Lewisham / 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition... / Leahurst Road - Westbound

Hi all,

From searching I can see that this is a fairly well known road, and would be grateful for advice as to recent appeal outcomes, bearing in mind the updates to signage. GSV - https://maps.app.goo.gl/LMG71exvnJ37vgvN9

I used to live nearby about 20 years ago and regularly used it as a route home. I still often used it as a shortcut during the intervening years, albeit not recently. So my main excuse is that when I used it 'for old time's sake' on the way home from a family day out on a Sunday afternoon, I had zero reason to expect any restrictions, especially at that time on a weekend. Looking at the video, and having visited the site since to try to work out how the hell I missed any signs, I can only guess that my concentration may have been on the approaching white car, plus the bollard type sign indicating to keep left may have made me presume that the signs on the poles were indicating the same thing; I was aware this is a narrowed section. Also with it being just a regular residential street, the cars coming the other way would have made me think that nothing was amiss, no reason to suspect any restrictions?

Ironically once around the corner and approaching the rail bridge I did jam on the brakes on seeing two blue "No Motor Vehicles.." signs, and two 'flying bike / camera' signs further on after the bridge. Very confused as to whether this restriction was in force (there were no day / time signs), but erring on the side of caution, I did a three point turn and routed down a side road (after double checking the days & times of the school restriction on it!). I can only presume that the reason I saw these, and not the ones prior, is the difference in location & size; the latter ones are clear of any other signs or background interference, and larger. The ones before the corner have houses in the background, plus the No Entry signs just beyond, and are significantly smaller. I'll post up some links to recent photos as I'm aware GSV is out of date - probably around the same time that I previously routed through it!

So PCN details:






And online evidence screenshot:



And images / video:





https://imgpile.com/p/6A7WccA

Many thanks for any advice, my gut feeling is that I have no hope re: inadequate signage, but am keen to know if the online procedural errors still exist, and if they are being successful in appeals.

After reviewing the location, it shows that 4 appeals were allowed, all in 2024, for inadequate signage! No clue if they've updated it recently, but the CCTV doesn't show otherwise. The sign on the left is misplaced and barely visible, leaving only one sign on the right and the motorist would be looking at the island and crossing rather than that.

Justin Oliver vs London Borough of Lewisham

And even better, there have only been 4 APPEALS at the Tribunal at this location! That means that every single appeal that has been published has been won.

Photos of Leahurst Rd street view taken this week:



And in comparison, the signs just around the corner which were effective - I re-routed along Pascoe Rd to the right. I presume it's a different section as it's on a different street (Ennersdale Rd)?



And lastly, a nearby road where Lewisham have used a more effective method - why hasn't this been used for Leahurst, if they don't want vehicles using it?!?

After reviewing the location, it shows that 4 appeals were allowed, all in 2024, for inadequate signage! No clue if they've updated it recently, but the CCTV doesn't show otherwise. The sign on the left is misplaced and barely visible, leaving only one sign on the right and the motorist would be looking at the island and crossing rather than that.

Justin Oliver vs London Borough of Lewisham

Thanks for this. The previous cases I found from 2024 seemed to indicate that there was only one small sign to the left of the carriageway, and this was the reason it was regarded as inadequate. From the adjudicators comments it sounds like the second sign was in place for this appeal, but was still regarded as inadequate. Plus the other factors are exactly what I have thought - the keep left sign being a distraction etc.

I'll submit a challenge for this today, as I think it's close to the 14 day cutoff - why can't they specify which day this is, rather than "14 days beginning with the date of this notice"?

I'll include the pertinent reasons as used in the case above (Justin Oliver vs London Borough of Lewisham) although I presume it will be rejected automatically regardless of representations made?

I'd appreciate some thoughts / advice from some of the Hero Members if possible as to chances at tribunal.

Many thanks.

Well over 95% of reps to councils are refused.They do this because they know that most people cough-up to get the discount which is usually re-offered.

I'll include the pertinent reasons as used in the case above

How?

In that case there was a single gateway sign and a so-called advance warning sign on the right-hand side of the carriageway adjacent to parking places. Now there's a pair of gateway signs and an 'advance' warning sign on the left.

I wonder whether you could you do something with the following:

While an advance sign is non-regulatory and therefore could comprise a sign or combination which is not prescribed, here the council have used the regulatory form of the sign with an associated plate. As this prohibition could be marked with a single sign, then a motorist could think that this was the start of the prohibition and because no sign preceded it still be cursing their luck and seeking to manoeuvre their car safely through the chicane when they come across a second set(which according to the council's video marks the actual start of the prohibition) and be unable to avoid. The council might argue that a motorist should not be misled because the 'associated plate' states ** ahead(OP, why is this out of focus, it's important).
But the regs do not permit such an associated plate to carry wording to the effect that 'the restriction doesn't start here, it starts in ***m and this is just a warning'! The only permitted plates relate to times and exceptions, but without exception when used in its regulatory form it carries only one meaning: the prohibition starts here.

Some thoughts.

I'll include the pertinent reasons as used in the case above

How?

In that case there was a single gateway sign and a so-called advance warning sign on the right-hand side of the carriageway adjacent to parking places. Now there's a pair of gateway signs and an 'advance' warning sign on the left.

I wonder whether you could you do something with the following:

While an advance sign is non-regulatory and therefore could comprise a sign or combination which is not prescribed, here the council have used the regulatory form of the sign with an associated plate. As this prohibition could be marked with a single sign, then a motorist could think that this was the start of the prohibition and because no sign preceded it still be cursing their luck and seeking to manoeuvre their car safely through the chicane when they come across a second set(which according to the council's video marks the actual start of the prohibition) and be unable to avoid. The council might argue that a motorist should not be misled because the 'associated plate' states ** ahead(OP, why is this out of focus, it's important).
But the regs do not permit such an associated plate to carry wording to the effect that 'the restriction doesn't start here, it starts in ***m and this is just a warning'! The only permitted plates relate to times and exceptions, but without exception when used in its regulatory form it carries only one meaning: the prohibition starts here.

Some thoughts.

Thanks for this, I'm aware in that case there was only one restriction sign, but the positioning is the same, which means it's still too late to do anything about it before you've entered the restriction because it's on / after a traffic calming / pedestrian crossing island.
Your point regarding the non-regulatory advance sign is very useful, and I think it (or something similar) is mentioned by the adjudicator in that case. I'm not sure why the sign appears out of focus for you, zoomed in you should be able to see it states "25 yds ahead".

The pertinent reasons I was referring to were :

"I find the nature of the location detracts from the restriction since it encourages motorists to construe the location as a traffic calmed crossing and thereby inducing the notion that traffic will be proceeding in order to be calmed"

"the central island prevents motorists from adopting a turn to effect a remedial manoeuvre in order to avoid transgressing the sign"

"The sign is placed at the end of the traffic island and, in my judgement, is unlikely to be seen by the motorist until they have entered the island
carriageway by which time there is no means of avoiding entry into the prohibited route.

"The motorist's attention on the approach is likely to be on the island sign directing traffic to bear to the left of the sign."

I will also mention two other sign related issues hopefully illustrated by photos below. 1) When approaching from Longhurst Road (the road to the right on the initial photos) there are two blue advance warning signs on a sharpish left hand corner just before the junction with Leahurst Road. The nearside one is obscured by a hedge, the far side one is right over in the other side, and there are numerous parked vehicles. A motorist should be concentrating on negotiating the corner and avoiding traffic coming in the opposite direction at that point rather than spotting signs. 2) When reaching the junction with Leahurst Road (to turn right) the small advance warning sign on the opposite side of the road is side on, and therefore impossible to read. So the first time you would be aware of the restriction is when confronted by the signs on the traffic calming island, which as mentioned above has it's issues.

I think I'm right in saying that previous Tribunal outcomes are not used as precedents? So the real question is what chance is there of success for this case, either with the evidence above, or with possible admin mistakes etc?

In your other examples, the warning signs are not regulatory, which is how it must be for this because a single sign can suffice therefore a single sign cannot be a warning, it signifies having regulatory effect.

As regards, 'I'm aware in that case there was only one restriction sign, but the positioning is the same, which means it's still too late to do anything about it before you've entered the restriction because it's on / after a traffic calming / pedestrian crossing island.', as they say, one adjudicator's decision is not binding on another, but it is a decision in favour of your argument none the less.