The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation [the equivalent of regulation 18 of LATOR 1996]. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.
An additional 'Motor Vehicle Prohibition' sign was installed of the western arm of the junction in June 2025.The question posed was precise and yielded precise answers:
Q: Please also provide a plan of the siting of any traffic signs that have been erected to ensure that motorists are aware of the effects of the Order. Please identify which signs have been erected to warn motorists BEFORE they enter the junction of any restrictions, and also indicate which signs have been erected and which motorists will see AFTER they enter the junction.H&F therefore acknowledge that:
A: Please see the attached Traffic Management Order, drawing and image of Rivercourt Road junction layout.
Two digital variable message signs were installed on the A4 330 yards and 70 yards west of the Rivercourt Road junction to provide advanced warning of the traffic access restriction on Rivercourt Road.
After entering the junction, a 'Motor Vehicle Prohibition' sign (diagram 52M) is located on the eastern arm of the junction. An additional 'Motor Vehicle Prohibition' sign was installed of the western arm of the junction in June 2025.
The amount of signage in such a small area there is ridiculous.
(https://i.imgur.com/oZ8s1q8.jpeg)I realise this isn't the main purpose of the thread but as it's the Flame Pit... The amount of signage in such a small area there is ridiculous. Aside from the difficulty one might experience trying to read it all from a moving vehicle, it just makes the street look unsightly.
Optional symbol representing a supplementary plate for use with circular symbols from this table (except items 23, 37 and 38)In other words, it cannot be used with the No Motor Vehicles sign. I surmise that this is because DfT consider that you should be using whichever blue roundel is appropriate, e.g. diagram 953. This means that, even if H&F apply for special permission, they'll be turned down.
The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation [equivalent to Regulation 18 of LATOR 1996]. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.
Redundant signs and their supports should be removed when installing new signs. Before new signs are installed designers should undertake a review to determine whether any sign information could be rationalised or removed to reduce sign clutter.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle failed to comply with a pedestrian zone restriction.
Upon the appellant raising the issue of signage in accordance with his written submissions supported by the evidence he provided.
A multiplicity of signage is posted at this junction.
It amounts to my mind to signage overload.
I was satisfied for the reasons given by [Mr S] that the council's regulatory signage was not compliant with the TSRGD 2016 it in any event being unclear the restriction being difficult to assimilate given the plethora of information shown on it.
I was not satisfied against this background that this contravention had been proved and I allowed the appeal.