DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80972--------------------------------------------------
Rivercourt Road: The TMO
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 14, 2025, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Overview
This is the first of three posts which analyse the TMO for
Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith and Fulham. It sets the scene for
detailed analysis of the two sets of restrictions which the TMO
imposes.
TMO 2037 of 18 September 2024 attempted to lift the existing
restriction in the Consolidated TMO 1878:
- one-way northbound for all vehicles (including cycles) from
Great West Road to King Street
and instead impose two separate restrictions:
- one-way northbound for all vehicles (including cycles) from
Great West Road to the start of two-way Rivercourt Road;
- only buses, taxis, cycles and H&F permit holders permitted to
pass from Great West Road to two-way Rivercourt Road
The intention was that any vehicle could enter Rivercourt Road
from King Street and pass southbound, turn round north of the
junction with Great West Road and then return northbound to King
Street, exiting there.
The lifting of the existing restriction and the imposition of
the first of the new restrictions was the subject of paragraph 6
of the TMO and its Schedule. It sought to define a new one-way
south-to-north restriction which replaced the old one.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the TMO were intended to impose the
separate restriction on which vehicles can turn off Great West
Road onto Rivercourt Road. There are some issues with these
paragraphs, but they may have the effect which H&F intended.
They are represented by the "flying motorcycle" sign with its
Except plate (note that the one-way sign beneath this is part of
the paragraph 6 restriction, not paragraphs 4 and 5).
The image below shows the signage as it was on 7 July 2025 (it
has changed twice since November 2024):
[attachimg=1]
This post comes to the conclusion that the new one-way
south-to-north restriction specified in the Schedule does not
exist. While this implies that the one-way signs northbound, the
Give Way road markings and the No Entry signs southbound should
not be there, the restriction on which vehicles can turn into
Rivercourt Road may, in principle, be enforceable.
There are, of course, other issues which affect whether a
contravention occurs when a motor vehicle without a permit turns
left from Great West Road into Rivercourt Road. Those include
whether there is adequate signage. H&F have recently reduced the
sign clutter on Rivercourt Road, but the signage on Great West
Road remains variable message signs. This post is not concerned
with signage issues.
One highly significant issue for the TMO is whether Hammersmith
and Fulham Council acted lawfully in issuing it. Section 121B of
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 requires a local authority
which is planning to make a change to one of its roads which
could have an effect on one of TfL's roads to give TfL notice
before making the change and obey TfL's subsequent instructions.
TfL have now confirmed that the Council did not do this.
Moreover, H&F also erased the edge-of-carriageway road markings
on TfL's Great West Road and painted their own road markings on
TfL's exit slip road. This will be the subject of a further post
on this thread.
Source Documents
The primary source documents are:
- Rivercourt Road TMO 2037 of 18th September 2024
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_r_419/response/2866782/attach/3/2%20Rivercourt%20Road%20TMO.pdf
- Consolidated TMO 1878 of 24th April 2023
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo/response/3055381/attach/2/1878%20LBHF%20MTC%20Order.pdf
- H&F's plan of the junction between A4 and Rivercourt Road
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo/response/3055381/attach/3/Rivercourt%20Road%20A4%20Junction%20Layout%20Plan.pdf<br
/>showing the signage after January 2025 but before the changes
at
the end of June 2025
Other source material has come as answers to FoI requests:
- H&F: Rivercourt Road Experimental TMO
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo<br
/>
- TfL: Junction of Great West Road with Rivercourt Road
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/junction_of_great_west_road_with
Annotated Plan
TMO 2037 refers to various entities, notably
- junction [of Rivercourt Road] with Great West Road
- the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road
The plan below is taken from Hammersmith and Fulham's January
2025 plan of the signage at the junction. This is the second
iteration of the signage. H&F have resisted supplying plans
issued to the line painters in November 2024 for the original
signage (which can be seen in this image
HTML https://i0.wp.com/www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/LTN-signage-Rivercourt-Road.jpg)<br
/>from Hammersmith Society's report of 24 November 2024
HTML https://www.hammersmithsociety.org.uk/rivercourt-road-a-new-two-way-ltn/.<br
/>The main change is that the Give Way lines have been moved
north
about 1.2 meters, as can be seen in the image at the top of this
post.
On the plan have been drawn various lines which are referenced
in the discussion in subsequent posts. There is a key at bottom
right.
[attachimg=2]
The conventions of this plan are as follows:
land shaded:
- pale blue: TfL's highway land
- pale red: H&F's highway land
- grey: crossover or dropped kerb
- striped blue-grey: tactile paving
- white: non-highway land (the land immediately to the north of
the pale blue land is laid to flowerbeds or is otherwise
decorative and so is not highway land; its ownership ─ TfL
or H&F ─ has not been established)
red lines and text represent proposed changes:
- thick lines adjacent to "SP" are upright traffic signs on a
sign post
- other thick lines are white lines 150mm wide
- thinner lines near kerb are yellow lines
- other text and graphics on road are road markings in white
numbers in circles (red for new; black for existing) represent
diagram numbers in the Traffic Signs Regulations for upright
traffic signs. The most important are:
- 616: No Entry
- 619: No Motor Vehicles aka "flying motorcycle"
- 652: One Way Traffic
- 670: Speed limit
thin lines with arrows at each end and numbers to 1 decimal
place are measured distances in meters
capital letters
- B: bollard
- LC: lamp column (with number)
- SP: signpost
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80980--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road: The TMO
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 14, 2025, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
South-to-North Restriction
TMO 1878
The Consolidated TMO 1878 of 24 April 2023 specified restriction
161 as follows:
--- Quote ---
>
> No person shall cause or permit any vehicle to proceed in a
road or length of road, as the case may be, specified in column
2 of part B of Schedule 2 in any direction other than that
specified in relation thereto in column 3 of part B of that
Schedule at the times or on the days or both specified in
relation thereto, in such circumstances as they are specified,
in column 4 of part B of that Schedule, other than a vehicle
referred to in relation thereto in column 5 of part B of that
Schedule at the times or on the days or both specified in
relation thereto, in such circumstances as they are specified,
in column 6 of part B of that Schedule.
>
--- End Quote ---
The relevant columns in Schedule 2 Part B for Rivercourt Road
were:
--- Quote ---
>
>
>
- Item: 161
>
- Length of Road: Rivercourt Road, between Great West Road and
King Street
>
- Direction of travel: south to north
>
- Days / Times: At any time
>
- Exempted vehicles: -
>
- Days / Times of exemption: -
>
>
--- End Quote ---
This TMO therefore imposed a one-way south-to-north restriction
on all vehicles on that length of Rivercourt Road between Great
West Road and King Street.
TMO 2037
Paragraph 6 of TMO 2037 of 18 September 2024 specified:
--- Quote ---
>
> Without prejudice to the validity of anything done or to any
liability incurred in respect of any act or omission before the
coming into force of this Order, the Hammersmith and Fulham
(Prescribed Routes) (Consolidation) Traffic Order 2023 shall
have effect as though Item no. 161 to Schedule 2, Part B of that
Order was replaced by the item in Schedule to this order.
>
--- End Quote ---
The relevant column entries were as before, except that column
2, Length of Road became:
--- Quote ---
>
> 2. Length of Road: Rivercourt Road, between Great West Road
and a point and a point 8.30 meters south of the southern
building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road.
>
--- End Quote ---
In other words, the section of Rivercourt Road which was one-way
northbound for all vehicles started at the same place as before
but (disregarding the repetition of "and a point") now ended not
at King Street but at
--- Quote ---
>
> a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No.
17 Rivercourt Road.
>
--- End Quote ---
A Point 8.30 Meters South of the Southern Building Wall of No.
17 Rivercourt Road
It is common for the definition of the start or end of parking
lines or bus lanes to be defined by reference to boundaries
between properties which abut the highway. It is less common to
use such a datum for the entire width of a carriageway.
The reference to "building wall" is non-standard; "boundary
wall" or "boundary" is typical. As walls have finite thickness,
the face of the wall may be specified.
Hammersmith and Fulham have provided their own interpretation of
"a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No.
17 Rivercourt Road". In FoI request 16918890
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo,<br
/>they answered:
--- Quote ---
>
> The specified location 8.30 meters south of the southern
building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road is where the boundary
lines of the A4 land and Rivercourt Road land meet.
>
--- End Quote ---
The annotations in orange on the plan in the preceding post show
a line running E ─ W where the footway of Rivercourt Road
widens to the south of No. 17. Another orange line is shown 8.30
meters south of this, which does indeed meet the boundary
between TfL's Great West Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road at the
eastern edge of the eastern footway on Rivercourt Road. We can
therefore take this point as the point specified in the TMO.
There is a mistake in the Ordnance Survey plan (which I have
reported to Ordnance Survey) relating to what I have shown in
orange as the "Southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt
Road". It is that the plan shows this line running E ─ W
while the rest of the southern boundary of No. 17 Rivercourt
Road runs approximately 4° N of E − 4° S of W. However,
this makes no difference if one uses the easternmost point of
the "southern building wall" as the datum.
Start of the South-to-North Restriction
The Schedule specifies the south-to-north restriction on
Rivercourt Road as running "from Great West Road...". That means
that it starts at the boundary where Great West Road meets
Rivercourt Road. The dark green line on the annotated plan shows
the boundary between the land shaded pale blue and that shaded
pale red where it crosses the carriageway of Rivercourt Road.
This appears to be where H&F consider the south-to-north
restriction starts.
On inspection, the dark green line lies to the north of a
straight line which joins sections of the boundary between the
pale-blue-shaded land and the white non-highway land towards
each edge of the plan in the preceding post. This latter line
has been coloured lime green. It seems more likely that where
this lime green line crosses the carriageway of Rivercourt Road
it defines the boundary between Great West Road and the
Council's Rivercourt Road.
Below is a section of the annotated plan which zooms in to the
exit slip road from Great West Road and the various lines which
could represent the start and end of the south-to-north
restriction.
[attachimg=1]
End of the South-to-North Restriction
The Schedule specifies the south-to-north restriction as ending
at "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of
No. 17 Rivercourt Road". This point lies on the orange line
which runs E ─ W from the point where the eastern edge of
the eastern footway of Rivercourt Road meets the edge of the
combined cycleway/footway of Great West Road. That point lies
just to the south of the signpost facing west which carried the
HGV restriction sign (diagram 622.1A) with its plates and which
still carries a sign with the street name.
Where a TMO uses a point such as this as a datum for a road
marking on the carriageway, standard practice is to regard it as
defining a line across the carriageway perpendicular to the kerb
at that point. If we start at the back of the eastern footway,
this results in a line which is parallel to and lies 8.30 meters
south of the southern boundary of 17 Rivercourt Road. That line
is shown in violet.
If we regard the point 8.30 meters south of the southern
building wall of 17 Rivercourt Road as defining a line running E
─ W because the southern building wall runs E ─ W
(except that it only does so on Ordnance Survey's mistaken
cartography), the end of the south-to-north restriction lies
where the orange line crosses the carriageway.
Between these two lines across the carriageway, orange and
violet, other lines could be drawn, e.g. the magenta line which
runs perpendicular to the kerb starting at the front edge of the
footway 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of 17
Rivercourt Road.
Another possibility would be to draw a line parallel to the Give
Way lines starting where the eastern kerb meets the orange line.
Extent of the South-to-North Restriction
Each of the lines just described is a possible interpretation of
what the TMO defines as the end of the south-to-north
restriction. They all share the property that they lie entirely
to the south of the lime green line which marks the start of the
south-to-north restriction.
It follows that, as the end of the south-to-north restriction
lies to the south of its start, the restriction has not been
defined meaningfully. It is therefore unenforceable and has no
effect.
The consequence is that there is now no south-to-north
restriction anywhere between Great West Road and King Street.
Vehicles can use it in a southerly direction. The No Entry signs
and Give Way road markings, which have been placed supposedly to
give effect to the south-to-north restriction in the TMO, have
been placed in error and should be removed.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 80989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road: The TMO
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 14, 2025, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Restriction on Vehicle Classes from Great West Road
TMO 2037
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of TMO 2037 state:
--- Quote ---
>
> 4. No person shall cause any motor vehicle to proceed in a
northbound direction on Rivercourt Road past a point at its
junction with the A4, Great West Road and;
> 5. The controls specified in article 4 do not apply in respect
of a vehicle being in any length of the restricted streets –
> (a) with a valid permit;
> (b) being a bus, local bus, taxi and pedal cycle; ...
>
--- End Quote ---
Paragraph 4 ends with "and;", which suggests a typo, as with the
repetition of "and a point" in the Schedule to the TMO.
Normal practice with TMOs is that if some special restriction
applies which cannot be defined in the Schedule, it is defined
in the main body of the TMO but applies to the same length of
road as that in the Schedule. If that were so, the word "and"
would be followed by "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern
building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road." As noted in the
previous post, this extended form of paragraph 4 does not define
a south-to-north restriction. If it did (and I surmise that
whoever drafted the Schedule thought that the junction between
Great West Road and Rivercourt Road lay at the
edge-of-carriageway markings on Great West Road), TMO 2037 would
make complete sense.
Passing "a point"
Nonetheless, it is possible that paragraph 4 was intended to
refer simply to passing a point at the junction of Rivercourt
Road with Great West Road. We have seen in the preceding post
that "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of
No. 17 Rivercourt Road" refers to a point on the boundary
between TfL's Great West Road and H&F's Rivercourt Road. It
seems likely that this is the point referred to in paragraph 4.
In races on a track (horses, athletics, motor) there is a
finishing line, which runs perpendicular to the track. On one
side of this there may be a finishing post, today with a camera
which records what passes across the line. It therefore makes
sense to refer to "passing a point". This occurs when the front
of the horse, human or motor car crosses the line perpendicular
to the track which runs through the specified point.
If "a point" refers to "a point 8.30 meters south of the
southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road", the line
perpendicular to the track passing through this point is the
magenta or violet line shown on the annotated plan, or some line
between these. These lines lie wholly across TfL's land.
Hammersmith and Fulham cannot impose such a restriction on a TfL
road.
Relaxation of the Control
Paragraph 5 states that the controls in paragraph 4 do not apply
--- Quote ---
>
> in respect of a vehicle being in any length of the restricted
streets
>
--- End Quote ---
That phraseology, especially the words "being in any length of
the restricted streets", implies that there is some length of
the restricted street in which the vehicle could be. One of the
purposes of TMO 2037 was to lift the one-way restriction on
Rivercourt Road north of the junction with Great West Road.
There is now nowhere on Rivercourt Road between Great West Road
and King Street in which the presence of a vehicle going in a
particular direction at some time of itself contravenes a moving
traffic restriction. A restriction may apply as a vehicle passes
"a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No.
17 Rivercourt Road", but when a vehicle does so, it is not on
Rivercourt Road but on the exit from Great West Road (which
forms part of Great West Road).
This raises the question of what "restricted street" means. Is
it a street in which the characteristics of the vehicle together
with its location and the time and date determine whether the
vehicle is permitted to be there? Or can it be a street in which
how the vehicle got there determines whether the vehicle is
permitted to be there? Could a TMO impose a restriction on those
entering Rivercourt Road who had passed through Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea on their way there? These are tricky
issues which only the courts can settle.
Conclusions
The restrictions in paragraphs 4 and 5 may be enforceable.
Paragraph 4 bars motor vehicles from passing a point which lies
on the boundary between TfL's highway and H&F's. Because of the
alignment of the carriageways of Great West Road and Rivercourt
Road (the angle between them is less than 90°), vehicles pass
this point when they are on TfL's highway. The restriction is
therefore extra-territorial but vehicles which pass it do
subsequenly enter H&F's territory.
Paragraph 5 seeks to exempt certain vehicles from the
restrictions of paragraph 4. However, as vehicles can enter and
be in all parts of Rivercourt Road between Great West Road and
King Street in either direction at all times, it's not clear
that this section of Rivercourt Road is a "restricted street":
the restriction applies to how the vehicle got there rather than
where it is. This makes it far from certain that the
extra-territorial restriction is lifted for those classes of
vehicle specified in paragraph 5.
In other words, it seems quite possible that all motor vehicles
which turn left from Great West Road onto Rivercourt Road are
prohibited from proceeding north along Rivercourt Road. If this
were so, it would be wholly improper for H&F to turn a blind eye
to such contraventions by buses, taxis and permit holders while
issuing PCNs to other motorists. This would render H&F's issuing
of PCNs ultra vires because they took account of irrelevant
considerations, i.e. that H&F had intended such motor vehicles
to be exempt.
#Post#: 81012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road: The TMO
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 15, 2025, 1:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If H&F cannot tell the difference between meters and metres it
is not surprising they cannot be trusted to draw up a TMO.
#Post#: 81051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road: The TMO
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 15, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I expect their spell-checker is set to US English.
#Post#: 81056--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road: The TMO
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 15, 2025, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> I expect their spell-checker is set to US English.
>
--- End Quote ---
Probably, but (tongue-in-cheek) I'd be tempted to ask H&F where
I could find these meters, and whether they were parking-, gas-
or electric-. After all, metre, as a unit of linear measurement,
is defined in English law: meter, as a unit of linear
measurement, is not, whereas meter as an instrument for
measuring quantity, may well be.
#Post#: 81190--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road: The TMO
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 16, 2025, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Public Notice for TMO 2037
I've been reading the Public Notice for TMO 2037
HTML https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/planning/66eaa75f706661e7a9ce14d2.<br
/>This isn't the formal TMO
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_r_419/response/2866782/attach/3/2%20Rivercourt%20Road%20TMO.pdf,<br
/>but Public Notices can help shed light on TMOs. In this case
it
does.
Curiosities of TMO 2037
The first curiosity of TMO 2037 is that there is no paragraph 2.
The next is the apparently incomplete paragraph 4:
--- Quote ---
>
> 4. No person shall cause any motor vehicle to proceed in a
northbound direction on Rivercourt Road past a point at its
junction with the A4, Great West Road and;
>
--- End Quote ---
This ends with that hanging "and;". It makes no sense because it
is followed by paragraph 5, which begins as a new sentence:
--- Quote ---
>
> 5. The controls specified in article 4 do not apply in respect
of a vehicle being in any length of the restricted streets –
> [indent](a) with a valid permit;
> (b) being a bus, local bus, taxi and pedal cycle;... [/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
After this comes paragraph 6 which, along with the Schedule,
shortens the existing one-way south-to-north restriction on
Rivercourt Road from
--- Quote ---
>
> between Great West Road and King Street
--- End Quote ---
to
--- Quote ---
>
> between Great West Road and a point and a point 8.30 meters
south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road
>
--- End Quote ---
The Public Notice
The Public Notice puts these differently:
--- Quote ---
>
> 2. The general effect of the above-mentioned Order will be to
prohibit as an experiment any motor vehicle to proceed in a
northbound direction on Rivercourt Road past a point at its
junction with the A4, Great West Road and;-.
>
> 3. to revoke the one-way northbound traffic flow restriction
on Rivercourt Road and to introduce as an experiment a
northbound one way restriction on Rivercourt Road between its
junction with the A4, Great West Road and a point 8.30 meters
south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road.
>
> 4. The controls specified in article 2 would not apply in
respect of a vehicle being in any length of the restricted
streets -
> [indent]
> a. with a valid permit;
> b. being a bus, local bus, taxi and pedal cycle;[/indent]
>
--- End Quote ---
This makes a lot more sense. First, the paragraphs are numbered
sequentially. Secondly, it is clear that paragraph 2 (the TMO's
paragraph 4) is intended not as a complete sentence but as half
of a single sentence spread across paragraphs 2 and 3 (the
latter being given effect by the TMO's paragraph 6 and the
Schedule).
It's as though one person (a highway engineer, perhaps?) drafted
the Public Notice as a statement of what the TMO would do and
then a second person botched the job of translating that into
formal legal language.
I surmise that the policy maker knew that the Council's
Rivercourt Road started to the north of the combined
cycleway/footway on Great West Road and specified that:
- Rivercourt Road between the cycleway/footway and King Street
was to become two-way with unrestricted access from King Street;
- access from Great West Road was to be restricted to buses,
taxis, cycles and permit holders.
Where No Motor Vehicles was Intended to Apply
The Public Notice makes it clear that the restriction on the
classes of vehicle which can enter Rivercourt Road from Great
West Road was intended to apply just at
--- Quote ---
>
> a point at its junction with the A4, Great West Road
>
--- End Quote ---
and not (as I had surmised) along the length of the one-way
south-to-north restriction.
H&F now acknowledge that the junction between A4, Great West
Road and Rivercourt Road lies at the northern boundary of the
combined cycleway/footway to the north of the eastbound
carriageway.
But suppose that it was a highway engineer who worked out how
the TMO would achieve the policy maker's objectives. Highway
engineers inevitably approach the design of highways from a
motorist's point of view. Such a person might well consider that
the junction lay at the edge-of-carriageway road markings. Then
paragraph 2 of the Public Notice's "point at its junction with
the A4, Great West Road" would have lain on the
edge-of-carriageway road markings.
Road Markings on Slip Road
Now consider the road markings which H&F painted on the exit
slip road. They are diagram 1040.3 (ignore the stated diagram
number 1040.4 on the plan
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo/response/3055381/attach/3/Rivercourt%20Road%20A4%20Junction%20Layout%20Plan.pdf).<br
/>This is TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 4
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/4/made<br
/>Item 23 and means:
--- Quote ---
>
> Reduction in the number of lanes, or area not available to
traffic, on the main carriageway or slip road of a motorway or
all-purpose dual carriageway road
>
--- End Quote ---
It is the correct road marking for a slip road from a
dual-carriageway and prohibits all traffic from crossing the
solid white line at its boundary. It is precisely what a highway
engineer would specify to prohibit vehicles which have started
to turn off Great West Road from returning to the carriageway.
Unless the entire manoeuvre can be completed without any part of
the vehicle's crossing one of the solid white lines, an offence
is committed.
A mistaken belief that TfL's highway coincided with the
carriageway could also explain H&F's failure to give TfL notice
under s.121B of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/121B
of a
proposed change to one of H&F's highways which could affect
TfL's highway. It would certainly explain why H&F felt able to
change the road markings on that part of the slip road which
lies within TfL's highway.
There's still the risk that vehicles turning onto Rivercourt
Road will crash into vehicles which have come south from King
Street and are doing a 3-point turn just north of the Give Way
lines. This would have an impact on the carriageway of the A4,
as would vehicles which come south and ignore the No Entry signs
(see this PCN video
HTML https://i.imgur.com/7A09bY9.mp4).
The road markings on the exit slip road therefore lend support
to the inference that the intended "point at its junction with
the A4, Great West Road" lay on the edge-of-carriageway road
markings on Great West Road.
South-to-North Restriction
Further support for this is provided by the definition of the
south-to-north restriction. This begins at the "junction between
Great West Road and Rivercourt Road". It ends at "a point 8.30
meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt
Road". H&F have stated that this latter point lies on the
northern boundary of the combined cycleway/footway. If the
"junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road" lies at
the edge-of-carriageway markings, the south-to-north restriction
applies to the exit slip road where it crosses the grass verge
and combined cycleway/footway, a distance of some 6m.
Reality Intrudes
Unfortunately for H&F, TfL's highway, Great West Road, includes
the verge and the combined cycleway/footway. At some point, H&F
accepted reality. In their responses to my FoI request, they
acknowledge that the junction lies at the northern edge of the
cycleway/footway.
Notwithstanding this, they maintain that the south-to-north
restriction is of length greater than zero. As I have set out in
Reply #1
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/rivercourt-road-the-tmo/msg80980/#msg80980,<br
/>the fact that Great West Road makes an acute angle with
Rivercourt Road means that the end of the restriction lies to
the south of its start. As it's defined as a south-to-north
restriction, this isn't meaningful, so the restriction is void.
Implications
To return to the Public Notice, its placing the south-to-north
restriction as paragraph 3 means that when paragraph 4 refers to
"restricted streets", it made sense to its authors because
paragraph 3 has just applied a restriction to what they
considered to be part of Rivercourt Road. With that restriction
in place, paragraph 4 relieves buses, taxis and permit holders,
which have been in a "restricted street" (i.e. the
south-to-north restriction) from the prohibition of paragraph 2.
In the real world, the "junction with Great West Road" lies to
the north of the end of the south-to-north restriction. This
means that not only is there no south-to-north restriction but
that the "restricted street" does not exist. It follows that
paragraph 4 of the Public Notice (paragraph 5 of the TMO) does
not relieve buses, taxis and permit holders from the prohibition
of paragraph 2 of the Public Notice (paragraph 4 of the TMO).
Conclusions
I'm not convinced that a TMO can impose a restriction on
crossing a line or passing a point, especially when that happens
on another traffic authority's highway. Assuming that it can,
TMO 2037 has these effects:
- the entire length of Rivercourt Road between the northern
boundary of the cycleway/footway on Great West Road and King
Street is open to all vehicles in both directions;
- all motor vehicles (with no exceptions) are prohibited from
crossing the northern boundary of the cycleway/footway
northbound; cyclists may do so;
- the No Entry signs and Give Way road markings have been placed
4m too far north; they should be at the northern edge of the
combined cycleway/footway.
Traffic authorities are required to place signage to show the
effect of TMOs which they impose. Needless to say, the signage
H&F have placed does not show the effects of the TMO. For
instance, the "flying motor cycle sign" lies 1-2m north of the
(single) point where the prohibition on northbound traffic
applies. This is where the No Entry signs and the Give Way lines
should lie (but there would be even more crashes if they did).
Given the road markings on the exit slip road, motorists on the
A4 need to be advised that they are not to start turning left
onto Rivercourt Road. Once they have started to turn left, they
commit an offence if they turn back onto the A4. They incur a
PCN if they continue. H&F's variable message signs do not
provide the necessary information and are beyond the 6-month
time limit on such "temporary" signs. As has been stated in so
many cases,
--- Quote ---
>
> If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no
offence is committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676
>
--- End Quote ---
Unfortunately, that doesn't stop H&F from sending out PCNs.
P.S.
I now think I know why H&F moved the Give Way lines north: it
was because the northern edge of the northern Give Way line
should lie between the No Entry signs. I don't know why they
didn't instead move the No Entry signs south so they were on the
back of what are now a pair of No Motor Vehicle signs.
#Post#: 82094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Rivercourt Road: The TMO
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: July 22, 2025, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have now received from TfL a plan from their Property Asset
Register
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/junction_of_great_west_road_with/response/3090738/attach/4/image002.png<br
/>which shows separately:
- ownership (shaded green)
- control (between dashed blue lines)
of land along Great West Road.
This confirms what is shown in the TFL Road Network plan
HTML https://tfl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=99bc8bbbe8c94af291f5a5bfc77a00dd<br
/>as the land controlled by TfL, except that it is more precise
about where the boundary lies. It lies, as expected, along the
northern edge of the combined cycleway/footway to the north of
Great West Road.
What I had not expected was that TfL does not own the land where
Great West Road crosses the former Rivercourt Road. Ownership of
the land beneath highways is complicated and can be lost in the
mists of time, which makes it hard to acquire compulsorily. What
matters is who controls the land as a highway. That is now
clear: to the north of the cycleway/footway it is H&F; to its
south TfL.
TfL's full reply is here
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/junction_of_great_west_road_with#incoming-3090738.<br
/>The curious narrow white strip running NW - SE in the
westbound
carriageway of Great West Road near Furnivall Gardens appears to
be part of Hampshire Hog Lane, which ran all the way to Upper
Mall.
Another useful plan is City of London's
HTML https://www.mapping.cityoflondon.gov.uk/geocortex/mapping/?viewer=compass,<br
/>which displays Ordnance Survey data. Among the layers which
you
can display (checkboxes at left) is TfL Highway area.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1