hours on the following road:

• Bellevue Road between The Crescent and Holly Park Road

The proposed times are 8.30-9.15am and 3.00-3.45pm Monday to Friday, term time only.

The implementation of double yellow lines were completed on Bellevue Road/Holly Park Road junction and extension of them on The Crescent/Bellevue Road.

You said

We received 422 responses to this engagement. This included 371 pupil responses, 33 through Engage Barnet responses and 18 responses via email:

• 68.01% of respondents supported the measures.
• 19.67% of respondents opposed the measures.
• 12.32% of respondents neither support nor opposed.

Only adult responses were analysed in terms of themes. This showed:

• 54.5% of respondents were just highlighting their opposition to the scheme.
• 18.2% of respondents stated it pushes congestion and traffic onto neighbouring roads.
• 15.2% of respondents were happy with the school street.
• 9.1% of respondents stated it impacted parking in the surrounding area and 3% stated they wanted the School Street extending.

We did

Based on the feedback received and having reviewed the traffic counts and parking stress surveys, officers have decided to make the School Street permanent.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the implementation of a ‘School Street’, which is a controlled pedestrian and cycling zone during school pick up and drop off hours on the following road:

• Sweets Way (between Lovegrove Way to school entrance) and includes Greenside Close

The proposed times are 8.40-9.15am and 2.30-3.30pm Monday to Friday, term time only.

You said

We received 168 responses to this engagement with:

• 49.40% of respondents in support of the measures
• 45.24% of respondents opposed to the measures
• 5.36% of respondents neither support nor opposed.

Further feedback included:

• 21.6% of respondents stating the scheme should be extended either to rest of Sweets Way or to Queens Avenue/Orchard Avenue.
• 4.2% of respondents thought it would negatively impact the private development
• 13.4% of respondents said they thought it would push traffic outside of the zone.

We did

Based on the feedback received and having reviewed the traffic counts and parking stress surveys, officers have decided to make the School Street permanent.

Following feedback and taking into concerns from residents regarding the impact of the School Street, we have also decided to add an additional School Street Zone onto Orchard Avenue and Queens Avenue.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

As part of the statutory process, we asked for your views on our A1000 Barnet High Street Bus Lane proposal. The statutory consultation ran from 28 November 2024 to 19 December 2024.

You said

Approximately 456 letters were sent to local residents and businesses. Notices were also placed on lamp columns throughout the area.

We received 6 objections to the statutory consultation. Objections represent 1.32% of all those sent a letter. The main concerns identified were the following:

• Increasing congestion (5)
• Money would be better spent repairing potholes (1)
• Do not like bus stand and concerns it is dangerous (3)

We did

Following the review of all comments received during both this statutory consultation and the previous public consultation, the Barnet High Street scheme will be made permanent.

The concerns raised have been assessed and addressed below:

• Traffic Modelling has been undertaken showing that there will be bus journey time benefits from the scheme. The modelling results suggest no significant increase in delays for general traffic.
• The funding for this scheme is specifically for bus lane improvements however the road will be fully resurfaced and fully paid for by Transport for London.
• The bus stand by Fitzjohn Avenue is for end of service for the 34 bus. There is no other space around the area for this service to stand. By delivering a bus lane alongside the stand it will be safer than the existing situation.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

As part of the statutory process, we asked for your views on our A598 Ballards Lane Bus Lane proposal. The statutory consultation ran from 28 November 2024 to 19 December 2024.

You said

Approximately 747 letters were sent to local residents and businesses. Notices were also placed on lamp columns throughout the area.

We received 5 objections to the statutory consultation. Objections represent 0.67% of all those sent a letter. The main concerns identified were the following:

• Increasing congestion (1)

• Parking and loading (1)
• No need for bus lane (1)
• Requirement for crossings or traffic lights/mini roundabout at Ballards Lane and Alexandra Grove (2)

We did

Following the review of all comments received during both this statutory consultation and the previous public consultation, the Ballards Lane scheme will be made permanent.

The concerns raised have been assessed and addressed below:

• Transport for London confirmed this scheme would not need modelling due to negligible impact it would have on road network users. iBus data from Transport for London shows there are currently delays for buses on their journey. By implementing bus lanes we hope to make bus journey times more reliable.
• We have undertaken parking and loading surveys to determine the design of the scheme. There is very limited parking or loading northbound or southbound in the bus lane areas. Between 330-280 Regents Park Road the parking bays are not affected by the scheme.
• Officers have investigated a crossing at Alexandra Grove but unfortunately due to the tracking of buses we are not able to provide shorter crossing distances or an island. In the future we will consider potential crossings on Ballards Lane or whether a junction could be considered at Ballards Lane/ Alexandra Grove.

Read more about this consultation

We asked

As part of the statutory process, we asked for your views on our A598 Regents Park Road Bus Lane proposal. The statutory consultation ran from 28 November 2024 to 19 December 2024.

You said

Approximately 593 letters were sent to local residents and businesses. Notices were also placed on lamp columns throughout the area.

We received 23 objections to the statutory consultation. Objections represent 3.88% of all those sent a letter. The main concerns identified were the following:

• Increasing congestion (11)
• Reducing parking and loading Cyprus Road and Mountfield Road (12)
• Reducing parking between Fitzalan Road to North Crescent (2)
• Reducing parking outside Chessington Lodge (1)
• It will encourage drivers to use quieter residential roads to get through traffic (5)
• Bus Lane will obstruct view of pedestrians crossing roads (1)

We did

Following the review of all comments received during both this statutory consultation and the previous public consultation, the Regents Park Road scheme will be made permanent.

The concerns raised have been assessed and addressed below:

• Traffic Modelling has been undertaken showing that there will be bus journey time benefits from the scheme. The modelling results suggest no significant increase in delays for general traffic.
• Parking and loading stress surveys have been undertaken across the corridor which suggest:

o Currently 57% of parking space (8 out of 14 spaces) between Cyprus Road and Mountfield Road on northbound side is utilised during the worst morning and evening peaks.

o Currently 75% of parking space (15 out of 20 spaces) between Cyprus Road and Mountfield Road on southbound side is utilised during the worst morning and evening peaks.

o Currently 72% of parking space (26 out of 36 spaces) on North Crescent there is utilised during the worst morning and evening peaks.

o Currently 51% of parking space (19 out of 37 spaces) between Fitzalan Road to North Crescent on both sides during the worst morning and evening peaks.

o There are further spaces located on Charter Way to accommodate spaces lost northbound during bus lane operational hours.

Read more about this engagement

We asked

Local Councillors and community representatives carried out a short-term review (Task and Finish Group) of the Elective Home Education (EHE) Service. Further information about Overview and Scrutiny reviews can be found here: Our Overview and Scrutiny committees | Barnet Council. As part of the EHE Task and Finish Group investigations, we asked for your experiences and suggestions about how the EHE Service could be improved.

You said

We received a total of 52 responses which represents an estimated 12% of the known EHE families in Barnet.

You told us you were pleased with the improved engagement and information provided by the EHE Service. Whilst the EHE community has developed its own strong networks, you would like additional information from the council about the activities available for EHE families.

We did

The EHE Task and Finish Group review has been completed and made seven recommendations to Cabinet, the council’s decision-making body. The final EHE report and recommendations can be found here. Cabinet will provide a response to the recommendations early in 2025.

Recommendations based on your suggestions included:

• Enhancing the website, providing more information on all the activities and events in the borough
• A special library card so EHE children can withdraw more books and keep them for longer
• Access to exam centres for EHE children.

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked for your views on our proposal to extend the existing Totteridge and Whetstone Station (TW) Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to include Manus Way, Blakeney Close, St Margarets Avenue, Totteridge Lane, Baxendale, The Mount and Swan Lane.

This proposal was in response to feedback received on parking displacement caused by non-residential parking.

You said

We received 40 responses out of 346 letters sent to residents outlining the proposed extension. This represents a response rate of 12%.

In total, 80% stated that they experience parking problems on their road with:

• 32.5% of respondents answering “always”
• 47.5% answering “sometimes”
• 20% answering “never”

Overall 62.5% of respondents were in favour of being included in the CPZ

We also received numerous comments on our proposals many of the responses to can be found in our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The comments include:

• The CPZ appears to be more of a money-making scheme rather than a solution to local parking issues. Cost of living is high and many will struggle to afford permits.
• The CPZ extension will just push parking displacement to other roads close to the proposed boundary.
• Previous CPZ extensions have not brought noticeable improvement in parking availability or reduced commuter parking. There’s no guarantee that this further extension will achieve the intended goals.
• Some of the proposed roads are not near Totteridge and Whetstone Station and are not experiencing parking displacements.
• Where are commuters going to park? Some have no other option but to park on these free roads as there’s no parking at the nearby station.
• Existing TW CPZs were required as most properties do not have driveways. Residents within the extension area have driveways and do not need a CPZ.
• No issues in parking.

We did

We have reviewed all the feedback.

Based on the responses received during the parking engagement and the high levels of parking stress identified during the surveys, it has been agreed that officers will proceed with the extension of the TW CPZ on an experimental basis to include the seven additional roads. The extended CPZ will operate as per the southern section of the existing TW CPZ – Monday to Friday, between 2pm and 3pm.

The parking controls will be designed to mitigate the concerns raised and we will review the impact of the measures after a six-month statutory consultation period and any feedback received will help determine the future of the scheme.

To support the CPZ, we will:

• implement paid for (cashless) parking bays near stations and businesses
• introduce Permit Parking Areas (PPAs) on smaller roads to allow residents with a TW CPZ permit to continue parking as they were
• introduce Double Yellow lines at junctions or bends where identified to improve traffic flow and ensure larger vehicles such as the emergency services can navigate the area safely.

The scheme will be implemented experimentally to enable comments to be made on a live scheme and officers to monitor the effects. We have written to residents with further details on how we will implement the TW CPZ extension on an experimental basis: TW CPZ Extension Pre-implementation Letter'

Further details on the scheme, including how residents can apply for permits will be sent to residents by February 2025.

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked residents and businesses to have their say on the Action for Silk Stream (AfSS) project so far. By doing so, we gathered data on the following aspects related to the project:

• awareness, knowledge, and experience of flooding
• locations where flooding / pollution incidents are taking place
• support for methods of managing flood risk
• levels of resident flood protection methods
• engagement with rivers, watercourses and wetlands and the project
• improvements the project can make

You said

We received 92 responses to the survey and saw a good spread of responses from residents across the Silk Stream catchment. 30% of respondents had previously participated in an AfSS volunteer day, and 31% had attended an AfSS event.

Some of the key findings include:

• 99% agreed that managing flood risk in the Silk Stream Catchment is important.
• 73% of respondents are aware of the causes of flooding.
• Only 34% of respondents know where to seek advice / keep updated about the local flooding situation, with just 40% knowing how to protect their homes and local area from flooding.
• 60% have experienced flooding and 28% believe their property is at risk. Common sources of the risk cited were:
  1. rainfall (51%)
  2. sewer blockages (43%)
  3. local river (40%)
• 26 locations and descriptions where flooding and pollution are occurring were submitted.
• 66% indicated that they would like project / event updates and to volunteer for AfSS.

We also received numerous comments on our events. General themes include:

• longer sessions
• more regular events
• more outreach work with businesses and inclusive activities
• river restoration, arts and crafts, wildlife walks and exercise sessions were suggested as potential new events.
• social media is the main platform people use to find information.

We did

The results from the online survey will help inform our mid-project evaluation. The project team will use the findings to help to further shape the project and the engagement programme in its final two years.