Entering a pedestrianised zone to enter work car park
Discussion
So I’ve received a PCN though this morning for riding into a pedestrianised zone and have done so every day subsequently.
To access my work car park I have to ride down Throgmorton street and pass the following:
The video shows me riding down the road and disappearing out of sight with my left indicator on and braking to turn into the entrance of the building, about 1/2 way down the road. The camera can’t see down it’s full length so can’t prove the offence....
Is that a valid defence, well that and actually accessing the building loading bay/car park (only means of access) - I have written permission to park within the building.
To access my work car park I have to ride down Throgmorton street and pass the following:
The video shows me riding down the road and disappearing out of sight with my left indicator on and braking to turn into the entrance of the building, about 1/2 way down the road. The camera can’t see down it’s full length so can’t prove the offence....
Is that a valid defence, well that and actually accessing the building loading bay/car park (only means of access) - I have written permission to park within the building.
There has to be a way into the car park that does not contravene the traffic management order
The sign allows loading but not access .. if the building has an authorised and functioning car park the planners must have taken it into consideration unless the car park was taken out of use when the TMO cane in ?
Or is it that you have a bike and are parking in an loading bay for commercial deliveries rather than a designated car park ?
If it is the loading bay you are parking in, does the building have planning permission for the loading bay to be used as a car ( bike ) park
If it doesn’t then it matters not that (presumably your employer ) has said you can park if it is illegal to drive a vehicle along that road to do other than load/unload
It has me intrigued
The sign allows loading but not access .. if the building has an authorised and functioning car park the planners must have taken it into consideration unless the car park was taken out of use when the TMO cane in ?
Or is it that you have a bike and are parking in an loading bay for commercial deliveries rather than a designated car park ?
If it is the loading bay you are parking in, does the building have planning permission for the loading bay to be used as a car ( bike ) park
If it doesn’t then it matters not that (presumably your employer ) has said you can park if it is illegal to drive a vehicle along that road to do other than load/unload
It has me intrigued
Edited by Earthdweller on Wednesday 30th January 23:39
Central London - the road is 1 way for motorised traffic. The building has a loading bay then both a car and bike lift to a basement car park - 18 car parking specs, about 30 for motorbikes and 60 or so push bikes.
There is no other means of accessing the buildings loading bay or private car park
There is no other means of accessing the buildings loading bay or private car park
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/transport...
Throgmorton st appears to have been pedestrianised for a while
Unfortunately I can’t find the traffic order for it online
But there is contact details
If you have questions on the project, email bankonsafety@cityoflondon.gov.uk us or call our Contact Centre on 020 7606 3030.
Throgmorton st appears to have been pedestrianised for a while
Unfortunately I can’t find the traffic order for it online
But there is contact details
If you have questions on the project, email bankonsafety@cityoflondon.gov.uk us or call our Contact Centre on 020 7606 3030.
http://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s72...
Found it .. contact details of the author at the bottom
Found it .. contact details of the author at the bottom
Here is one in Old Broad St, I have to go through on a regular basis to get access to the car park at number 55. I've never had an issue and there are plenty of taxis, mini cabs and other vehicles ignoring the signage. There is no other way to access the building.
https://goo.gl/maps/kE6wGhiCeiA2
https://goo.gl/maps/kE6wGhiCeiA2
Edited by megaphone on Thursday 31st January 06:46
" This compromise to the design means that there are only a small number of properties that will experience some change to their servicing ability. There
will also be the need for some rerouting to access properties. Therefore, the negative aspects of the restriction are expected to be limited to a few occupiers and this aspect will be monitored throughout the period of the experiment to inform future decision making. The support for a change to improve safety at this location is widespread and is considered to outweigh the expected minor disbenefits. The volume of motor vehicles on the approach arms is expected to decrease in any event and therefore there should be an improvement in safety terms on these approaches as well as at the junction.
In the overall balance, while there is a negative impact on a few occupiers at the junction and officers are working to deliver a more flexible scheme for them without diminishing the safety benefit, it is believed that the benefits significantly outweigh the few negative impacts and it is recommended that Members agree to the implementation of this experiment and the outlined monitoring regime."
Utter, utter minefield.
This basically says that your building is one of the properties that will suffer a negative impact, but as the safety benefits are so large, they are going to go ahead with it and you will have to suck it up. Personally I think 90-odd employees losing their works carpark is crazy, but it probably ticks some sort of box for sustainability. Maybe the building owner gets a tax cut or something, who knows.
My advice is to get a copy of the Traffic Order (it reads like an experimental order, which doesn't necessarily have to ask for objections) and write to the Council with your issues - and the numbers of people who use the car park, making sure to say it's regular working-hours users and not general members of the public - and see if they can put in a clause that allows access to the car park. See if you can get a site meeting with them to show them the "problem". The experimental orders are, I believe, only valid for between 3 and 18 months, so not forever, and there is always scope for some amendment - plus if not made permanent I believe they revert to the previous order on expiry. Try and be constructive and not knee-jerk with them - maybe speak to a local councillor if you can, that will help your case no-end if they are on-side.
The building owner may also have some statutory rights to consultation, but I'm not 100% on that.
(Disclaimer: I've written traffic orders and had them implemented, but I've never "isolated" a property before, and I'm not sure (from a legally solid, stand-up-in-court point of view) on the ins and outs of the Highways Act with regard to allowing access. There may also be London-centric issues I am not aware of - London boroughs are permitted to enforce a lot more things than us bumpkins, we still rely on Police enforcement in most areas)
will also be the need for some rerouting to access properties. Therefore, the negative aspects of the restriction are expected to be limited to a few occupiers and this aspect will be monitored throughout the period of the experiment to inform future decision making. The support for a change to improve safety at this location is widespread and is considered to outweigh the expected minor disbenefits. The volume of motor vehicles on the approach arms is expected to decrease in any event and therefore there should be an improvement in safety terms on these approaches as well as at the junction.
In the overall balance, while there is a negative impact on a few occupiers at the junction and officers are working to deliver a more flexible scheme for them without diminishing the safety benefit, it is believed that the benefits significantly outweigh the few negative impacts and it is recommended that Members agree to the implementation of this experiment and the outlined monitoring regime."
Utter, utter minefield.
This basically says that your building is one of the properties that will suffer a negative impact, but as the safety benefits are so large, they are going to go ahead with it and you will have to suck it up. Personally I think 90-odd employees losing their works carpark is crazy, but it probably ticks some sort of box for sustainability. Maybe the building owner gets a tax cut or something, who knows.
My advice is to get a copy of the Traffic Order (it reads like an experimental order, which doesn't necessarily have to ask for objections) and write to the Council with your issues - and the numbers of people who use the car park, making sure to say it's regular working-hours users and not general members of the public - and see if they can put in a clause that allows access to the car park. See if you can get a site meeting with them to show them the "problem". The experimental orders are, I believe, only valid for between 3 and 18 months, so not forever, and there is always scope for some amendment - plus if not made permanent I believe they revert to the previous order on expiry. Try and be constructive and not knee-jerk with them - maybe speak to a local councillor if you can, that will help your case no-end if they are on-side.
The building owner may also have some statutory rights to consultation, but I'm not 100% on that.
(Disclaimer: I've written traffic orders and had them implemented, but I've never "isolated" a property before, and I'm not sure (from a legally solid, stand-up-in-court point of view) on the ins and outs of the Highways Act with regard to allowing access. There may also be London-centric issues I am not aware of - London boroughs are permitted to enforce a lot more things than us bumpkins, we still rely on Police enforcement in most areas)
But those were the 2016 proposed changes around Bank itself as per Diagram B and does not include Throgmorton St. My main office is near there and I can tell you it was not completely pedestrianised as of a couple of months ago. The proposals were implemented and that section of Bank is signed for buses, cycles etc.
Throgmorton seems to have been restricted since Aug 2009 at least.
Throgmorton seems to have been restricted since Aug 2009 at least.
Edited by eltawater on Thursday 31st January 07:59
Thanks for the above all - have emailed the company building manager who has apologised (saying it’s an occasional occurrence) and has sent an onward email to the wider building management.
That other order is very useful thanks, it’s all much appreciated
Just watching today’s post to see for any more. I have been doing this from 2nd January when my permission was granted as a space came available - this is somehow my first ticket but I’m not holding my breath for any more!
That other order is very useful thanks, it’s all much appreciated
Just watching today’s post to see for any more. I have been doing this from 2nd January when my permission was granted as a space came available - this is somehow my first ticket but I’m not holding my breath for any more!
It’s possible that as this is being enforced by ANPR that your vehicle details should be added to the database “ignore” section for those particular cameras
All of our liveried work vehicles are on an ignore database for the ANPR enforcement in Manchester, whilst only certain plain ones are ( dependent on need)
All of our liveried work vehicles are on an ignore database for the ANPR enforcement in Manchester, whilst only certain plain ones are ( dependent on need)
kiethton said:
Having finally spoken to the building management guys yesterday I’ve been told that they will be contacting the council to have my plate added to the list and to have that ticket cancelled.
I would keep on them, ask to be cc'd on all emails etc, make sure you keep a log. Last thing you want is for it to escalate to bigger fines etc because the bod in building management has not done what they promised. W124Bob said:
Would there also be a reduction in business rates, I know nothing of how theses things work. But councils might not like (a considerable?) reduction in revenue due to reduced facilities .
The City of London are not too worried about business rate income, because they get so much income they have to hand it to the pool which gets shared amongst councils that get less. So all a reduction on business rates income means is less they have to pay the pool and doesnt affect them.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff