Please check the case numbers:
Dear Lewisham Council
I make these formal representations against PCNs: ZY09609018 and ZY009608944
Preamble:
I do not live in Lewisham borough or know the Hither Green area well but have been helping a colleague out with home improvements on the day of 5th August I drove down Leahurst road,they reside at the top of the road to drop some equipment to borrow and continued on down the road which took a sharp left bend into what i now know is Dermody Road - I now know this is a motor vehicle restricted access. I did not see any signage to indicate this as I was concentrating on how the road took a sharp left following a narrowing with pedestrian island with another road straight ahead with a clear no entry sign as it was a one way road, East down Park- I had agreed to return to collect the item two hours later and duly did so from my colleague making the same journey down Leahurst road and then sharp left into Dermody Road. I have been issued with both attached PCN's one at 16.03 on 5/8 and one at 18.02 on 5/8 - Until these arrived yesterday I had no knowledge I had done any wrong. I can not see any signage in the evidence and have since returned and noted that only a small sign is placed directly on the corner of the shop up a high - If driving you are not looking at that area - you are navigating the tight corner- pedestrian island and oncoming traffic. On the day and times in question the sun was shining directly onto my windscreen and view was further jeopardize as can be seen in the evidence the camera has sun bouncing of it.
Firstly - i believe this is not a clearly signed restriction - sign placed after passing the narrowing of the road leaves no where to turn off if you do observe and also the confusion that this sign could relate to the road - East Down park directly in front which is a no access road.
Secondly - I know I passed through the restriction twice in one day but to be penalized twice in a two hour window for a poorly signed restriction seems disproportionate.
Specific grounds:
The section of TSRGD that applies to this restriction is Schedule 3 Parts 1-5: “Upright signs that indicate regulatory requirements for moving traffic”. The sign that denotes the restriction at issue is at item 12 of the table at Schedule 3 Part 2 viz. “Motor vehicles prohibited”. The table further indicates provisions and general directions applicable to the sign. Item 12 is subject to General Direction 1 in Schedule 3 General Directions.
Schedule 3 General Direction 1 stipulates:
“1.- (1). The sign must only be placed to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic.
(2) When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or
prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point.”
The TSRGD 2016 further stipulates size, colour, sign design and illumination. Further The Traffic Signs Manual in its Introduction to Chapter 1 outlines how the manual should be used and interpreted:
9.1. para 1.1.1 –“Whilst the Manual can assist with complying with the mandatory requirements, it cannot provide a definitive legal interpretation, nor can it override them. This remains the prerogative of courts or parking adjudicators in relation to the appearance and use of specific traffic signs, road markings etc. at specific locations”.
Para. 1.2.1 states “In the Manual, the word “must” is used to indicate a legal requirement of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (or other legislation) that must be complied with. The word “should” indicates a course of action that is recommended and represents good practice. The word “may” generally indicates a permissible action, or an option that requires consideration depending on the circumstances.”
In the following representations, I cite sections of the TSM One (16) and Three to illustrate the responsibilities of Traffic Authorities when positioning a sign of this type.
Insufficient signage
I say that the signage is insufficient because:
The placement of the terminal sign does not allow the driver to understand the message quickly and easily at the point that is needed. It provides the message too late for the safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre given the road layout. I rely on para. 1.3.2 in Chapter One of the TSM and not the use of the word “must” indicating a legal requirement (18): “1.3.2. In order to achieve safe and efficient operation of a highway network, 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 safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre.”
Schedule 3, General Direction 1 in the TSRGD (2016) states that such signs should be placed “as near as practicable” to the point at which the restriction begins, suggesting that discretion can be used in placing the sign. It would be practicable to place the sign in advance of the traffic island in order for drivers to manoeuvre to comply.
In the following appeals, the adjudica
tors have found the signage placement to be insufficient: 224022084; 2230544814; 2240024490; 2240047190; 2240003548.
Road geometry
This road geometry immediately in advance of this sign presents the driver with multiple other matters to safely navigate, drawing their attention and reducing the time available to consider the single terminal sign announcing this restriction. I rely upon Chapter One TSM, para. 4.3.3: “In deciding the appropriate provision of terminal signs, the following factors should be taken into account:
• Turning angles
• Road geometry including vertical alignment
• One way traffic conditions
• Sign mounting height”
In this case, the road geometry includes:
• The traffic island and accompanying signage indicating road layout and direction of traffic. This appears as a traffic calming measure and the bollard sign indicates that traffic should keep left. This is at odds with the restriction to motor vehicles proceeding.
• The junction with Orchid Close and potential traffic turning onto Leahurst Road.
• The junction with Longhurst Road and potential traffic onto Leahurst Road.
• Parked traffic along the length of Leahurst Road on either side presenting the vehicle the potential for car doors, pets or pedestrians to enter the carriageway without being easily discerned in advance.
• The driver’s attention is drawn by these aspects of road geometry in advance of the restriction, limiting the driver’s capacity to discern the sole terminal sign as they approach the restriction ahead.
• The adjudicators have considered a number of these aspects and others in cases: 2240059713; 224005978A; 2240076778; 2240047190; 2240003548.
Single Terminal Sign
Other location use two terminal signs viz. Dallinger Road and Holme Lacy Road. The restrictions are identical. Two terminal signs would better draw the attention of westbound drivers on Leahurst Road and better signal the restriction, which is unexpected given the unimpeded nature of the carriageway, the traffic island signage which indicates to keep left, and the appearance of the island being a traffic calming measure. When choosing one terminal sign, authorities are required to ensure it does not give rise to issues relating to enforcement. I cite from TSM Chapter One:
• “2.4.1. Terminal signs indicating the start of a restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit should not necessarily be duplicated on each side of the carriageway…..but care should be taken to ensure that, where a single sign is used, it is clearly visible to all relevant road users, and does not give rise to issues relating to road safety or enforcement. There remains a duty on traffic authorities to place such signs as they consider will give adequate guidance of a regulatory measure.”
• By using only one terminal sign and placing it at the end of the traffic island, adequate guidance of a regulatory measure is not given to drivers and thus gives rise to issues relating to enforcement.
• Consistency of sign appearance and uniformity are covered in TSM Chapter One at para. 2.2.1: “Consistency of sign appearance and use are essential for road safety….Warning signs sited at different distances from the associated hazards in different localities, for instance, could mislead road users who venture outside their local area. To obtain the fullest benefits of uniformity, therefore, there should not only be uniformity of signs but also uniformity in their use, in their siting and their illumination.”
• The said principle must surely apply within one authority. By using two terminal signs at some locations to denote the same restriction but only one in this location, consistency is certainly not achieved. Furthermore, there is no consistency between the warning signage on Leahurst Road and that provided in Longhurst Road, the latter being larger and clearer. The adjudicator has found the single terminal sign to be insufficient in cases: 2240162596; 2240024490 and 223053111A.
Single Terminal Sign and Junction
The TSM Chapter Three gives further guidance on the placement of upright signs giving effect to TMOs and turning at road junctions at 1.8.6.: “There are likely to be some situations where two signs will still be preferable…Drivers should not be placed in the situation where they might not see the sign before starting to turn at a road junction.”
Insufficient Advance Warning Sign on Leahurst Road
Whilst it is accepted that this is discretionary, the sign in Leahurst Road has ben found wanting and it is small and placed on the offside only. Further, it runs the risk of larger vehicles travelling in the opposite direction obscuring it.
Referring to TSM Chapter One, para. 5.2.3: “Road users are accustomed to signs being on the near side of the road and such positioning should be the general practice. However, siting on the off side is appropriate in certain circumstances – for example where there are difficulties in siting on the near side, or where a direction sign is located opposite or in the entrance toa side road. Worthwhile economies might be gained at some locations, such as at T-junctions, where one structure carrying direction signs facing both ways will suffice instead of a sign on the near side for each approach. At sharp left-hand bends, siting on the off side might not only be appropriate but preferable, although consideration must be given to the risk of the sign being obscured by oncoming vehicles or leading drivers to pass on the right-hand side.”
There is no apparent reason for using just one sign. Further, the adjudicator has found it insufficient in cases: 223053111A; 223054814; 2240059713; 224005978A; 2240076778 and 2240047190. In addition: 2240102845; 223041997A and 2240003548.
The Penalty Charge Notice
On several occasions it describes itself as a Notice to Owner, acting as a Notice to Owner, or a Notice to Owner and contains a whole section pertaining to Parking Legislation which should not be there. It is averred that, if it acts as a Notice to Owner, then it should contain the necessary grounds, which are absent.
Furthermore, it fails to mention payment by post option which it must.
In light of the above, I ask that the PCNs are cancelled.
Reg. keeper
Address
