The Elegant Alternative to ANPR: Protect the Space, Not Monitor the Estate
There is a certain allure to technology. Cameras appear decisive; databases sound efficient; apps promise effortless control. Yet the most sophisticated-looking answer is not always the most intelligent one.
If the problem at Noble Court is the unauthorised use of residents’ allocated parking spaces, then perhaps the solution should address those spaces directly.
ANPR would record every vehicle entering and leaving the estate. Residents and visitors could be required to register with a third-party company, while entirely legitimate users might find themselves disputing automatically generated parking charges.
For all that machinery, however, ANPR would not physically protect a single parking space.
A folding parking post would.
A simpler proposition
Subject to the freeholder’s written permission, the badly faded parking bays could be properly restored and the 38 allocated spaces fitted with discreet, lockable folding posts.
The two visitor bays would remain open and would not require posts.
The existing white brick inlays—currently so dirty that many of the bay boundaries are almost invisible—could be professionally cleaned, with damaged or permanently discoloured bricks replaced where necessary. Clear bay numbers could then be added.
The result would be orderly, visible and refreshingly uncomplicated: every allocated bay would be identifiable, and every participating leaseholder would control access to the space demised with their flat.
What would it cost?
A realistic working estimate for supplying and professionally installing 38 suitable posts would be approximately £6,000 to £10,000, depending upon the chosen specification, the condition of the paving and the freeholder’s requirements.
That represents broadly £160–£275 for each participating bay, before any unusually high licence or legal costs.
A collective installation should also command a substantially better price than 38 residents arranging separate works.
Because the posts would serve individual demised bays, the fairest and legally safest arrangement may be for each participating leaseholder to meet the cost attributable to their own space. The lease would, of course, need to be examined before any attempt was made to recover the expenditure through the general service charge.
Why parking posts deserve serious consideration
A parking post is hardly glamorous. That may be its greatest virtue.
It does not photograph every vehicle entering and leaving Noble Court. It does not collect registration data, require an app or place residents’ details in the hands of a parking-enforcement company.
It cannot issue an automatic parking charge to a lawful resident, visiting relative, carer, tradesperson or delivery driver.
It brings no revenue-dependent enforcement arrangement, no elaborate appeals process and no lengthy parking-company contract.
Instead, it does one modest but useful thing: it prevents an unauthorised vehicle from occupying the space.
ANPR documents the alleged breach after it has happened. A parking post may stop it from happening in the first place.
Responsibility should accompany control
As the bays are demised under the individual leases, freeholder approval would be essential. One suitable design should be selected so that the installation remains visually consistent across the estate.
The written permission should make clear that, after installation, each post becomes the responsibility of the leaseholder whose flat includes that bay.
That responsibility should include:
- Keeping the post safe, visible and operational.
- Maintaining or replacing it when necessary.
- Looking after the keys.
- Repairing any damage caused to the bay or surrounding surface.
- Temporarily removing it if access is required for essential estate works.
- Passing the responsibility to a future owner when the flat is sold.
The RMC should not acquire a perpetual maintenance obligation for equipment installed for the exclusive use of individual leaseholders.
Let us begin with the basics
Before Noble Court embraces estate-wide surveillance, third-party vehicle registration and automatic parking charges, there is a more elementary question to answer:
Have the straightforward alternatives even been tried?
At present, the bay boundaries are almost invisible. The white brick inlays are heavily soiled. The most basic means of showing where one parking space ends and another begins has been allowed to deteriorate.
It would be extraordinary to introduce an elaborate camera-enforcement regime before restoring the markings that define the existing parking arrangements.
A measured approach would be to:
- Record the true frequency and location of unauthorised parking.
- Confirm the boundaries of every demised and visitor bay.
- Clean and restore the existing bay markings.
- Obtain freeholder approval for a single, appropriate post design.
- Invite leaseholders to join a voluntary bulk-purchase scheme.
- Review the position after a reasonable trial period.
This proposal is not free, and it must be implemented with proper regard to the leases and the freeholder’s rights. But it is finite, targeted and proportionate.
Most importantly, it addresses the actual parking space rather than monitoring everyone who passes the entrance.
If the problem is unauthorised occupation of demised bays, let us protect the bays—not place Noble Court under unnecessary ANPR surveillance.
Residents and leaseholders are warmly invited to share their views below. Please keep the discussion civil, constructive and directed towards the proposal—never the person making it.
Join the debate in the Forum Parking Post Discussion
User registration is required to post replies on the discussion forum boards.