Neighbours have urged Barking and Dagenham Council to scrap controls forcing them to pay to park outside their homes.

Some people in River ward allege the controlled parking zone (CPZ) - which includes New Road, Beam Avenue and Broad Street in Dagenham - is a money-making scheme.

The council maintains the scheme addresses concerns over congestion, safety, air quality and parking pressures.

It says the aim is to discourage car ownership, promote walking, cycling and public transport as well as prevent people from outside parking in the borough's streets.

Gwynn McDermott, of New Road, said there was no issue with parking until yellow lines started appearing.

Asked what the council should do, she said: "Revoke it. It's time they listened to the people that voted them in - the people they are meant to work for."

A council spokesperson said the town hall would not reverse the decision, but will continue monitoring the CPZ's impact.

Mark Smith, of Beam Avenue, said it operates at times when there is no issue with parking.

He called on the council to publish evidence the scheme had cut emissions, describing the charges as "extortionate".

"This is one of the poorest boroughs in London," Mark said.

CPZ charges vary according to a vehicle's emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) gas.

The council spokesperson said the CPZ went live on July 19 so it was too early to provide updates.

The average, annual cost of a permit is £36 or 70p per week, according to the council.

Vehicles with very low CO2 emissions are not charged. The council maintains its charging is comparable to other local authorities.

Mark slammed a consultation which he said saw 37 in favour out of 188 responses returned from 2,314 letters sent out.

Karen Whittaker, of Oval Road North, claimed the CPZ was snuck in under cover of Covid-19 with many preoccupied by the pandemic.

She argued against the assertion that CPZs improve air quality, saying parked vehicles do not emit pollutants.

The spokesperson admitted the majority of residents did not support the scheme, though this represented a "very small" amount compared to the number consulted.