DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107324--------------------------------------------------
Bull Lane, Enfield: Some thoughts about the position of the blue
roundels
By: Bustagate Date: January 25, 2026, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've been writing a web page explaining what bus gates are
HTML https://www.busgates.uk/what.
One of the bus gates which I
examine is Bull Lane, Enfield. I've previously been aware of
this as an extremely high-grossing site but have not really
studied it. I have now and my views are in the web page. It
includes "before" and "after" pictures showing how the
appearance of the site would change if the blue roundels were
shifted to build-outs rather than being placed on the footway.
As DfT and Government advice is to use build-outs where they are
compatible with the levels of permitted traffic through bus
gates, I do wonder how adjudicators would respond to arguments
based on this. I would say something along these lines:
[indent]
It is well-established case law that, if someone transgresses
the terms of a traffic order, no contravention occurs if the
local authority has failed to make adequate information
available about the traffic order.
In R (Neil Herron et al) v The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWCA
Civ 905 Lord Justice Burnton found (Lord Justice Aikens and Sir
David Keene concurring)
[quote]
35. It has long been recognised that the enforceability of a
[traffic order] requires that adequate notice of the applicable
restriction is given to the road user. This principle is derived
from the duty imposed by Regulation 18 of [LATOR 1996]. In
Macleod v Hamilton 1965 SLT 305 Lord Clyde said, at 308
[quote]It was an integral part of the statutory scheme for a
traffic regulation order that notice by means of traffic signs
should be given to the public using the roads which were
restricted so as to warn users of their obligations. Unless
these traffic signs were there accordingly and the opportunity
was thus afforded to the public to know what they could not
legally do, no offence would be committed. It would, indeed, be
anomalous and absurd were the position otherwise. ...[/quote]
36. That principle was approved and applied by the Divisional
Court in James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Giving a judgment with
which the other members of the court [Justices Ashworth and
Widgery] agreed, [Lord Justice] Winn said:
[quote]... The short answer in my view which requires that this
appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did
not take such steps as they were required to take under that
regulation. They did not take steps which clearly could have
been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to
cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road
by the signs which they erected. …[/quote]
[/quote]
This was a judgment in the Court of Appeal, so is binding on the
High Court as well as on tribunals and adjudicators.
The assessment of the adequacy of the signage therefore covers
not only signs which were present but also signs which could
have been placed.
The absence after entering Bull Lane south of Bridport Road of
[list]
[li]No Through Road signs with the Except cycles plate[/li]
[li]a sign reading "No Access to White Hart Lane" (there is a
sign on Wilbury Way which reads "No Access to White Hart Lane
via Bull Lane"[/li]
[li]signs showing the distance to the bus gate ahead (there are
such signs in Haringey when approaching from the south)[/li]
[/list]
together with
[list]
[li]the reconfiguration of the junction with Amersham Avenue to
prevent its use as a turning point for southbound vehicles (a
mini-roundabout could have been inserted here while still making
the entry to the road No Motor Vehicles)[/li]
[li]making Shaftesbury Road one-way out, thereby preventing its
use as an escape route for "Other traffic" not permitted through
the bus gate[/li]
[li]the placing of the signposts with the blue roundels on the
footway rather than on build-outs[/li]
[/list]
collectively have the effect of failing to take steps which
clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been
practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons
using the road. As Lord Justice Winn said in James v. Cavey,
these circumstances require the appeal to be allowed.
[/indent]
#Post#: 108184--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bull Lane, Enfield: Some thoughts about the position of the
blue roundels
By: Bustagate Date: January 31, 2026, 4:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've now worked out how this monstrous bus gate came to be
created.
Enfield's Change of Plan
Originally, Enfield proposed a bus gate 20m south of where it is
now. It was to be formed as a chicane using large planters. The
southern planter is shown on this plan
HTML https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/5787/widgets/17438/documents/33676.<br
/>The northern planter isn't shown because its location has been
covered by the revised bus gate. It would have been on the west
side of the road, I surmise as far north as the southern area of
block paving is.
After the original plan had been approved, Enfield appear to
have realised or been told:
[list]
[li]it would cause mayhem because HGVs would no longer be able
to access yards on the industrial estate as they had been doing.
Instead, they would have to reverse large distances and round
corners;[/li]
[li]Haringey wanted to have a new vehicular access into the Bull
Lane playing fields which would be in the middle of the bus
gate.[/li]
[/list]
That led to revisions to the plan and a second round of
consultations. The bus gate was moved north, to where it has
been built. The planters were replaced with "carriageway
build-outs" which were constructed of block-pavers with granite
kerbs around them which were set "flush with the carriageway".
In other words, they weren't build-outs at all.
Why the "Build-outs Flush with the Carriageway"?
This unusual (unprecedented?) form of "build-out" was
necessitated by the requirement to allow HGVs to enter the yard
at 22, Bull Lane (the southernmost commercial premises, which
includes Demitris Motors). They do this by going beyond the
entrance and then reversing in. In so doing, they make use of
the full width of the carriageway. Any physical obstruction,
such as build-outs, would prevent their entering the yard.
There wouldn't have been any problems for HGVs if the bus gate
had been moved south and converted to build-outs on both sides
of the road at the same point rather than a chicane. Such
build-outs could have been put to the north of the existing
vehicular cross-over and gates into the Bull Lane playing field.
This vehicular access could have been widened to 6m without
impinging on such a bus gate.
So the bus gate that is there now was an exercise in trying to
say "yes" to Haringey's plans when they were a gleam in
Haringey's eye. Enfield could have said "Sorry, it's just not
possible. We've got to allow HGVs to use the yard at 22, Bull
Lane. That means that any bus gate has to be at least 20m
(preferably 25m) south of the entrance to the yard. We'll put
the shortest bus gate we can south of that, which will leave you
space to widen your existing vehicular access just north of the
borough boundary from 3m to 6m."
But Enfield didn't. Instead, they built the bus gate we see
today.
Approach to the Bus Gate from the North
The bus gate's defects are not just at the southern end of Bull
Lane. They extend all the way from Bull Lane's junction with
Wilbury Way/Bridport Road ¼ mile to the north. To the north of
this, a segregated two-way cycle track has been created on the
west side of Bull Lane. But to the south, there are no cycle
lanes at all. Nor has the speed limit been reduced from 30 mph
to 20 mph by creating a 20 mph zone. This would have enabled the
council to install whatever traffic-calming measures it saw fit.
Instead, the council has used a single traffic order both to
restrict the vehicles which can pass through the bus gate and to
create the traffic-calming features around the bus gate. This
means that the vehicle restrictions extend from the start of the
traffic-calming features to their end. And from one edge of the
highway to the other, i.e. across the footways as well as the
carriageway.
Enfield appear not to have taken seriously the advice in the
Traffic Signs Manual about the signage of bus gates or about how
large signs need to be, especially those which contain words
(e.g. map-type advance direction signs). There is a complete
absence of signs warning of the bus gate ahead between the
junction with Wilbury Way/Bridport Road and the bus gate, a
distance of ¼ mile.
That is not normal. It offers scope to challenge PCNs by quoting
Coombes v DPP [2006] EWHC 3263 (Admin) and using the argument
set out in paragraphs 4.22 - 4.31 of the Chief Adjudicator's
Review of TPT Decisions on John Dobson Street, Newcastle
HTML https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/TPT-Adjudicator-Decision_John-Dobson-Street-Bus-Gate_Newcastle_150720.pdf.
There's also the "hot potato" of the conduct of Enfield's second
round of statutory consultation. This asserted that the revised
bus gate had "carriageway build-outs" rather than planters. Any
normal reader would interpret that as meaning that the chicane
around the bus gate would now take the form of build-outs rather
than planters. Yet these "build-outs" were actually areas of
block paving flush with the carriageway. They did not narrow the
carriageway or force vehicles to slow down. While this could be
discovered by careful study of the drawing (which was available
on the website), few, if any, of those consulted would have
understood this.
The rest of this post presents this history. A further post will
analyse the signage.
First Round of Statutory Consultation
On 6 October 2021 Enfield went out to statutory consultation
with this letter
HTML https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/5787/widgets/17438/documents/17864.<br
/>It followed an earlier Community engagement letter
HTML https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/5787/widgets/17438/documents/16419<br
/>which included a schematic map. This showed a bus gate at the
southern end of Bull Lane but did not show the form which the
bus gate took. It is not clear whether more detailed plans of
the bus gate were sent to statutory consultees.
The schematic map also showed "modal filters" at the junctions
between Bull Lane and Amersham Avenue and between Bull Lane and
Shaftesbury Road. These restricted the vehicles which could pass
through the filter to pedal cycles. Enfield stated that they
would be signed using No Motor Vehicles rather than No Entry
with "Except cycles" plates because the latter would prevent the
emergency services from using them while No Motor Vehicles did
not. Curiously, they don't seem to see any problem with the blue
roundels which they have placed at the Bull Lane bus gate, which
have exactly the same effect as No Entry signs with "Except
buses and cycles" plates.
Second Round of Statutory Consultation
On 9 November 2022 (i.e. more than one year later), Enfield went
to a second round of statutory consultation. This letter
HTML https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/5787/widgets/17438/documents/33674<br
/>started by explaining that the project had been approved and
that construction had started:
[quote]
A statutory consultation on the draft traffic orders for this
project was undertaken in late 2021, the project was granted
approval in March 2022, and construction began in May
2022.[/quote]
In other words, no significant changes had been required as a
result of the first round of statutory consultation. Everything
had been proceeding smoothly until something unspecified had
forced a rethink. It continued:
[quote]
We are now proposing changes to two aspects of the traffic
orders which relate to:
[list]
[li]a modal filter at the junction of Shaftesbury Road with Bull
Lane, and [/li]
[li]a bus gate at the southern end of Bull Lane.[/li]
[/list]
. . .
All of the changes proposed can be seen on the drawings
accompanying the draft traffic orders, which can be found in the
document library section on the right-hand side of the project
page:
HTML http://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/nmh-ati.
. . .
The main changes, which do not affect the purpose of the
previous proposals, are summarised below:
Bull Lane
[list]
[li]Relocation of the bus gate approximately 20 metres further
north[/li]
[li]Change from planters at the bus gate to carriageway
buildouts[/li]
[/list]
[/quote]
Reading between the lines, I surmise that businesses on
Shaftesbury Road and Bull Lane had realised the implications of
Enfield's plans: HGVs which accessed industrial premises on the
affected roads had been in the habit of making short reversing
manoeuvres on entry to or exit from the premises. Enfield's
plans would require them to reverse all the way back to the
preceding junction. This would cause mayhem and possible
gridlock.
Plans of the Bus Gate
The drawings of the bus gate which are available now
HTML https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/5787/widgets/17438/documents/33676<br
/>are Metis Drawing No: 20148-MET-0010-02-DR-001 Revision C date
d
30 September 2022. The revision history shows that it was first
issued on 16 May 2022, so was not part of the first round of
consultations.
But it does show what looks remarkably like a large planter on
the east side of Bull Lane 13m north of the boundary with
Haringey. I surmise that it was part of the original plan for
the bus gate and that there was a second large planter on the
west side of the road roughly as far north as the southern area
of block paving is now.
If that was the location of the northern planter, its northern
end would have been about 8m south of the entrance to the yard
at 22, Bull Lane.
Reasons to Move the Bus Gate South
Rigid HGVs are up to 12m long. The reversing manoeuvre to get
through a gateway requires an HGV to leave a full vehicle's
length clear between the further gatepost and the rear of the
vehicle before it starts reversing. I have shown the swept path
in the section about Bull Lane on this web page
HTML https://www.busgates.uk/what.
Enfield's original plan was therefore not compatible with the
well-established use by HGVs of the yard at 22, Bull Lane.
While a change to the bus gate was therefore required, the
obvious solution would have been to move it south and convert it
from a chicane to build-outs which narrowed the road on both
sides at the same point. Bull Lane isn't wide enough to have a
cycle gap on even one side, but such a bus gate could have been
installed north of the vehicular cross-overs on both sides of
Bull Lane just north of the boundary with Haringey. This can be
seen (in orange) on the same aerial view as the swept path.
Bus Gate Moved North
The bus gate was not moved south. It was moved north. The
drawing shows the "Indicative potential location of future Selby
Urban Village Development access". It is where the northern
planter would have been. Enfield has evidently responded to a
request from Haringey to change its plans for the bus gate to
accommodate a future vehicular access to the Bull Lane playing
fields. Unlike the planter in Enfield's original proposals, the
solution which I outlined in the preceding section of moving the
bus gate south would not have interfered with the use of the
proposed vehicular access, but it would have put it on the other
side of the bus gate from Haringey.
Enfield evidently sought to accommodate Haringey's wishes. They
moved the bus gate 20m north. This brought the bus gate right to
the entrance to the yard of 22, Bull Lane. An aerial view of it
is shown to the right of the aerial view with the swept path.
The purple rectangle shows the land defined in the traffic order
as subject to its restrictions. The traffic order permits goods
vehicle manoeuvring to enter the yard to make use of the land
subject to the traffic order.
Failure to Create a 20 mph Zone
The reason why the traffic order covers the full extent of the
"carriageway build-outs" is presumably because highway
authorities need a traffic order to implement traffic-calming
measures. But, as already observed, this is a curious
traffic-calming measure which doesn't actually impede traffic
(except cyclists, who prefer their road surface smooth).
It's also because Enfield haven't done the obvious thing for a
designated cycle route which lacks any cycle lane, whether on or
off the carriageway: create a 20 mph zone and apply
traffic-calming measures. If they had done that, the
"carriageway build-outs could have been authorised under the
traffic order imposing the 20 mph zone and the bus gate order
could have applied only where Enfield actually propose to
enforce the restriction.
As it is, almost every vehicle entering or leaving the yard at
22, Bull Lane or the future entrance to the Selby Centre is
legally liable to the Moving traffic penalty and relies on
Enfield's forbearance (if that isn't a contradiction in terms)
not to issue them with one.
When is a Build-out not a Build-out?
By 30 September 2022 (the date of the drawings of the bus gate
which are available today), Enfield's consultants, Metis, had
evidently worked out that the only way to allow HGVs to access
the yard was to remove any obstructions from the carriageway.
The drawings still showed build-outs with kerbs, but the kerbs
were marked as "flushed with carriageway level" and the areas of
the build-outs were formed of "Grey Block Paving Herringbone ...
built to Traffic Loading Standard".
In other words, the "build-outs" weren't build-outs: they were
part of the carriageway.
While the drawings do indeed show the nature of these very
unusual "build-outs", the attention to detail required to work
this out would be beyond most people. The text of the letter for
the second round of statutory consultation asserted that the
revised bus gate had "carriageway build-outs" rather than
planters. This term is sometimes used by other highway
authorities to mean a build-out. The usage may refer to the fact
that most build-outs are now constructed in the carriageway with
either a gutter or a cycle gap between them and the footway.
This avoids problems with road drainage which arise when a
build-out interrupts the gutter.
DfT's Local Transport Notes about Traffic Calming and Bus
Priority Measures define build outs as being kerbed structures
at the level of the adjacent footway, as does The Highways
(Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999. Build-outs narrow the
carriageway. That was not the case here.
Construction and Start of Enforcement
Residents and business owners were sent a letter dated 23 June
2023
HTML https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/5787/widgets/17438/documents/44826<br
/>informing them that work would begin on 31 July 2023 to
construct the bus gate and that it was expected to take 3 - 4
weeks.
A further letter dated 22 August 2023
HTML https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/5787/widgets/17438/documents/45926<br
/>informed them that camera enforcement would begin on 29 August
2023.
#Post#: 108409--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bull Lane, Enfield: Some thoughts about the position of the
blue roundels
By: Bustagate Date: February 2, 2026, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Found! The original plans for the Bull Lane Bus Gate
Enfield's original plans for the Bull Lane bus gate are at the
bottom of this file
HTML https://letstalk.enfield.gov.uk/5787/widgets/17438/documents/33377.<br
/>The draft traffic order (at the top of the file) defines the b
us
gate as extending
[quote]
between the northern kerb line of gated entrance to Bull Lane
Park and a point 8.8 metres north of that kerb-line
[/quote]
The plan shows planters on both sides of the road for the length
of the bus gate, where the width of the carriageway would have
been reduced from 6.7m to 3.3m.
Such a bus gate would have been readily visible to motorists
approaching in each direction. Inadvertent contraventions would
have been few. HGVs wanting to go beyond the entrance to the
yard at 22, Bull Lane before reversing in would have been able
to continue doing so.
I have updated the aerial view in What is a Bus Gate?
HTML https://www.busgates.uk/what
to show this.
*****************************************************