Free Traffic Legal Advice

Google Street View Location Poyle Lane, though I note it is outdated but can be used in cross reference with the TRO plan linked further down: https://maps.app.goo.gl/3BHDUMSRAsdziUBp7

Essentially, 44 tonne artic is heading west along Bath Road, they are meant to turn right to continue on Bath Road but he is concerned by an unexpected “no motor vehicles sign (except for access and buses)”, and wants to verify the route with his traffic controller and the site first.

So, he continues round the left turn bend on Bath Road where the road becomes Poyle road, and drives south down Poyle road.

There is no width restriction or any other restriction heading south.
At the first roundabout, he turns onto Colndale Road industrial estate (which is a dead end estate) to turn around and check the route.

After verifying the route, he heads back down west on Colndale Road, and at the roundabout turns right to head back up north on Poyle Road.

The 2024 road plan shows there were signs for the 2.7m restriction placed on Poyle Road, to the south of this roundabout only. Our vehicle entered it from Colndale Road from the east. Where the old 2024 plan shows no advance signage.

Heading up north on Poyle Road, the 2024 road plan for the old 2.7m restriction shows advance signage about 25 yds before the restriction and right before the junction into Mathisen Way (the restriction is therefore about 15 yds after that junction).

Mathisen way is a dead-end industrial estate.

Advance Signage
So, the first thing I’m wanting to know is, is advance sign placed 25 yds before the potentially dangerous restriction, and right before the last potential junction to turn around at, adequate for a 44 tonne articulated lorry? Bear in mind that was likely the first advance signage it passed for the restriction and a HGV, can’t stop on a dime and has a large turning circle with the potential for accidents.

As far as I’m aware it is not adequate. A “last place to turn around” is not the same as a “last alternative route”. Is this correct? And is there specific regulations, TSM guidance or case law that establishes this?

Council Refusing to Provide TRO Deposited Documents
Furthermore, I was also wanting the Council to clarify if there is actually signage on Colndale Road as ultimately if that signage is there, I agree the contravention occurred. If it wasn’t there, then our vehicles was given no opportunity to take an alternative route at that roundabout.
The Council sent me the 2025 Experimental orders, but the 2.1m width restriction TRO had 2 pages of parts of the map zoomed in, but not the complete thing. And it looks like it is possibly parts of the incomplete proposed plan I found which doesn’t indicate any advance signage at all or highlight the alternative routes.

I have asked multiple times now for the road signage plan as part of the deposited documents that they have a duty to make publicly available for viewing under LATOR 1996.

I said i was happy to pay the £35 if they were able to provide the road plan and provide evidence of signage on Colndale Road.
They first told me they would not respond to my emails regarding the PCN and if I am unhappy with the decision, to appeal to the Tribunal. Even though I only requested clarity on the signage.

I then responded essentially saying they have a legal obligation to provide the TRO and deposited documents and I required the information in order to make an informed decision on whether to pay £35 or appeal to the Tribunal.
They responded yesterday, with 4 pictures of 2 signs, that are both south of the Colndale Road roundabout on Poyle Road. Where our vehicle had not been. They also attached the Road/Sign plan.... from the 2024 Order with the 2.7m restriction. And they said the usual “We confirm our signage is compliant withe TSRGD 2016” and “there is adequate advance signage”.

I responded last thing yesterday, saying that they haven’t provided evidence of where our vehicle has been, on Colndale Road, which I specifically asked for. I said the photos attached were irrelevant as our vehicle never passed them and that they sent me the plan for the 2024 2.7m width restriction, but I require the 2025 2.1m width restriction plan. I said unless they are able to produce those, we will have no choice but to appeal to the Tribunal and an Adjudicator can come to their own conclusion whether their signage is compliant with TSRGD 2016, LATOR 1996 and TSM.

They responded this morning saying “Thank you for your follow up email. Please proceed with the statutory appeals process. Kind regards.”
I have responded making it clear that their legal duty to make the TRO and Deposited Documents available is separate from the PCN statutory process. They seem to think that it was one or the other: provide the documents or let it go to tribunal. If they have them, they are withholding them. If they don’t exist, they confirm that surely.

Is this a Procedural Impropriety in itself?

Sorry it's so long.


14 November 2024 TRO published on the Council website: https://www.slough.gov.uk/downloads/download/1318/poyle-road-bus-gate-tro-and-poyle-road-tro

A proposed road plan for an experimental 2025 TRO can also be found on their website:
https://slough.citizenspace.com/transport/poyle-road-experimental-northbound-width-restricti/

The Google Drive link below is to a folder containing:
1.   The PCN from Slough
2.   My Appeal Letter
3.   Notice of Rejection
4.   Picture of vehicles route.
5.   The published November 2024 2.7m Width Restriction TRO
6.   The published November 2024 Bus Gate TRO
7.   The published Road/Signage plan as part of the 2024 Width Restriction TRO deposited documents.
8.   A proposed road plan for a experimental 2025 2.1m Width Restriction TRO.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16sE2ie_AsgD6VAKnPb-kutsrhkro_Kiz