My local council has placed temporary restrictions on several roads prohibiting stopping and waiting between the hours of 11:00 and 15:00 on Fridays only. These times have been targeted by the council because some users of the local place of worship park their vehicles along these roads, sometimes inconsiderately, and this has led to complaints from residents.
As a result of the parking of vehicles, traffic flow is often impacted but I have not seen anything which I would describe as a danger to the public. Therefore, I am concerned that the council is misusing the Road Traffic Regulation Act in order to impose restrictions in order to appease local residents and bypass the process for implementing permanent restrictions.
As part of an FOI request, the council made the following comment:
"Regrettably, some vehicles are being parked in dangerous and obstructive locations, so temporary restrictions to maintain safety have been installed whilst we work with the mosque and Earley Town Council to find a solution that is suitable for the needs of all road users."
What is the legality of the TRO (attached)? Does the council need to demonstrate that there is a risk of danger to the public?
What is the legality of the TRO (attached)? Does the council need to demonstrate that there is a risk of danger to the public?
Perfectly legal if due process has been followed. There is no need to demonstrate the risk to the public, all they need to do is state a reason. Residents can object to proposed TROs when they are in course of preparation, but councils make sure by various subtle means that nobody knows about them until they are implemented. The law on publising the proposals is way, way, out of date, so the proposals get buried in local papers. I see them regularly in the Crewe Chronicle up here in CHeshire. Are they on the council website ? Of course not !
There is hope, as an LTN was recently declared illegal by a High Court judge, but the residents had to find a lot of money to fight it.
If you want to know whether we can supply you with a silver bullet, the answer is no.
There's clearly a backstory.
As per Incandescent, was due process followed as far as you know?
Yes, I believe the legal process was followed except for the fact signage placed at the location contained untrue information but the council have admitted this and said that they will change the signs:
"...these restrictions are not in situ due to any highway works. Signs referring to this have been placed and erected in error and will be replaced with correct information as soon as possible this week."
I was questioning the legality of the TRO because the official reason for the TRO is because the "[council] is satisfied that traffic on the said roads should be restricted by reasons of maintaining the safety of the public" but it seems blatant to me that the reason for the TRO is to manage traffic flow. Unfortunately, I am not able to prove this belief.