Dear Sir or Madam
1. The signage is proscribed: term-time is meaningless.
2. The following case supports the argument of the proscribed sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No. 2240078999. The Adjudicator said: But what in my view is rather markedly non-compliant is the legend "School term time" in a separate panel below the grey backed signage.
3. Further, the application for a review of the above case was refused:
Review decision
Reasons for refusal
While I agree with a general proposition that an advisory or advance warning sign does not have to be compliant, the issue in this case is not simply about a non-compliant advance warning sign.
It is a reasonable inference that the advance warning sign was installed because motorists intending to turn left may find it difficult to appreciate the restriction before committing to the turn. The advance warning signage must therefore give a clear warning to render the overall signage adequate.
The use of the phrase "during terms times" is not authorised for the simple reason that it requires motorists to know what the term time are so it is just about non-compliance, it is about a lack of clarity as to when the restriction operates.
If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not clear, the Adjudicator is entitled to conclude the overall signage is inadequate.
The application is refused.
I also rely upon Papjinder Gahir v London Borough of Redbridge Case No: 224043551A.
In light of the above, I ask that the PCN be cancelled.
Yours faithfully
Do each separately.
