Overall Rating: 14/100
Barking and Dagenham has good aims, including increasing Controlled
Parking Zones (CPZs), promoting active travel, and enhancing air
quality. However, these intentions were not translated into actual
policies, apart from the implementation of a diesel surcharge and
emissions-based parking charges.
It is good to see disabled residents receiving priority over commuters
in the council’s Hierarchy of Parking Need, but we couldn’t find any
specific policies relating to this. The borough acknowledges the
relationship between parking policies and greenhouse gas emissions in
its strategic plans, and this is evidenced by the diesel surcharge.
However, Barking and Dagenham’s parking policy was lacking in several
areas. The borough scored very poorly on accessibility, reducing
parking spaces, enhancing the pedestrian environment, managing parking
on housing estates, providing short-stay parking, and promoting active
travel initiatives.
Barking and Dagenhams's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 11/100
In Barnet’s policy documents, we found no evidence of a commitment to
reduce car ownership, nor making parking policy fair for all residents
including non-car owners, nor placing blue badge holders and
sustainable uses above car parking.
It is good to see that Barnet, unlike some outer boroughs,
acknowledges the link between air quality and parking, by using
emissions based parking charges and levying a diesel surcharge.
However, the diesel surcharge is almost negligible at £12.20. Barnet
has small controlled parking zones (CPZs) with no evidence of
exemptions for permit holders from other zones, but only 22% of
possible streets in the borough have controlled parking.
The ‘cycle parking’ section of the
Long Term Transport Strategy
is brief and purely descriptive. It says that the council “could”
implement a measure, not that it will. Barnet also scores poorly on
Accessibility, Reducing parking, Pedestrian Environment, Parking on
Housing Estates, Short stay Parking and Active and Sustainable Travel.
Barnet's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 07/100
Bexley ranks joint lowest with Hillingdon, scoring an average of 7%.
The borough's most recent Parking Strategy and Action Plan dates back
to 2014, indicating a need to bring plans and policies up to date.
Unfortunately, many critical aspects of parking policy were neglected,
with minimal provision for cyclists noted in our assessment.
On the positive side, Bexley's pavement crossover policy and limited
support for car-free housing developments in "appropriate locations"
were highlighted as commendable. However, the borough faces
significant challenges in other areas. Notably, Bexley lacks any
Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), operates on a flat parking permit
pricing structure without surcharges for diesel vehicles or discounts
for electric vehicles (EVs).
The overall performance across various criteria remains poor, with
Bexley scoring poorly on accessibility, reduction of parking spaces,
enhancement of the pedestrian environment, management of parking on
housing estates, and provision of short-stay parking options.
Bexley's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 14/100
Brent's performance aligns with other outer London boroughs, receiving
an average score of 14% in our assessment. Brent expressed ambitious
commitments to promoting active travel and reducing car ownership in
its Transport Strategy 2015-2035; however, these aspirations were
often not substantiated by tangible policy implementations.
We were pleased to see that Brent allocates kerbspace exclusively for
car club and car sharing vehicles, and it maintains numerous small
Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) along with policies like surcharges on
additional permits beyond one per household and a diesel surcharge.
However, Brent lacks comprehensive information on cycle parking
facilities and the associated costs compared to car parking. Moreover,
the borough performed poorly in key areas such as accessibility,
reducing parking spaces, improving the pedestrian environment,
managing parking on housing estates, and providing adequate short-stay
parking options.
Bexley's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 12/100
Reducing the impact of excessive parking is identified as a priority
in Bromley; however, specific details on how this objective will be
realised are lacking. The borough's Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)
coverage stands at only 10%, primarily consisting of large zones that
can encourage driving for short local journeys, potentially
conflicting with the goal of reducing car usage.
On the positive side, Bromley has designated kerb space for car clubs
and car sharing, and it discourages the use of pavement crossovers,
which can affect pedestrian safety as well as increasing flood risk
where gardens are converted to hardstanding.
On the downside, Bromley scores poorly on accessibility measures,
initiatives aimed at reducing parking spaces, improvements to the
pedestrian environment, managing parking on housing estates, and
reducing short-stay parking.
Bromley's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 57/100
Camden is one of the stronger boroughs on parking policy, with an
impressive 98% coverage of Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). Notably,
Camden is among the few boroughs that have committed to promoting
parking-free housing developments as outlined in the Transport
Strategy 2019-2041.
The borough minimises free parking availability and opts for
installing new electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure along the
highway rather than on footways. Camden also excels in accessibility
initiatives, such as trialling cargobike and adapted cycle parking
solutions while addressing pavement clutter. Additionally, Camden has
committed to conducting a feasibility study for implementing a
workplace parking levy and reducing overall parking spaces.
On the negative side, Camden lacks evidence of imposing a surcharge on
additional parking permits per household and does not publicly
disclose Blue Badge Fraud prosecution statistics.
Camden's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 18/100
It is to be expected that the City of London’s policies may have some
differences compared to the thirty- two London boroughs, due to it
being an administrative business district with very few residents.
Fifty percent of the district’s areas were under controlled parking as
calculated by the Healthy Streets Scorecard in 2023.
It’s good to see that the City of London requires all developments to
be car-free. The City also has a commitment to placing EV charging
infrastructure on the carriageway in the transport strategy, as well
as a commitment to provide parking for non standard cycles. Proposal
14 of the Transport Strategy states that the use and management of
kerbside and car parks will be reviewed frequently to identify
opportunities to reallocate space from car parking for walking,
cycling, cycle parking and public space, but is lacking in further
detail.
The City of London is currently reviewing its Transport Strategy (last
published in 2020). We would like to see a commitment to removing free
parking in the district (except for Blue Badge holders) and more
controlled parking.
City of London's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 23/100
Croydon demonstrates a strong awareness of how parking management
influences various aspects such as car ownership, air quality, public
health, and reduction of greenhouse gases, distinguishing it from many
outer boroughs. The borough actively discourages pavement crossovers,
charges more per household for additional vehicles, implemented a
diesel surcharge, and utilises emissions-based charges. Croydon has
also introduced kerbside space for car club and car sharing services,
as outlined in the Parking Policy 2019-2022.
However, there are areas that require improvement. The cost of parking
remains low, with the cheapest rate set at only £6.50 per year, far
below the benchmark minimum of £150 recommended for effective parking
management. Furthermore, the borough scores poorly in several key
areas, including accessibility, reducing parking spaces, enhancing the
pedestrian environment, managing parking on housing estates, and
providing adequate short-stay parking options.
Croydon's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 27/100
Ealing’s parking policies demonstrate a focus on creating safe and
attractive streets through the implementation of small Controlled
Parking Zones (CPZs) and the recognition of parking policy's role in
urban aesthetics and safety. The borough also levies a diesel
surcharge and utilises emissions-based parking charges, emphasising
sustainability and air quality considerations. Additionally, the
allocation of kerbside space to car clubs reflects efforts to promote
alternative transportation options.
However, there are notable areas that require improvement. The CPZ
coverage stands at only 47%, indicating room for expansion to manage
parking demand effectively across the borough. Furthermore, the
absence of policies addressing pavement crossovers and car-free
housing developments represents missed opportunities to enhance
pedestrian safety and promote sustainable urban planning practices.
The borough's overall performance is also lacking in several key
areas, including reducing parking spaces, improving the pedestrian
environment, managing parking on housing estates, and providing
adequate short-stay parking options. While there is some mention of
cycle parking for cargo bikes in town centres, the overall score on
accessibility remains poor.
Ealing's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 19/100
Enfield demonstrates a strong commitment to managing demand for
on-street parking, reflecting a clear vision and principles in its
approach to parking policies. However, despite these overarching
goals, the council's performance in implementing specific policies to
achieve its aims is lacking, resulting in a poor overall score.
One notable strength is the borough's detailed housing estate and
council house parking policy, which stands out as unusually
comprehensive compared to other areas. The borough also implements
emissions-based parking charges, imposes a surcharge on additional
parking permits per household, and enforces a pavement crossover
policy with associated restrictions. Furthermore, the borough offers
cycle hangar charges at a reasonable rate of £12 per year, promoting
sustainable transportation options.
On the downside, the borough's Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) coverage
is limited, with only 15% of the area falling under this designation.
The borough also scores poorly in key areas such as accessibility,
reducing parking spaces, improving the pedestrian environment, and
providing adequate short-stay parking options.
Enfield's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 30/100
Greenwich’s transport policy demonstrates a clear linkage between
parking, kerbside management and the climate emergency, highlighting a
commitment to addressing environmental concerns within its parking
strategies. Among its strengths, the borough implements strong actions
for electric vehicles (EVs) and has a comprehensive kerbside
management action plan. Notably, the council intends to consult
non-drivers regarding future Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs),
reflecting an inclusive approach to transportation planning. The
borough also enforces a surcharge of £100 on additional resident
permits, discourages pavement crossovers, and implements both a diesel
surcharge and emissions-based parking charges.
Greenwich is distinct in acknowledging that EVs rank below walking,
cycling, and public transport in the kerbside plan road user
hierarchy, demonstrating a prioritisation of sustainable
transportation options.
Despite these strengths, the borough faces challenges in other areas.
Only 30% of the borough is covered by Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs),
and several car parks offer free parking on Sundays and overnight,
potentially encouraging car usage. While there are instances of
car-free developments in certain parts of the borough, there is no
general policy addressing this approach comprehensively. The issue of
installing electric vehicle charging points on pavements is
acknowledged, but there is no commitment to avoiding future footway EV
charging points.
Greenwich's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 61/100
Hackney has some of the best parking policies of any London borough.
The borough is notable for having 100% coverage of Controlled Parking
Zones (CPZs), distinguishing it as one of the few London boroughs with
this level of coverage. Alongside Lambeth, Hackney is among the only
boroughs to achieve a perfect score of 100% in the Active Travel
section, demonstrating strong commitments to sustainable
transportation initiatives.
Hackney's parking policies reflect several positive commitments
outlined in the 2022 Parking and Enforcement Action Plan. The borough
is dedicated to promoting car-free housing developments and
discouraging car use by charging as much for short-stay parking as a
return trip on public transport.
However, there are areas where Hackney's policies could be
strengthened. The cheapest resident parking permit is priced at £50
annually, much lower than the minimum charge of £150 which is our
benchmark. The borough lacks a specific commitment to reducing the
amount of space allocated to car parking, and there is no commitment
to installing dropped kerbs every hundred metres in alignment with
accessibility guidelines. Hackney also does not publish statistics on
prosecution for blue badge fraud or ensure that all electric vehicle
charging points (EVCPs) are accessible to disabled drivers.
Furthermore, Hackney does not explicitly state that it will explore
the feasibility of implementing a workplace parking levy.
Hackney's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 32/100
92% of Hammersmith and Fulham falls under Controlled Parking Zones
(CPZs). Additionally, the borough has plans to introduce a diesel
surcharge in June 2024, aligning with efforts to promote cleaner
vehicle technologies and reduce emissions.
However, certain aspects of the borough's parking policies raise
concerns. While the policy states the use of a transport hierarchy,
the practice contradicts this assertion, as evidenced by the provision
of free resident permits for electric vehicles (EVs) while charging
significantly higher fees, at £104 per year, for cycle hangar spaces.
Moreover, even annual permits for petrol cars are cheaper than cycle
hangar spaces, highlighting a potential imbalance in prioritising
sustainable transportation options.
Hammersmith and Fulham also falls short in commitments related to
accessibility, as indicated by the lack of a specific commitment to
making new Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) accessible to
disabled drivers. The borough scores poorly on accessibility overall,
with zero points in this category. While the policy mentions tackling
Blue Badge fraud, there is no evidence of publishing prosecution
statistics, indicating a need for greater transparency and
accountability in this area. Additionally, the borough's performance
on promoting active travel initiatives is subpar.
Hammersmith and Fulham's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 53/100
Haringey scored the highest among the outer London boroughs for its
parking policies. Unlike many other boroughs, Haringey does not offer
any free on-street car parking within Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs).
The borough also implements diesel charging and emissions-based
charging, reflecting a commitment to reducing emissions and promoting
cleaner vehicles. Haringey scores well on electric vehicles (EVs) and
demonstrates strong efforts in accessibility initiatives, including
providing parking for cargo bikes, allocating kerbside space to active
travel, and implementing measures to discourage pavement crossovers
and reduce parking spaces. The borough also consults with residents
before removing unused accessible parking bays, ensuring community
engagement in parking management decisions.
However, there are areas where Haringey's parking policies could be
enhanced. The borough lacks a specific policy addressing car-free
housing developments, presenting an opportunity for further promoting
sustainable urban planning. Additionally, increasing CPZ coverage
could improve parking management efficiency and reduce on-street
congestion. Haringey also needs to make a clearer commitment to making
Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) accessible to disabled
drivers and to installing dropped kerbs and yellow lines near
junctions to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility. Moreover,
Haringey has not explicitly committed to reducing the amount of space
allocated to car parking, which could further support sustainable
transportation goals.
Haringey's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 19/100
In Harrow, we identified numerous positive statements aligned with the
Mayor's Transport Strategy within the borough's Local Implementation
Plan documents. However, these statements lack specific policies.
Harrow demonstrates strengths in promoting electric vehicles (EVs)
through emissions-based charging and offering low-cost EV resident
permits priced at £26.20, which increases to £40.60 for the fourth and
subsequent vehicles. The borough also mentions efforts to tackle
pavement parking in the 2019 parking strategy, reflecting an
aspiration to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility.
Despite these strengths, Harrow faces significant challenges in other
areas. The borough has only 27% coverage of Controlled Parking Zones
(CPZs), as calculated by the Healthy Streets Scorecard 2023,
highlighting limitations in effective parking management. Harrow does
not acknowledge the social cost associated with EV parking, suggesting
potential oversight in assessing broader impacts. Additionally, there
is no evidence of a policy on cycle hangars or a comprehensive
kerbside strategy. The provision of free parking further undermines
efforts to manage parking demand effectively.
Harrow scores poorly across various sections, including accessibility,
reducing parking spaces, improving the pedestrian environment,
managing parking on housing estates, providing short-stay parking
options, and promoting active, shared, and sustainable travel
initiatives.
Harrow's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 08/100
Havering stands out as a rare borough that publishes prosecution
statistics for Blue Badge fraud, demonstrating transparency and
accountability in parking enforcement efforts. However, the borough
falls short in most other areas of parking policy.
Havering offers free parking, including 30 minutes of free parking for
each on-street pay and display bay, which may contribute to increased
car usage and congestion. Unlike many other outer London boroughs,
Havering does not implement emissions-based charging for parking,
missing an opportunity to incentivise cleaner vehicle technologies.
Additionally, the borough does not allocate kerbspace for car clubs or
offer reduced costs for electric vehicle (EV) parking permits, which
could encourage sustainable transportation alternatives.
Unfortunately, Havering scores poorly across multiple sections of
parking policy assessment. The borough received a zero score in
categories such as reducing parking spaces, improving the pedestrian
environment, managing parking on housing estates, providing short-stay
parking options, and promoting active, shared, and sustainable travel
initiatives.
Havering's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 07/100
In Hillingdon's Local Implementation Plan, there are numerous positive
statements about reducing car ownership, improving air quality,
reducing parking, increasing car clubs, minimising car dominance,
reducing emissions, and enhancing the public realm with a healthy
streets approach. However, despite these ambitious aims outlined in
the plan, very few of them are translated into actual parking policies
within the borough. Hillingdon lacks emissions-based charges, offers
no reductions for electric vehicles (EVs), and shows no evidence of
provision for cycle storage. Additionally, unlike many outer boroughs,
there is no indication of allocating kerbside space to car clubs.
Hillingdon also falls short in terms of Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)
coverage, with only 14% of the area designated as CPZs.
As a result, Hillingdon scores zero on nearly all sections assessed,
indicating significant shortcomings in addressing key aspects of
parking management and sustainable transportation within the borough.
Hillingdon's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 27/100
Hounslow stands out among outer London boroughs with initiatives such
as a community parklet policy and a dedicated kerbside strategy,
demonstrating a commitment to enhancing public spaces and optimising
street use. The borough also implements a diesel surcharge and offers
relatively low-cost cycle parking at £36 per year. Notably, parking
permits for zero emissions vehicles are free, incentivising the use of
cleaner vehicles, but this also prioritises driving above active
travel. Hounslow is also conducting a feasibility study for a
workplace parking levy and allocates space for car clubs, promoting
sustainable transportation options.
Despite these positive aspects, Hounslow faces challenges such as
limited coverage of Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), with only 36% of
the area designated as CPZs. The borough lacks a specific policy
addressing parking on housing estates, highlighting potential gaps in
parking management strategies. Additionally, Hounslow needs to take
more decisive action in several other areas to further enhance
sustainable transportation and parking policies.
Hounslow's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 53/100
Islington demonstrates strong commitments to reducing car ownership,
minimising parking, enhancing streetscapes, and prioritising active
and sustainable travel within its borough. Notably, Islington has
implemented a policy on car-free housing developments, a rare
initiative among London boroughs, highlighting a proactive approach to
sustainable urban planning. The borough also restricts pavement
crossovers and boasts 100% coverage of Controlled Parking Zones
(CPZs), eliminating free parking options and promoting effective
parking management. Islington has committed to providing parking
facilities for adapted cycles and cargo bikes, aligning with efforts
to support alternative and environmentally friendly modes of
transportation as outlined in their
Transport Strategy 2020-2041.
However, Islington faces challenges in certain areas of parking
policy. The borough's resident roamer policy, which grants exemptions
from CPZ rules to residents of other CPZs, may introduce complexities
in parking management. Additionally, cycle hangar parking costs £107
per year, exceeding the cost of the cheapest Electric Vehicle (EV)
parking permit priced at £96 per year, potentially discouraging
cycling as a sustainable transportation option. Islington needs to
commit to installing new electric vehicle charging infrastructure on
the highway and ensuring its accessibility to all drivers. Addressing
pavement parking issues and installing double yellow lines within ten
metres of all junctions to improve visibility and safety are also
essential steps for enhancing traffic management and pedestrian safety
within the borough.
Islington's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 31/100
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) is one of the
lowest scoring inner London boroughs, articulating ambitious goals in
its Local Implementation Plan but without substantial follow-through.
RBKC does exhibit positive attributes in certain areas. It stands out
as one of the very few boroughs to publish statistics on Blue Badge
Fraud, demonstrating a commitment to transparency and accountability
in parking enforcement. The borough boasts 100% coverage of Controlled
Parking Zones (CPZs) and enforces restrictions on pavement crossovers
to enhance pedestrian safety. RBKC also implements a surcharge on some
diesel vehicles and utilises emissions-based parking charges, aligning
with efforts to reduce emissions and promote cleaner transportation.
Cycle parking in RBKC is priced at £72 per year, which is more
affordable than some other inner boroughs, although it exceeds the
cost of the cheapest car parking permit.
RBKC has made efforts to reallocate some kerbside space for cycle
parking, although there is no commitment to fully meet the demand for
cycle parking infrastructure. The borough performs well in shared
travel initiatives by allocating kerbside space for both cycle hire
and car clubs, encouraging sustainable transportation options.
However, RBKC has shortcomings in parking policy, including the
provision of residents' permits that allow parking in any CPZ within
the borough, potentially encouraging residents to rely on cars for
short journeys within an inner London area. The borough lacks plans
for implementing a workplace parking levy, which could help manage
parking demand and reduce car dependence. RBKC scores poorly across
multiple sections, with many areas receiving zero scores, highlighting
deficiencies in addressing key aspects of parking policy.
Kensington and Chelsea's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 18/100
The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames (RBKUT) outlines ambitious
goals in its Local Implementation Plan (LIP) aimed at improving public
health, air quality, and promoting car-free or "car-lite" housing
developments based on public transport connectivity. But despite these
commendable aims and investments in cycling infrastructure, RBKUT
falls short in translating many of these aspirations into concrete
parking policies.
RBKUT's 2019 Local Implementation Plan references a road user
hierarchy that prioritises active and sustainable travel over motor
vehicles. However, this hierarchy appears to be contradicted by the
fact that Electric Vehicle (EV) parking permits are offered free of
charge while the cost for a single cycle hangar parking space is £75
per year, potentially undermining efforts to promote cycling as a
sustainable transportation option.
On a positive note, RBKUT restricts pavement crossovers to improve
pedestrian safety. However, there are areas where the borough's
parking policies could be enhanced. Notably, RBKUT does not impose
additional charges for resident permits beyond the first one, which
may contribute to increased car ownership and congestion. The
borough's Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) cover only 19% of the area,
although this is more extensive than some outer boroughs. RBKUT lacks
a diesel surcharge and does not appear to have a clear process for
residents to request the installation of cycle hangars, limiting
accessibility to secure cycle parking. While RBKUT offers cycle hire
schemes, it is unclear whether these schemes utilise kerbside space
effectively, as opposed to increasing pavement clutter with cycle
storage on the footway.
Kingston's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 59/100
Lambeth demonstrates strong principles and vision in its parking
policies, with much of its strategic direction translating into
concrete policy actions—a notable distinction from many other
boroughs. For instance, Lambeth's pioneering
kerbside strategy
ensures that a cycle hangar space will always be no more than one
quarter the cost of a car parking permit, aligning pricing explicitly
with public health, air quality, and climate impact—an innovative
approach compared to most London boroughs. Lambeth also sets an
ambitious target for 25% of kerbside space to be allocated to
sustainable uses by 2030, showcasing a clear hierarchy prioritising
environmental consideration,. The commitment to installing new
Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) exclusively on the
carriageway and ensuring accessibility for disabled drivers further
distinguishes Lambeth's progressive approach. Additionally, Lambeth's
policy on car-free housing developments and high scores on the
pedestrian environment underscore its commitment to sustainable urban
planning.
However, Lambeth has certain shortcomings in its parking policies.
Currently, there is no surcharge on additional resident permits,
potentially contributing to increased car ownership and congestion.
Some parking bays in Lambeth remain free for one hour, which may
incentivise short car trips and impact traffic flow. Despite
impressive policies on addressing Blue Badge fraud, Lambeth does not
publish prosecution statistics, and it is unclear whether disabled
residents are consulted before removing underused accessible parking
bays. Lambeth could further enhance its parking policies by committing
to implementing double yellow lines within 10 metres of junctions to
improve visibility and safety. Exploring the potential for a workplace
parking levy could also support efforts to manage parking demand and
reduce car dependency within the borough.
Lambeth's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 21/100
Lewisham is a borough that has excelled in establishing strong
principles and vision, receiving a perfect score of 100% in this area.
However, while Lewisham recognizes the critical link between parking
policy and public health, air quality, and climate, the borough
currently lacks substantial policy measures to address these pressing
issues.
On a positive note, Lewisham has implemented a diesel surcharge,
emissions-based charges, and allocates kerbside space for car club
vehicles. The cost of cycle hangar space at £60 per year is lower than
that of a resident parking permit, which starts at £70 per year.
Additionally, estate residents have the option to request a cycle
hangar, although there is no specific policy on car-free housing
developments.
However, Lewisham has significant shortcomings in its parking
policies. The borough's Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) cover only 21%
of the area, potentially impacting parking management efficiency.
Lewisham's policy allows two vehicles on one permit at no extra
charge, which may contribute to increased car ownership and
congestion. Moreover, the policy of limiting accessible parking bays
to one per household without exemptions for households requiring
multiple adapted vehicles could pose accessibility challenges for
residents with specific mobility needs. Free short-stay bays near
shops may encourage residents to use cars for short journeys,
affecting traffic flow and air quality. Notably, Lewisham lacks
comprehensive policies on reducing parking, implementing a kerbside
strategy, and improving the pedestrian environment.
Lewisham's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 29/100
In Merton, the cost of a cycle hangar space is £30 per year, which is
still more than one sixth of the cost of the cheapest resident parking
permit, but is relatively affordable compared to most other outer
London boroughs. Electric Vehicle (EV) permits are priced at £20 per
year, making them cheaper than the cheapest petrol/hybrid permit at
£120 per year, but contradicting the transport hierarchy which
prioritises active travel above motor vehicles. The council has
expressed intentions to increase cycle parking availability, including
for non-standard cycles, indicating a proactive approach to supporting
cycling infrastructure.
Merton's parking policies demonstrate several strengths, including
emissions-based charges, a surcharge on additional permits, and a
substantial £150 diesel surcharge aimed at reducing emissions and
promoting cleaner transportation options. The borough excels in
cycle-related initiatives, with allocations of kerbside space for
cycle parking, cycle hire, and also car clubs, reflecting a commitment
to promoting sustainable transportation modes. The affordable EV
permits at £20 per year acknowledge the environmental benefits of
electric vehicles over fossil fuel vehicles, aligning with Merton's
Transport Strategy.
However, Merton has shortcomings in its parking policies. With only
46% coverage of Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), the borough may
experience limitations in managing parking demand and congestion.
There are no restrictions on pavement crossovers, potentially
affecting pedestrian safety and accessibility. Merton lacks a specific
policy on car-free housing developments, indicating opportunities for
further sustainable urban planning initiatives. Additionally, more
action is needed to strengthen kerbside policies, improve
accessibility, enhance the pedestrian environment, and implement
measures to reduce overall parking availability. The presence of free
parking at on-street pay and display bays may contribute to increased
car use for short trips, underscoring the importance of addressing
these areas to promote sustainable mobility within the borough.
Merton's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 29/100
Newham's parking policies reflect an understanding of parking
hierarchy and, unusually, a commitment to fairness for all residents,
including non-car owners. The borough recognises the crucial role of
parking policy in reducing car ownership and addressing issues such as
air quality, public realm enhancement, public health, and climate
change. Newham boasts an impressive 99% coverage of Controlled Parking
Zones (CPZs) and implements measures like surcharges on additional
permits and restrictions on pavement crossovers to manage parking
effectively. The borough also adopts emissions-based charging and
allocates kerbside space for car club vehicles, demonstrating a
proactive approach to promoting sustainable transportation options.
Additionally, estate residents have the opportunity to request cycle
storage facilities, contributing to efforts to support cycling within
the community.
Despite these positive aspects, Newham has several shortcomings in its
parking policies. There is a need for a clear policy on car-free
housing developments to advance sustainable urban planning
initiatives. The cost of the cheapest residents' parking permit at £33
per year is notably low, raising concerns about potential impacts on
parking demand and congestion. Cycle hangar space is priced at around
twice the cost of a resident parking permit, at £72 per year, which
may deter cycling as a viable transportation option. Newham scores
poorly on Accessibility, with no mention of cycle parking for
non-standard cycles, and also shows deficiencies in addressing
short-stay parking needs and enhancing the pedestrian environment.
Newham's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 10/100
Redbridge's 2020-2025 Parking Policy and the 2019 Local Implementation
Plan acknowledge the importance of reducing carbon emissions and
recognise the role of parking policy in achieving this goal; however,
the borough does not currently implement emissions-based charging for
parking, representing a missed opportunity to align parking policies
with environmental objectives.
On a positive note, Redbridge imposes a surcharge of approximately
£100 on additional permits per household, although the cost for the
first permit is very low at £22.50. Electric Vehicle (EV) permits are
provided free of charge, underscoring support for cleaner
transportation options. However, the cost of a cycle hangar space is
considerably higher at £72 per year compared to free EV permits,
highlighting disparities in promoting sustainable and active travel
choices.
Redbridge has shortcomings in its parking policies. With only 14%
coverage of Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), the borough may encounter
difficulties in effectively managing parking demand and congestion.
Redbridge scores poorly on various sections, and free parking remains
available, particularly the first hour at on-street pay and display
bays, which has been extended to 60 minutes in shopping areas to
promote a "fairer" parking policy. However, this policy may
inadvertently encourage residents to opt for local car trips,
contradicting the borough's objectives of reducing congestion and
improving air quality.
Redbridge's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 30/100
Richmond stands out as the highest scoring outer borough. The
borough's positive aspects include a kerbside use hierarchy that
prioritises Blue Badge holders and sustainable uses over car parking,
reflecting a commitment to improving air quality. Richmond also
imposes a surcharge on additional permits per household and mentions
new cycle parking accessible for non-standard cycles, demonstrating
support for sustainable transportation initiatives. Additionally,
Richmond allocates kerbside space to car clubs, contributing to
efforts to promote shared mobility options.
However, Richmond has shortcomings in its parking policies. The
borough charges £65 per year for the cheapest resident permit and £72
per year for a single cycle hangar space, potentially hindering
affordability and accessibility for cyclists. This pricing strategy
contradicts the Road User Hierarchy outlined in the borough’s Active
Travel Strategy, which is supposed to prioritise cycling over
zero-emissions vehicles. Moreover, only a small proportion of the
borough is covered by Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), limiting
effective parking management. While Richmond implements
emissions-based charging, the system has limited gradations,
indicating room for improvement in aligning charges with environmental
impact. The borough lacks a clear commitment to installing Electric
Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs) on the carriageway and ensuring
accessibility for all drivers. Additionally, Richmond could benefit
from publishing Blue Badge fraud statistics to enhance transparency
and accountability in parking enforcement.
Richmond also acknowledges the unmet demand for cycle hangar spaces
but redirects residents of estates to contact their landlords about
cycle parking, indicating opportunities for stronger policy
interventions. The borough lacks a comprehensive policy regarding
parking on housing estates and scores poorly on aspects related to the
pedestrian environment and short-stay parking. Recent measures to
facilitate pavement crossovers may impact pedestrian safety and
accessibility, suggesting a need for careful consideration of
infrastructure changes.
Richmond's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 41/100
Southwark's approach to addressing the climate emergency and reducing
car ownership is highlighted in its 'Streets for People' 2023-2030
Transport Strategy, which underscores the importance of combating the
air pollution crisis. The borough sets permit prices higher than many
others, with Electric Vehicle (EV) permits priced at £75 per year, and
implements measures such as restricting pavement crossovers and
imposing a diesel surcharge, demonstrating a commitment to improving
pedestrian safety and reducing emissions. Notably, Southwark is one of
the few boroughs that signed up to Transport for All's Equal Pavements
Pledge, emphasising inclusivity and accessibility in urban planning.
The borough recognises the social implications of EV parking and
allocates space for car clubs and cycle hire, supporting sustainable
transportation options.
Despite these positive efforts, Southwark has shortcomings in its
parking policies. There is no mention of a kerbside hierarchy, and the
borough does not impose a surcharge on additional vehicles, which may
impact parking demand and congestion. Southwark does not publish blue
badge fraud statistics, potentially hindering transparency in parking
enforcement. While the policy of making Electric Vehicle Charging
Points (EVCPs) accessible to disabled drivers and installing them only
on the carriageway is implicit, it could benefit from explicit
articulation in official documents.
Southwark's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 25/100
Sutton's Sustainable Travel Strategy demonstrates commendable efforts
for an outer London borough, particularly in areas such as
emissions-based charging, restricted pavement crossovers, and the
allocation of space for car club vehicles. The borough also operates a
dockless e-bike hire service, although it remains unclear whether the
parking bays are located on the footway or carriageway. However,
Sutton's strategy lacks a clear translation of the road user hierarchy
into a corresponding kerbside hierarchy, which could enhance clarity
and alignment in parking policies.
Parking permits in Sutton are priced at a minimum of £50 per year, and
there is no explicit mention of cycle parking provision nor a
commitment to meet the demand for cycle hangars, despite the
installation of nine hangars to date. The strategy mentions the
possibility of a workplace parking levy but does not provide
definitive plans for implementation. Sutton's parking policies also
fall short in terms of Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) coverage, with
only 16% of the borough covered. Additionally, there is no commitment
to car-free housing developments, and some car parks offer free
parking, potentially undermining efforts to reduce car dependency and
congestion.
Sutton's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 32/100
Tower Hamlets' parking policy currently lacks explicit acknowledgment
of the need to reduce car use and the significant role that parking
policy plays in achieving this goal. It's important to note that the
transport strategy was developed by the previous administration, which
may have influenced the direction and focus of current policies.
However, Tower Hamlets demonstrates several positive aspects in its
parking policies. The borough boasts 100% coverage of Controlled
Parking Zones (CPZs) and implements measures such as a diesel
surcharge, a surcharge on additional resident permits, and
emissions-based charges, aligning with efforts to reduce emissions and
promote sustainable transportation. Residents can apply for a bike
shelter storage space on council estates for a nominal fee of £10 per
year, although it remains unclear if the supply meets demand. Tower
Hamlets also offers Cycle Works sturdy storage lockers in certain
areas, further supporting cycling infrastructure. Additionally, the
borough plans to explore a workplace parking levy and aims to reduce
short-stay parking, which is a rare initiative among London boroughs.
Notably, Tower Hamlets charges a visitor car parking fee that exceeds
the cost of a return bus trip, incentivising alternative
transportation modes. The borough also allocates kerb space for car
clubs, promoting shared mobility options.
However, Tower Hamlets has shortcomings such as limited CPZ coverage,
with only four zones across the borough, which may encourage car
owners to use vehicles for short journeys within their zones due to
the availability of free parking. This contradicts principles outlined
in the policy aimed at improving air quality and discouraging car use.
Additionally, the cheapest resident permit is priced at just £36 per
year, potentially impacting parking demand and revenue. There is also
room for improvement in providing a clear system for applying for
cycle storage outside council estates, as currently, residents are
instructed to inquire via email, which may lack accessibility and
transparency.
Tower Hamlets' parking homepage
Overall Rating: 29/100
Waltham Forest's approach to parking action and delivery demonstrates
strengths in certain areas, although there are opportunities for
improvement in policy clarity and consistency. Unlike many boroughs
that excel in principles and vision but lack delivery, Waltham Forest
showcases notable initiatives without consistently articulated policy.
Waltham Forest excels in EV infrastructure, with restrictions on
pavement crossovers and a commitment to emissions-based charging. The
Local Implementation Plan for 2019 references car-free housing
developments, highlighting a forward-thinking approach to urban
planning. Additionally, Waltham Forest allocates kerbspace for car
clubs and has implemented unique policies such as introducing
Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) on estates based on resident demand.
Residents can actively request locations for Electric Vehicle Charging
Points (EVCPs), demonstrating a commitment to community engagement in
infrastructure decisions. The borough also aims to meet demand for
cycle hangars, providing affordable options for residents to secure
bicycles.
However, shortcomings persist in Waltham Forest's parking policies.
The borough has 46% CPZ coverage based on 2023 Healthy Streets
Scorecard calculations, suggesting room for expansion to manage
parking demand effectively. Free parking incentives, such as lunchtime
parking near town centres and Pop and Shop 15-minute allowances, may
encourage short car trips, contradicting goals to reduce vehicle
usage. Additionally, Waltham Forest lacks explicit commitments to
addressing Blue Badge fraud or publishing related prosecution
statistics. The borough scores poorly in areas such as short-stay
parking and reducing overall parking provisions. Furthermore, there is
no specific policy regarding adequate cycle storage on housing estates
or implementation of a workplace parking levy.
Waltham Forest's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 39/100
Wandsworth's parking policies exhibit strengths and areas for
improvement across several dimensions. While the borough lacks a clear
commitment to car-free housing developments, it encourages such
initiatives in its Adopted Local Plan 2023-2028. Wandsworth imposes a
surcharge on additional resident permits; however, the fee remains
consistent for second and subsequent permits, rather than scaling with
the number of vehicles owned by residents. Car parks do not offer free
parking, although some on-street parking does provide this option.
The borough mentions provisions for cycle parking for non-standard
bikes but lacks a robust commitment in this area. Hourly parking
charges are notably lower compared to other boroughs like Tower
Hamlets. While Wandsworth's Walking and Cycling Strategy proposes
reallocating kerbside space for sustainable uses, a definitive policy
on this matter is absent. Although some housing estates have Traffic
Management Orders (TMOs), the associated cost and standards relative
to Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) remain unclear.
Wandsworth shines in certain aspects of its parking policies.
Wandsworth commits exclusively to placing new Electric Vehicle
Charging Points (EVCPs) on the carriageway, reflecting a proactive
approach to sustainable infrastructure. Additionally, Wandsworth
offers free cycle hangar spaces for estate residents and allocates
kerbside space to car clubs, promoting shared mobility options.
However, Wandsworth has shortcomings, with CPZ coverage at 67% and no
evident diesel surcharge. The borough scores poorly in terms of
accessibility, lacks exploration of a workplace parking levy, and
exhibits shortcomings in reducing overall parking provisions and
addressing short-stay parking needs.
Wandsworth's parking homepage
Overall Rating: 33/100
Recent changes in Westminster's parking policies have included a
restructuring of pricing, the introduction of emissions-based
charging, and a surcharge for additional resident permits. Previously,
fees for parking EVs and hybrid vehicles were nominal, at 8p per hour.
The council's parking policies and reports outline these updates and
their implications.
Westminster utilises Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) on estates to
facilitate cycle parking. Cycle hangar space is available at £40 per
year, with a 25% discount for council housing tenants, and EV resident
permits are priced at £78 per year, which rightly prioritises active
travel over motor vehicles. However, there is a need for a clearer
commitment to meeting the demand for cycle storage, especially on
estates. Overall, the council aims to further discourage car use and
ownership but acknowledges the need to intensify these efforts.
Westminster boasts 99% CPZ coverage and recently introduced a diesel
surcharge. Additionally, the council publishes prosecution statistics
for Blue Badge fraud, distinguishing itself from most other boroughs.
Westminster demonstrates positive efforts regarding EVs, with
residents now paying a nominal fee of £1.50 per week to park EVs
outside their homes, replacing the previous free parking scheme.
Emissions-based charging is set to begin in June 2024. While there is
mention of cycle parking for non-standard cycles in hangar space
applications, this commitment is not explicitly stated elsewhere.
Furthermore, Westminster allocates kerbside space for car clubs and
discusses parklets in its "Greening Westminster" initiatives, although
a formal community parklet policy is absent. The council audits
kerbside use to inform parking policy decisions, a practice considered
rare, and mentions plans to redevelop car parks for alternative uses
in its city plan.
However, Westminster has shortcomings, with no clear policy on
car-free housing developments, kerbside policies, or explicit mention
of a workplace parking levy. The council's hourly parking rates remain
notably low for certain vehicles. Although supporting proposals to
repurpose car parks for alternative uses, Westminster lacks a
definitive commitment to reducing the overall parking space
allocation. These areas represent opportunities for Westminster to
strengthen its parking policies and align them more closely with
sustainability goals and urban planning strategies.
Westminster's parking homepage
