Little Lever Precinct Car Park - 2

This is the background stuff for the parking anomaly. Good bed-time reading.

This e-mail sent by me to Bolton Council tries to explain why the Council's statements of justification for the parking ticket are illogical and a nonsense.

Dear Sir

This e-mail relates to parking on the ‘Car Park’ at the rear of the Precinct Properties in Little Lever Village Centre - north of Fletcher St.

This follows the issuing of a Code 1 PCN (contravention of yellow lines) on a vehicle parked immediately behind Cohen's Chemist.

This may seem a bit convoluted but the implications of the uncertainties of what is allowed and what is not allowed are serious.

.............................................................................................................................


There have been a series of e-mails between Sean Hornby, yourselves and the Council’s Asset Management Unit at Highways and Delivery Services relating to this particular PCN.

The conclusion stated by the above unit was that this PCN was correctly issued because, according to them:-

“The waiting restrictions on Fletcher Street apply from the centre of the carriageway to the boundary of the highway on the appropriate side of the road.(originally they said the Building Line) This includes the carriageway and the maintainable footway. The restrictions do not apply to the building line as stated but to the property boundary (ie, at this location, the interface between the adopted footway and the car park). (

The contravention occurred on waiting restrictions which apply to the north side of the road, Fletcher Street, as stated in the traffic regulation order whereas there is no traffic regulation order in place on the private car park. There is no doubt that the vehicle is parked in contravention of the ‘no waiting at any time’ restriction on Fletcher Street.

I trust this clarifies the position and explains that the vehicle was parked on adopted highway and not the car park, therefore the contravention code of ‘parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours’ is correct; it should also be noted that there is no Traffic Regulation Order to enforce on the car park.”

..........................................................................................................

I have submitted three FOI requests about this matter and received replies.

...........................................................................................................

Historically the whole area bounded by Market St, Foundary St, Fletcher St and Mytham Road was made up of houses and commercial premises and for the sake of argument these were surrounded by a pavement say 1.8 metres wide.

There is no doubt that the then ‘Highway’ extended from the centre of the carriageways to the building line (the Property Line) – which was then at the inner edge of the pavement - say 1.8 metres from the kerb.


Subsequently the whole area was demolished and re-developed as the Precinct.

The ‘Building Line’ then changed to what it is now – accommodating the Car Parks.

..............................................................................................................


In relation to the ‘historical pavement’ along the length of Fletcher St, a FOI reply tells me that :- “There is no record of any legal request to close this footway as part of the development of the shops, therefore, its status as adopted public highway remains.( Equally there is no record of this area of the car park being 'adopted')

(The fact of the matter is that any records would be held by Lancashire County Council since the development took place before 1974 when Bolton took over Little Lever and so obviously Bolton Council wouldn't hold any record)
...........................................................................................................


I have seen three different maps of the development.

1) Supplied by FOI request with annotations






2) Land Registry Title Plan LA196662.






3) Your own Highways Plan



.........................................................................................................


There are obvious discrepancies between the three plans.

The annotations on Map 1 are informative.

Whilst the (original) pavements along Market St and Foundry St and in Fletcher St to the end of the West side Car Park are shown in blue as ‘Adopted Highway’, the ‘historical pavement’ from the south west corner of Unit 21 ( Premier Stores) eastwards along Fletcher St to Mytham Rd is not thus shown. (Double Click on the image and use the magnifier to read the annotations)

In fact the back wall of Unit 21 is built over at least half the historical pavement.

On Map 3, the line of adoption behind Cohen’s Chemist and the Bookies deviates from the straight line in a kind of hump which is not shown on the earlier Map 1. The origins or reasons for the ‘hump’ is a mystery but it certainly doesn’t conform to the ‘1.8metres from the kerbline’ quoted above.

........................................................................................................


The problem with the PCN is twofold.

Firstly:-

FOI replies confirm following:-

“We can confirm that the issuing of Traffic Regulation Orders by Bolton
Council is based on the definition of `Road' contained in The Road Traffic
Regulation Act of 1984, subsequent Road Traffic Acts and subsequent Case
Law and that this definition has no relation to whether or not a road or
highway is adopted or unadopted.”

However, these acts and subsequent Case Law make clear that a Highway means a piece of land that the public have unfettered ability to cross and re- cross by foot or by vehicle irrespective of whether that land is Public, Private Adopted or otherwise.

Case Law confirms that for the purposes of Road Traffic Regulation Act and other Road Traffic Acts, the highway extends from the centre of the carriageway to the Building Line even if the land in between is Private. (This was the original statement in the exchange of e-mails referred to above )

....................................................................................................

The commonsense demonstration of this is that if I were parked in my car with the ignition keys on the Precinct car park (Private land) – how can I put it – drunk, then I can be arrested. Ditto no Tax – ditto no Insurance etc.

This means that the whole of the Precinct Car Park is a Highway for the purposes of the Acts and thus the double yellow line restriction on Fletcher St East extends from the centre of the carriageway across the historical pavement and over the car park up to the building line.

So- anybody parking on that car park can be ‘done’ PCN code 1.

You seem to have confused the Council’s definition of a highway as being 'that which has been adopted by the Council as a highway' and the definition of a highway for the purposes of the Acts.


Secondly:-

The car park contains marked bays. The public assume that they can park there. However at least three of these bays cover all or part of the historical pavement width and so would, even by your rules, fall foul of a PCN code 1.

It is obvious that all this needs to be sorted so that the public know where they can park and where they can’t.

..................................................................................................

The original PCN was issued for parking on the historical pavement although there is no indication that there is a pavement historical or otherwise at that point or how far it extends. There is no demarcation between the ‘pavement’ and the rest of the car park.

The Act stipulates that parking restrictions should be clearly marked and understood and in this case they are not. There needs to be more than just the double yellow lines.

..................................................................................

The above e-mail resulted in the following reply:-

"Thank you for your e-mail addressed to the Director of Environmental Services in connection with a penalty charge notice issued to a vehicle parked at the rear of Little Lever Precinct.



I have made further enquiries into the issues you have raised and can confirm that for the purpose of parking enforcement highway rights always take precedence over property rights. The only plan that is relevant to the case where the penalty charge notice was issued is the extract from the highway register.



Any rights over the private parking area adjacent to Fletcher Street are permissive rights that could be withdrawn by the controller of the property at any time. Therefore the matter of the car park has no relevance to the case.



There is a lawful, enforceable traffic regulation order on Fletcher Street. The restriction is marked in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions that give full effect to the TRO. There are no other signs or markings that would be appropriate here.



It is incumbent upon a driver to ensure that when parking a vehicle it is safe and lawful to do so. In this particular case the vehicle was parked on the footway, within a metre (They previously said 1.8 metres)of the edge of carriageway (with DYLs), where the likelihood of it being highway (with waiting prohibited) was clear.



As previously stated Mr Hoyle has since paid the notice and closed the case. If he wishes to have the Council’s decision re-assessed by Traffic Penalty Tribunal; an independent body put in place to regulate all notices issued in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004, he may ask for a refund of his payment and a form ‘Notice to Owner’ will be sent to the registered keeper/ owner of the vehicle as identified by DVLA to continue the process.



The attached leaflet explains this process and the grounds of appeal and it should be noted that if the case is dismissed by a Parking Adjudicator the full amount of £70 will be applicable.

.......................................................................................................

Frankly, at this point I became convinced that the Council hadn't got a clue as to the requirements of the Traffic Regulations and forwarded my views to my friend, Mr Eastwood.

I subsequently raised it at the Area Forum from where the Bolton News picked it up resulting in todays article.

I look forward to the officer's visit.

Cheers for now fellow anoraks!