Southwark Traffic Department acting illegally !!!

[flippit]

Southwark have abused the regulations concerning temporary road closures.

They have re-established a barrier across Gilkes Place. This replaces the hoardings around the old S.G. Smith development site. The original hoardings were created when the developers was doing demolition work on the site. But even then the justification (on safety grounds) during the demolition work were questionable because all the buildings were single storey and there was never a danger to people on Gilkes. No cranes or wrecking balls were required.

The site was cleared completely and recently abandoned by the developers. The hoardings were removed.

Two days later on 20th May, Southwark issued a temporary The temporary Prohibition notice (5776) and erected barriers. They did so under Section 14 (1) and 14(2) of the Road Traffic Act. These sections specifically relate to applications by builders and contractors to apply for temporary road closures. This temporary prohibition notice (5776) is spurious and contrived.

The stated reason is invalid as it no longer applies since work on the development site bordering Gilkes Place and Gilkes Cresent ceased several months ago. The site is totally dormant and therefor there are no considerations of safety relevant to either Gilkes Place or Gilkes Crescent.

Ian Law (Southwark Traffic Manager) issued this prohibition notice. This notice is illegal because:-

1. There was no application by a builder or contractor.

2. The reason given is false as no work is being done on site.

This is yet another blatant abuse of power by Southwark and they should be held to account. This can become permanent unless we object.

Please email your objection to [email protected]

and

complete the complaint form at https://forms.southwark.gov.uk/ShowForm.asp

As Section 14 (1) and 14(2) do not apply then this prohibition notice has been issued illegally and is therefor invalid.

ACT TODAY TO STOP THIS BECOMING PERMANENT.

[legalalien]

I?m not sure that?s right. Link to the section here

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14

The procedure is set out at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/1215/made/data.xht?wrap=true, worth checking whether it has been complied with.

I imagine that if it?s going to be made

Permanent / semi-permanent another order will need to be made...

[flippit]

Kindly read the actual Act.It is quite specific viz.....

14 (1)If the traffic authority for a road are satisfied that traffic on the road should be restricted or prohibited?

(a)because works are being or are proposed to be executed on or near the road; or

(b)because of the likelihood of danger to the public, or of serious damage to the road, which is not attributable to such works; or

The two crucial criteria are (a) and (b)

Neither apply in this case.

A temporary prohibition cannot be issued without due cause.

[flippit]

You mention procedure and there again, Southwark's action was also illegal on the basis of this...

"""2) Not less than 7 days before making an order, the traffic authority shall publish notice of their intention to make the order in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which any road to which the order relates is situated. """

They installed the barriers without giving 7 days notice PLUS they did not notify the public via the local newspapers.

Note , I also have legal training!

[legalalien]

I?m happy to be corrected. From the sign posted on the lamppost I think they are relying on 14(2) rather than 14(1), so they are doing it by ?notice? rather than by ?order?, and relying on the likelihood of danger to the public. As it?s a notice, section 15(7)(b) then applies so it only lasts 21 days. Temporary notices are dealt with in Reg 10 of the 1992 regs so I don?t think the procedure you mention applies?

Things are a little confused by the fact that the notice posted by Southwark refers to section 14(2) but uses the word ?order? as well as the word ?notice?.

The real question, I think, is what happens after 21 days.

ETA: I?m guessing the danger relied on is to children walking to and from school, rather than construction work, the notice doesn?t specify.

[ianr]

flippit Wrote:

--------------

> Note , I also have legal training!

Para 6 of the notice: "Further information may be obtained by contacting Network Management at [email protected]".

[legalalien]

By way of update, it now looks as though Southwark are going to issue a temporary order on Gilkes Place to continue the closure effected by the notice above. The order is intended to be effective from 18 June (when the notice runs out), and is still justified by reference to "public safety" grounds. Pic attached. If I'm reading the regulations correctly, the obligation to publish in the newspaper 7 days in advance of the new order (under Reg 3(2)) doesn't apply, because this is an extension of the existing notice (see Regulation 7).

As far as I can tell, temporary orders can last up to 18 months, with no right of objection - which I would suggest means that the "danger to the public" bar ought to be quite high. From a quick google, I see that Lambeth has been using this mechanism, citing a danger to the public caused by increased pedestrian and pedal cycle traffic.

eg https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pts-temporary-ban-on-motor-vehicles-entering-junction-exemption-for-cycles-for-one-way-traffic-cornwall-road-roupell-street-11.09.2020.pdf

Bit of a dangerous precedent?

[hopskip]

In the chaos of LTN closures, this is an unexpected event that has disrupted Southwark's plans. At EDG, traffic southbound through DV is permitted but the opening of this route through Gilkes from EDG was not planned for by Southwark. It should have been. Southbound traffic is acceptable under the DV ETOs and a route to the South Circular is an advantage. So it should be welcome that Gilkes no longer has the privilege that was only granted due to the working development site. Let me explore further. The route granted by Southwark in the planning permission acceptance for this site was via Dulwich Village into Carlton Avenue. This route has been closed off by Southwark. When Southwark impose major road network access changes, what is the legal implication for planning developments that they have granted and dictated? is this traffic forced to approach via Calton or Woodwarde now if Gilkes is closed? Why should Gilkes have a benefit over Calton or Woodwarde in terms of heavy vehicular access? Is there a legal right to contest access plans that have been granted by Southwark when they remove the provisions they have dictated?

[legalalien]

Hopskip I agree that there is thought to be given to the replacement plan for construction access to that site, I have no idea what the new plan is at present. If the DV junction closure remains in place then any/ either of the alternatives are problematic - with the amount of traffic on EDG then turning into or out of GC is difficult (also quite a small turning radius), the alternative is what - traffic down Woodwarde and Calton to the site? I?d be interested to hear if anyone knows what the council has planned.

[hopskip]

well Gilkes preferable as there are two exit routes at all times. Woodwarde and Calton are in any event challenged to approach in restricted hours and this will encourage heavy vehicle access. Home goal Southwark planning - can you legitimately grant planning permission on a determined access route and then ignore consequences when your actions make this impossible?

[flippit]

My OP reported that Southwark had abused the regulations concerning temporary road closures.

Following this, the issue was was challenged and queries raised by several local residents in the manner specified in the notice. There was no response whatsoever.

On 3rd June, one local resident managed to speak directly on the phone to Ian Law during which he was advised that the notice was illegal. He was unable to refute the charge and when challenged further his response was tantamount to "whatever, under the emergency regulations, we can close any road we want."

The notice was due to expire on 10th June however it was removed yesterday and replaced with a new new temporary notice.

This speaks volumes for the manner in which Southwark is bulldozing its road closure policies into effect be they temporary or LTN.

[legalalien]

I agree. Flippit did he give any indication of what the ?public safety? / ?danger to the public? relied on might be?

[heartblock]

Why does Gilkes hold so much sway over Southwark Council?

[Metallic]

Motorbikes still using the passageway created, on Thursday one actually overtook a pensioner who was walking through. Is it beyond the wit of Southwark Council to put up bollards either end to make it difficult to get in this space?

[flippit]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why does Gilkes hold so much sway over Southwark

> Council?

t

Because a certain person who ( shall be nameless) and who lives in Gilkes Crescent very, very near the junction with Gilkez Place Same person previously held a very senior management position with Southwark Council before going on to manage major development projects as a freelance. So, well connected in all the right places!

[flippit]

No he didn't and frankly couldn't - given that the developer cleared the site completely last year. The developer has abandoned the project and removed the section hoarding that extended over into Gilkes Place. When the developer removed this extension, a well-connected local resident pulled the strings in Tooley Street and the Council barrier was created.

This really stinks and the stink isn't going away.

If you want to get it from the "horse's mouth", I suggest you phone up Ian Law (Traffic Manager) on 020 7525 2170.

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree. Flippit did he give any indication of

> what the ?public safety? / ?danger to the public?

> relied on might be?

[redpost]

There is heavy construction work ongoing, I assume that the rear will be redeveloped afterwards also.

There was a forklift accident a couple of weeks ago which spilled materials onto the closed street, and there is much heavy building materials to be dropped off.

This all justifies closing off the road temporarily rather than clogging up the road (which you would undoubtedly bleat about).

[flippit]

@ redpost,

Not correct. There is work going on at the adjacent premises on the Dulwich Village/Gilkes Place junction. This is a different site to the

the rear. The rear site has been cleared and extends from Gilkes Place to Calton Avenue. The buildings on it have been demolished and the site cleared of the mountain of the debris. There is no more debris that needs to be loaded safely on trucks behind the hoarding that that encroached out on to Gilkes Place. Hence the original justification is no longer valid.

The owners have put the vacant site up for sale.

redpost Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is heavy construction work ongoing, I assume

> that the rear will be redeveloped afterwards

> also.

>

> There was a forklift accident a couple of weeks

> ago which spilled materials onto the closed

> street, and there is much heavy building materials

> to be dropped off.

>

> This all justifies closing off the road

> temporarily rather than clogging up the road

> (which you would undoubtedly bleat about).

[legalalien]

But Redpost, if that's the concern, the notice ought to reflect the wording in 14(1)(a) "because works are being or are proposed to be executed on or near the road", not 14(1)(b), "because of the likelihood of danger to the public, or of serious damage to the road, which is not attributable to such works".

The "danger to the public" wording relates specifically to a closure that is NOT works-related.

(ETA: of course it may be that "works" has a specific, road-related definition and doesn't cover building works.. will try and check that as it does of course affect the argument)

I agree with you that in practice it might well be sensible to keep the road closed until the current works being done are complete, which I imagine might be soon. If and when development happens on the old SG Smith site, then there's another discussion to be had. What I strongly disagree with is what looks to me like inappropriate reliance on a statutory provision, which because of its vague wording, has the potential to be used to justify some sort of long-term closure, without any process of consultation or right to object. Not linking the closure to the current works strikes me as a deliberate choice.

It's an important point of principle that public authorities should act properly within the powers granted to them, whatever the merits of the case in hand.

[flippit]

@legalalien

Attached are the first and second notices.

What do you make of the second one and what do you suggest we do to challenge this further.

[legalalien]

I think write to the traffic department and ask them to explain on what grounds Southwark believe the closure is required to prevent un-works related danger

to the public, copying in their legal dept and an assortment of councillors. As far as I can tell there?s no statutory objection process, and as with all these things court action is expensive / not terribly practical. But we can at least try and get the council to explain itself and justify its actions? I was thinking of sending an email.