This it is unless someone suggests necessary changes.
I refer to my formal representation to the Redbridge:
1) The location stated on the PCN is vague. Cambridge Park is almost a kilometre long with 10 road junctions along its length. I believe this does not adequately convey the location of the alleged contravention.
2) The YBJ extends beyond the bounds of the intersection of the two roads.
I refer you to:
TSRGD 2016 Section 11
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is –
(a) at a junction between two or more roads
A junction is typically defined as the intersection of the outside edge of the first highway with the outside edge of the second highway.
I refer you to a recent Tribunal case relating to the same location:
Case ref 2230267259 in which Adjudicator Mr Harman states:
‘I was satisfied on the council's online footage of the incident, which I viewed, that this box was marked well beyond the junction shown thereon it thus not I find being marked at the junction of two roads as required under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016.’
The Council’s own evidence (YBJ Construction Drawing) clearly shows the box extending metres beyond the confines of the junction where the two roads intersect. Extended lines from the kerbs of each road define a much smaller area. I have included below a copy of the construction drawing with the kerb lines of Blake Hall Road extended to show the true boundary of this road junction.
Further to the formal representation made to the council I wish to add the following:
The set back of the stop line in Blake Hall Road makes it impossible to see the extent of traffic in Cambridge Park and the end of the overly long box junction.
The Redbridge video evidence shows an overhead perspective but does not convey the view of the driver. The junction is particularly busy at this time. The constant traffic filtering left from Cambridge Park into Blake Hall Road is a distraction and obscures the view of the exit after you pass the stop line.
On passing the stop line there was a cyclist stationary inside the YBJ. From the driver perspective it gives the impression they are outside the box junction. The cyclist is definitely outside the intersection of the two roads.
The vehicle in front of our vehicle had completed its right turn and had exited the junction of Cambridge Park and Blake Hall Road giving the impression that the exit was clear.
Even the professional driver behind has made a decision to enter their bus into the box junction, then having to stop. I believe this is because the box junction is extended beyond the confines of the actual road junction.
Furthermore, the driver entered the YBJ from Blake Hall Road to turn right into Cambridge Park
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 states.
Box junctions
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(c) of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who—
(a)causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b)stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle
or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.Issues with the Notice of Rejection
In my formal representation to Redbridge I have clearly stated grounds of 1) vague location and 2) the box extending beyond the confines of the junction, i.e., the intersection of the two roads. These were the primary grounds mentioned in the formal representation.
In the Council’s Notice of Rejection, in spite of their ‘careful consideration of the details provided’ neither of these significant grounds were adequately acknowledged or addressed. This is a Procedural Impropriety.
Only in the Summary of Council’s Representation for this appeal is there reference to the vague location. The council admit it is not an exact location and have somehow satisfied themselves that the appellant knew the location referred to in the PCN. However, they
completely failed to mention vague location in the Notice of Rejection.
The Council state in the NoR that the box is compliant with TSRGD 2016 because ‘the sides of the box are approximately at right angles to the flow of traffic’. This has no relevance to the definition of a junction and whether the box fits within the confines of the intersection of the two roads, which it clearly does not. I believe this is another failure to ‘carefully consider’ the representation and adequately address the points raised.
The Council fail to mention in the NoR that the box junction prohibition does not apply to vehicles entering the box junction to turn right, as in this case.
Other
Finally, the Council have included Secretary of State approval for a CCTV camera in a letter dated 15th May 2023 – presumably the camera at the junction of Cambridge Park and Blake Hall Road? The approved enforcement types in this letter clearly state ‘Parking and Bus Lane only.’ As this is neither a parking or bus lane contravention I believe this camera is not approved for a box junction contravention and the Council’s video evidence is inadmissible.
END
