Folkestone & Hythe CPZs: What’s the Primary Purpose of Controlled Parking Zones?

By any common-sense reading, Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) exist to manage scarce kerbspace—not to top up town halls’ coffers. That isn’t just political spin; it is embedded in statute, confirmed in court, and restated in government guidance. Yet the money involved is undeniably large, and that fuels suspicion. Here’s what stands up to scrutiny.

Public Question – Folkestone & Hythe 

On the 1 Oct, at full council Mr M Bradbury will ask the following question to Cllr P Blakemore, Cabinet Member for Transport, Regulatory Services and Building Control, at Folkestone & Hythe District Council:

“Could the Councillor please advise me of the primary purpose of Controlled Parking Zones?”

Answer in brief: The primary purpose of a CPZ is to manage limited on-street parking—controlling who can park, where and when—so residents and local businesses have reasonable access, traffic flows safely, and streets aren’t clogged by long-stay commuter or visitor parking. It is a traffic management tool, not a revenue-raising scheme.

What CPZs are for – Legally

Parking powers derive from the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Any surplus from on-street parking and enforcement is ring-fenced and can only be used for specified transport purposes (from public transport to highways works); it cannot be treated as general income.

Government guidance under the Traffic Management Act 2004 reiterates the same principle: enforcement exists to keep traffic moving fairly and safely—not to raise revenue.

The Test Case which drew a bright line

In July 2013, the High Court in Attfield v London Borough of Barnet quashed sharp hikes to CPZ resident permits and visitor vouchers. The judge found the rises were driven by an aim to generate a surplus rather than to manage parking demand—unlawful under the 1984 Act. This remains the landmark warning to councils that using CPZ pricing primarily to raise money will be struck down.

The money is big – but that isn’t proof of misuse

The numbers are eye-catching. In 2023–24, English councils reported around £2.0bn in gross parking income and roughly £1.0bn in net surplus across on- and off-street operations (based on councils’ official returns). Surpluses rose markedly year-on-year.

Crucially, a surplus is not itself unlawful. The law expects authorities to cover costs and then, where a surplus arises, to spend it only on the transport purposes set out in section 55 of the 1984 Act. Many councils state this explicitly in their annual “parking account” disclosures.

So, have CPZs been used as a revenue raiser

• They must not be. The statute and guidance are unambiguous.

• Some have tried. Barnet’s 2013 CPZ case is the clearest example: the court held the increases unlawful because revenue-raising—not parking management—was the purpose.

• Large surpluses exist. The national parking surplus now tops £1bn, which fuels public suspicion, but that money is legally hypothecated to transport uses. Evidence of a surplus alone is not evidence of an unlawful motive.

The Bottom Line

Charging within CPZs to manage demand is lawful; charging primarily to raise cash is not. When councils cross that line—as Barnet did—the courts intervene. The presence of big surpluses demands transparency and scrutiny, but the law already forbids treating CPZs as a general revenue stream.

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent