The material below has been drafted as a submission to an appeal against a PCN on Camrose Avenue. I should welcome comments and suggestions for improvement and also views as to how Adjudicators are likely to respond.
Validity of Blue Roundel Signs on Camrose AvenueThe blue roundel signs are to diagram 953,
TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3 Part 2 Item 33. These are subject to
Schedule 3 General Direction 1:
1.—(1) The sign must only be placed to indicate the effect of an Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice which prohibits or restricts the use of the road by traffic.
(2) When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point.
Attached is an annotated aerial view of the site, CamroseAerialRinged.jpg. It will help if you have this open in another window as you proceed.
Original TMO for Camrose AvenueThe restrictions on Camrose Avenue were set out coherently in The Harrow (Prescribed Routes) (No. 2) Traffic Order 1976 (the italics are mine, as they are in all the quotes except the Beatson judgment at the end):
3. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in the carriageway on the south-eastern side of the north-easternmost island site or in the carriageway on the north-west side of the south-westernmost island site.
4. No person shall cause any vehicle the overall width of which together with the load (if any) carried thereon exceeds 6 feet 6 inches to enter the carriageway on the north-west side of the north-easternmost island site or the carriageway on the south-east side of the south-westernmost island site.
5. Nothing in Article 3 of this order shall apply
(a) in relation to a stage carriage or an express carriage on a scheduled service; or
(b) in relation to a vehicle being used for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; or
(c) to anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform.
This refers to two island sites:
north-easternmost and
south-westernmost. As a glance at the aerial view of the site shows, these are accurate geographic descriptions of the traffic islands. I have ringed them in yellow and red respectively. They divide the flow of westbound and eastbound traffic respectively. For brevity, I shall refer to them as the westbound island and the eastbound island.
This traffic order defines the restricted parts of the carriageway as:
3. bus-restriction:
south-eastern side of the westbound island
north-west side of the eastbound island
4. width-restriction:
north-west side of the westbound island
south-east side of the eastbound island
It does not specify the direction of travel through any of the restrictions, nor does it mention the snake-like kerbed structure which separates eastbound from westbound traffic. It is a model of accuracy and concision.
Consolidation of TMOsIn 1999 Harrow consolidated traffic orders relating to width restrictions, bus lanes and other bus restrictions into two orders:
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 1999
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999
Since 1999 there have been various amendments to each of these TMOs, with periodic repeals and replacements. These have not affected the definitions of the restricted areas of carriageway but they have changed the classes of vehicle permitted through the bus restrictions. The current TMOs are
- The Harrow (Prescribed Route) (Width Restriction) Traffic Order 2007 as amended by LBH 2012/30
- The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2016
Copies of these TMOs are attached along with The Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 1999.
Consolidated Width-restriction TMOsAt other sites in Harrow, e.g. Charlton Road, width restrictions apply to some parts of the carriageway with other parts defined as "Prohibited lengths", where almost all vehicles are banned. A uniform structure has been used for the consolidated width restriction TMOs, so, although Camrose Avenue's bus restrictions are specified in the bus-priority TMOs, the width-restriction TMOs also define "Prohibited lengths" on Camrose Avenue.
As with the 1976 TMO, the consolidated width-restriction TMOs define the width restrictions by reference to "the
north-eastern island" and "the
south-western island". Rather than defining the width-restricted areas by a compass-reference to the islands, the consolidated width-restriction TMOs place the width restrictions between an island and "the
central median strip". The consolidated TMOs specify the direction of travel, which (depending on your point of view) either provides an aid to interpretation or creates an opportunity for mistakes through overspecification.
Curiously, while the consolidated width-restriction traffic orders had used the ordinal points of the compass (
north-eastern and
south-western) to define the traffic islands on Camrose Avenue, they used the cardinal points (
eastern and
western) for the "Prohibited lengths". These were defined as lying between an island and the northern or southern kerb-line.
These changes were done correctly and are consistent with the stated direction of travel, so the "Prohibited lengths" are defined as intended, between the traffic islands and the nearside kerbs.
Restrictions applying to Prohibited LengthsThe "Prohibited lengths" are subject to these rules:
2. No person shall cause any vehicle to proceed in a [Prohibited length] of carriageway
. . .
4. Nothing in Articles 2 and 3 of this Order shall apply to :-
(a) any vehicle being used for ambulance, fire brigade or police purposes;
(b) anything done with the permission or at the direction of a police constable in uniform;
(c) any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs placed pursuant to section 66 or section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984;
(d) any vehicle specified in column 6 of the Schedule to this Order;
(e) to any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow. [LBH2012/30]
Note in particular 4(c): this clause allows the width-restriction TMO to coexist with the bus-priority TMO. Section 66 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows highway authorities to place signs which show the effect of TMOs. So if a sign (such as blue roundel) has been placed on a "Prohibited length" which allows certain classes of vehicle to pass, the width-restriction TMO also allows them to pass.
Regardless of any such sign, clauses 4(a) and 4(b) make the standard provisions for the emergency services and where directed by a police constable in uniform. There are no vehicle classes specified in column 6 of the Schedule so 4(d) is a nullity. Clause 4(e) is not a standard clause (except within Harrow) and would be given effect by adding the plate "and authorised vehicles" to the blue roundel.
Consolidated Bus-priority TMOsThere are two schedules to the consolidated bus-priority TMOs:
- Schedule 1: Bus Lanes
- Schedule 2: Bus-only routes
From 1999 to 2016, Camrose Avenue has been Item 1 in Schedule 2. The specification of the areas of road has remained unchanged, as have the Times of operation and Direction of travel. Only the Type of vehicle permitted has changed: in 1999 it was "a bus, a school bus, a works bus, a pedal cycle"; now it is "bus, taxi, pedal cycle".
The definitions of the areas of road are:
Westbound: the carriageway to the south of the southern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue;
Eastbound: the carriageway to the north of the northern traffic island immediately to the west of its junction with Dale Avenue.
The compass points for the traffic islands are:
- Westbound: southern
- Eastbound: northern
For reference, the consolidated width-restriction TMO correctly used the following compass points for the traffic islands:
- Westbound: north-eastern (width restriction); eastern (prohibited length)
- Eastbound: south-western (width restriction); western (prohibited length)
As a glance at the aerial view will show, the southern traffic island is used by eastbound traffic and the northern traffic island by westbound traffic.
The dangers of over-specification are evident. For the moment, let's ignore the stated direction of travel and see what areas of road are defined. The areas are:
- "south of the southern traffic island": this is south of the eastbound-traffic island, i.e. the eastbound width restriction
- "north of the northern traffic island": this is north of the westbound-traffic island, i.e. the westbound width restriction
It appears that the consolidated bus-priority TMOs are simply wrong. Whoever drew up the TMO in 1999 (Brian Durke, on the evidence of the meta-data) made a mistake, a mistake which was not made at exactly the same time by those drawing up the consolidated width-restriction TMO.
Harrow's Rescue AttemptThe definition of the bus-priority areas came up in the hearing of appeal 2250053451 on 28 April 2025. Mr Adekusibe of Harrow sought to explain the definitions by saying that "southern traffic island" and "northern traffic island" needed to be understood by reference to their appearance to motorists approaching them in the specified direction. Thus to westbound motorists, the "southern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the westbound nearside kerb, while to eastbound motorists the "northern traffic island" was the traffic island nearest to the eastbound nearside kerb.
There are some obvious problems with this:
- it is based on the perception when approaching the restrictions that there are two traffic islands ahead. Certainly, there are two kerbed structures with bollards and signs on posts. But if there really were two traffic islands in each direction, there would be four traffic islands in total. There are not. There are three kerbed structures: two traffic islands and the snake-like structure which is formally known (and referred to as such in the width-restriction TMO) as the central median strip.
- the other uses of compass points in the bus-priority TMO make sense with their normal meaning
- the uses of compass points in the width-restriction TMO written at the same time (1999) make sense with their normal meaning
- TMOs are formal legal documents written using a formal register. They define things precisely and use the correct legal terms. This is shown in the use by the contemporaneous width-restriction TMO of the term "central median strip".
It seems possible that officers in Harrow, puzzled by the definitions of the areas of Camrose Avenue defined as bus-priority, have constructed the interpretation advanced by Mr Adekusibe to reassure themselves that the TMO is valid. Those definitions have been used for so long (since 1999) and nobody has ever challenged them, so they must be right. The evidence suggests otherwise. The law works from the TMO forwards to the signage, not back from the signage to the TMO.
ConsequencesThe areas of Camrose Avenue on which the bus-priority TMO imposes restrictions are those which are subject to the width restriction. This makes no sense as buses are physically incapable of using them. The definitions are a mistake. Those parts of the bus-priority TMO are void.
While this means that the bus-priority clauses do not apply to the areas of road in each direction between the traffic island and the nearside kerb, those areas of road are correctly identified as "Prohibited lengths" in the width-restriction TMO. They are subject to the restrictions which are defined there. Apart from the emergency services and as directed by a police constable in uniform (which are general exceptions to traffic signs), the permitted users of those areas of carriageway are:
any vehicle being lawfully used in connection with the maintenance of public services maintained by the London Borough of Harrow
It follows that the correct sign in each direction on the footway and the traffic island is not diagram 953 but diagram 616 (No Entry) with the plate "except authorised vehicles". This plate would, however, require special permission from DfT.
The sign to diagram 953 has been placed contrary to TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3 General Direction 1 and so is void.
Inadequate SignageThe PCN alleged
driving through a restricted route, which is allocated for the use of certain vehicles only.
The above analysis has shown that the area of road was indeed a restricted route, but not in the way that Harrow alleged. There was zero signage of the restriction which actually applied.
Shaun Duffy won his appeal against a PCN which Oxfordshire County Council issued to him for going through a bus-only section of Oxford High Street. The Council took it to the Chief Adjudicator for review and, when this didn’t overturn the Adjudicator’s findings, to Judicial Review,
R (Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin).
As the product of the High Court, the resulting judgment sets binding precedent for Adjudicators on points of law. In paragraph 65 Mr Justice Beatson (as he then was) found:
65. The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Such information is a requirement and, as Jackson J stated in R (Barnet LBC) v Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) at [41], if the statutory conditions are not met the financial liability does not arise.
As there was no signage of the true restriction, no offence was committed.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
