Can a Local Authority Council put double yellow lines down anywhere?

earlofbarrett

Can a Local Authority Council put double yellow lines down wherever it wants or must it have a legitimate safety reason?

I ask because I work in a directorate that’s offices have been relocated to an out of town Industrial Park in the last 2 years and they are now introducing parking charges whilst simultaneously painting double yellow lines everywhere in the surrounding area so we have no option but to fork out £200+ a year!!

Thanks in advance

ScottishSapper

Before a LO can put down lines they must go through a legal process called a Traffic Regulation Order.

This should have been advertise in advance as Im sure objections can be raised.

Contact your LO and ask for a copy of the TRO

Coblcris

earlofbarrett wrote: »

Can a Local Authority Council put double yellow lines down wherever it wants or must it have a legitimate safety reason?

I ask because I work in a directorate that’s offices have been relocated to an out of town Industrial Park in the last 2 years and they are now introducing parking charges whilst simultaneously painting double yellow lines everywhere in the surrounding area so we have no option but to fork out £200+ a year!!

Thanks in advance

And it will doubtless generate PCN income as well.

'Creeping zones' are fact of life in council parking. It moves the problem down the road and just progressively makes things worse.
Then the council can use 'traffic flow' and /problems' for their 'reasons'.
Of course they do not say that they facilitated the 'problems'.

This is even more prominent where councils have outsourced enforcement under long term contracts in my opinion. A review of such contracts,specifically the financial elements, makes it obvious why this is so.

DaveF327

The traffic authority... may make an order ... (...a “traffic regulation order”) ... where it appears to the authority making the order that it is expedient to make it—

(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or

(b) for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or

(c) for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians), or

(d) for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property, or

(e) (without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (d) above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot, or

(f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs or

(g) for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of section 87 of the Environment Act 1995 (air quality).


This is taken from section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Regrettably, objections to a TRO cannot just be made on the grounds that you don't agree with it, but only on the grounds that the proposals aren't in accordance with the Act.

Coblcris

Correct in every respect.
The self fulfilling prophecy with creeping zones.

You can of course check to see that it was made correctly, which is different regulations but that is rather an ancillary point. The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996

TheBogsDollocks

DaveF327 wrote: »

Regrettably, objections to a TRO cannot just be made on the grounds that you don't agree with it, but only on the grounds that the proposals aren't in accordance with the Act.

I'm not convinced this is accurate. Regulation 8 does not appear to set any restrictions. A person just needs to set down in writing the grounds for their objection.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&Year=1996&number=2489&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=3046943&ActiveTextDocId=3046955&filesize=1908

Coblcris

That is a time limited objection to the making of the TRO not one to the TRO itself.

TheBogsDollocks

Coblcris wrote: »

That is a time limited objection to the making of the TRO not one to the TRO itself.

Not sure I follow. A person can have up to 21 days to submit an objection to the making of the TRO but there does not appear to any restriction on what grounds a person may object on. Until the TRO is made it does not exist so you can only object to the making (proposal) rather than the TRO itself.

We need the OP to confirm if this is within Greater London or outside. If it happens to be within then it will be section 6 RTRA 1984 that is relevant rather than section 1 RTRA1984.

The mention of "out of town" implies outside London though.

Coblcris

After it is made the time window is closed.

It is a question of the original text which talks of 'objecting to a TRO'. Once in existence and the window is closed and t has to be challenged by other means.

Semantics but there are consequences.

TheBogsDollocks

Dave's statement was "Regrettably, objections to a TRO cannot just be made on the grounds that you don't agree with it, but only on the grounds that the proposals aren't in accordance with the Act."

This is not an accurate statement at the proposal stage of the TRO. Regulation 8 allows a person to make an objection to the proposed TRO. The objection is not restricted at this stage in that it can only concern accordance with the legislation. An objection can be made on any grounds but the grounds must be given in writing.

Once the order is made then this is where objections are restricted to "accordance with the act".

This is made clear in Schedule 1 Part III

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&Year=1996&number=2489&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=3046943&ActiveTextDocId=3046991&filesize=331

Coblcris

I agree.
I was pointing out the limitations of the S.8 as per post number 6.
It is probably less confusing for readers if we agree with less text