Posted on: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 - 17:53 | |
New Member Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 13 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,684 |
So they are worse than CPZs in that if you miss the sign there is nothing at all anywhere to remind you it is permit holders only parking. At least CPZs have the yellow lines. A similar sign has recently appeared on a street in Crewe, near the Manchester Metropolitan University site. It is presumably designed to prevent student parking so they have to park in the uni groundsm (and pay a fortune to do so, of course !). This is not technically true. This case clearly shows that a repeater sign is present and its reasonable to assume others would be present throughout this particular scheme. The entry sign would state probably state wording already alluded to earlier in this thread i.e. "Permit Holders Only Beyond This Point". Amendments to the TSRGD 2002 have removed the requirement for local authorities to have specific DFT approval when omitting specially marked bays for a residential scheme as long as they use the correct entry signage (or permitted variants) along with repeater signs (or permitted variants). It would appear in this case that both are present, but that's just an assumption. If the OP is unsure, their only hope may lie in the possibility that the LA has not used compliant signage, the Traffic Regulation Order is defective or a technicality has occurred that would render the Penalty Charge invalid. |
Forum: Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalis... · Post Preview: #892544 · Replies: 7 · Views: 1,646 |
New Replies No New Replies Hot Topic (New) Hot Topic (No New) |
Poll (New) Poll (No New) Locked Topic Moved Topic |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:34 |