This is my intended representations letter. Please let me know if it is sufficient:
**Representation against Penalty Charge Notice: [PCN NUMBER]**
Dear Leeds City Council,
I am writing to make representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice, issued in relation to the alleged prohibited right turn at the junction of Green Road and Stonegate Road, Meanwood.
I accept that my vehicle made the right turn shown in the enforcement evidence. However, I respectfully submit that the prohibition was not adequately or clearly conveyed to a driver approaching the junction and that the signing and road layout did not provide adequate information that the right turn was prohibited.
### 1. Regulation 18 of the LATOR 1996: requirement for adequate information
Regulation 18(1)(a) of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 requires an authority to take such steps as are necessary to secure:
"the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road."
Regulation 18(1)(b) further requires such signs to be maintained for as long as the order remains in force.
My representation is that, viewed in the context of this particular approach to the junction, the signage did not provide adequate information to me as a driver that the right turn was prohibited.
### 2. The No Right Turn sign is poorly positioned and easy to miss
There is a No Right Turn sign positioned to the left of the cycle lane as the junction is approached. It is immediately adjacent to and visually competes with the traffic-light infrastructure and pedestrian crossing signals behind it.
A driver's attention approaching this junction is naturally drawn towards the traffic signals, the junction itself, pedestrians and cyclists, and the traffic movements taking place around the junction. In that context, the single No Right Turn sign is relatively easy to miss.
I did not deliberately disregard a clearly visible prohibition. I simply did not register the restriction in sufficient time to understand that the apparently available right turn was prohibited.
### 3. The left-turn road marking is positioned some distance before the junction
There is a left-turn road marking on the approach. However, this is approximately two metres before the junction itself.
While I recognise that this marking is relevant to the restriction, its position means that it is not an immediate or particularly prominent indication at the point where a driver is actually making the decision about which direction to take.
There is also no prominent supplementary sign immediately at the junction stating that the approach is left-turn only.
The combination of the relatively inconspicuous No Right Turn sign and the road marking being some distance before the junction does not, in my view, provide sufficiently clear information in the circumstances.
### 4. The physical layout reinforces the impression that a right turn is available
The configuration of the junction makes the right turn appear physically available to a driver approaching it. This is particularly significant because right turns at this location were historically permitted.
I appreciate that the historical position does not determine the current restriction. My point is that, given the physical appearance of the junction, the prohibition needs to be conveyed particularly clearly to approaching drivers.
In this case, the restriction depends heavily on a driver noticing and interpreting the No Right Turn sign and the road marking in the approach, rather than the layout itself making the prohibited movement immediately apparent.
### 5. The missing bollard removes an additional visual cue
There was also a bollard on the traffic island ahead which has since been cleanly knocked off and is no longer present.
I appreciate that the absence of the bollard does not, in itself, remove the legal prohibition on making the turn. I mention it as part of the overall visual context.
The bollard would have provided an additional physical and visual cue that the movement was not intended to be made. Its absence makes the right turn appear even more physically available and therefore reinforces the importance of clear and prominent signage.
### 6. This is an issue of adequate signing, not simply unfamiliarity with a new layout
I appreciate that the wider Meanwood junction scheme is no longer a new change. My representation is therefore not simply that I was unfamiliar with a recently altered road layout.
Rather, my point is that the current arrangement does not adequately communicate the prohibited movement to a driver approaching this particular junction.
The fact that camera enforcement was subsequently introduced makes it especially important that the restriction is clearly and adequately conveyed before enforcement is undertaken.
### Request for cancellation
I respectfully ask the Council to cancel the PCN in these circumstances.
I would also ask the Council to carry out a site inspection from the approach taken by my vehicle and consider the signage from the perspective of an approaching driver, rather than relying solely on the enforcement camera's position.
In particular, I ask the Council to consider whether the positioning of the No Right Turn sign, the location of the left-turn road marking approximately two metres before the junction, the surrounding traffic-light and pedestrian infrastructure, and the physical appearance of the junction together provide the "adequate information" required by Regulation 18(1)(a).
I would also ask the Council to confirm, in responding to this representation, how it considers that the signage at this location provided adequate information as required by Regulation 18(1)(a).
I have photographs showing the approach, signage and road layout which illustrate the points made above and can provide these in support of my representation.
Yours faithfully,