Some people living in areas effected by potential parking permit changes were not consulted by the council, it is claimed.

Enfield Council’s scrutiny committee yesterday (August 3) gave the green light for plans to raise the price of permits for Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), calculate them by engine size rather than emissions, and to scrap discounts for pensioners, after concerns were raised consultation responses were ignored.

However, it was claimed by a member of the public at last night’s meeting she and her neighbours had not received a survey and are now planning a petition against the council.

Reene Deba, of St Andrews Road in Enfield Town, said she and her family moved into an area where permits are needed to park October last year, yet never received a questionnaire.

She said: “To live within the CPZ and not receive a consultation is quite concerning. None of the people on my road got a consultation.

“I would be very happy to pay the rates stipulated if you could guarantee a parking space, but you cannot do that.”

Responding, Cllr Daniel Anderson, cabinet member for environment who is responsible for the plans, said consultations were posted to areas effected, and the survey was also available online.

It came towards the end of a meeting which had been preceded by bad blood between councillors because of comments made to the media.

Cllr Jo Laban, a member of the overview and scrutiny committee who called in the plans for discussion, said: "I am outraged that the Labour Council is ramming these proposals through without the consent of consultees. That they are doing so by charging over-65's more to park their car is deeply disappointing.

"I honestly think the local Labour Party has forgotten that it was the people who put them in control of the council because they have totally ignored the residents view in relation to this issue."

Speaking at the start of the meeting, Cllr Derek Levy, chairman of the committee, said: "I fully appreciate the right of Councillors to speak to the press, but I would reiterate the need to respect the impartial role of scrutiny, and ask that proper consideration be given to the timing and impact of any such conversation”.