We asked, you said, we did

You can read more about this consultation here.

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed reduction to the Published Admission Number (PAN) of Frith Manor and Dollis Primary Schools, both from 90 places to 60 places, on the grounds that the demand for school places in the local area has fallen and is unlikely to increase in the foreseeable future.

You said

For Dollis Primary, we received four responses. Three respondents agreed to the proposed reduction and the fourth tended to disagree. Respondents in favour of the proposal gave the reasons that children tend to thrive in smaller environments and the reduction made sense in view of the falling pupil roll. No reason was given against the proposed reduction.

For Frith Manor Primary, five responses were received; two respondents agreed to the proposal, two disagreed and one was indifferent. ‘Falling pupils numbers’ was reason given in favour of the proposed reduction. Those who opposed the proposal gave the reasons that Frith Manor is facing competition from another local school and it may attract more applications if it was part of a academy chain.

We did

The PAN for Dollis and Frith Manor Primary Schools was formerly been reduced from 90 to 60 places, with effect from 1 September 2021.

You can read more information about this consultation here.

We asked

We asked for your views on the Mill Hill Neighbourhood Forum designation application.

You said

The application generated a largely negative response (46 objections, eight supporters and four neutral). Objectors highlighted concerns about the proposed constitution and the Forum not being truly representative of the area.

We did

The application was withdrawn from the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on 22 June 2020 and therefore is no longer being considered.

You can read more information about this consultation here.

We asked

We asked for your views on the submission (Regulation 16) West Finchley Neighbourhood Plan submitted by the West Finchley Neighbourhood Forum.

We did

The consultation responses were sent to the appointed independent Examiner, Jill Kingaby, to consider as part of the examination of the West Finchley Neighbourhood Plan.

You can read more information about this consultation here.

We asked

We asked for your views on the West Finchley Neighbourhood Forum re-designation application. The designation of the West Finchley Neighbourhood Area and Forum was approved 26 November 2015 and was therefore due to expire after five years.

You said

The application generated a largely positive response (54 supporters, one objection and two neutral). Supporters called for the Forum to be re-designated in order to continue the Plan’s progress.

We did

Designation of the West Finchley Neighbourhood Area and Forum was approved at the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on 13 October 2020.

You can find out more about the consultation here

We asked

We asked residents to give us their views on the introduction of a charge for the garden waste collection service. We asked for views on:

• respondents’ level of use of the current service
• the principle of introducing charges to those that wish to continue to use this service
• the level of any charge to be introduced
• whether or not respondents would use the service if a charge was introduced, and what alternative arrangement they might make if not
• whether respondents would be able to sign up to a chargeable service online.

You said

A total of 6,517 responses were received. Just over three quarters of respondents disagreed that introducing a charge for only those who use the service was fair. Four fifths of respondents opposed the introduction of an annual subscription. Of those that responded, almost a third of respondents (28.5%) said they would prefer to see an increase in Council Tax rather than a charge introduced.

37.4% of respondents who said they currently use the service would continue to use it if a charge was introduced, and this is a relatively positive level of response compared with the take up rates seen in other London boroughs.

The majority of respondents who said they would consider using a chargeable service would be able to sign up online.

We did

The Environment Committee agreed the introduction of charges at its meeting on 20 January 2020. The council launched the chargeable service from 9 May 2020, allowing residents to sign up online and by phone from mid-February, with a charge of £70 for the first bin, and £50 for each additional bin to be collected.

The first year of the garden waste service saw 40,028 stickers paid for. 38,477 households signed up during the first year of the service giving a take up rate of 56%.

The income generated through the introduction of charges has supported other council services, including an investment of £600,000 into the street cleansing service, which the council recognises is a high priority for residents.

You can read more about the Environment Committee meeting and the full consultation results here.

You can read more information about this consultation here.

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed reduction to the Published Admission Number (PAN) for Queenswell Junior School, from 90 places to 60 places, on the grounds that the demand for school places in the area has fallen and is unlikely to increase in the foreseeable future.

You said

We received two responses, both from Barnet residents. One respondent was strongly in favour of the proposed reduction; the other did not respond to the question. There were no objections to the proposal.

We did

The PAN for Queenswell Junior School has formerly been reduced from 90 to 60 places, with effect from 1 September 2022.

To read more about this consultation, please click here

We asked

We asked for your views on whether you would like changes to the existing CPZ hours and days of operation of the CPZ to address the pressure problems in Elmcroft Avenue by commercial and private vehicles. The consultation area included Elmcroft Avenue, Ravenscroft Avenue (between Beechcroft Avenue and Wentworth Road) and Hoop Lane (between Golders Green Crescent and Finchley Road).

You said

We wrote to 152 properties in the vicinity of the existing CPZ on the proposed changes to CPZ operation times and days. We received 30 responses to the consultation. The overall response from the CPZ consultation was 19.7%, with 13.7 % saying they would prefer changes to the CPZ. Most respondents said the proposed changes would affect parking for visitors (including tradesmen and health visitors) and believe there is no need to make changes, since the current parking controls are working well.

Only a few indicated that non-resident parking occurs and that parking by commercial vans is a problem.

We did

It is considered, based on the consultation responses, that there is no substantial support to make changes to the operational hours and days of the existing CPZ, and therefore it is recommended that the CPZ in Elmcroft Avenue, Hoop Lane and Ravenscroft Avenue should remain unchanged.

You can read more about this consultation here.

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposals for the introductions of waiting restrictions at various locations in Temple Fortune Area were sent to you as part of Statutory Consultation.

You said

The response here was mixed. We wrote to a total 545 properties within the vicinity of the proposed waiting restrictions. We received 67 responses to the consultation. Those objecting said the proposals would result in loss of kerb side parking space. Those in favour said they would improve sight lines at the junction and road safety in the area.

We did

The representations were considered in accordance with Statutory consultation procedures. It was decided to proceed with the proposals to improve safety and accessibility, especially at the road junctions and on bends. Where possible, the lengths of the waiting restrictions were reduced to an absolute minimum to increase available kerb side space. Works to implement the restrictions are in progress.

You can read more about this consultation here.

We asked

We asked whether you wish for your road to be included in the proposed extended Church End “CE” CPZ. Roads in the proposal included Park View Road, Park Avenue Etchingham Park Road Park Crescent and Holdenhurst Avenue. This was in response to residents’ concerns regarding the high levels of parking by non-residents, which in turn was making it difficult for residents to find available kerbside space. You said indiscriminate parking was causing motorists problems driving through road junctions.

You said

We wrote to 254 properties in Park View Road and neighbouring streets on the proposal to be included in the existing Church End “CE” CPZ. We received 102 responses to the consultation. Overall, 40% of those consulted responded to the consultation. 63% of respondents from Park View Road, Park Avenue, Park Crescent and Etchingham Road said they would like their road to be included in the extended Church end CPZ. Respondents from Park View Road, Park Avenue, Etchingham Park Road and Park Crescent said indiscriminate and commuter parking on their roads is a problem. Respondents from Etchingham Park Road also requested for the proposed CPZ extension to include the southern part of the road from Holdenhurst Avenue to Squires Lane. Respondents asked for provision of visitors to Victoria Park with a short time parking.

We did

It has been agreed to proceed with the design and statutory consultation on the extension of existing Church End ‘CE’ CPZ to include the following roads:

• Park View Road
• Park Avenue
• Etchingham Park Road (between Holdenhurst Avenue to Squires Lane)
• Park Crescent

We carried out a statutory consultation from 27 May to 24 June 2021. You can read more about this here.

For more information on this consultation, please click here.

We asked

We asked for your views on whether you would like changes to the existing CPZ hours and days of operation of the CPZ in Crewys Road including Nant Road, Llanvanor Road, Granville Road to address the high levels of non-resident parking in Crewys Road and neighbouring streets, which in turn was making it difficult for residents to find available kerbside space.

You said

We wrote to 855 properties in the vicinity of the existing CPZ, on the proposed changes to CPZ operation times and days. We received 57 responses to the consultation. Overall 53.8% of respondents from Crewys Road said they would prefer longer operations hours to deter commuter parking. Most respondents all the roads said they would prefer the CPZ operational times and days to remain the same. Overall, 6.7% of those consulted responded to the consultation.

The majority of respondents from Crewys Road said they would prefer longer operations hours to deter commuter parking. The respondents of all the roads said they would prefer the CPZ operational times and days to remain the same.

Respondents from Granville Road asked for increased enforcement of existing controls on their road and replacing of vandalised/defaced signs. They said indiscriminate parking on the road is raising safety concerns.

We did

Based on the feedback received, we are proposing changing the hours of the CPZ operation in Crewys Road from 11am to 12pm to 10am to 5pm Monday to Friday. Changes will also include the introduction of double yellow lines at the junctions of Crewys Road to improve sight lines and road safety.

Officers have noted concerns regarding parking signs in Granville Road and are looking for the best way to resolve the issue. We have asked Parking Enforcement to increase patrols in the area and to take enforcement action on existing double yellow lines at the junctions.