kensington and chelsea council PCN residents motorcycle parking bay

[dolomiti]

Apart from his/her comment about the cost of a permit I don't think 'mean' intends to be unhelpful. Just has a direct approach sometimes - as I do sometimes.

 

 

Unfortunately I can confirm that they are correct about the need for a roadside sign. (Could you please explain it better? Who are they? the Borough?) Such are required for virtually every other variation of a 1028.4 bay but not in this case. I'm as surprised as you - but that's what the regs say. (can you please expand it? which regs? diagram 1028.4 is treated as one, so not clear what you mean with 'Every other variation of a 1028.4')

 

Sorry that doesn't help but at least you know where you stand.

-

 

Thanks in advance for the support. However, even assuming that they are right, and I would be surprised that RBKC does it wrong, do not you think it is somewhat illegal that you change an accustomed practice of having both road sign and road markings indicating special designed parking bay, without explicitly informing the public opinion of it?

 

I mean, I am not aginst the fact that the road sign can be disposed, but if they would tell and change all the bays, then we would all know and not expect to see one.

 

It is like parking in a road with no road markings on the boundary. By law you can as it is not regulated, even if impeding the traffic. In fact there is one street near Notting hill where you can do it, or at least there was as there was no road markings on the street. Here the principle is similar, you might change the writing of the road markings but if there was a road sign before regulating the bay you expect to see the new one to indicate that the works are finished and the new scheme in place...

[Guest Ting]

I was a bit confused for a moment because you included your questions in your quote of my post.

 

By 'they' I mean g&m in that they appear to be right in saying that a sign is not required. I say 'they' because I think it would be rude to presume their sex before I know it - and they have not chosen to clarify.

 

More in a minute.

-

[Guest Ting]

The relevant legislation is 'The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002'. This can be found via the 'opsi' site or via the DfT site.

 

The relevant 'Direction' is '25'. That stipulates that signs should accompany the 1028.4 bay when used for various reasons, i.e. 'Doctor' or when no road words are shown. It does not say that a sign is necessary when the bay is for motorcycles. As I said - surprised me too.

 

-

More later.

[Guest Ting]

However, even assuming that they are right, and I would be surprised that RBKC does it wrong, do not you think it is somewhat illegal that you change an accustomed practice of having both road sign and road markings indicating special designed parking bay, without explicitly informing the public opinion of it?

 

I agree - and that is an avenue you might investigate. The way in which they have to publicise and consult is defined by law but also fairly limited and unrealistic. You could FOI them on what they actually did but we have already established that they certainly conformed with some of it.

 

I agree that they could have been more helpful and issued warning notices to start with rather than PCNs - but then that wouldn't earn them any money would it?

 

As far as I read, the changes were effected 1/4/08. It appears, from the various cases I've seen, that they then allowed a period of grace of a couple of months before starting enforcement. That would be interesting to FOI too - what instructions did they give the CEOs?

It seems that apparent attempt to be lenient has backfired through misleading people like yourself - again I agree this makes sense but there is no basis in law to support that.

-

[Tony P]

Sorry if I am not directly helping.

 

Dolomiti is in a bad situation.

His/her English suggests he is not from here which must make it seem all the more alarming. Replies could be bewildering.

All posters who have replied to him are knowlegeable, but there is always a slight feeling they are displaying their knowlege sooner than helping.

I fully understand there can be no emotion in interpreting rules and procedures and getting them enforced.

BUT

this guy needs constructive help.

 

Someone (who knows more than me) please PM him to give him practical assistance on a personal level.

 

My personal thanks to whoever does.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Tony P

[dolomiti]

The relevant legislation is 'The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002'. This can be found via the 'opsi' site or via the DfT site.

 

The relevant 'Direction' is '25'. That stipulates that signs should accompany the 1028.4 bay when used for various reasons, i.e. 'Doctor' or when no road words are shown. It does not say that a sign is necessary when the bay is for motorcycles. As I said - surprised me too.

 

-

More later.

 

Ting,

 

have no time now. But read also reg.24, that is saying the opposite. There are also others in the TSRGD, part II, Annex E implying that raod sign and traffic marking goes in couple.

 

Look again tonight

 

CVM (male)

[Guest Ting]

Ah. No mate. You are reading that one wrong. It doesn't say there must be a sign as far as I read it.

 

However, I have looked again at Direction 25 and found something possibly useful.

As they have used the word 'Permit' on the road then item 14 in the table should surely apply? What do you think?

-

[Guest Ting]

Ah. No mate. You are reading that one wrong. It doesn't say there must be a sign as far as I read it.

 

-

 

That comment was in response to Direction 24. I can't actually find Annexe E.

-

[pong0]

Guys,

 

Thanks for creating this thread; I've been stung by the same completely unjust parking fine in a converted "m/c permits only" bay with absolutely no signage. I used to be a resident of K&C and parked in this bay several times. Now I'm a resident in Westminster (and just forked out my £150 for a permit there the day before receiving this PCN - though at least Westminster put up adequate signage and handed out leaflets for weeks before) and being completely unaware the new road markings and seeing no sign, was absolutely astonished to find a ticket on my bike when I returned.

 

It is absurd, and seemingly an attempt to mislead the motorcyclist in order to collect revenues, not put up a sign when a bay changes from no restriction to a restriction punishable with cash penalties. Why would I even think of checking the road markings where I see other motorcycles parking and notice the m/c; it goes against 8 years of acquired experience of parking in the area. Surely the local authority would be obliged to make me aware of changes to the restictions by more visible means - this is what signs are for! I know of no other parking restriction for any other vehicle where is sign is not obligatory!

 

If for some subtlety, a sign happens not to be necessary, as implied earlier in the thread, I believe there are still grounds to fight this case. Signs may not have been obligatory for free motorcycle bays, but there is an obvious asymmetry between not properly signposting a lack of restriction to signposting a restriction punishable by fines.

 

Additionally, I have found a link elsewhere on the internet to other cases of appeals against PCNs due to inadequate signage:

 

(Site won't let me post link until I have 5 posts, but can email it if people are interested)

I Quote:

 

The procedure to be followed by local authorities in signing restrictions is set out in

The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England & Wales) Regulations

1996 (SI 1996 No.2489) (“the 1996 Regulations”). Regulation 18(1) provides:

“Where an order relating to a road has been made, the order making authority

shall take such steps as are necessary to secure:

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such

traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider

requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is

made available to persons using the road;

(b) the maintenance of such signs for as long as the order remains in force.”

The obligation under Regulation 18(1) of the 1996 Regulations goes further than

merely placing the minimum signs required by the Regulations of 1994. Adequate

information must be made available to the motorist in the particular circumstances of

each location.

Furthermore in exercising any of its functions under the statutory scheme, an authority

must not only comply with the letter of the regulations : it also has a duty to act fairly.

Following R -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody

[1994] 1 AC 531 at 560, per Lord Mustill : “Where an Act of Parliament confers an

administrative power there is a presumption that it will be exercised in a manner

which is fair in all the circumstances.

The Council’s duty in respect of traffic signs was considered by the Adjudicator in the

case of Burnett -v- Buckinghamshire County Council (Parking Appeals Service

Case No.HIW0003). He confirmed that any regulation of parking by a local authority

must be brought to the attention of the motoring public by means of traffic signs. The

regulations must be signed in such a way that the motoring public knows of the

regulation.

In addition not only must signs be present they must also comply with the Traffic

Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 (SI 1994 No.1519) (“the 1994

Regulations”).

Note the duty to fairness. Even if according to the TSRGD 2002 "M/C PERMITS ONLY" has not been specifically associated with a 660 sign, "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY" has. An adjudicator would have to recognise that the omission was not in line with the spirit of the legislation and does not provide "adequate information". As such, on grounds of fairness the PCN cannot be upheld - in my opinion.

Additionally, the simple fact that this has affected so many people is proof of the lack of adequate information!

I intend to fight this all the way. If I end up losing £60, so be it, but I will make it as public as possible to highlight the injustice and the growing victimisation of motorcyclists.The council have much more to lose once one of these cases is officially overturned by an adjudicator. My suspicion is that the council will not let it get to tribunal, but I will do everything possible to make sure it does.

 

It's good to know there are others out there as outraged as I was.

[Guest Ting]

Well, yes. If it wasn't clear - my last post is agreeing with you. Item 14 of Direction 25 appears to suggest that a sign is required. We need to know the result of Dolomiti's further enquiry about the special authorisation but so far it does not mention an exemption on signage.

 

On the TO procedure legislation you noted, they so far appear to have complied. I agree that in 'real life' terms they could have been more helpful but there is no legal basis for that argument as far as I see. It could though be a matter you could pursue with and highlight in the local press.

 

It is not £60 you may lose. The penalty is £120- but yes it would be useful for one or more of these to go to adjudication.

 

MESSAGE FOR HK01 Since you are in the worst situation if I recall correctly can I suggest you check to see how many of your PCNs were issued on the same day. They may only issue one per day but CEOs will try it on.

-

[dolomiti]

PongO,

 

welcome to the small but growing group of "RBKC A-Team" where for A you can read Angry...

 

At least now we are in 3 with exactly the same problem.

 

For info of this forum, I am still waiting for an answer to the further requests I made to FOI office at RBKC.

 

So far the special authorisation received seems not to imply anything about the permission not to install the road sign.

 

HK01 - can you confirm it after the further opinion you have asked on that?

 

I will read the TSRGD regulation mentioned by Ting tonight.

 

speak to you soon

[garth44]

''welcome to the small but growing group of "RBKC A-Team" where for A you can read Angry...

 

At least now we are in 3 with exactly the same problem.''

 

Make that 4! I am the unhappy possessor of a pcn from RBKC, received in a bay that I have frequented for about 5 years. I have followed the initial appeal procedure and , surprisingly enough... it has been refused! My argument for appeal centred on the lack of any road signage accompanying the road markings to indicate permit status. I am damned if I'll accept this lying down as it is a blatant revenue raising tactic. Any advice that you may have will be gratefully received...

[Guest Ting]

Details of your 'rejection' might be useful. Either word for word or better still scan and post it here.

-

[dolomiti]

Dear All,

 

a little update. First FOI officer reply attached below. The letter I cannot attach as it is not permitted here.

 

Q1) I would like to receive information detailing under which law the

Borough had removed all the pre-existing motorcycle post signs replacing

these with road markings only.

 

 

A:I can advise that all road markings and traffic signs used on the public

highway must conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General

Directions (2002). However highway authorities may apply to the Department

for Transport if they wish to deviate from the regulations. (Under Sections

64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984).

 

 

Q2) I would like to know if the new road markings applied to motorcycle bays

have been approved and inserted in the TSRGD, and if not as I pretty sure,

under with authorization such markings can be considered valid.

 

 

A:I have attached a copy of the authorisation signed by the Secretary of

State which allows the Royal Borough to use road markings stating 'M/C

PERMITS ONLY' to designate our motorcycle permit bays.

 

 

> as I said, reading it, they got dispensation to amend the writing of the road marking diagram 1028.4 approved in the TSRGD, but no mention about the road sign, that in my opinion should always accompany it. This is probably the most important thing to ascertain at this point!

 

Q3) I* would like to obtain details of how and when the new parking

restrictions changed, what notice was given to users of the bays (to the

new Cliveden place m/c permit holders only bay in particular), for how long

this notice was exposed and where, and finally if there was any amnesty for initial fines.

 

A:I am reliably informed that the traffic orders became operational on 1st

April 2008. There was a period of one month when Penalty Charge Notices

were not issued to motorcyclists parking illegally in these bays. Instead a

warning notice was attached to the motorcycle. PCNs started to be issued in

June.

 

I replied asking more specific info that he is gathering now, as far as he told me. the info I have asked are:

 

- when the traffic order of the m/c permit bay in Cliveden Place has been

enforced exactly and in reality?

- which instructions were given to CEO's following the TO coming into

force?

- Was a grace period been granted?

- if yes for how long? and where was this published? Which instruction the

council gave to the CEO's during this period of grace?

- Where all the works on the affeted bays completed by the 30 MArch 2008?

 

and before

 

- copy of the relevant part of the RBKC TMO under which this new motorcycle scheme has been explained

- copy of the TMO approval if exist

- copy of any letter from DfT authorising RBKC to omit road sign as requested by the TSRGD

- copy of the notice given to the public audience as required by law. I would also like to know when and for how long the article where published

- please explain how the council defines that the notice provided to public has been "adequate'

- please confirm when the works in the m/c bay in Clieveden place started and finished

- please confirm when the new scheme came into force officially

- I would like to know how many fines have been produced by CEOs in the new m/c permits only bays in June, July, August and September (So far) of the current year and how many of these have been paid within 14 days without any challenge and how many have been challenged by the receiver

 

Now, in the meantime, I have received 3 identical letters refusing my 3 challenges, all with the standard refusal paragraph not even filled in correctly; "Further consideration has been given to your case, however, we are unable to cancel the PCN. We replied to the points raised in your initial correspondence dated (date of the letter received) and I have enclosed a copy of our response (dated) for your information".

 

The problem is that they have forgotten to attach the mentioned letter with the responses explaining why the refused.

 

Can I appeal on this fact? Basically they have refused without replying to my letter, or at least not providing me the reply.

 

Let me know

[dolomiti]

All,

 

just received the following answer from the DfT FOI:

 

I am writing to verify that the Department has now completed its search for the information which you requested on 2 September.

 

As you are aware, a traffic sign saying "M/c permit holders only" is not prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. I have checked our records and can confirm that, although we have issued an authorisation to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the use of a road marking for "M/C PERMITS ONLY", we have not issued an authorisation for a traffic sign for this use.

 

In keeping with the spirit and effect of the Freedom of Information Act, all information is assumed to be releasable to the public unless exempt. The Department will, therefore, be simultaneously releasing to the public the reply to your request.

 

Can someone interpret what exactly is meaning that they have not issued an authorisation for a traffic sign for this use?

 

thanks

[crem]

To me it sounds like RBKC asked for, and were granted, the authority to use said road marking. They did not ask for, and therefore no authority was given, to utilise a matching road sign.

 

As these type of road markings normally require an associated road sign, the authorised road marking is useless without requesting a matching road sign.

 

Does anyone read that differently?

[Guest Ting]

I agree crem. It seems to me that DfT are being evasive. They are not actually answering the question at hand - rather avoiding it.

 

Sorry if this sounds patronising but BIG UP Dolomiti for the way he is going about this - brilliant. Sorry I don't have any more to say really - exhausted all my avenues of possibilities for sure.

Still need to get the answer to the real question - is a sign needed or not. Maybe it will come down to the opinion of the Adjudicator.

-

[green_and_mean]

To me it sounds like RBKC asked for, and were granted, the authority to use said road marking. They did not ask for, and therefore no authority was given, to utilise a matching road sign.

 

As these type of road markings normally require an associated road sign, the authorised road marking is useless without requesting a matching road sign.

 

Does anyone read that differently?

 

Technically speaking the only reason bays must have signs as well is because it says so in the schedules of the TSRGD with the corresponding signs and markings specified. If the DoT said that ''MC permit only' was ok and didn't state a sign was needed....its not and the fact that the original solo mc only didn't need one could be used by RBKC to back up the argument.

[lamma]

I agree with crem and Ting. have the DfT provided a copy of the relevant paperwork ? if not then get it - all of it.

[pong0]

I'd point out that the authorisation granted allows for the modification of the word "DOCTOR" in diagram 1028.4 of the TSR 2002 to "M/C PERMITS ONLY". Since "DOCTOR" requires a sign, so should "M/C PERMITS ONLY". Add this to the "adequate information", "act in fairness" requirements, the fact that a "Permits Only" sign exists (660 if I remember correctly) and the precedent judgement stating that all restrictions should be signed and I believe the case is exceptionally strong. The default cannot be that the sign is not necessary as this goes against all other punishable parking restrictions in the TSRGD.

[dolomiti]

dear all,

 

bad news...

 

I have managed to sepak with the DfT officer today on the phone. She was very helpful and kind and she explained me that the road markings are legally as road markings. in this particular instance, RBKC had meetings with the DfT and convinced to agree them that as the new bays are 24/7 a sign is not required and superfluos.

 

hence the new road markings are enough. She sent me the authorisation that is the same that RBKC sent me, where to me is not so clear that a road sign is not required.

 

I have made the point that undert the TSRGD the diagram1028.4 requires a sign (diagram 660). She agreed with me but stated that as the road markings are not in the TSRGD, but an amendement then the rule does not apply and is decided case by case...rather strange to me, but unfortunately this is the situation...

 

Now the only thing to do is attacking RBKC with the press to me.

 

By the way the new system is really only a money maker and against promoting usage of motorbikes.

 

today I came back home at 13 as I had to take a plane, and I had to go around sloan square and areas nearby for 30 minutes until I found a small parking for my bike. the situation is that the free parking spaces are not sufficient while the enourmous amount of permit bays are all completely empty. Today, in my hunt for a space, out of at least 5 permit bays, I counted 3 motorbikes!!!

 

Are RBKC not obliged to review the scheme? is not compulsory that the scheme is experimental for the first 6 months as the new policy in Westminster?

 

If you want to see copy of the letter, please go to No To Bike Parking Fees and look at the PCN section. It is attached the letter of authorisation from DfT.

 

Now I am short of ideas on how to attack it...any suggestion is more than welcome.

[Guest Ting]

'D' What stage are you actually at with the PCN(s). If you are currently liable for the full penalty amount I would point out that an appeal to the Adjudicator will not cost anymore (99% of cases).

 

i'm not sure if an Adjudicator can rule on something that DfT have given authorisation for - would be interesting.

-

[green_and_mean]

I have made the point that undert the TSRGD the diagram1028.4 requires a sign (diagram 660). She agreed with me but stated that as the road markings are not in the TSRGD, but an amendement then the rule does not apply and is decided case by case...rather strange to me, but unfortunately this is the situation...

 

I did try to tell you!

 

One point that is odd is the 24 hour restriction in areas that the car bays needing permits are not 24 hrs? If going to adjudication you could argue the adjacent bays stating residents permits only 8.30-6.30 (or other times) would be confusing to a biker as the bike bay is according to RBKC 24hrs. Admittedly if no time is shown its a 24 hr restriction but in a less than 24 hr CPZ it seems harsh needing a permit at 3am? Also check the bays .....if they are adjacent to another bay there needs to be two white lines where they meet or the bay is non compliant.

[Guest Ting]

 

One point that is odd is the 24 hour restriction in areas that the car bays needing permits are not 24 hrs? If going to adjudication you could argue the adjacent bays stating residents permits only 8.30-6.30 (or other times) would be confusing to a biker as the bike bay is according to RBKC 24hrs. Admittedly if no time is shown its a 24 hr restriction but in a less than 24 hr CPZ it seems harsh needing a permit at 3am? Also check the bays .....if they are adjacent to another bay there needs to be two white lines where they meet or the bay is non compliant.

 

Well you have the TMO. What does it say about the times of restriction? Does it set different ones for m/c and others?

- Cos it's a good point you're making, ok?

-

[green_and_mean]

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

NEW MOTORCYCLE PARKING ARRANGEMENTS

THE KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (PARKING PLACES) (PAY

AND DISPLAY) (BASIC TARIFF) (AMENDMENT NO. 6) ORDER

2007;

THE KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (PARKING PLACES) (PAY

AND DISPLAY) (LOW TARIFF) (AMENDMENT NO. 6) ORDER

2007;

THE KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (PARKING PLACES) (PAY

AND DISPLAY) (MEDIUM TARIFF) (AMENDMENT NO. 9)

ORDER 2007;

THE KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (PARKING PLACES) (PAY

AND DISPLAY) (HIGH TARIFF) (AMENDMENT NO. 9) ORDER

2007;

THE KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (PARKING PLACES)

(RESIDENTS’ PARKING) (AMENDMENT NO. 10) ORDER 2007;

THE KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (PARKING PLACES)

(MOTORCYCLE PERMITS) ORDER 2007;

AND

THE KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (WAITING AND LOADING

RESTRICTIONS) (SPECIAL PARKING AREA) (AMENDMENT

NO. 13) ORDER 2007.

1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on 3rd October 2007 the

Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (hereinafter

referred to as “the Council”) have made the above-mentioned Orders

under sections 6, 45, 46, 49, 51 and 124 of and Part IV of Schedule 9

to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended by the Local

Government Act 1985, the Road Traffic Regulation (Parking) Act

1986 and the Road Traffic Act 1991.

2. The general effect of the Orders will be:

(a) to introduce new ‘Residents’ Solo Motorcycle Permit Parking Places

constructed with security ground anchors in which motorcycles

displaying such a permit may be left at any time. The permit would

cost £18 per year.

(b) to continue the provision of free ‘Visitor’ Solo Motorcycle Parking

places.

3. To implement the scheme, on-street parking amendments will be

made as follows:—

• 5 metres of Residents’ parking will be converted to ‘Residents’ Solo

Motorcycle parking in:-

All Saint’s Road – opposite the side of No. 68 Tavistock Road; Arundel

Gardens – the south-east side, 8 metres north-east of Ladbroke Grove;

Ashburn Gardens – opposite No. 7; Basing Street – opposite the side

of No. 262 Westbourne Park Road; Beaufort Gardens – outside Nos.

17 and 18; Beaufort Street – outside Nos. 1 to 8 Beaufort Mansions;

Bevington Road – outside Nos. 23 and 25; Blenheim Crescent – outside

Nos. 62 and 64; Bracewell Road – outside No. 1; Cadogan Street –

outside Nos. 45 and 47; Campden Hill Road – opposite No. 57 and

59; Chelsea Manor Street – opposite the side of No. 224 Fulham Road;

Chesterton Road – outside Nos. 121 and 123; Colville Terrace – opposite

No. 27; Cornwall Gardens – opposite Nos. 31 and 32; Coulson Street –

at the side of No. 12 Anderson Street; Dalgarno Gardens – opposite

Nos. 66 and 68; Drayton Gardens – outside No. 18; Drayton Gardens –

outside Nos. 100 and 102; Eardley Crescent – at the side of No. 51

Warwick Road; Earl’s Court Square – opposite Nos. 1a to 5a; Elgin

Crescent – outside Nos. 19 and 21; Elgin Crescent – outside Nos. 1 to

16 Glosworthy House; Elm Park Road – outside No. 46; Elvaston

Place – the south side, 3 metres west of Petersham Mews; Fawcett

Street – at the side of No. 23 Redcliffe Gardens; Finborough Road –

outside Nos. 163 and 165; Fulham Road – opposite Nos. 137 – 153

Pelham Court; Highlever Road – outside Nos. 68 and 70; Holland

Gardens – at the side of No. 35 Russell Road; Holland Park – outside

No. 64; Holland Road – outside No. 4; Hornton Street – the north-east

side, 6 metres north-west of Campden House Close; Hortensia Road –

the south-west side, 9 metres south-east of Fulham Road; Hyde Park

Gate – opposite No. 35; Kelso Place – the south side, 11 metres west

of Stanford Road; Kensington Park Gardens – outside No. 4; Ladbroke

Grove – outside No. 337; Ladbroke Road – at the side of No. 14

Ladbroke Terrace; Ladbroke Road – outside Nos. 84 and 86; Lansdowne

Road – outside No. 45; Lexham Gardens – outside No. 57; Lexham

Gardens – opposite No. 86; Lower Addison Gardens – at the side of

No. 166 Holland Road; Marloes Road – the south-west side, 10 metres

north-west of Scarsdale Villas; Paultons Street – outside The Pigs Ear

Pub; Peel Street – outside No. 5; Philbeach Gardens – the north-west

side, 8 metres north-east of north-east boundary of No. 110; Powis

Terrace – the south-west side, 12 metres north-west of Talbot Road;

Queen’s Gate Gardens – the east side, 8 metres north of Cromwell

Road; Redcliffe Street – at the side of No. 64 Redcliffe Gardens; Royal

Hospital Road – the south-east side, 15 metres north-east of East Road;

St. Ann’s Villas – outside Nos. 2 and 4; St. Lawrence Terrace – at the

side of No. 22 Chesterton Road; St. Loo Avenue – outside Nos. 21-30

Rosetti Gardens Mansions; Shawfield Street – at the side of No. 18

Reesdale Street; Stanhope Gardens – outside No. 41; Sydney Street –

outside No. 60; Tadema Road – outside Nos. 6 and 7; Talbot Road –

at the side of No. 26 Colville Square; Thurloe Square – opposite No. 5;

Thurloe Square – outside No. 33; Tite Street – outside No. 26.

• 5 metres of Pay and Display parking will be converted to ‘Residents’

Solo Motorcycle parking in:—

Bolton’s Place – opposite Bousfield Primary School; Bramerton Street –

outside No. 1; Clarendon Road – outside Allom House; Collingham

Road – at the side of No. 30 Collingham Gardens; Cornwall Gardens –

opposite No. 50b; Courtfield Gardens – opposite No. 22; Draycott

Avenue – outside Nos. 104 and 106; Edwardes Square – at the side of

Nos. 1 to 45 Leonard Court; Elsham Road – outside No. 38; Exhibition

Road – outside Nos. 68 and 70; Finborough Road – outside No. 128;

Kelfield Gardens – the south-east side, 7 metres north-west of Finstock

Road; Kenway Road – outside the rear of No. 11 Hogarth Road;

Holland Street – outside No. 23; Ladbroke Road – opposite No. 13;

Lawrence Street – the north-east side, 5 metres north of Cheyne Walk;

Lexham Gardens – the south-east side, 25 metres north-east of

Cromwell Road; Oakley Street – at the side of No. 2 Upper Cheyne

Row; Oakwood Court – opposite Nos. 15 to 30; Old Brompton Road –

outside Nos. 1-92 Roland House; Onslow Square – opposite No. 61;

Pembroke Road – outside No. 37; Philbeach Gardens – at the side of

No. 117 Warwick Road; Royal Crescent – opposite Nos. 43 and 44;

St. James’s Gardens – outside St. James’s Church; Stafford Terrace –

at the side of Nos. 10/12 Phillimore Gardens; Tedworth Square – the

north-eastern arm, the south-west side, 5 metres south-east of Tedworth

Street; The Little Boltons – at the side of No. 18 Tregunter Road;

Wilbraham Place – at the side of Nos. 157/158 Sloane Street; Yeoman’s

Row – outside No. 17.

• 5 metres of single/double yellow line will be converted to ‘Residents’

Solo Motorcycle parking in:-

Addison Road – outside No. 112; Beaufort Street – outside No. 108;

Bute Street – outside No. 19; Cornwall Crescent – outside No. 4;

Courtfield Gardens – at the side of No. 129 Cromwell Road; Dalgarno

Gardens – opposite Nos. 1-43 Clement House; Earl’s Court Square –

outside St. Cuthbert Primary School; Harcourt Terrace – the southwest

side, 5 metres south-east of Redcliffe Square; Hasker Street –

outside Nos. 39 and 41; Peel Street – outside Nos. 67 and 69; Portland

Road – outside Nos. 92 and 94; St. Mark’s Road – outside Nos. 49/

51/53.

• Existing free ‘Visitors’ Solo Motorcycle parking bays will be extended

by 5 metres in to ‘Residents’ parking in:-

Brompton Square; Evelyn Gardens – near junction with Roland

Gardens; Lancaster Road; Linden Gardens – outside No. 24; Lowdnes

Square; Marloes Road – near junction with Lennox Gardens; Ovington

Gardens; Russell Road – near junction with Kensington High Street;

Russell Road – near junction with Russell Gardens; St. Ervans Road;

Swan Walk; Templeton Place.

• Existing free ‘Visitors’ Solo Motorcycle parking bays will be extended

by 5 metres in to Pay and Display parking in:-

Abingdon Villas; Bina Gardens; Cadogan Gardens – opposite Nos. 51

and 53; Cadogan Place; Draycott Avenue – near junction with Ixworth

Place; Egerton Terrace; Lots Road – opposite Ashburnham Road;

Lowndes Square; Marloes Road – near junction with Lennox Gardens;

Nevern Place; Neville Street – near junction with Fulham Road; Park

Walk – near junction with Fulham Road; Redcliffe Road.

• Existing free ‘Visitors’ Solo Motorcycle parking bays will be extended

by 5 metres in to single/double yellow line in:-

Fernshaw Road – near junction with Fulham Road; Hans Road –

outside No. 12; King’s Road; Manresa Road – outside the library;

Petyward – near junction with Lucan Place; Pont Street; Southwell

Gardens.

• 5 metres of Pay and Display Parking will be converted to New ‘Visitors’

Free Solo Motorcycle parking in:-

Kempsford Gardens – at the side of No. 324 Old Brompton Road; St.

Mary Abbot’s Place – at the side of No. 353 Kensington High Street;

Stratford Road – outside No. 6.

• 5 metres of single/double yellow line will be converted to New Free

‘Visitors’ Solo Motorcycle parking in:-

Campden Hill Road – the south-west side, 14 metres south of Aubrey

Walk; Wright’s Lane – the north-east side, 18 metres south-east of the

access road leading to Sovereign Court.

• Existing Free ‘Visitors’ Solo Motorcycle parking bays will be converted

to ‘Residents’ Solo Motorcycle parking in:-

Acklam Road; Addison Avenue; Balliol Road; Barlby Road; Berkeley

Gardens; Bonchurch Road; Bramham Gardens; Cadogan Gardens –

opposite Nos. 67 and 69; Cadogan Gardens – outside No. 55; Cadogan

Square; Cale Street; Cambridge Gardens – junction with Portobello

Road; Cambridge Gardens – outside No. 175; Canning Place; Chelsea

Manor Street – opposite Oakley Gardens; Chelsea Square; Cheyne

Walk; Clanricade Gardens (west); Cliveden Place; Collingham Gardens;

Colville Terrace; Cornwall Gardens; Courtfield Gardens; Cromwell

Crescent; Dove Mews; Draycott Avenue – near Cadogan Street; Eardley

Crescent; Earl’s Court Square – junction with Warwick Road; Earls

Court Square – opposite No. 49; Egerton Gardens – junction with

Egerton Crescent; Egerton Gardens – near Brompton Road; Egerton

Gardens – outside No. 67; Elvaston Place; Embankment Gardens; Evelyn

Gardens – opposite Nos. 48 and 49; Evelyn Gardens – outside No. 28;

Fawcett Street; Fernshaw Road – outside Neville Court; Flood Street;

Freston Road; Gertrude Street; Gilston Road; Gloucester Walk; Grove

Cottages; Halsey Street; Harrington Gardens; Hewer Street – opposite

No. 20; Highlever Road; Holland Park; Holland Park Gardens;

Hollywood Road; Ifield Road; Iverna Gardens; Kensington Park Road –

near Arundel Gardens; Kensington Court; Ladbroke Road; Launceston

Place; Lennox Gardens – outside St. Columbus Church; Lexham

Gardens; Linden Gardens – near entrance to Garden Mews; Lonsdale

Road; Lower Sloane Street; Lucan Place; Nevern Square – outside

Garden View Hotel; Nevern Square – opposite Nos. 40 and 42; Nevern

Square – opposite No. 17; Norburn Street; Old Church Street; Onslow

Gardens; Oxford Gardens; Oxford Gardens – opposite the Play Centre;

Palace Gate; Park Walk – outside Nos, 2 and 2a; Pembridge Villas –

outside No. 29; Pembridge Villas – opposite Nos. 13 and 15; Pembridge

Villas – near Pembridge Place; Penywern Road; Pitt Street; Powis

Terrace – outside Nos. 25 and 25A; Priory Walk; Princedale Road –

outside No. 57; Queen’s Gate Place; Queen’s Gate Terrace; Redcliffe

Place – outside No. 17; Redcliffe Square – opposite Nos. 68 and 72;

Redcliffe Square – opposite Nos. 18 and 20; St. Mark’s Place – junction

with Cornwall Crescent; St. Quintin Avenue – junction with St. Helens

Gardens; St. Quintin Avenue – outside Nos. 67 and 69; Smith Street;

Sirdar Road; Southern Row; Stadium Street; Stanhope Gardens; Stanley

Crescent; Stratford Road; Tadema Road; Telford Road; Tetcott Street;

Thorndike Close; Thurloe Square; Treadgold Street; Tregunter Road;

Upper Addison Gardens; Vicarage Gate – adjacent to No. 8; Vicarage

Gate – adjacent to No. 9; Walmer Road; Walton Street – outside St.

Saviours Church; Wornington Road.

4. Notice of the Council’s proposal to make the Orders was originally

given on 7th December 2006. The Council’s decision on the remaining

part of the Orders (to convert 5 metres of Residents’ parking to

Residents’ Solo Motorcycle parking in Bolton Gardens – outside No.

38; Bywater Street – at the side of No. 134 King’s Road; Cathcart

Road – opposite Nos. 26 and 28; Hesper Mews – at the side of No.

40; Hollywood Road – outside No. 5; Nevern Square – outside No. 1;

Onslow Gardens – at the side of No. 8; Paultons Square – opposite

No. 58 and Paultons House, to convert 5 metres of Pay and Display

parking to Residents’ Solo Motorcycle parking in Redcliffe Place – at

the side of No. 11 Finborough Road and to convert 5 metres of single/

double yellow line to Residents’ Solo Motorcycle parking in Mossop

Street – outside No. 25) as originally proposed, continues to be

deferred.

5. Copies of the Orders and of all other relevant documents are

available for inspection at the Town Hall, Hornton Street, London

W8 7NX during normal office hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive,

until the end of a period of six weeks from the date on which the

Orders were made.

6. Any persons desiring to question the validity of the Orders or of

any provision contained therein on the grounds that they are not within

the relevant powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or that

any of the relevant requirements thereof or of any relevant regulations

made thereunder has not been complied with in relation to the Orders may, within six weeks of the date on which the Orders were made,

make an application for the purpose to the High Court.

Dated 4th October 2007

GRAEME SWINBURNE

Director of Transportation and Highways