Thanks for the responses thus far.
Am struggling to find the original PCNs but these are the original reps:
The contravention did not occur
Poor quality images, insufficient to support the alleged contravention.
The local authority has provided CCTV footage of the alleged contravention, together with stills taken from the video. The images are of very poor quality, with the number plate being fuzzy and very difficult to make out. I would contend that there is sufficient doubt about the details to make this unsafe evidence on which to base a penalty charge.
Furthermore, the vehicle in the video has passed two signs, but the view of the signs is impeded by the trees, foliage and bright sunshine, such that it is impossible to see the detail of the sign. Again, this is insufficient evidence on which to base a penalty charge as it is not clear what sign the vehicle has passed.
The signage is insufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to road users.
Following receipt of this PCN I have researched the signage connected with this restriction, keeping in mind the stipulations contained in Chapter One of the Traffic Signs Manual, “...it is essential that all signing provided is necessary, clear and unambiguous, and gives its message to road users at the appropriate time. The message must be quickly and easily understood at the point it is needed; neither too soon that the information might be forgotten, nor too late for the performance of any necessary manoeuvre.”
I note that there are advance warning signs on the A316, but unfortunately these signs fail to meet the above standards. The motorist’s attention is naturally drawn to the large plate describing the distance to the restriction, the date and time it applies and the exemption for permit holders. This a lot of information to take in when travelling at 40mph, and in fact once the motorist has processed this information they might then turn their attention to the roundel, which is in fact much smaller than the plate, but by then they would quite likely have passed the sign and missed the message which should have been conveyed by an effective advance warning sign. I would question whether the sign complies with TSRGD 2016 as the sign and plate are out of proportion, and would request sight of the authorisation of this sign by the Secretary of State, in the event that the local authority reject this representation.
Once in Hartington Road there is no further warning sign until the motorist reaches the beginning of the restriction, by which time it is too late to take an alternative route as there is no way of escape either at the beginning of the restriction or on the final approach. I would suggest that a clear warning sign is necessary prior to Ibis Lane, to meet the required standard above, ie before it is too late for the performance of the necessary manoeuvre to divert from the route straight ahead which leads to the restriction.
The motorist must have sufficient time on seeing the signage to safely take evasive action to avoid contravening the restriction. Having reached the sign, the only evasive action the motorist can take here is to turn around in the road, which is a ridiculous thing for a local authority to require of a motorist and is contrary to the requirement of section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in which the duty is imposed on the local authority to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic.
I would like to point out that my journey along Hartington Road began at the Quintin Hogg Memorial Sports Ground which is in Hartington Road, therefore I did not even have the advance warning of the inadequate signs on the A316. The local authority seems to have made an assumption that motorists would already have travelled on the A316 before turning into Hartington Road but this was not the case for me.
The diagram to sign 619, which is used here, gives effect to an order which prohibits the use of a road by motor vehicles, according to Chapter Three of the Traffic Signs Manual, but this restriction is quite confusing to motorists, as use of the road is not completely prohibited. I had driven the opposite way on my journey to the Quintin Hogg Memorial Sports Ground with no problem and the CCTV footage shows another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction past my vehicle, which brings a contradiction in the mind of the motorist. If traffic is prohibited on this section of road, how come I could drive on it earlier today and other traffic is still using it? I would contend that the signage misleads the motorist as well as failing to give adequate information in good time.
I note from Council minutes the number of penalty charge notices being issued for the Hartington Road access restrictions was far higher than would be expected given the length of time that the restrictions had been in place.* This statement in itself shows that the signage is inadequate. I would request the local authority to provide details of the signage review which was ordered following that Council meeting*, should the local authority decide to reject this representation. * Chief Officer Delegated Decisions 3rd August 2022.
The CCTV footage is obviously taken from height, but there are plenty of trees and foliage wafting in the breeze and this raises the question of whether I had a clear view of the sign in my approach. I note that the minimum clear visibility distance when travelling at 20mph is 45m and I would ask the local authority to provide evidence that the full recommended sight line to the whole of the sign face is preserved for this distance, in the event that the local authority reject this representation. Advice in the Traffic Signs Manual is clear that cutting back of vegetation only in the immediate vicinity of the sign might not be sufficient; sign visibility should always be checked from the appropriate viewing distance.
